Friends, President Trump is not alone in questioning the relevance of NATO in the post-Cold War era, when Europe faces no serious external threat, and European governments insist on cutting their military budgets to the bone. The truth is that, if NATO has a future, it lies in a growing commitment to multilateralism. That is, NATO shouldn't be a blank check given to Europe by the United States -- it should be a joint effort to promote peace and security, WITHOUT unnecessarily antagonizing other global actors, like Russia. Trump is often seen as anti-NATO, but I see it differently: Trump is giving NATO one last chance to redefine itself in a way that will work for everyone. Read all about it in my latest article, soon to appear in the
Daily Caller:
President Trump: NATO's White
Knight?
Consumers
of the drivel produced by the mainstream media will be well aware
that, according to the New
York Times,
President Trump allegedly discussed with aides the possibility and
ramifications of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO. They will also be aware
that President Trump has harshly criticized some of our NATO allies,
mainly for under-funding their own militaries.
All this feeds
into a narrative that the media has been fabricating since before the
2016 election: Donald J. Trump is a wrecking ball laying waste to the
international order. He threatens America's traditional allies while
empowering our enemies. No one is safe, in short, with such an
impulsive “man-child” at the helm of the ship of state.
The party line in
the mainstream media, however, could not be further from the truth.
For one thing,
the press and the “experts” ignore the fact that NATO has for
years been on shaky ground. Our European allies have consistently
allowed their military capacities to whither, while they ink
agreements that make Europe dependent on Russia for its energy
supplies. NATO nonetheless persisted as an “alliance” propped up
entirely by U.S. military power (and massive U.S. defense
expenditures), and by the alleged strength of U.S. resolve to defend
our allies against any threat.
President Obama's
ignominious retreat when the government of Syria crossed his “red
line” on the use of chemical weapons, however, exposed the
threadbare nature of U.S. resolve, as did Obama's retreat from Iraq.
Not surprisingly, Russia has increasingly viewed NATO as a paper
tiger. Putin's aggression in Ukraine (as well as his interference in
U.S. elections) was an expression of his contempt for NATO, and for
the West in general.
Truthfully,
though, NATO had always, since its inception in 1949, been hamstrung
by a fatal flaw: many doubted that the United States, if pushed to
the wall, would ever sacrifice the blood of its precious soldiers to
defend tiny nations in Europe from attack. Luckily, the Soviets never
tested our sincerity during the Cold War. Neither has Putin in recent
years, despite the palpable weakness of America's strategic posture
in the Obama years.
And then along
came President Donald Trump.
Trump
unceremoniously lambasted the governments of a long list of NATO
member states for entrusting their security to an alliance to which
they contribute virtually nothing. He demanded that NATO members take
seriously their stated commitment to spend two percent of their
respective GDPs on defense. He declared his support for the alliance,
but he asked our NATO partners to get serious about sharing the
burdens of maintaining international peace and security.
The international
press and the diplomatic elite naturally expressed outrage. NATO
leaders simply don't speak to one another in these frank terms!
Surely, they declared, Trump's criticism of other NATO countries
would be interpreted by Russia and other potential adversaries as a
signal of dissension and irresolution. These enemies would be
emboldened, and the world would be increasingly unstable and unsafe.
The
truth, however, is that, although the leaders of other NATO countries
were clearly irritated by Trump's straight talk, they responded to
his criticism precisely as he would have wished: by upping their
military expenditures. The logic and justice of Trump's argument,
that NATO is a reciprocal
alliance binding all
member states to
contribute to the
common defense, could not but bring shame on the heads of European
leaders who, under the unimaginative, internationalist leadership of
President Obama, had grown used to taking advantage of American
strategic lethargy. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
recently announced, the fruits of Europe's Trump-induced shame are no
less than an extra $100 billion in defense spending. That's a pretty
impressive achievement for a blundering hothead, no?
The strength of
an alliance, of course, cannot be measured purely in dollar terms.
What is more significant about NATO in the Age of Trump is this: no
longer is the organization a unilateral expression of America's
commitment to defend Europe from whatever may happen to threaten it.
Increasingly, under Trump, NATO is taking shape as a multilateral
alliance designed to achieve collective security through the sharing
of burdens and the coordination of vast, polyglot military forces. To
put it another way, NATO will no longer serve as a mere propaganda
arm of the Pentagon – it will become again what it was during its
glory days in the midst of the Cold War: a vigorous coalition of
great powers dedicated to deterring aggression and keeping the peace.
Put yourself in
Russia's shoes. Which NATO would you prefer to pick a fight with: a
polite, self-satisfied, ossified organization totally reliant on
American military power, with the proviso that such power will be
sparingly used by timid and casualty-averse U.S. leaders...or a
dynamic military and diplomatic partnership backed by the robust
armed forces of dozens of powerful states, eminently capable of
defending themselves with or without the assistance of the United
States? The question answers itself.
The next time the
media informs you that President Trump is “undermining” NATO and
the international order, therefore, enjoy a good laugh at their
expense.
NATO
was dying on the vine under the languid leadership of Barack Obama
and his European cronies. Donald Trump, by contrast, has breathed new
life and purpose into the organization, giving it a chance at
relevancy in the 21st
century.
We are safer now,
without a doubt, than we were when President Trump took office.
In other news, please spare a moment to take pity on poor Tom Brokaw, who is a solid liberal, but not quite PC enough for this intolerant day and age. He dared to attempt some constructive criticism of American Hispanics, some of whom are indeed closed off in a "multicultural" ghetto, and who liberals encourage to spurn assimilation. Brokaw had a point, and as usual the Left doesn't want to hear it.
