Secretary of Defense James Mattis on Europe's children

US Secretary of Defense James Mattis addressed NATO's defense ministers today and laid down the law: "Defense Secretary Mattis Tells NATO Allies to Spend More, or Else"

BRUSSELS — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, echoing his boss in Washington, warned on Wednesday that the amount of American support for NATO could depend on whether other countries meet their own spending commitments.

“Americans cannot care more for your children’s future security than you do,” Mr. Mattis said in his first speech to NATO allies since becoming defense secretary. “I owe it to you to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country’s people in concrete terms.”

“America will meet its responsibilities,” he said, but he made clear that American support had its limits.

“Americans cannot care more for your children’s future security than you do."

In 2008, I posted, "What has NATO done for us?" and the answer then, as now, is pretty much zip, nada, null set.

NATO was founded in 1949 to form a bulwark against Soviet invasion of western Europe. ...

So just what does this mean today? Pretty much nothing. ... Who is there to attack either North America or Europe? There are really only two threats reasonably imaginable - Russia and Islamist terrorists. Let's consider them seriatim. 

I explained in some detail why NATO can't stop Russian moves against Georgia (which was going on at the time), Ukraine (which events proved me correct) or the NATO-member Baltic states.

In summary: Russia is no military threat to western Europe. And though its threat to the Baltics and Ukraine is more realizable, there is not much NATO can do about it in the event, anyway.

As for terrorism, that's obviously a real and in fact ongoing threat in Europe.

But let us imagine that al Qaeda [ISIS didn't exist then, but include it] mounts a truly devastating attack against a NATO capital city, killing thousands. Just how can NATO respond? It can't, certainly not for any response that would require self-lifting across strategic distances. The strategic transportation of NATO has always been oriented one way: US and Canadian forces flowing into Europe to defend it from the USSR, not forces flowing out of Europe to somewhere else in the world. NATO forces cannot go anywhere in the world in substantial force without the US Air Force or Navy carrying them.

Let us then ask the pointed question: Just how does continued NATO membership actually benefit that United States? I can think of only one way - forward stationing of US forces as a deployment point to locales farther east or toward the Middle East.

That's it. Is that worth the cost of national treasure and aggravation we have with the alliance, and which show no sign of abating?

And this relates directly to what Mattis said today:

Georgia's birth rate has tanked more than practically any other country in the world. In fact, by 2050 there will be only 100,000 Georgian women of childbearing age, if current trends continue. So, he said, if Georgians won't have children to grow up to defend Georgia, why should Americans have children to grow up to defend Georgia? I can't think of any good reason.

And the same question can be asked of every other European NATO member, except perhaps Britain and France. The birth rates of Germany, Spain, Italy and every other NATO country except Turkey are below the stable replacement rate of 2.1 average births per woman, most far below. Italy’s rate is 1.23 births per woman , for example, meaning that Italy’s population could shrink by one-third by mid-century. (Turkey’s birth rate is about twice as high as Italy's.)

Again the question for NATO’s countries: if you will not have enough children to preserve your country, why should the US make up your deficit?

Update, 28 Feb., 

Spanish women between 18-49 reportedly had an average of 1.3 children in 2015 - below the European Union’s (EU) figure of 1.58. Spain’s birthrate has fallen by 18 percent since 2008, according to figures from Eurostat.

And between 1977 and 2015, the number of childless couples tripled from 1.5 to 4.4 million... .

All NATO members agreed many years ago to spend at least two percent of the GDPs on defense. Today, only five nations do:  the UK, Poland, Estonia, Greece and the United States. The other countries are all significantly below that benchmark, many very steeply below (Canada spend less than one percent).

Bluntly, NATO countries won't bear enough children to defend their countries in the 2020s and even less so in the decades following, and they won't spend enough on their military to equip them anyway. I said nine years ago,

I think the United States should reassess whether the NATO alliance really is serving American interests. I don't think it is, and I don't think it will do better in years to come.

It certainly has not since then. I cannot think of a reason not to kiss NATO goodbye right now.

Update, 28 Feb: See also, "Europe has simply given up," with an up-to-date look at European nations' birth rates and their implications.