Political Analysis

Volume 21 Political Analysis Article 5

2020

An Analysis of Burden Sharing in NATO and the Problem of Free Riding

Anthony Zannella Seton Hall University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa

Part of the American Politics Commons

Recommended Citation Zannella, Anthony (2020) "An Analysis of Burden Sharing in NATO and the Problem of Free Riding," Political Analysis: Vol. 21 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa/vol21/iss1/5 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI ·

An Analysis of Burden Sharing in NATO and the Problem of Free Riding

Anthony Zannella

Anthony Zannella is a Seton Hall University graduate and a student of the Honors Program. He majored in Political Science and Philosophy. After taking classes that focused on , he was inspired to write his thesis to further broaden his knowledge about geo-politics and . Post-graduation, he plans to apply to law school and continue to study international trends that are linked to United States foreign policy. Additionally, he hopes to pursue a higher degree in Philosophy.

capabilities. One should also take note of the nited States hegemony over the criticisms levied by past international system has been the administrations as well. President Obama and norm since President George H.W. President Bush both noted that they wanted UBush declared that the U.S. had the their European allies to contribute more to ability to create a “New World Order” (Bush NATO defense spending. Bush pointed out 1991). However, politicians in the United that increased spending on European defense States and in Europe have started to question would strengthen the forces of NATO, while the role that the U.S. should take on the world Obama took note of decreased defense stage due to the aggressiveness of the Trump spending among European allies in 2014 Presidency and a subsequent loss of trust in (Collinson 2018). It would appear as though U.S. capabilities and motives (Emmott 2019). American patience with NATO has somewhat Trump has made some rather dramatic dwindled overtime. This has been a pressing changes in his rhetoric regarding NATO. Due issue as indicated by former U.S. secretary of to members’ perceived reluctance to pay for defense Gates who declared “NATO’s military upkeep, Trump has taken a more future ‘dim if not dismal’” if it did not seek to belligerent stance against NATO members bolster its forces (Binnendijik 2016). than any former president. Certainly, burden President Trump still clearly demonstrates a sharing within the alliance has been an issue more hostile approach that could shake up the of importance for several presidential alliance. The true question is whether his administrations prior to . criticisms of European defense spending are However, no other president has taken it so far warranted. as to question and even decline to affirm Burden sharing within NATO is a far more support for Article 5 which dictates mutual complex topic than just the amount of money defense within the alliance (Gray 2017). being spent on troops and technology. NATO President Trump has railed against NATO’s is an intricate alliance based on the concept of members, specifically those in Europe, for not collective action, a concept which aims to contributing enough to the alliance. President maximize defensive capabilities in a wartime Trump has focused his attacks through the scenario. The alliance requires that its lens of percentage of the gross domestic members uphold their militaries to a certain product being applied to military and defense budgetary and readiness standard so that all

1 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · members may benefit from a general increase max extent of benefits while providing a in their military power. The aim of this paper minimal amount of support. This conclusion is to answer the question as to whether, and if was profound and formulated what became so why, non-U.S. NATO allies are free riding known as the “exploitation hypothesis.” They in lieu of the charges levied by current and came to this conclusion through the former presidential administrations. This examination of pure public goods within an paper will seek to determine levels of free alliance. According to Olson and Zeckhauser, riding through the lens of three different a pure public good can be described as “non- facets: NATO defense expenditures will be rivalrous” and non-excludable.” A more considered, as well as two burden sharing case technical understanding of their conclusion is studies in Libya and . Free riding as follows: the pure public good of deterrence, itself shall be defined in each case by the input which is provided by the richest country, of relevant monetary, political, and tactical results in the other alliance members free contributions. If evidence demonstrates that riding on commitments of the richest member. free riding is apparent, it is also important to This became part of a theory of organizations understand the factors that are encouraging which is known as “collective action”. (Olson countries to engage in such activity. The and Zeckhauser 1966). research will demonstrate that burden sharing Olson and Zeckhauser’s article on can be a very complex facet of NATO to collective action was influenced by an earlier analyze, even though there are clear cases of piece of research written by Mancur Olson unequal burden sharing within the alliance. entitled The Logic of Collective Action: Public Free riding will be made apparent by the Goods and the Theory of Groups. Olson’s complexities present in the two case studies. book explores how groups and organizations Furthermore, this paper will also take into work in order to further a common goal consideration the economic theory presented through the utilization of economic theory. regarding burden sharing and how it factors Olson pointed out examples of how private into alliance cooperation. business, unions, and governments interact with one another in order to make their sector LITERATURE REVIEW more profitable, receive concessions for The state of burden sharing within NATO workers, or secure their nations. It is clear has had its fair share of criticisms since the that these examples can also be applied to alliance’s conception. Critics have been quick NATO, as Olson pointed out in his to point out that the United States appears to aforementioned article with Zeckhauser. The bear a heavy share of the defense burden relevance of this book is that it sets the basis while other members appear to free ride and for understanding how public goods can lead take advantage of U.S. military power. Truly, to free riding in an organization such as debates surrounding burden sharing itself NATO. Olson’s conclusion, regarding how remain contentious within the NATO the members of a group act, was that these community. Burden-sharing literature was groups might find themselves to be at odds initiated with an article by Mancur Olson and with another member within the group which Richard Zeckhauser entitled “An Economic might have the ability to increase security Theory of Alliances.” The paper was written output in an alliance like NATO. He also in 1966, and it aimed at exploring (through pointed out that for this to work, there must be economic theory) how burden sharing works some sort of sanction in place that encourages within alliances. They concluded that other members to pay into the organization. In countries would attempt to free ride on other members within the alliance in order to get the

