Germany Debates Defense: The NATO Alliance at the Crossroads, and: Conventional Deterrence (review)

BOOK REVIEWS John Garofano, editor Germany Debates Defense: The NATO Alliance at the Crossroads. Rudolf Steinke and Michael Vale, eds. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1984. Conventional Deterrence. James R. Golden, Asa A. Clark, and Bruce E. Arlinghaus, eds. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1984. Reviewed by William Hoffman, M.A. candidate, SAIS. NATO is in the midst of the most serious debate about its defense posture since the advent of flexible response. Observers on both sides of the Atlantic are pouring forth with plans, prescriptions, and revisions of a strategy that will strengthen the alliance and prepare it to face the era of nuclear parity. There is particular interest in exploring ways to defend Europe and decrease reliance on nuclear weapons. Both of these volumes explore the possibilities ofsuch a policy. Germany Debates Defense presents the perspective of the German Left on the issue of NATO strategy. A collection of essays from German journals, it covers the widest possible range of radical alternatives to NATO's posture. The essays include critiques of establishment assessments of the military balance and proposals for a new policy for Germany in Europe, including a piece by Peter Brandt, the son of the former chancellor, which advocates a neutral, reunified Germany, and a section of articles discussing "alternative" defense strategies. This discussion of new strategies is particularly valuable given the dearth of materials in English on these ideas. Also of special interest are Egon Bahr's "The German Question of European Security" and Gunter Gaus' "Social Democratic Peace Plan." Both authors are prominent members of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), and their views provide insight into that party's evolving attitudes toward defense. Germany Debates Defense is valuable because it gives American readers an exposure to a point of view seldom expressed on this side of the Atlantic; Conventional Deterrence, however, gives the opposite perspective. This book reflects the views of American moderates. The authors almost unanimously 285 286 SAIS REVIEW advocate a buildup of conventional capabilities, but not on too great a scale. They are in agreement in their analysis of the nature of deterrence, asserting that deterrence of war is enhanced by preparation to fight one. But they are not proponents of conventional retaliation; more specifically, they believe that a conventional attack on NATO can be deterred by powerful conventional forces ready to defend. While this perspective has much validity, the book suffers by not including other views of the requirements of conventional deterrence. Nevertheless, the essays are generally good, especially those dealing with the military balance in Europe. The editors, all army officers with extensive experience in Europe, have organized the book well. Conventional Deterrence will provide the interested observer with a good summary of factors involved in the equation of NATO security. Maritime Strategy or Coalition Defense. By Robert Komer. Baltimore: University Press of America, 1984. Revising U.S. Military Strategy. By Jeffrey Record. New York: Pergamon Press, 1984. Reviewed by William Hoffman, M.A. candidate, SAIS. Much ofthe present consternation over America's defense policy stems from the apparent paradox of increased defense outlays and heightened American vulnerability. This situation leads many observers to advocate changes in either our security posture, our defense budget process, or, more fundamentally, our foreign policy as a whole. Recent works by Robert Komer and Jeffrey Record address these issues, and while Komer propounds the merits of traditional U.S. security policy and describes the dangers of passively moving away from it, Record recommends some basic changes in the postwar orientation of American defense policy. In Revising U.S. Military Strategy, Record focuses on the imbalance between U.S. objectives and available resources. He divides his work into two parts: a historical examination of U.S. strategic doctrine explaining the origins of the present mismatch between ends and means, and a set of propositions for redressing the imbalance. Record believes the chasm between commitments and capabilities is wide and extremely perilous for U.S. national security. His proposals reflect what he feels to be the gravity of the situation. Komer, on the other hand, worries less about the ends-means dilemma than he does about the navy. In Maritime Strategy or Coalition Defense...