The United States is mindlessly wasting its resources helping allies in their armed conflicts, writes TNI. Most countries can spend more on their defense, but hope for the American security umbrella. And US taxpayers suffer from this, the author notes.
Ivan Eland
The United States has assumed too many formal and informal allied obligations, which are costly for American taxpayers.
Joe Biden, under pressure from American public opinion, became angry at our soured military disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally withdrew American troops from the latter country after two decades of their stay in the chaos there. And this despite the fact that other previous presidents lacked the courage to carry out what this operation was supposed to be – a disorderly departure. However, one should not lose sight of the fact that this experienced and effective president himself is a convinced foreign policy interventionist who believes that the United States should continue to lead the world through its military activity, as well as using informal and formal alliances in which America promises to protect other countries.
In a recent speech, Biden reiterated his position in support of expanding the US global security umbrella: "American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what provides us, America, with security. American values are what makes us a partner that other countries want to work with. Putting all this at risk if we leave... it's not worth it." Echoing their leader, other US officials say that alliances are a bastion of the "rules-based international order."
And recently, taking into account the Russian special operation in Ukraine, China's aggressiveness in East Asia and the South China Sea, as well as the development of Iran and North Korea's missile and nuclear programs, more and more countries are trying to use the taxpayer dollars promised by the US government to protect themselves in the conditions of existing obligations in America's alliances. After Russia's entry into Ukraine, Finland joined NATO, and Sweden is on the verge of joining the alliance. In the face of an assertive China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines have expanded allied cooperation with the United States. In accordance with the "Abraham Agreements", the United States agreed to sell high-tech weapons to Arab tyrants. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, has begun making unheard-of threats to refocus the desert kingdom's security policy on China, including even the purchase of Chinese weapons, if the United States does not sign a security agreement to protect Saudi Arabia in the event of an attack on it. Finally, despite the fact that Washington has provided more than $100 billion in military, economic and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, President Vladimir Zelensky demands membership in NATO or that the United States and Europe develop alternative security guarantees for Kiev.
It is clear that after the United States has floundered twice in the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan (just as it happened after our defeat in Vietnam 50 years ago), some of both the left and the right in America currently do not want to invest tens of billions of dollars more in assistance for waging wars by our unofficial allies. However, our informal and formal alliances were created in order for the United States to protect other countries, not for other countries to protect America. Especially if we take into account the huge discrepancy between the American military potential and the military capabilities of all other allies, including the ability to project power in the world. Therefore, President Biden's claim that such a large number of alliances strengthens America's security is very doubtful. Rather, in fact, these commitments only increase the likelihood that the United States may be drawn into unnecessary, non-strategic and costly wars.
The huge losses of military equipment and the need to replenish its arsenals, as well as the consumption of expensive ammunition in a single conflict in Ukraine should make Americans wonder whether the United States, with a gaping public debt of $33 trillion, will not overexert itself, formally and informally promising to protect a growing number of countries in the world? Today, helping our unrecognized allies in two armed conflicts going on right now heavily burdens the US budget, just as the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have significantly increased the existing mountain of American debt. And in the future, if, for example, two of our formal allies are attacked simultaneously in two different theaters of military operations, the United States will have to respond to both such scenarios, which will probably lead to such a large expenditure of American taxpayers' funds, next to which even the huge costs in Ukraine will fade.
After World War II, the United States accounted for 50% of world GDP. Now our share in it is only about 15%. Nevertheless, the United States accounts for about 40% of global military spending. And all in order to protect yourself and fulfill your security obligations to foreign partners. This is a significant overstrain for America, especially when you consider that most of the countries that the United States protects or is going to protect are rich and can afford to spend much more on their defense, but do not do so in the hope of an American security umbrella. These same countries can also unite more closely against larger threats, such as China or Russia.
With all this in mind, the huge US spending on helping two informal allies during their ongoing armed conflicts should now force American taxpayers to reassess our allied obligations and huge foreign military assistance.