2 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI ·

NATO, there is no truly effective sanction to nations while not paying attention to the range discourage free riding behaviors (Olson 1971). of other factors involved in contributing to the A great deal of research has been done to alliance (Hartley 1999). expand on Olson and Zeckhauser’s work. Discussions of free riding within NATO Todd Sandler and Keith Hartley’s work, for on the American side argue that the United example, summarized the various models States is simply being fooled into providing employed in the field. The initial theory, defense. They believe the U.S. should be proposed in “An Economic Theory of wary of supporting wealthy European nations Alliances,” of a pure public good model was that don’t want to spend as much on their considered to be too restrictive and did not militaries. Alan Tonelson’s early 2000s take into account a multitude of other factors article highlighted this mood as he explored for which a “joint-product model” would seem how changes in international geo-politics to make up. For example, the joint-product appear to be putting the U.S. at greater risk. model includes a high ratio of excludable Tonelson conveyed the risk associated with benefits which changes the idea behind NATO through both material and non-material collective action in an alliance. These causes. He argued that U.S. actions leave the findings weakened the “exploitation country exposed to more precarious situations. hypothesis” since the equation is no longer Tonelson mentioned that there is a greater risk limited to the pure public good of deterrence. that the U.S. can be dragged into “non-article The joint-product model still points out other 5” conflicts even though America’s original ways that countries will attempt to free ride on objective was to keep the power of Russia in other allies by factoring in those excludable check through its military presence. Tonelson benefits. It is still possible for a deficit to be pointed to the example that U.S. troops apparent, though not as likely (Hartley 2001). stationed in European countries are at risk of Sandler and Hartley also worked together injury in an attack (particularly from terrorists on an earlier piece which attempted to or irregular forces) and could be stuck in the reevaluate the factors that go into calculating middle of an unnecessary conflict. Tonelson the equity involved in burden sharing. The also pointed to as an example: the earlier work contributed to the 2001 paper U.S. was influenced to become involved considering that it provided new criterion to simply to strengthen NATO’s credibility even look at collective action. They pointed out though its European member nations were various new factors that could be considered contributing far less to the alliance operations viable contributions to the alliance and could in comparison to those of the U.S. (Tonelson result in a more equitable share of the burden 2000). between nations. In sum, Sandler and Hartley From a financial perspective, an earlier pointed out how different measures of burden article written by Jyonni Khana and others sharing should be applied and to what degree. indicates that alliance members in NATO, and For example, military budgets and a nation’s in the U.N., are in fact free riding on larger willingness to engage in a conflict are two nations such as the United States. The authors very different measures, but both are equally concluded that there is a wide gap in the important to understanding whether a country equity of burden sharing. Their analysis is truly shouldering their fair share of the focused heavily on peace keeping burden. The ultimate conclusion of this paper expenditures between 1976 and 1996. Joint- is that nations will tend to pick a specific product models and collective action theory measurement which shows that they are were employed to study the financial shouldering more of the burden than other contributions of the various countries. The

3 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · level of fiscal support from the larger burden sharing. He employed these new countries far outweighed those of the smaller variables to essentially say that European free nations and indicated a great level of free riding appears to be on the decline as riding (Jyonni Khanna et al 1998). evidenced by lessened security guarantees. More recent studies have tried to take a Kivimaki indicated that there had been an more mixed methods approach; this is imbalance in the past, but he claimed that the apparent in Jo Jakobson’s article. Jakobson gap was beginning to shrink. Kivimaki’s attempted to draw on the collective action evidence was supported by the inclusion of approach and the risk-responsibility sharing these new and telling variables. (Kivimaki school. Jakobsen ultimately factored in the 2019). different variables both schools use, but he Hans Binnendijk explored the problem of comes to differing conclusions. He started the free riding within NATO from an historical study with the standard input measure, (where standpoint. Binnendijk reviewed the pros and one looks at what countries put into the cons of spending within the alliance since its alliance alone) and it became obvious that inception, and he discussed how the United European NATO free rides from this States had attempted to address budgetary analytical perspective. Furthermore, Jakobsen issues with its allies in the past. He concluded found that non-material free riding can occur that recent Russian aggression toward Ukraine when a U.S. presence in the country of could provide an opening for the United States operations is significant as compared to its to put more pressure on its European allies. allies. A further observation demonstrated The increased pressure could, in turn, coerce that other allied countries showed a low European allies to commit more to defense willingness to fight. He also mentioned that spending and effectively lessen the burden the importance of United States military being placed on the U.S. Binnendijk also spending has to do with other variables. The went through multiple policy proposals that United States was engaged in various would help initiate this pressure, and he also operations throughout the world, especially in delved into how each facet would help to Europe. The United States’ projection of equalize burden sharing. Part of Binnendijk’s power could essentially outweigh the lessened broader argument is that European NATO is spending of European NATO allies. changing because new geo-political Jakobsen’s conclusion is to remain cautious considerations have become more important when attempting to decipher whether since the fall of the (Binnendijk European NATO in fact free rides (Jakobsen 2016). 2018). Examinations of free riding within NATO BURDEN SHARING FROM AN ECONOMIC require a more nuanced approach, and Timo PERSPECTIVE Kivimaki’s work added new variables to the One of the most prominent ways to equations associated with economic approach burden sharing is from the examinations of free riding. Kivimaki perspective of spending. The way that NATO produced three new variables to consider in manages its forces is through each country’s the debate, including: a calculation of that defense spending. The alliance was founded country’s power, a variable about that on the notion of collective defense. This is the country’s security guarantees to its allies, and idea that an attack on one ally is considered a the reliance of the U.S. on NATO in out-of- direct attack on all the other allies (as outlined area efforts. Kivimaki relied heavily on in Article 5 of the treaty). Collective defense Ringsmose’s model for determining levels of stipulates that each member state must contribute a significant number of resources to

