The Pentagon
has put Russia at the top of its list of national security threats with its
plan to increase the deployment of heavy weapons, armored vehicles and troops
on rotating assignment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
In a speech on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Ashton
Carter listed a hierarchy of threats to the United States, which included
China, North Korea, Iran and finally, the fight against terrorism. But his
primary focus was Russia.
While he makes a good case for deterring Russian
aggression, his proposal to quadruple military spending in Europe in 2017 to
$3.4 billion from $789 million seems excessive and raises questions about
whether other immediate threats, like the Islamic State, are getting short
shrift.
It is undeniable that Russia has
become openly aggressive under President Vladimir Putin, who has violated
sovereign borders by annexing Crimea and stoking civil war in Ukraine. A
cease-fire in Ukraine was declared last year, but Russian forces still maintain
a presence in eastern Ukraine, raising questions about whether Russia might try
to extend its reach to the Baltic States.
There are
other concerns as well. Russia has built a web of complex missile defenses that
increasingly threaten NATO’s military access to airspace in parts of Europe,
including one-third of the skies of Poland. Similar Russian missile buildups
are underway in Crimea and in Syria, where the Russians have beefed up their
air campaign on behalf of the Assad government.
Given the Russian moves, it’s important that the
United States and NATO allies reinforce their commitment to the common defense,
especially at a time when Europe is under great stress from the flow of Syrians
and other refugees and the rise of anti-immigrant right-wing political parties.
Over the past two years, the
United States has already increased its military exercises and rotation of
forces in Europe. Mr. Carter’s new plan would ensure that the alliance can
maintain a full armored combat brigade, roughly 5,000 troops, in the region at
all times, including in Hungary, Romania and the Baltic countries. Under a 1997
agreement, NATO and Russia agreed not to permanently station troops or nuclear
weapons on each other’s borders. The Americans say the plan would not violate
this pledge because the troops will rotate, even though the effect will be a
constant presence.
The increased
American investment sends a message to Mr. Putin and provides leverage to
demand that other NATO countries do more to increase their own defense budgets.
But the sheer size of the spending increase seems like a return to the
Pentagon’s blank-check ways during the height of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Even though the United States spends more on defense
than the next seven countries combined, the Pentagon has been chafing under
budget cuts. In fact, the increased money for European defense is supposed to
come from a war account that pays for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which
allows the administration to get around budget caps.
Deterring Russia is essential. But this initiative
seems like a reversion back to what the Pentagon has traditionally done —
prepare to fight big wars with ever more costly weapons against adversaries
like Russia. Threats from the Islamic State and other terrorist groups are
messier and harder to predict. America must be able to confront both, but it is
unclear that Mr. Carter’s plan gets the balance right.
No comments:
Post a Comment