The Case for Offshore Balancing

Musburger1

2,500+ Posts
http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/Offshore Balancing.pdf

This is a foreign policy paper which contrasts the failing current policy prescription beginning at the time of the Clinton Administration and continuing today, with a less hands on policy as exemplified in the 20th century prior to the Clinton Administration.

The main idea is to delegate military/policing responsibilities to regional allies to maintain balance rather than expanding US military footprints and attempting to shape compliance by force. The present policy advocates wars and regime change justified by building democracies or by humanitarian concerns. By changing course, the arguments are that trillions of dollars could be saved and used for domestic purposes such as strengthening the economy, and that animosity toward the United States would be reduced. This would slow down the recruitment and expansion of terrorism, and also lower the urgency of rival nations to create nuclear arsenals fearing US invasion or regime change targeting of the nation in question.

The article doesn't go into politics, but a Clinton presidency insures the current policies go forward. It's unclear if a Trump presidency would move away from interventialist toward balancing, but there are indications he's been advised toward that.

China is becoming an imminent threat more so than Russia or Iran according to the author. Something to keep in mind.
 
It's an interesting article. Of course, I can't help but notice the "let Vladimir Putin do what he wants" implication (which I presume is why you like it), but it is interesting. There is some deception here though on the NATO end, and let's be honest, that's the part of this that you really care about because it has implications for Vladimir Putin.

I've only got a few minutes here, but two things jumped out at me. First, he says that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the US, "should have steadily reduced its military presence" in Europe. Have these authors looked at our troop levels, how much weaponry, how many bases, etc. we have in Europe compared to what we had prior to the fall of the Soviet Union? We've steadily reduced our military presence in Europe. We haven't completely eliminated it, but it's a very small fraction of what it was. Why do these authors ignore that?

Second, he also says that the US accounts for 75 percent of NATO military spending. First, he's off by about 5 percent. We account for about 70 percent of it. However, that's chump change. The real deception here is that even the 70 percent figure looks at the entire US defense budget and allots it toward NATO. That's not an accurate picture, because the overwhelming majority of our military budget isn't spent in Europe or even overseas. It's spent in the United States. We spend about $150 billion per year for our overseas military presence (a little less than four percent of federal spending, which will give you an idea of how much of a difference it would make on the overall federal budget if we got rid of every single military base outside the US). If we spent ALL of it in Europe (which of course we don't - much of it goes to Asia and small portions go to other areas), we'd be at about 37 percent of NATO spending. (Non-US countries spend about $254B). It's still a lot of money, but other than to make a political point, why give a phony picture?
 
Although the overall NATO footprint has shrunk, it's the placement on Russia's border that has changed the picture. The author seems to be arguing that Germany and some of the other European countries are big enough economic players in the region that they ought to be able to fend for themselves and allow the US to wind down. If Russia's economy is strong enough to support a strong military, why can't Germany?

If US military spending on foreign operations is around $150 billion annually, why all the rhetoric about trillions spent on Afghanistan and Iraq? Also (not in the article) the Pentagon still cannot account for astronomical amounts of spending. Where did it all go?

Yes, I'm concerned that our policies will push Russia into a first strike of some sort. It could Come about from an accident resulting from encroachment as both sides now engage more frequently with maneuvers. It could also come about because Putin has explained he will not allow the ABM deployment to stand next to Russia's borders. That's a plain black and white warning.

It's obvious the current policies have wrecked the Middle East, further expanded terrorism, and destabilized the region even more. Looking at Ukraine, I'd argue the same results are beginning to manifest there too.
 
If US military spending on foreign operations is around $150 billion annually, why all the rhetoric about trillions spent on Afghanistan and Iraq?

I'll answer the rest of your post later, but the $150B is the cost of stationing troops overseas, not of wars. Those are funded separately.
 
Other than military deployments, the State Department, the CIA, and NGOs (non government entities often embedded with operatives that serve a political purpose) play a major part in implementing policy objectives. I don't know under what departments these expenses are allocated nor how much money is involved. I do know that Nuland stated the US invested $5 billion in Ukraine alone in the decade prior to the coup for the purpose of policy influence.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top