4 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · their military, and thus these contributions be dedicated to more conventional forces in would ensure that all members of the alliance order to deal with rogue nations and limiting would be capable to come to the defense of (on a smaller scale) the proliferation of their allies. nuclear weapons (Hartley 2001). These NATO was a much smaller organization changes, therefore, open the door for Europe during the than it is today, but it to contribute more to NATO by increasing its grew overtime. The alliance was founded in technological and strategic capabilities. 1949, and it was originally comprised of 12 The United States has been, and still is, countries. It grew to include 16 countries the largest spending member of NATO. between 1949 and 1989, and by 2019 it had 29 America contributed 51.1% of the alliance’s formal allies. As early as 1950, the U.S. combined GDP and 71.1% of its combined attempted to coax Europe into providing more defense expenditure in 2017 (Macias 2018). for its own defense. One specific attempt was Furthermore, the United States dedicated more when the U.S. tried to take advantage of the of its GDP (at 3.31%) than any other country. onset of the : “President Truman… 23 of the other 28 members failed to meet the committed four US army divisions to Europe. proposed goal of “2% of GDP being dedicated In return, France promised to take the to defense spending” as was agreed upon at initiative in the creation of a European the Wales Summit in 2014 (NATO.int). In Defence Community,” (Ringsmose 2010). fact, most countries do not seem to be on track Truman’s goal was to initiate a “quid-pro- to even reach the goal of 2% by 2020. quo” where the U.S. would provide some level However, there has been a slight overall of defense for Europe while he expected it to increase in spending, and estimates for develop its own militaries in return. defense expenditure as a share of GDP Essentially, Truman’s goal defined the indicate that European NATO members are essence of burden sharing diplomacy for the contributing more to their defense budgets U.S. throughout the Cold War. Despite the than they have in the past. president’s efforts, Congress was adamant in In addition to the overall view of GDP, it reevaluating defense spending within NATO is also important to consider to which projects (Ringsmose 2010). This push and pull would the money is being applied; a more concrete continue for years to come, but it was apparent understanding of specific expenditures gives a that the U.S. was contributing far more to better view of the overall effectiveness of a defense spending than its European country’s forces. NATO also has a minimum counterparts. This demonstrates some level of threshold of 20% of GDP expenditure toward free riding (see Figure 1) (Ringsmose 2010). equipment when considering the greater Collective defense, at this point, included context of a country’s GDP being applied to different factors that modern burden sharing defense (Antonoaie 2018). Only 11 out of 28 no longer focuses on as much. Nuclear NATO member-states are adhering to this deterrence was more important with the Soviet threshold as of 2017 (NATO.int). Bear lurking, and preparedness for a Luxembourg dedicates the greatest portion of conventional or nuclear attack was given more it’s GDP for military expenditure, to emphasis. The reinvention of NATO as an equipment. Overall, only 0.5 percent of its “out-of-area” force in modern burden sharing GDP is contributed to military expenditures. has changed the way that spending is viewed. This means that the potency of Luxembourg’s Now, the U.S. no longer needs to focus on its forces is still minimal at best. The power of nuclear umbrella as the most important facet each force is significantly reduced in of collective defense. Instead, spending can technological advantage because most

5 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · countries are not upholding their spending the alliance. The theory behind collective promises for equipment. The category of action seems to illustrate how straightforward equipment also includes R&D expenditures it can be for countries to free ride: “Since the for major projects and munitions. The lack of benefits of any action an individual takes to spending in this category further proves that provide a public or organizational good also not enough countries are investing in the go to others, individuals acting independently technology to modernize their military. The do not have an incentive to provide optimal lack of funding is an incredible risk because quantities of such goods,” (Olson 1966). The the conduct of warfare is constantly evolving economic models show how nations will (Dubik 1). The U.S. dedicated 25.73% of its adhere to this method of thinking: the country total defense expenditure on equipment (part that is the largest (and seeks to increase of the percentage includes upkeep) in 2017 defensive capabilities) will continue to which means that far more work is also being increase its own expenditures while smaller applied to critical military R&D. These nations leave the spending to said nation. expenditures force the U.S. to maintain its When applying this theory, it makes sense technological superiority, but other countries that a rather sizable chunk of European are lagging and leaving more of the burden to military expenditure shrank dramatically the United States. leading up to the end of the Cold War in 1991. Defense spending has always been a major American military investment between 1981 point of contention for the United States and and 1990 remained at relatively the same its other allies. Presidential administrations level. On the other hand, European NATO have constantly critiqued the lack of spending members induced a drop of 10.3 percentage within NATO, especially the lack of spending points. Furthermore, U.S. military personnel by European allies. The Bush and Obama numbers were reduced by 7.4 percent, but administrations both found spending levels to Western Europe’s fell at a higher rate of 10.2 be too low. Obama specifically stated, “Free percent. By the year 1989, 36 percent of riders aggravate me” (Goldberg 2016). Of NATO’s defense forces were being provided course, their frustrations went far beyond by the U.S. In addition, the U.S. also simple rhetoric. The issue of defense accounted for 64.7 percent of total NATO spending has taken a new level of importance defense expenditures (Tonelson 2000). The under the Trump Administration. Trump has United States prioritized its spending on demonstrated far more grief toward the defense expansion since it was still in alliance and has stirred up trouble in the competition with the power of the slowly process. Within this context, it is imperative declining Soviet Union. Hence, European to understand whether free riding is occurring NATO members were decreasing defense from a fiscal perspective. spending while taking advantage of the United At first glance, it would appear obvious States’ continued focus on contending with that the United States is indeed carrying the weakened Soviet military programs. alliance in terms of expenditures on defense. The models produced by Olson and This has been the case since NATO’s Zeckhauser have been expanded by other inception, and has been explored in depth scholars since their creation, and updated through collective action theory. Mancur implications must be considered in order to Olson and Richard Zeckhauser’s piece paint a more comprehensive picture. Burden confirms that smaller nations free ride, and Sharing can also be analyzed by using what is they rely on the largest nation to provide most known as the joint-product model of alliances. of the public goods available to those within The joint-product model digresses from the

