I’ve said it before: there’s no drug more addictive than money – especially “free” money. Millions of welfare clients testify to that mutely, day after shiftless day.
So do welfare continents:
The continental ruling class bristled vigorously over [Vice-President J. D.] Vance’s Munich speech in which he told the gathered natsec worthies that it’s time for Europe to wean itself from the Pentagon’s teat, deal with their domestic challenges, and figure out how to shoulder more of their own defense. Trump signaled in his first administration that he was dissatisfied with Europe’s sponging on American defense capabilities, but most Europeans didn’t take him seriously. Well, in Trump 2.0, the reckoning is here.
What European elites hate about Vance and the administration he represents is that he reveals their own poverty. Why shouldn’t the great and rich nations of Europe be doing more to stand on their own two feet? Why should American taxpayers, over thirty years since the close of the Cold War, continue to subsidize Europe’s defense so European politicians can build generous welfare states while at the same time refusing to deal with the mass migration crisis, which is a clear and present danger to European stability and security?
There’s that word “should” again. Vance is as plainspoken as politicians come, which was surely part of President Trump’s reason for selecting him for the VP post. The meat of the matter under discussion was whether the U.S., which has a relatively small stake in Suez Canal shipping security, should send the Navy into the Canal to guarantee freedom of passage. The principal beneficiaries would be the countries of Europe: America’s welfare clients since 1945.
Just now the arguments about NATO – including whether it’s time for the U.S. to pull out – are flying thick and fast. Without American participation, the European members would have to fund their own defense establishments, which would put quite a hurt on their social-welfare-heavy national budgets. The security of the Suez Canal shipping lane is only one example of the sort of burden Europe would have to shoulder for itself.
Europe would rather not… but is it in America’s interests, whether short or long term, to permit the Old World’s military dependency on us to continue?
