America's Lopsided Commitments
Most US allies haven't been the loyal philanthropists some claim
The Trump administration’s recent U-turn in the US approach to the Russo-Ukrainian War has predictably engendered a backlash, both from within the US and across the Pacific and Atlantic. This is only the latest in a series of disputes between the administration and American allies, and Trump’s pattern of combative and unhinged diplomacy has understandably generated discourse abroad questioning the reliability and rationality of Washington.
A common reaction to Trump’s purported backstabbing of America’s allies has been indignation and a sense of betrayal. Claire Lehmann went on a Twitter spree declaring that “No one is going to fight an American war ever again.” Andrew Neil tweeted photos of the coffins of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Justin Trudeau cited Canada’s participation in the Korean War, Gulf War, and War in Afghanistan as evidence of his country’s loyalty to the US.
In each case the underlying sentiment is that Trump’s America is unappreciative of longstanding relationships, US allies have made sacrifices to assist Washington to no benefit of their own, and sabotaging these relationships will severely weaken the US militarily. While it’s true that Trump specifically has been needlessly disparaging and even hostile to US allies, it’s delusional to act as if they’ve been engaged in military and diplomatic charity for Washington that the latter won’t be able to fare without. Most (though not all) US allies have selectively provided militarily inconsequential support to wars that were perceived to be in the mutual interest of both countries, and it’s a farce to act as if Washington is engaged in treachery for abandoning a failed strategy in a proxy war.
Before proceeding to explain the flimsy assumptions underlying the sentiments above, I will first unequivocally state that Trump has repeatedly engaged in reckless rhetoric that pointlessly antagonizes other governments and that there’s no justification for it. He has engaged in commercial saber-rattling with Canada on multiple occasions and has explicitly stated that the only concession that will ensure he permanently stops is if Ottawa consents to annexation. This is just the most illustrative example of his unstable and capricious handling of foreign relations, and it’s wholly understandable for people to react with distaste.
Lopsided contributions
According to Lehmann et al., Washington pressuring Kyiv into peace talks by withdrawing support for its war efforts is betraying commitments not only to the Ukrainians but also to American treaty allies (aside from those that diverge from the mainstream position such as Hungary), as the latter have allegedly been reliable partners that have deployed their armed forces in deadly theaters of operation out of solidarity with Washington. Moreover, this about-face will render the US a weaker country by isolating it and forcing it to act unilaterally against its adversaries.
The first premise, namely that America’s allies have made underappreciated sacrifices to support Washington in difficult situations, is untrue in most cases. Approximately 2,500 US servicemembers were killed in Afghanistan, whereas only around half that number of troops deployed by allies were killed despite the fact that the rest of NATO (also factor in other US allies such as Australia) collectively has a larger population than the US. The US had a casualty rate of 7.92 in Afghanistan, and the only other countries to have a casualty rate above 7 were Denmark, Britain, and Georgia (which isn’t even part of NATO).
Some might argue that since it was the US that was attacked on 9/11, it’s to be expected that it would do most of the fighting. However, the idea of collective security is that “an attack upon one is an attack upon all.” If another NATO member had been attacked instead, the US still would’ve had to do the bulk of the fighting given that it was the only country with the capability to do so. When ISIS was at its peak, jihadists were hitting Europe more than America, yet most of the campaign against ISIS was American. France was itching for action against Gaddafi in 2011, and Washington had to provide additional air power because the rest of NATO’s capabilities were insufficient.
During the invasion of Iraq, the only other countries to contribute troops were Britain, Australia, and Poland. Britain sent a substantial (especially relative to the size of its army) force of about 45,000 troops. Australia deployed a token force of 2,500 and recorded no combat deaths, and Poland sent a couple hundred soldiers. France vocally (and with hindsight rightfully) opposed the invasion. Regardless of whether launching the war was wise, it’s clear that most of America’s allies didn’t place their friendship with Washington above their own perceived national interest just as Trump is choosing to prioritize his view of the American national interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War over chummy trans-Atlantic relations.
