It appears the United States will once again be doing the heavy lifting when it comes to another international problem. Now, the problem is the nation of Iran.
At the same time the world is confronting a madman who is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, European nations continue to invest very little in an adequate military defense strategy and criticize the United States for actually having one.
Over the past year, these countries have been in diplomatic talks with Iran in an effort to stop the latter's attempt at uranium enrichment, a critical step in developing nuclear weapons.
But Europeans are beginning to recognize that their approach will not work. A recent article in The Weekly Standard discussed a leaked European Union memo that admitted the diplomatic plan to counteract Iran was not working.
This is obvious: a coalition of weak states will not be able to change the behavior of a rogue nation. And while it is necessary for Europe to display a greater show of force, European countries continue to downsize their militaries and set aside an abysmal amount to their own defense.
Unless these nations get their act together, the United States will undoubtedly be left to lead the way to resolve the Iranian problem.
In an opinion piece entitled "Going it alone because we have to" in the Los Angeles Times, Max Boot notes that the US spends $495 billion annually on the military - which is more than is spent by all of the NATO forces - while our ally Britain spends only $52 billion.
These numbers better illustrate the dilemma: Britain's military has diminished from 305,800 in 1990 to 195,900 presently, and the British army is "almost half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps..." which is approximately 175,000 individuals.
One can imagine how much other countries devote.
This is an unwise move on the part of Europe, considering the world we live in, and, more importantly, since diplomacy can't be the only strategy in defeating future enemies of the West.
Many European nations disapprove of the power the United States wields, branding Americans as "cowboys," and viewing President Bush as "trigger happy."
Yet, the moment a viable military presence is needed, what does Europe do?
If these nations showed some strength, there would be more political options available when situational conflicts arise. Europe could have carried greater weight to prevent the 1992-1995 ethnic cleansing of Bosnians by Serbs.
There is no reason why Europe alone should not have been able to resolve that conflict.
Additionally, Europeans would increase their standing in the eyes of many. The constant criticism and then pressure to help our Allies has left a strain on the United States. The United States liberated France during World War II, yet France has been steadfastly against offering any assistance with efforts in Iraq.
There are a lot of Americans out there who believe that the next time France needs to be liberated, the United States should consider other priorities.
Or at the very least, Europe can stop criticizing the United States before turning around and calling for help.
The main issue here is credibility. Europe would have more legitimacy if there were a greater emphasis on its militaries as opposed to diplomatic talks with rogue nations, which indirectly places the burden on the United States.
It will be interesting to see how the Iranian problem is solved. It might turn out to be a wake-up call either for Europeans to modify their defense tactics or for the United States to see that some of our allies aren't as serious as we had thought.
Hilary Wade is a political science junior. She can be reached at:
