Master thesis political science: Grand strategy in the 21th century Who is ready to bleed for the United States ? - European support for US-led missions after the Cold War - Willem de Grave 6015867 First reader: Dr. P.A van Hooft Second reader: Dr. S. Rezaeiejan Date: 30-01-2015 Word Count: 23954 Abstract Under the unipolar moment that emerged after the end of the Cold War the United States has on several occasions embarked on military out-of-area operations to shape the international environment. The difference in the degree of support for these missions provided by its traditional Western European allies is remarkable. While some countries have showed extraordinary willingness to ‘fight and die’ next to the US, other states have stood on the side-line time and again. In the thesis the argument is developed that system level explanations cannot account for this. First, distinctions based on relative material capabilities, fail to account for differences between states holding the same capabilities. Second, explanations associated with alliance dependence and balance of threat fail to create differencing hypothesis because these pressures are to a large degree felt in the same way by the highly similar European states. To account for difference in contributions, on the domestic level Atlanticism as part of a country’s strategic culture is developed as the mechanism through which elites judge their alliance with the US, the level of threat coming from a region and the preferred method of dealing with this threat. Coupled with the promise of political influence, these moral and utility incentives have led to robust preferences of the elites in these countries in the period under investigation, hereby accounting for consistent differences in contributions. The strength of Atlanticism makes other domestic variables like public opinion and the domestic political structure of the country of subordinate importance. 3 Contents 1.Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 2. Literature review .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 System level explanations ............................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Domestic level explanations ........................................................................................................ 9 2.3 Neoclassical explanations ......................................................................................................... 12 3. Theory section ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Dependent variable ................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Independent variables ............................................................................................................... 14 3.3An integrated model of county contributions under unipolarity .................................................. 24 3.4 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...........25 3.5 Research design…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26 US-led interventions ....................................................................................................................... 30 4. The first Gulf War (1991) ............................................................................................................. 31 4.1.Background conflict ................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Troop contributions …………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….32 4.3 System level explanations .......................................................................................................... 34 4.4 Domestic level explanations .................................................................................................. 3739 4.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 42 5 Operation Enduring Freedom (2001-) .......................................................................................... 43 5.1 Background conflict ................................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Troop contributions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… . ….44 5.3 System level explanations .......................................................................................................... 47 5.4 Domestic level explanations ...................................................................................................... 50 5.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 55 6. Iraqi Freedom (2003-2009)....................................................... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 6.1Background conflict .................................................................................................................... 57 6.2 Troop contributions ................................................................................................................... 57 6.3 System level incentives ............................................................................................................. 60 6.3 Domestic level explanations ...................................................................................................... 62 6.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 68 7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 69 8. Literature review ........................................................................................................................ 74 4 1 Introduction In 1989 the bipolar system, that had marked international politics for decades, crumbled with the demise of the Soviet Union. After a short period of optimism in a peaceful ‘end of history’ however soon a new variety of threats required international attention. Enjoying unmatched military capabilities, from now on the world looked predominantly to the United States (US) to deal with these challenges. Whether fuelled by international pressures or a domestic drive to spread the ‘American way’ the US actively picked up this task and became actively involved in dozens of hazards over the last two and a half decades. Though the country hereby possessed the military capabilities to tackle these conflicts on its own, it preferred to build broad coalitions of states to provide them with international legitimacy and a share in the risks (Kreps, 2011:7). Consequently, coalition warfare has become one of the central features of warfare after the end of the Cold War (Ashraf, 2011:1). For its coalitions the United States looked for the support of those states that shared a similar worldview and had high value of their alliance with the country (Poulsen, 2012: VII). Traditionally, these had been the Western European states with which it was united through the NATO alliance since the 1940’s.1 It was explained that this ‘grand bargain’ between the two sides of the Atlantic, in which the US would keep Europe safe and police the world in exchange for legitimacy and a share of the burden provided by its allies, explains the persistence of NATO after the Soviet threat had vanished (Sireci & Colleta, 2009:57). However, during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the perceived reluctance of many of the traditional European states to uphold their share of the bargain hit an open nerve in US-EU relations. This led US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to label Western Europe as ‘old’ and reluctant (The Guardian, 2003a). Though this critique applied to states like Belgium, France and Germany other states of the ‘Old Europe’ like the United Kingdom (UK), Denmark, and the Netherlands had shown remarkable degrees of support for the US in their missions, hereby allowing for an interesting comparison. This thesis is therefore dedicated to the US-led military out-of-area operations that have emerged after the Cold War. And particularly the issue of over- and under-contribution to these missions by its traditional Western European allies. It seeks to answer the question what has motivated the Europeans to place boots on the ground and will formulate an answer the question why some states on have shown remarkable willingness to ‘fight and die’ next to the 1 List of Cold War Western European NATO members: Belgium ,Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain. 5 US, while other states on different occasion stood watching on the side-line. The question the thesis seeks to answer therefore is: How can differences between European states in their contributions to US-led out-of-area missions after the end of the Cold War be explained? The large number of variables connected to burden-sharing behaviour, and the debt of analysis necessary to grasp their essence, make it that current leading works on the topic are highly detailed studies of county’s incentives during one single mission. Consequently, there is ample academic work which seeks