Donald Trump excites some folks over NATO
Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images
This is the first of several articles to set the record
straight or at least give it some substance. All political candidates
are prone to work in hyperbole, with Donald Trump being a master of it. In recent stump speeches he has suggested that NATO
has passed its time or at least the US should not pay the lion’s share
of its maintenance. This article will seek to place those two arguments
in context.
NATO was formed at the beginning of the cold war to provide a deterrent collective defense coalition against the rising tides of Soviet aggression and threats. It was at a year or so earlier in March of 1946 at Westminster College in Fulton, MO that Winston Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech. It marked the beginning of the efforts to form NATO, which resulted in the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty that formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The essence of the treaty is that an attack on one state is considered an attack on all—the essence of collective defense. The critical element of that defense is the linkage between the alliances’ conventional military capability and the US strategic forces. It was said that that extending the US nuclear umbrella over the NATO nations was critical to deterring the Soviet Union and it huge post World War II force from attacking Western Europe.
Two questions are related to the reason for forming NATO:
1. Is there still a conventional threat from the East?
2. Is there still a need for the US nuclear umbrella?
The answer to both of these questions seems to be yes. Recent Russian moves against the Ukraine and activities in the Caucasus have given the West pause. The recent Russian announced modernization of its nuclear forces and threats against the Baltic States and Poland strongly suggest the continued need for the nuclear deterrent. For a deterrent to work it needs to credible and this is an area where Trump’s remarks about not taking the nuclear option off of the table becomes relevant. The weak US response to the two recent episodes of Russian harassment against American warships and aircraft show that Russia may currently see the US as an empty rag doll. As noted in a recent article the US and NATO have seen a need to reinforce the central front as a conventional deterrent to Russia. Therefore the threat remains and the nuclear deterrent is needed.
It should be added that by providing a nuclear deterrent the US has prevented all NATO states besides France and the UK from acquiring nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation has always been an important US policy goal.
Burden sharing as it is called in NATO parlance is the attempt to get all of the member states to bear their share of the load for the collective defense. My first contact with burden sharing was in 19795 when I joined the Army Staff as a NATO Arms Control Staff Officer. At that time the US was trying to do more for the common defense by promising to reinforce Germany more quickly. “Blowtorch” Bob Komer as the special assistant to the Secretary of Defense for enhancing NATO readiness as part of the Carter Administration’s efforts to bolster NATO stressed increased US ability to reinforce Europe and the expansion of POMCUS, as we have explained it before. In response many administrations have tried many ploys to get the NATO states to do more “burden sharing.” For many years the Germans paid a significant part of the cost for the housing and care of American troops in Germany. These offset programs usually came in the form of services provided—not cash to the US treasury. NATO also set defense expenditure goals for each member state and then tried to embarrass those that did not measure up. Such efforts continue to this day. The other NATO effort to share the expense actually works against the US. Every major NATO procurement is a cost sharing exercise. Each country must pay a portion of the cost of the procurement; however it is expected to receive in return economic expenditure on some portion of the project equal to the amount that it contributed. For example, the NATO AWACS program had each of the 15 nations receiving some kind of support contracts equal to its share of the cost of the program.
So as we look at candidate Trump’s remarks against the backdrop of collective security and nuclear deterrence there is no doubt that he wishes to enhance nuclear deterrence of Russia and there is no doubt that he want the NATO states to do more—just like every President before him. If the threat of dissolving NATO helps accomplish that goal then it may be worth the effort.
NATO was formed at the beginning of the cold war to provide a deterrent collective defense coalition against the rising tides of Soviet aggression and threats. It was at a year or so earlier in March of 1946 at Westminster College in Fulton, MO that Winston Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech. It marked the beginning of the efforts to form NATO, which resulted in the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty that formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The essence of the treaty is that an attack on one state is considered an attack on all—the essence of collective defense. The critical element of that defense is the linkage between the alliances’ conventional military capability and the US strategic forces. It was said that that extending the US nuclear umbrella over the NATO nations was critical to deterring the Soviet Union and it huge post World War II force from attacking Western Europe.
Two questions are related to the reason for forming NATO:
1. Is there still a conventional threat from the East?
2. Is there still a need for the US nuclear umbrella?
The answer to both of these questions seems to be yes. Recent Russian moves against the Ukraine and activities in the Caucasus have given the West pause. The recent Russian announced modernization of its nuclear forces and threats against the Baltic States and Poland strongly suggest the continued need for the nuclear deterrent. For a deterrent to work it needs to credible and this is an area where Trump’s remarks about not taking the nuclear option off of the table becomes relevant. The weak US response to the two recent episodes of Russian harassment against American warships and aircraft show that Russia may currently see the US as an empty rag doll. As noted in a recent article the US and NATO have seen a need to reinforce the central front as a conventional deterrent to Russia. Therefore the threat remains and the nuclear deterrent is needed.
It should be added that by providing a nuclear deterrent the US has prevented all NATO states besides France and the UK from acquiring nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation has always been an important US policy goal.
Burden sharing as it is called in NATO parlance is the attempt to get all of the member states to bear their share of the load for the collective defense. My first contact with burden sharing was in 19795 when I joined the Army Staff as a NATO Arms Control Staff Officer. At that time the US was trying to do more for the common defense by promising to reinforce Germany more quickly. “Blowtorch” Bob Komer as the special assistant to the Secretary of Defense for enhancing NATO readiness as part of the Carter Administration’s efforts to bolster NATO stressed increased US ability to reinforce Europe and the expansion of POMCUS, as we have explained it before. In response many administrations have tried many ploys to get the NATO states to do more “burden sharing.” For many years the Germans paid a significant part of the cost for the housing and care of American troops in Germany. These offset programs usually came in the form of services provided—not cash to the US treasury. NATO also set defense expenditure goals for each member state and then tried to embarrass those that did not measure up. Such efforts continue to this day. The other NATO effort to share the expense actually works against the US. Every major NATO procurement is a cost sharing exercise. Each country must pay a portion of the cost of the procurement; however it is expected to receive in return economic expenditure on some portion of the project equal to the amount that it contributed. For example, the NATO AWACS program had each of the 15 nations receiving some kind of support contracts equal to its share of the cost of the program.
So as we look at candidate Trump’s remarks against the backdrop of collective security and nuclear deterrence there is no doubt that he wishes to enhance nuclear deterrence of Russia and there is no doubt that he want the NATO states to do more—just like every President before him. If the threat of dissolving NATO helps accomplish that goal then it may be worth the effort.
Post a Comment