The Gulf War was a UN police action rather than a campaign driven solely by America’s national interest, yet the majority of combat deaths among Coalition troops were American. In fact, the US was the only Coalition country to have a triple digit number of combat deaths. The Korean War was also a UN police action, and America provided the bulk of the UN troops.
During the Vietnam War the US deployed over two million servicemembers to defend South Vietnam, and over 58,000 were killed. Korea sent about 320,000 (all of whom were volunteers), among whom 5,099 were confirmed to have been killed. Australia contributed around 60,000 (about half of whom were draftees), and 523 were killed. Around 40,000 Thai troops participated, and 351 were killed. New Zealand sent approximately 3,800 volunteers and suffered 37 combat deaths. The US sacrifice far surpassed those of its allies (excluding South Vietnam) in both absolute and proportional terms. Contrary to popular assumptions, most of these countries weren’t participating for the purpose of military charity for Uncle Sam. Rather, Australia, Thailand, and New Zealand were members of SEATO, and the former two had an acute anxiety about the advance of communism across their region. Participation was a low cost means of encouraging a more substantial American commitment to their region’s security. See Peter Edwards’s essay here for elaboration and evidence.
The participation of most US allies in these conflicts was inconsequential to the outcome militarily and functioned primarily to give diplomatic cover so that American actions appeared multilateral. The allied presence in each of these theaters was dependent on US logistics, as most of these countries are incapable of projecting power across continents and independently sustaining their armies overseas. Moreover, because volunteers rather than conscripts have been deployed in most cases since the end of the Cold War, participation in overseas wars feels like less of a national sacrifice for most Western countries than it did in earlier conflicts.
Beyond the fact that support from most US allies has been symbolic and tactically trivial, these countries weren’t backing America simply out of benevolence towards a friend. Rather, they participated in US-led wars because these wars were perceived as serving a national interest, and in cases where America’s wars didn’t appear to do so, they sat out. As noted earlier, the Korean and Gulf Wars were UN police actions, so participation signaled a commitment to the legitimacy of the UN. Europe and Canada declined to assist South Vietnam, whereas Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand did so out of self-interest at a relatively low cost compared to the sacrifices incurred by the US. Korea participated for financial benefits and to ensure that Washington wouldn’t undermine Park Chung-Hee’s military dictatorship. 9/11 might have kicked off the Global War on Terror and the War in Afghanistan, but jihadist terrorism was a common problem internationally, and preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for jihadists was intended to benefit any country jihadists were targeting. Most US allies didn’t partake in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and France vociferously criticized the action. Those that did participate saw it (incorrectly in retrospect) as a step towards constructing a safer Middle East that would benefit the world as a whole.
None of this is to say that America doesn’t need allies or that it should treat them as President Trump has, but it does suggest that most US allies are no less transactional in their dealings with Washington than Washington is with them. Their token contributions to US military operations show that their value to Washington has less to do with supposed loyalty or support and more to do with their hosting of US bases that enable America to project power overseas. Thus, tweets such as the one above are blind to the reality that most American allies haven’t provided support of much consequence, haven’t made sacrifices comparable to those made by the US, have chosen to support Washington out of shared interest rather than out of kindness, and can’t seriously weaken America unless they block US access to strategic locations. America’s middle power allies won’t have the ability to rally around each other to the exclusion of Washington not only because they lack meaningful military capabilities but also because there would be a massive collective action problem, particularly for countries that are geographically peripheral to each other. I’ll take their indignation more seriously when there’s evidence to buttress their grievances.
Your map here is inaccurate. Sweden and Finland are also now members of NATO.
It is worth pointing out that American presidents since Bush in the mid 2000’s have been trying to get NATO to meet its security spending obligations. The United States has also been openly trying to shift its strategic focus from the Middle East and Europe to the South China Sea since the Obama administration.