6 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · view that alliance contributions to defense are excludable benefit of greater political support pure public goods from which all members of for the national government’s administration. the alliance can benefit. An article written by Furthermore, defense spending would Jacques von Ypersele de Strihau points out the contribute to the work force and economic fact that a country’s defense expenditures also strength of a country as more money funneled provide benefits that solely increase the into that industry. In comparison, European national goods (as opposed to alliance goods) NATO countries could have had a more equal and are instead excludable benefits. Also, he ratio of burden sharing since they were not notes that these are joint products of national privy to the excludable benefits inherent defense expenditures (de Strihau 1967). He within U.S. spending. goes on to argue that “The value given to each It follows, therefore, that it is important to country to these strictly national benefits take into consideration the additional variables should be deducted from the defense of the joint-product model if one is to better expenditures to obtain the ‘burden’ borne by understand burden sharing. This ensures that each country for the provision of the the correct variables are accounted for and international public good,” (de Strihau 1967). plugged into calculations accordingly. The These strictly national benefits include a range joint-product model is where ideas of material of potential categories, including economic and non-material burden sharing can begin to and political advantages. This difference in play a rather pivotal role in understanding how views changes the outlook on burden sharing NATO members ultimately benefit and from an economic perspective. As noted by provide for the alliance. These views of Todd Sandler and Keith Hartley, the material and non-material burdens became implications of a joint-product model could more prominent after the end of the Cold War. potentially even the playing field between This was due to a shift in mission directives NATO members and reduce the relevance of spurred by the onset of the “New World the exploitation hypothesis put forth by Olson Order.” The new order had the U.S. at its and Zeckhauser. This implies that the larger helm, and it formed as a result of the end of country may be profiting from a high level of the bipolar system of the Cold War. Now, the excludable benefits. This point of view could focus was not so much on deterrence against indeed have merit when looking back at Russia as it was on security operations and a Tonelson’s view of defense spending between broader notion of conflict prevention across 1981 and 1990. The United States, at the the globe. New burdens would be introduced time, was still providing a great deal of into the equation as security operations would funding to defense while European allies were be moved “out-of-area.” reducing their spending. One can assume that One such example is military casualties as the joint-product model perspective would explored by Jo Jakobsen. Jakobsen points out show that the United States was providing a how the use of boots on the ground, a method large proportion of excludable benefits for of contributing to security operations, leads to itself. Whereas increased deterrence would the obvious risk of casualties. But he also have been a pure public good from which notes how these casualties now contribute to European NATO members benefitted, the the variable of political support on the national revelation of the joint-product model resulted level (Jakobsen 2018). From a joint-product in the inclusion of the political and economic model perspective, the values of those factors associated with it. Increased defense excludable goods are subject to change as spending in the U.S. had strong political forces are actively being deployed and put in backing, and it would have provided the harm’s way. Jakobsen also points out how

7 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · rules of engagement for each specific ally can study written by Peter Marton and Nik Hynek affect the general effectiveness of their forces demonstrates an interesting graph which views and, therefore, lessen or enhance their share of troop deployments and costs in lieu of that the burden. More stringent rules of country’s GDP and population size. With engagement can, of course, lead to less reference to figure 2 in the appendix, one will casualties enhancing the excludable goods note the contributions of countries such as from which the nation benefits (or, in other Denmark and Estonia (Hynek 2012). Both words, lessening allied access to the pure countries appear to have provided an public goods that country produces) (Jakobsen incredibly small number of troops in 2018). Hence, this complicates the entire comparison to countries such as the U.S. and equation of burden sharing as the variables the U.K. However, if one refers to the column and their values are subject to more scrutiny “People per one soldier deployed in ISAF,” than they once were. This leads into an the rank of these countries is far higher than analysis of the case studies of Libya and before. Denmark is shown to come in at 3rd Afghanistan and how burden sharing can be and Estonia in 4th, and they are preceded only looked at in greater depth. by the U.S. and the U.K. Furthermore, the financial burden of countries such as Estonia, BURDEN SHARING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE Poland, and Romania accounts for more of OF THE ISAF IN AFGHANISTAN their “share of GDP” in their “cost per troop” The war in Afghanistan proved to be long than even the US (who is in 4th place). From and costly for all the countries it has involved. this perspective, it would appear as though the The war has cost the U.S. approximately $975 countries are, in fact, pulling more of their billion since 2001 from a fiscal perspective weight. The importance of looking at factors alone. This makes it only second to military like these is that it places a country’s costs during World War II (which have been contributions into the greater context of their adjusted for inflation) which were $4.1 trillion economic and deployable capabilities. Surely, (McCarthy 2019). Furthermore, the U.S. has a smaller country such as Estonia could never suffered over 2,000 casualties and more than contribute as much money or troops as the 20,000 wounded in Afghanistan’s Operation U.S., but it could provide a similar if not Enduring Freedom between 2001 and 2014 greater ratio of “troops to population” or (US DOD 2019). In comparison to Afghan “troops to cost” than some of the larger coalition allies, the general cost in blood and nations in the coalition. The last interesting treasure does not seem to align. In terms of fact to gather from figure two of the appendix fiscal costs, the U.K. precedes the U.S. at only is that the country that takes up the greatest £37 billion (approximately $47 billion). The percentage share of ISAF forces is Canada. difference in troop casualties is also One should note that the countries which are significant, with the UK incurring 455 deaths, racking up decent numbers represent only a Canada 158, Germany 54, and France 86 all handful out of 29. from 2001 to the present (Soldiers Killed in These elements are incredibly interesting Action in Afghanistan 2001-2019). It would since Operation Enduring Freedom was appear as though the burden is primarily being started as part of the United States War on shifted on the U.S. in terms of concrete Terror. Since this war was started by the U.S., allocations and losses regarding costs and it has become more important to determine casualties. whether these countries were free riding in These numbers, taken at face value alone, Afghanistan. However, the significance of are not enough to understand the complete troop levels, troop casualties, and fiscal picture of burden sharing in Afghanistan. A

