Not, according to Judah Grunstein, if we keep treating her like a teenager:
this is akin to repeatedly insisting to a lazy teenager that he has to help out around the house. No matter how many times or how loud you say it, it just doesn't work. In fact, the more and louder you say it, the less it works. On the other hand, greeting him at the door with two suitcases packed with his affairs and asking him whether he's found a place to stay for the night is more likely to get his attention. Europeans will never adequately provide for their own defense so long as the moral hazard for not doing so is generously covered by the U.S.Another reason it's unrealistic is that, despite the "forward defense" consensus among Western strategic planners, and notwithstanding the fact that NATO's next Strategic Concept is likely to extend the alliance's out-of-theater role for another 10 years, this is a posture that will exist on paper only. Politically speaking, Europe is finished with the kind of nation-building/counterinsurgency intervention represented by Afghanistan. In fact, the only way that European opinion was sold on the Afghanistan war was because it was passed off as the kind of humanitarian, peacekeeping and post-conflict stabilization mission that Europeans are comfortable with.
As I noted earlier, the idea that Secretary Gates sketched out, of collective sourcing - where Europe maintains a Europe-wide defense establishment that doesn't duplicate equipment and capabilities - makes sense. But Gates sees this as a handmaiden of helping Washington pacify Central Asia and the Middle East. It seems more plausible that Europe develops this kind of military establishment as a means to consolidate the defense of European territory more efficiently (and cheaply) and beg off following Washington on its counter-insurgency crusades.
