Stardate 20020202.1117

(On Screen): It's interesting to see how different the slant can be in how a story is reported. The BBC reports on a speech made by the US Deputy Secretary of Defense in Germany and the headline is "Coalitions vital to defeat terror".

The Associated Press, on the other hand, uses the headline "NATO needs terror war overhaul." Rather a different point of view, wouldn't you say?

The BBC's headline is more than a bit deceptive. "Coalition" is currently a codeword in Europe for "America asks for European permission before attacking anyone." That is certainly not what Wolfowitz was talking about. He mentions what are more along the lines of temporary alliances, created on an as-needed basis to last for the duration of individual conflicts. Nations would be included in those coalitions if and only if the US really needed them there, but not merely because they want to be a part. And it is equally clear that Wolfowitz doesn't intend to let these coalitions dictate American strategy.

He also expresses rather serious concerns about the form and function of NATO forces, and suggests that the Europeans need to redesign their military capabilities for the twenty-first century.

Oddly enough, Lord Robertson agrees, but his solution isn't quite what we had in mind. He points out that the US military has become technologically advanced well beyond European forces, and that this threatens to isolate American military might. In order for Europe to help us, Lord Robertson thinks that the US should give its best weapon technology to Europe.

"If that gap were allowed to increase it will mean there won't be coalitions in the future because the Americans will not be able to operate," Robertson warned during Thursday's briefing.

Given the fundamental assumption that Coalitions Are A Good Thing then it may seem as if this is a problem. But it's not that US military forces wouldn't be able to operate, but that they wouldn't be able to operate with European forces because the Europeans wouldn't be able to keep up.

On the other hand, if this actually gives the US a significant military edge, then this tends to decrease the need (for the US) for help from Europe. (After all, if our allies can't keep up with us, then surely our enemies won't be able to either.) It hardly seems like a disaster (for the US).

Europe's military capability is now second rate. It's a problem. But who's problem is it? Lord Robertson thinks it's America's problem and that the US should fix it by giving away its technological crown jewels.

It should be pointed out that the technologies which produce the weapons to which Lord Robertson refers are also industrially valuable, and are part of the commercial edge of the US civilian economy. We probably will sell the Europeans advanced weapons. We've already done so, in fact. The UK purchased a large number of Tomahawk cruise missiles from us, for example, and a lot of Europeans fly American jets. Germany just budgeted to purchase a large number of American cargo aircraft. The Joint Strike Fighter is a combined NATO program, but the JSF is being designed and manufactured here.

But that's a far cry from transferring the underlying technology to Europe by teaching them to make those weapons for themselves. That is probably out of the question. I can't see us subsidizing what amounts to industrial espionage.

Lord Robertson suggests that without such a technology transfer that NATO couldn't really continue to perform. I have to wonder whether the United States should instead be considering the idea that NATO has outlived its usefulness.