Column: Why the U.S. is stuck with NATO's bill

Speaking this month in Brussels, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned our European allies in NATO that freeloading on America's outsized military might cannot guarantee their security forever. Or even in the near term, which Gates said could soon turn "dismal" for the alliance.

Gates might as well have railed against the heavens. Europe's lack of will to confront geopolitical dangers is a reflection of what it cannot fight, a titanic demographic shift that is making Europe ever older and reducing the continent's population of young people more potently than wars have ever done.

USA TODAY OPINION Columns In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum. Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are. We also publish weekly columns by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY's founder, and DeWayne Wickham, who writes primarily on matters of race but on other subjects as well. That leaves plenty of room for other views from across the nation by well-known and lesser-known names alike. Contributors Board

How to submit a column

Over the past two years, NATO's European members cut $45 billion from their defense spending, which the Associated Press points out nearly equals Germany's annual military budget. Gates said only five of NATO's 28 members were on track to devote more than 2% of their gross domestic products to defense spending, which is what NATO requires. The Defense secretary did praise the non-U.S. NATO nations for delivering 40,000 troops to Afghanistan. That was kind, since some big European nations send very small forces. Spain, which is one-third more populous than Canada, has sent only half as many soldiers to Afghanistan.

Worth the cost?

Predictably, every non-U.S. NATO member also commits far fewer funds or troops in combat than we do. The U.S. spends 4.7% of our GDP on defense, which is almost twice the percentage France spends and more than three times what Germany pays in. Gates did cite Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Canada for "punch(ing) well above their weight" fighting in Libya, but then turned that praise into his most damning critique overall. "The mightiest military alliance in history," Gates said, "is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference."

There will be nothing simple about getting NATO's slackers to beef up their game. Gates' own warning hints at why. One reason European states must "be responsible for their fair share of the common defense," he said, was due to the squeezed budgets and shifting priorities in the U.S. Future American taxpayers, he said, simply will not see NATO as "worth the cost."

Few European states are likely to quake at that threat. Last year, the U.S. paid about $712 million, more than one-fifth the cost of keeping NATO afloat. In addition, we have been raising military spending, now more than $700 billion a year, with few signs of reversal for more than a decade. Every dollar spent offers collateral protection to our allies. Even during the years of relatively reduced defense budgets before 9/11, our spending was vastly higher than any other country. Today, U.S. military spending accounts for more than 40% of all such spending in the world. That might be right for us, but the spending makes it impossible to convince our friends we are likely to cut back. Luckily for Europeans, our politicians would rather fight cuts then suggest that U.S. defense spending should be slashed to force Europe to spend more. Who trusts Europe on defense?

Yet there is another intractable reality: demographic change. Europe's population is aging rapidly, and its workforce is shrinking. In 2030, Germany will likely have 8 million fewer workers than it had in 2010. Italy, 3 million fewer. Overall, Europe could count 50 million fewer workers by 2050. That's 50 million fewer people to pay taxes to support either their growing number of elderly or their defense needs. By 2030, the U.S. will add 18 million workers. Europeans have made a political choice on defense spending, and barring direct attacks on their soil, they are likely to stick to it. They are triaging defense spending and pouring their tight resources into paying for the debts and services their aging populations demand.

Mark Haas, a political science professor at Duquesne University, notes that in France and Germany, government money accounts for nearly two-thirds of the after-tax income of older people, and that even small cuts would swell the ranks of the elderly poor.

And by the way, the world financial markets tell European governments, in effect, to keep defense spending low. Troubled debtor nations such as Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain — uncharitably dubbed the "PIGS" — are urged to be frugal, not to spend more on soldiers and arms.

Geriatric Peace

So if Americans like NATO, we either are stuck with being an avid supporter among slackers or must rethink our commitment. When U.S. security strategists worry about demographics, their attention often turns to the regions of the developing world where population growth remains high and youthful segments of the population are flush and restless. Haas predicts that the conflicts in developing countries will likely stay local.

Perhaps, like the Libyan conflict, U.S. and NATO involvement in such disputes will be a matter of choice rather than driven by grave threat to our safety at home. Many of the big potential adversaries that strategists build scenarios around, such as Russia, China and Iran, are also on the path to rapid population aging. This might make America's job easier, as aging forces governments all over to rethink military spending.

The U.S. could continue to devote more resources than our allies or competitors, but we might also enjoy what Hass has called a "Geriatric Peace." Just don't try to get the older countries to pay more to put up a fight.

Ted C. Fishman is the author of the new book Shock of Gray. He also is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.