Losing the Plot on Alliances

President Trump is furious at America’s NATO allies for their refusal to support the US strikes on Iran, for their refusal to force open the Strait of Hormuz when the US will not, and for their criticisms of the US war effort. Germany’s Chancellor, Frederick Mertz, came in for particular condemnation for describing the war as a humiliation for the US. Not only did President Trump lash out repeatedly in response, criticizing both the Chancellor and Germany’s record as an ally, but the Pentagon quickly announced it was pulling 5,000 troops out of Germany and threatened many more to come. Italy, Spain, and Britain have likewise come in for criticism, and the President is openly considering withdrawing the US from the alliance. Poland’s President worries “the greatest threat to the transatlantic community are not its external enemies, but the ongoing disintegration of our alliance.” And he is right to worry.  It is becoming commonplace in the US to believe that the NATO alliance is not worth the effort. The Trump administration no longer sends the defense secretary to NATO meetings, downgrading participation and insulting allies by demanding NATO reform to “partnership rather than dependency.” Former Trump official Keith Kellogg advised the President to create a “tiered relationship” based on countries’ value to the US. I recently heard even a Biden administration defense official say that NATO in recent decades had become dysfunctional. These are not only calumnies aimed at America’s closest friends, but they also demonstrate a fundamental failure to recognize that there are not better allies to trade our current ones in for. We take for granted at our peril the cooperation our own military depends on, and it will be very, very hard to regenerate once we lose it. The President is being forced to realize, to his fulminating frustration, that American military operations rely on allied cooperation. What he has not yet registered is that without bases in Europe, US power projection becomes much more difficult and costly. Troops stationed overseas are not a gift to allied countries; they are enablers of America’s global military power. Getting an armored division to the Middle East is much harder and takes much longer without the ports in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands. Sortieing fighter strikes in the middle east fly much longer routes without basing in Spain and Italy and Greece, and Turkey; carrier-based air need overflight rights to get inland. Wounded soldiers are much likelier to die if not evacuated during the ‘golden hour’ to treatment at the world-class medical facilities in Germany. US forces are less ready to fight, either alone or in concert with allied forces, without training at enormous training bases in Germany. US training in Germany is so pervasive and imposes such burdens and risks on civilians in that densely populated country that there used to be a bitter joke among US Air Force pilots that the cheapest way to acquire an F-16 was to buy an acre of farm land in Germany, because so many of those fly-by-wire fighters crashed during training. While NATO allies are the current focus of the President’s ire, they are not the only partners balking at US demands: Saudi Arabia forced cessation after 48 hours of “Project Freedom” to escort commercial ships out of the Persian Gulf by denying US forces use of bases in Saudi Arabia or overflight of its territory. Iranian attacks on Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have reminded those countries, and many others, that hosting US military facilities brings significant risks—and the Trump administration not only failed to fully protect those countries, or even consult them on the policies and plans, it failed even to protect its own bases. Mackenzie Eaglen calculates the cost of damage to US bases in the region at $5 billion, and concludes many will not remain available.  Once you lose a base or training facility, you seldom get it back. Although the President and his administration don’t understand the value to the US of allied cooperation, experienced and influential members of Congress do. The National Defense Authorization Act —that is, the law—requires extensive review by the military commander in Europe, interagency coordination and allied consultation, affirmation by the Secretary of Defense that any troop reductions serve American national security, a 60-day waiting period, and notification of Congress and specifically authorized funding to enact any reductions, none of which have yet occurred. The chairs of the Armed Services committees in the Senate and House of Representatives issued a statement in response, warning “any significant change to US force posture in Europe warrants a deliberate review process and close coordination with Congress and our allies.” They understand that without access to allied territory and support, the US will not be able to sustain global power. The post Losing the Plot on Alliances appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI .