We're talking about the last decade, in that decade the majority of those European threats have deminished whereas quite obviously the threat to the US has increased. It's really quite logical for European countries to reduce defence spending as they felt safer. Additionally those were mostly internal threats and not based on an international campaign.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Some threats diminshed, like our Irish problem. That may have been due to some politicing around our support for GW2 and the wider war on terror. Kind of hard for the US to declare global war on terror when some in the US still supported the IRA. That threat is still there because the job market for ex-terrorists isn't that brilliant and terrorism can be quite lucrative.
Policy decisions to support intervention have however increased the threat to Europe as evidenced by things like the 7/7 bombings, Madrid bombings etc etc. Those are side effects of international policy and diplomacy.
Defence spending has changed to reflect changing threats though. In the good'ol days it was spending lots of money to counter the threat of Russia. Now the spending's more focused on smaller wars. Problem is those cuts arguably went too deep limiting our ability to intervene in any of the many conflict areas we could be dabbling in. We helped the US in Iraq, Afghanistan. We're helping the French in Libya. Syria's getting a bit nasty. The US might be thinking of intervening in Sudan. There's not much sign of the peace dividend.
A cynic might suggest that's good for business though if your economy is big on defence spending and sales. Libya was a chance to show off air power which might be nice for the massive Indian airforce order that's been kicking around for years. It can also be good for politics. The Cold War was arguably won by the West's ability to outspend the USSR during the arms race, harming it's economy, just as our support for the US's adventures weaken ours. And by splitting national support for various escapades, it also helps weaken the EU.
Comments
Sorry, but you're wrong. Some threats diminshed, like our Irish problem. That may have been due to some politicing around our support for GW2 and the wider war on terror. Kind of hard for the US to declare global war on terror when some in the US still supported the IRA. That threat is still there because the job market for ex-terrorists isn't that brilliant and terrorism can be quite lucrative.
Policy decisions to support intervention have however increased the threat to Europe as evidenced by things like the 7/7 bombings, Madrid bombings etc etc. Those are side effects of international policy and diplomacy.
Defence spending has changed to reflect changing threats though. In the good'ol days it was spending lots of money to counter the threat of Russia. Now the spending's more focused on smaller wars. Problem is those cuts arguably went too deep limiting our ability to intervene in any of the many conflict areas we could be dabbling in. We helped the US in Iraq, Afghanistan. We're helping the French in Libya. Syria's getting a bit nasty. The US might be thinking of intervening in Sudan. There's not much sign of the peace dividend.
A cynic might suggest that's good for business though if your economy is big on defence spending and sales. Libya was a chance to show off air power which might be nice for the massive Indian airforce order that's been kicking around for years. It can also be good for politics. The Cold War was arguably won by the West's ability to outspend the USSR during the arms race, harming it's economy, just as our support for the US's adventures weaken ours. And by splitting national support for various escapades, it also helps weaken the EU.