8 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · contributions alone is not enough to provide a (while demonstrating what could be a desire to full representation of the burden sharing take on a fair share of the burden) is irrelevant taking place in Afghanistan. Other important since the actual burden sharing aspect comes factors to note are not so easily quantified. down to what was spent. (Fayez 2012). One such variable is the potential intra- When looking at Afghanistan as a whole, political cost of a country’s contributions to it would still seem as though the U.S. is taking operations and budget, not wholly dedicated to on a much larger share of the burden military expenditures, (e.g. financial compared to its allies. In terms of dedicating reconstruction, aid and budgetary funds for the military funding it tops the charts even despite Afghan government) (Jakobsen 2018). In some of its smaller allies’ attempts to pull 2009, for example, Obama’s policy of surging their weight in terms of force deployments. troops into Afghanistan was initiated. Context does show that some of the smaller According to a Pew Research Center table, countries are providing a great deal in lieu of most people (from the surveyed countries) their reduced capabilities, but some of the opposed the increase of troops in Afghanistan more powerful countries are not making up for (refer to figure 3 of appendix) (Auxier 2015). deficiencies where they could. This lack of Despite this opposition, there was a general support is especially highlighted when looking increase in troops between 2009 and 2011 at the deployment of their forces: “The from those very same NATO countries European contribution to the actual combat involved in the survey (Rogers 2009). This theater was minimal and primarily included demonstrates a willingness on the part of these British forces in the form of air assistance. countries to sacrifice political clout with their Because the initial stages of the campaign constituents in order to contribute to alliance involved almost exclusively the use of Special operations. In fact, most of the NATO Forces and air power, technological and other countries involved increased their troop levels capacity issues limited the role European leaving only Norway, the Netherlands, Latvia, forces could play” (Siegel 2009). This is Iceland, and Belgium to remove some or all further proved by the thought process of their forces from Afghanistan. Canada also NATO when considering whether to deploy a reinforced its claims to leave Afghanistan peacekeeping force outside of Kabul in 2002. (Siegel 2009). NATO considered Great Britain to be the only The extent of aid provided in order to help other country capable of quickly deploying an rebuild Afghanistan is the other significant effective force in the region (Jones 2009). measure that is mentioned. Reference to Moreover, the U.S. appeared to be taking the figure 4 demonstrates various countries that lead regarding reconstruction efforts; 14 out of have provided aid to Afghanistan between 19 provincial reconstruction teams (PRT) 2002 and 2008. Among the NATO countries were manned by the U.S. leaving only 5 of on this table, the U.S. has clearly donated the them to be led by ISAF and NATO countries most, with the U.K. and Germany being the in 2005 (Rashid 2008). In addition, the next highest NATO donors consecutively. effectiveness of NATO forces and their One would be remiss to not mention that the contributions were not up to par despite their final aid total disbursed by the U.S. is in fact efforts to contribute: “In 2006, NATO $5,022.7 million. The U.S. donation amount promised to place a PRT in all of is still significantly higher than that of its Afghanistan’s thirty-four provinces. other allies: the U.K.’s final disbursement is However, the Establishment of “national closer to $1266.3 million, and Germany’s is caveats” stipulating what its PRT force could closer to $767.84 million. Aid promised and could not do was to paralyze NATO’s

9 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · effectiveness in combating the ,” argument to simply how much money one (Rashid 2008). provided, began to be frowned upon by the Furthermore, these countries’ disregard for international community. The importance of public opinion and their willingness to domestic constraints is essential, and the U.S. sacrifice their political power back home was bearing a heavier share of the burden in would seem to indicate a discrepancy in the this regard. Consider that “Fifty-seven ideas put forth through collective action. Such percent of Americans, including 69 percent of actions are in direct opposition to the basic military veterans, said they would support a premise of the exploitation hypothesis since decision by the president to remove all troops those countries were still willing to put their from Afghanistan,” (“Public Opinion on forces in harm’s way for an operation that is Afghanistan War: 2018 Poll”). more important for the U.S. than most of the other NATO allies. In contrast, one could BURDEN SHARING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE argue that U.S. leaders were also putting their OF LIBYA political clout back home at risk with their At first glance, the onset of the 2011 massive deployments of troops. While conflict in Libya had potential to provide a Canada made up the larger share of NATO new template of how burden sharing could forces earlier in the war, the U.S. currently work between America and its NATO allies. makes up 12,000 of the remaining 17,148 Libya is within the general proximity of NATO troops deployed (War in Afghanistan Europe, but the United States itself did not Global Conflict Tracker). When Obama had have any major stake in the conflict at all. asked in April 2009 for European NATO U.S. interests are relevant to burden sharing members to contribute more forces along with because they bring into question how willing his surge of troops, Canada (as well as the America is to commit its resources to a Netherlands) reconfirmed a prior commitment conflict that is not directly related to its to pull troops out of the country as a direct act national security. In the beginning, President of defiance against the surge (Siegel 2009). Obama was hesitant over what role to play in This is an indication that allies were beginning the ongoing developments in Libya. Obama to contribute less resources as time went on, took a more cautious approach until the and this would seem to suggest that the cost of situation deteriorated into further chaos. providing forces was no longer worth the Eventually, was put benefit of appeasing the U.S. and “keeping the into motion and the U.S. was going to work Americans in” (Matlary 2014) the alliance. alongside its allies while utilizing its strategic While this does not account for the spending command in a targeted air campaign. Obama in aid, the great reduction in allied forces wanted the U.S. to engage in a primarily removes the costs of gambling political clout assistive role while NATO allies would and being influenced by domestic constraints, engage in the bulk of hard operations which which is one of the greater, if not the greatest, was contrary to how operations had been run factors in burden sharing today (Matlary in the past. The administration was adamant 2014). This is also backed up by Ringsmose that absolutely no U.S. troops were going to who states that “As NATO became involved be deployed to the region, and Obama in out-of-area operations… the burden-sharing outlined a plan for U.S. involvement. The debates increasingly came to focus not only on plan radically altered how the military deployable military assets, but also on the fair typically allocated its resources to such sharing of risks,” (Ringsmose 2010). Instead, operations. Instead of having the U.S. invest “checkbook diplomacy,” which reduces the the largest share of military assets to the operation (as it had done for virtually all other

