Middle East Defence & Security

[swerve]

Typically US allies depend heavily on cooperative military actions with the US, but said allies typically also neglect some of their own military capacity to create that dependence. It's not a good dependence. The US probably does not appreciate spending treasure on something it expects its allies to do on their own.

For most of the time since the foundation of NATO, it has been US policy to encourage its NATO allies to be dependent on it. The US view was that non-US NATO members should focus on local operations & specific capabilities in the interest of efficiency, e.g. the Belgian navy should focus on MCM, & their forces should be under NATO command. The USA discouraged its NATO allies from building independent capabilities.

The UK & France were just about the only countries which had some ability to act independently.

So what you're saying is that the USA doesn't like doing what it's spent decades trying to get its allies not to do, & expects them to do without it, even though the forces they have to do it with operate under a multinational command structure in which the USA is the biggest member.

European NATO members have been moving away from that in recent years, but there's often been US resistance to that move, saying that it's wasteful for them to duplicate US capabilities or those which are joint with the USA.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

For most of the time since the foundation of NATO, it has been US policy to encourage its NATO allies to be dependent on it. The US view was that non-US NATO members should focus on local operations & specific capabilities in the interest of efficiency, e.g. the Belgian navy should focus on MCM, & their forces should be under NATO command. The USA discouraged its NATO allies from building independent capabilities.

The UK & France were just about the only countries which had some ability to act independently.

So what you're saying is that the USA doesn't like doing what it's spent decades trying to get its allies not to do, & expects them to do without it, even though the forces they have to do it with operate under a multinational command structure in which the USA is the biggest member.

European NATO members have been moving away from that in recent years, but there's often been US resistance to that move, saying that it's wasteful for them to duplicate US capabilities or those which are joint with the USA.

Right. Well they're asked now and been asked for over a decade do make a change. Bringing up what happened decades ago is not a good excuse.

I can understand encouraging NATO allies to avoid duplicity and focus more on land power in nations closer to Russia and naval and air power in nation farther from it, or to avoid duplicity in capabilities built for the alliance and not for one nation. But the general structure of an armed force that is sufficient for independent or cooperative defense with a minimized alliance, is not something I'd logically consider discouraging.
In the end, the UK also has something of a ground army. And Poland has naval and air branches.
NATO is a large group of skeletons, who have been strongly encouraged to spend more on their defense. The US isn't going to tell any NATO member not to buy tanks, planes, or ships, nor is it going to tell anyone not to build factories or recruit more soldiers.

What I seeing now is a US encouraging Europe to rearm. That I've seen for at least a decade. I am seeing a US shifting gradually to the Pacific but regional allies seemingly make no meaningful steps to prepare.

Israel is often criticized for being a security burden on the US, despite probably being the least burdensome ally of all US allies. And Europe for some reason is pissy about being asked to pay the bill.

 

[swerve]

"Bringing up what happened decades ago is not a good excuse. "

Haven't you noticed what's happening now? Arming like mad. Throwing money at arms manufacturers, to boost their capacity to meet the demand for more weapons & equipment, & trying to boost recruitment.

You're talking as if the last few years haven't happened, so I assumed you were talking about the past, & replied in those terms.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

"Bringing up what happened decades ago is not a good excuse. "

Haven't you noticed what's happening now? Arming like mad. Throwing money at arms manufacturers, to boost their capacity to meet the demand for more weapons & equipment, & trying to boost recruitment.

You're talking as if the last few years haven't happened, so I assumed you were talking about the past, & replied in those terms.

This is a very late reaction, and too little at that. This does not bode well for long term European security.
But this is beyond this topic. As of right now, Europe is still quite far from security independence. And that's bothering the US.

 

[Feanor]

Israel is often criticized for being a security burden on the US, despite probably being the least burdensome ally of all US allies. And Europe for some reason is pissy about being asked to pay the bill.

This simply isn't true. Israel is more burdensome because of the neighborhood its in, creating more threats to it, and because the US has had to supply more in direct aid to them. On a per capita basis military aid to Israel makes Europe look frankly self-sufficient by comparison. And the US could pull out of Europe completely, and Europe would mostly be fine. They probably wouldn't be able to save Ukraine, but it's not clear they currently can even with US involvement. If the US cut all aid/support to Israel, what would be the outcome? In other words, who is a bigger burden on the US?

 

[John Fedup]

US military aid to Israel in the past was essential. A reliable ally in the region was needed to protect oil imports. Recent improvements in relations with Arab governments and more importantly, US now an oil exporter rather than importer, now lessens the need. If the US wasn’t in the loop wrt the recent strike, Benny may find the aid pipeline running with a reduced flow.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

This simply isn't true. Israel is more burdensome because of the neighborhood its in, creating more threats to it, and because the US has had to supply more in direct aid to them. On a per capita basis military aid to Israel makes Europe look frankly self-sufficient by comparison. And the US could pull out of Europe completely, and Europe would mostly be fine. They probably wouldn't be able to save Ukraine, but it's not clear they currently can even with US involvement. If the US cut all aid/support to Israel, what would be the outcome? In other words, who is a bigger burden on the US?

Per capita? What? That is a weird way of measuring things. Of $3.8 billion annually, $500 million are for joint IAMD projects which currently also feed the US's own stocks, and $3.3 billion in US-made defense items which encourages European and Israeli production to move to US.
Pretty sweet deal. If it was cut, it would not be the end of the world. We can also see that it is entirely industrial in nature. No involvement of any branch of the armed forces.

This kind of aid does not fix American troops in CENTCOM, minimally impacts own acquisition, and goes straight to defense factories in the US.

I remind the context for this was an assumption that it negatively impacts relations that Israel is relatively operationally independent.
I asserted that the aid system makes it like that, not involving US troops. Plus some geopolitical considerations regarding relations with Arab states, that became less relevant with the expansion of Israeli-Arab peace. But despite anything like that, there is provable tight coordination.