10 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · operations), Obama wanted to take a more respectively. While most sorties were flown restrained approach. He wanted the U.S. to by non-U.S. NATO forces (75% to be exact), move in with purpose and strength in order to this did not account for the lack of effective break through Libyan defenses; then, US force employed by them (Shanker 2011). The forces would pull back while only providing U.S. still boasted the largest concentration of capabilities that the other NATO allies lacked forces in the region, and it surpassed all allies from a military standpoint (Chiviss 2014). in the categories of personnel, aircraft, ships, This military plan indicated a completely and the deployment of cruise missiles. Unlike different level of practical burden sharing. the sorties, the United States greatly surpassed Rather than the U.S. supplying more of its its counterparts: the combined forces of the forces in harm’s way, it was instead using its U.K. and France were still not enough to unique military role to direct allied forces and match the concentration of U.S. assets in any provide cohesion for NATO in the areas of the categories (Rogers 2011). Tim where it was lacking. From the perspective of Hasebrouck points out that despite the U.S. a reduced U.S. role, it would appear as though plan to pull back after the operation was in a large share of the burden was suddenly motion, the U.S. still seemed to demonstrate shifted away from the U.S. and onto others in that it was “a prisoner of its size” since it the alliance. One of the main reasons Obama continued to provide essential military took this position was to reduce the strain on assistance to the bulk of operations taxpayers and the military back home (Hasebrouck 2016). The fact that the U.S., (Hallams 2012). Obama’s desire to satisfy his even in its reduced role, was forced to step up constituency plays into the excludable benefit to such a degree demonstrates two things: of political clout. Since the administration 1. In order for the alliance to function had effectively increased its excludable properly, the U.S. must be involved in benefit, there must be a reduction of pure a leading capacity at some level, public goods since the U.S. would no longer otherwise operations would become contribute as much. This implies that other far more costly to all allies. NATO allies were putting much more on the 2. NATO allies were severely lacking in line, and the value of the pure public goods multiple facets of military readiness they provided increased. With their forces and combat effectiveness as indicated being put out on the “front lines,” it was the by the holes left for the U.S. to fill. lives of their soldiers, the wear of their equipment, and the spending of their money These implications are essential to that was being allocated to more of the understanding the burden sharing dynamics of operation than had been the case in the past NATO. Both implications would appear to (Hallams 2012). give credence to the theory of collective action When one takes a concrete look at the and its exploitation hypothesis. Since the U.S. numbers involved in Libya, a different story possessed such an overwhelming force and can be gleaned. The first major piece of data well-funded military, most other allies were to note is the number of sorties that were counting on the U.S. and its position of power flown by NATO forces. Even though the U.S. to make up for their deficiencies. Therefore, meant to engage in a far more constrained role the other countries in NATO chose not to throughout the entire operation, it still spend as much on their militaries since they managed to fly the most sorties with a total of knew that the U.S. would end up 2,000. The UK and France were not far strengthening the overall capability of the behind flying 1,300 and 1,200 sorties alliance. This is what led to NATO allies dedicating less of their GDP to critical

11 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · military equipment and personnel which refrained from direct participation in the would have helped to strengthen the alliance. operation and only supplied precision missiles NATO’s lack of military effectiveness was to its NATO allies (Daalder 2012). The lack made apparent by several deficiencies. of unity within NATO would seem to According to an article written by Thom demonstrate an inability to act in a collective Shanker and Eric Schmitt, the U.S. (and to a manner. While some allies bear the brunt of lesser degree some of its more powerful allies) combat, others will simply engage in a had to “lead from behind.” Regarding the “supportive” role without truly placing any of sorties that were flown, “NATO does not have their forces in harm’s way. This is a roster of experienced officers to do its own problematic as the involvement of some of targeting- the essence of successful air these countries could have helped to relieve warfare. Only the United States, Britain, and the burden that was placed on the U.S. While France have targeteers up to modern there likely still would have been major holes standards,” (Shanker 2011). The article also for the U.S. to fill in terms of offensive goes on to point out that the U.S. decision to capabilities, these nation’s lack of support and let other allies lead revealed major participation is yet another sign that free shortcomings regarding intelligence riding was apparent in the Libyan gathering/reconnaissance equipment as well as intervention. Unlike the more dedicated certain critical munitions (Shanker 2011). As efforts of allies such as the U.K. and France, stated by Ivo Daalder and James Stavridis, these absentee countries played to the tune of “The heavy reliance of alliance members on the exploitation hypothesis by letting other the United States during the conflict countries deal with the risks associated with highlighted the cost of a decade of European direct involvement. underinvestment in defense,” (Daalder 2012). It is also important to note that the In the case of Libya, it would appear as countries that did try to contribute more to though the free riding of NATO allies forced Libya, likely only did so in order to try and the US to engage in a heavily involved combat appease the U.S. by trying to take a more role despite Obama’s initial reluctance. active role in the alliance. According to Jane It is also important to consider the Matlary, “the present challenge to NATO countries that did not take an active role in states in Europe is… to contribute and show Libya. A number of these countries were solidarity with the United States, [and] also to simply unable to participate due to limits on take responsibility for security and defense their forces and budgets. But when a country policy in lead roles, as in Libya… this like Germany decided to opt out of the challenge comes at a time of deep budget cuts operations, there were greater implications at and where risk willingness is part of burden large. Germany had the capability to provide sharing. Military contributions must be… military assistance, but only participated in a ready for combat,” (Matlary 2014). This limited surveillance role and abstained from demonstrates how European countries might the UN security council vote to authorize the be unwilling to provide more to NATO at a intervention. According to a website time when their nations are in “deep peace dedicated to measuring military capabilities, mode” and not as conducive toward sending Germany is currently the 5th most powerful their people into harm’s way. The fact that member state of NATO (NATO Member countries such as the U.K. and France might States Ranked by Military Strength). Poland, have only contributed to the alliance to while ranked 9th in terms of capability (NATO appease the U.S. while other countries are Member States Ranked by Military Strength), focusing on their own domestic political

12 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI · factors, further demonstrates the splintering of domestic issues at home while letting their NATO cohesiveness. This, in turn, is another forces weaken under the greater protection of factor that leads to the U.S. being forced to the United States. With new threats on the make up for the lack of participation and rise and a turn to out-of-area operations, it readiness of those unwilling countries. becomes apparent that if the U.S. “is able to provide politically or physically sufficient levels of security for the rest of NATO’s CONCLUSION members in response… then other members The literature on burden sharing has can free ride and will provide little additional shown great development over the years assistance. Therefore, we should expect even moving from a more pecuniary focus, to a more free riding than in the past,” (Siegel focus that incorporates a variety of 2009). inconspicuous factors. From a deterrence and Regarding Libya and Afghanistan, it pure public goods standpoint, the United would appear as though NATO allies were States is bearing an unfair share of the burden. contributing to a more balanced and fair The simple fact that it is leading the way system of burden sharing, but this is in fact economically (and in turn with the efficiency not the case. In Afghanistan, alliance and effectiveness of its forces) shows that cooperation and burden sharing were on more non-U.S. NATO allies are indeed benefitting equal footing with the initial invocation of unfairly from its ally’s efforts. The decline in Article 5. Countries were attempting to NATO allied defense spending indicates the provide military assistance to the operations acceptance of relying on U.S. capabilities and despite the limitations their economies and letting their own forces bear less of the populations imposed upon them. However, financial responsibility associated with there were only a few countries that provided collective defense. enough force in any truly effective sense. However, the simplicity of this model does While major allies such as Canada did indeed not consider other factors that can be just as provide a great deal for the alliance in the important to burden sharing. The joint- beginning, support tapered off overtime. product model would seem to take better Several other capable countries did not account of factors that do not seem dedicate as much as they could have, and even immediately pertinent to burden sharing but when they did, their support provided little are without a doubt just as important. The strategic significance. Instead, U.S. forces dedication of alliance forces can produce were providing for the bulk of the operation strain in a political manner due to the potential while its allies were hampered by inefficient loss of life and the ramifications such losses forces and a reluctance to give in to U.S. can have back home. Furthermore, the unilateralism. In addition, the restraints introduction of excludable goods levels the placed on rules of engagement and other playing field in different ways. The massive factors significantly reduced the effectiveness output of defense provided by the U.S., incurs of their combat roles. This forced the U.S. to significant benefits that are only a positive for pick up the slack, as it had done during the the U.S. alone. The expansion of the defense Cold War, with its deterrence abilities. The industry, for example, can provide jobs and eventual decline in alliance involvement also further stimulate the U.S. economy; however, indicates support for collective action theory this is a good that other nations cannot benefit as allies began to outweigh the costs to the from directly. This same idea can be benefits of participating in combat operations redirected back to non-U.S. NATO allies. with the U.S. Many of them intend to focus more on

13 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI ·

In Libya, on the other hand, the U.S. spending, the effectiveness of their forces attempted to reduce its role in combat proves that the U.S. is forced, due to its size, operations while NATO allies shouldered the to attend to unfulfilled facets of combat burden of putting their forces in potential preparedness. This, then, puts the obligation danger. While the U.S. was dedicating its of maintaining a modern military force on the budget to strategic command, its allies were U.S. Therefore, it is forced to spend more making up for their lack of defense spending money while letting other nations free ride. In by taking more responsibility through both the end, NATO is still engaged in a mindset of material and non-material variables. The relying on the U.S. to take on the more costly involvement of more subtle factors completely aspects of alliance burden sharing. changes the implications of collective action. However, the statistics indicated that the U.S. was still forced to engage in taking on a larger APPENDIX share of the burden than it had anticipated or even wanted. The other allies did in fact Figure 1: break through domestic constraints by putting their forces in harm’s way. But Hasebrouck’s Reproduced from: Ringsmore, Jens. “NATO work showed that such constraints were not as Burden-Sharing Redux: Continuity and prominent because Libya was considered an Change after the Cold War.” Contemporary easier operation, and the U.S. still took on a Security Policy 31, no. 2(August 16,2010): greater role. Furthermore, the implications of 319-38. increased U.S. involvement show in a https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2010.49139 concrete way that free riding is occurring. 1 The inability of European forces to deal with the realities of modern combat forced them to rely on the U.S. even though they were trying to take more of a leadership role in the operation. It could be argued that had more of the countries involved been contributing more of their GDP to their forces in the first place (especially to training pilots and updating their technology), the U.S. would not have had to employ its unique combat abilities as much as it did. The two case studies show that free riding occurs because NATO forces have not modernized their forces well. Through the theoretical application of collective action and the joint-product model to case studies, burden sharing is still not on the equal footing that the U.S. would like. While there are many factors involved in determining levels of free riding in NATO, a large gap still needs to be closed between the U.S. and its allies (especially regarding military effectiveness). Although ×non-U.S. NATO allies are increasing their

14 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI ·

Figure 2: Reproduced from: Marton, Peter and Nik Hynek. “What Makes ISAF S/Tick: An Investigation of the Politics of Coalition Burden-Sharing1. Defence Studies 12, no. 4 (December 2012): 539-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2012.74686 2.

Figure :

Reproduced from: Fayez, Hikmatullah. “Role of Foreign Aid in Afghanistan’s Reconstruction: A Critical Assessment.” SSRN Electronic Journal , no. (September , ): -. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2333074.

Figure Continued: M

Figure :

Reproduced from: Auxier, Richard C. “Few in REFERENCES NATO Support Call For Additional Forces in Afghanistan.” Pew Research Center’s Global Antonoaie, Cristina. “EU Countries in NATO. Attitudes Project. Pew Research Center, June , An Analysis of Defence Expenditures . .” Journal of Defense Resources https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2009/08/ Management 9, no. 2 (October 2018): 31/few-in--want-more-troops-in- 58–63. afghanistan/.

15 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI ·

Auxier, Richard C. “Few in NATO Support de Strihou, Jacques Van Ypersele. “Sharing Call For Additional Forces in the Defense Burden Among Western Afghanistan.” Pew Research Center's Allies.” The Review of Economics and Global Attitudes Project. Pew Statistics 49, no. 4 (November 1967): Research Center, June 1, 2015. 527–36. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2 https://doi.org/10.2307/1928338. 009/08/31/few-in-nato-want-more- troops-in-afghanistan/. Dubik, James M. “Has Warfare Changed? Sorting Apples from Oranges.” An Binnendijk, Hans. Friends, Foes, and Future Institute of Land Warfare Publication Directions: U.S. Partnerships in a 2, no. 3 (July 2002): 1–7. Turbulent World. Santa Monica, CA: https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files RAND Corporation, 2016. /LPE-02-3-Has-Warfare-Changed- Sorting-Apples-From-Oranges.pdf. Bush, George H. W. “Transcript of the Comments by Bush on the Air Strikes “Nato.int.” Nato.int. North Atlantic Treaty Against the Iraqis.” The New York Organization, June 2019. Times, January 17, 1991. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl201 https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/17/ 4/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/20190625_P us/war-gulf-president-transcript- R2019-069-EN.pdf. comments-bush-air-strikes-against- iraqis.html. Emmott, Robin. “Brain-Dead at 70? NATO Set to Ask 'Wise Persons' for Help.” Chivvis, Christopher S. Toppling Qaddafi Reuters. Thomson Reuters, November Libya and the Limits of Liberal 27, 2019. Intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-nato- University Press, 2014. summit-preview/brain-dead-at-70- nato-set-to-ask-wise-persons-for-help- Collinson, Stephen. “Trump Is Not the First idUKKBN1Y10H3. US President to Bemoan NATO Spending.” CNN. Cable News Fayez, Hikmatullah. “Role of Foreign Aid in Network, July 4, 2018. Afghanistan’s Reconstruction: A https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/04/polit Critical Assessment.” SSRN Electronic ics/trump-us-presidents-nato-defense- Journal 47, no. 39 (September 29, spending/index.html. 2012): 65–70. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2333074. Daalder, Ivo H, and James G Stavridis. “Https://Shape.nato.int/Resources/site6 Goldberg, Story by Jeffrey. “The Obama 31/Saceur/Documents/Daalder_Stavrid Doctrine.” The Atlantic. Atlantic is_final.Pdf.” nato.int. Foreign Affairs, Media Company, June 25, 2018. April 2012. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ https://shape.nato.int/resources/site631 archive/2016/04/the-obama- /saceur/documents/Daalder_Stavridis_ doctrine/471525/. final.pdf. Gray, Rosie. “Trump Declines to Affirm NATO's Article 5.” The Atlantic.

16 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI ·

Atlantic Media Company, May 25, https://doi.org/10.1177/002200279804 2017. 2002003. https://www.theatlantic.com/internatio nal/archive/2017/05/trump-declines-to- Kivimäki, Timo. “Power, Contribution and affirm--article-5/528129/. Dependence in NATO Burden Sharing.” European Security 28, no. 1 Haesebrouck, Tim. “NATO Burden Sharing in (February 13, 2019): 66–84. Libya.” Journal of Conflict Resolution https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2019 61, no. 10 (October 2016): 2235–61. .1578750. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200271562 6248. Macias, Amanda M. “The US Spent $686 Billion on Defense Last Year - Here's Hallams, Ellen, and Benjamin Schreer. How the Other NATO Countries Stack “Towards a ‘Post-American’ Alliance? Up.” CNBC. CNBC, July 6, 2018. NATO Burden-Sharing after Libya.” https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nat International Affairs 88, no. 2 (2012): o-spending-2017.html. 313–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- Marton, Péter, and Nik Hynek. “What Makes 2346.2012.01073.x. ISAF S/Tick: An Investigation of the Politics of Coalition Burden- Hartley, Keith, and Todd Sandler. “NATO Sharing1.” Defence Studies 12, no. 4 Burden-Sharing: Past and Future.” (December 2012): 539–71. Journal of Peace Research 36, no. 6 https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2012 (November 1999): 665–80. .746862. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234339903 6006004. Matlary, Janne Haaland. “ Burden Sharing after Afghanistan .” In The Future of Jakobsen, Jo. “Is European NATO Really NATO: Regional Defense and Global Free-Riding? Patterns of Material and Security, 76–89. University of Non-Material Burden-Sharing after the Michigan Press, 2014. Cold War.” European Security 27, no. 4 (August 23, 2018): 490–514. McCarthy, Niall. “The Annual Cost Of The https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2018 War In Afghanistan Since 2001 .1515072. [Infographic].” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, September 12, 2019. Jones, Seth G. In the Graveyard of Empires: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmcc Americas War in Afghanistan. New arthy/2019/09/12/the-annual-cost-of- York: W.W. Norton & Company, the-war-in-afghanistan-since-2001- 2010. infographic/.

Khanna, Jyonni, Todd Sandler, and Hirofumi “NATO Member States Ranked by Military Shimizu. “Sharing the Financial Strength.” Global Firepower - World Burden for U.N. and NATO Military Strength. Accessed December Peacekeeping, 1976-1996.” Journal of 3, 2019. Conflict Resolution 42, no. 2 (April https://www.globalfirepower.com/cou 1998): 176–95. ntries-listing-nato-members.asp.

17 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI ·

2011. Olson, Mancur, and Richard Zeckhauser. “An https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat Economic Theory of Alliances.” The ablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data- Review of Economics and Statistics 48, journalism-operations-country. no. 3 (August 1966): 266–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1927082. Sandler, Todd, and Keith Hartley. “Economics of Alliances: The Lessons for Olson, Mancur. Logic of Collective Action: Collective Action.” Journal of Public Goods and the Theory of Economic Literature 39, no. 3 Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard (September 2001): 869–96. University Press, 1971. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.39.3.869.

“Public Opinion on Afghanistan War: 2018 Shanker, Thom, and Eric Schmitt. “Seeing Poll.” Charles Koch Institute, October Limits to 'New' Kind of War in Libya.” 8, 2018. . The New York https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/n Times, October 21, 2011. ews/afghanistan-17-anniversary-poll/. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/ world/africa/nato-war-in-libya-shows- Rashid, Ahmed. Descent into Chaos: the united-states-was-vital-to-toppling- United States and the Failure of qaddafi.html. Nation Building in , Afghanistan, and Central Asia. New Siegel, Scott N. “Bearing Their Share of the York: Viking, 2008. Burden: Europe in Afghanistan.” European Security 18, no. 4 (2009): Ringsmose, Jens. “NATO Burden-Sharing 461–82. Redux: Continuity and Change after https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2010 the Cold War.” Contemporary Security .498824. Policy 31, no. 2 (August 16, 2010): 319–38. “Soldiers Killed in Action in Afghanistan https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2010 2001-2019.” Statista, August 22, 2019. .491391. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262 894/western-coalition-soldiers-killed- Rogers, Simon, and Lisa Evans. “Afghanistan in-afghanistan/. Troop Numbers Data: How Many Does Each Country Send to the NATO Tonelson, Alan. “NATO Burden‐Sharing: Mission There?” The Guardian. Promises, Promises.” Journal of Guardian News and Media, March 27, Strategic Studies 23, no. 3 (January 24, 2009. 2000): 29–58. https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat https://doi.org/10.1080/014023900084 ablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop- 37799. numbers-nato-data#data. “War in Afghanistan | Global Conflict Rogers, Simon. “NATO Operations in Libya: Tracker.” Council on Foreign Data Journalism Breaks down Which Relations. Accessed December 3, Country Does What.” The Guardian. 2019. Guardian News and Media, May 22, https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-

18 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI ·

conflict-tracker/conflict/war- afghanistan. www.defense.gov, www.defense.gov § (2019). https://www.defense.gov/casualty.pdf.

19 POLITICAL ANALYSIS – VOLUME XX - 2020

POLITICAL ANALYSIS – VOLUME XX - 2020