NATO to the rescue?

a couple of thoughts on the future. (CORRECTED CORRECTED)

The brutal temperatures are ushering even more humidity into Annapolis today. It was a beautiful sunrise but the summer yuck, a technical term, is now over the Chesapeake. Allegedly we will receive showers tomorrow afternoon, then a long day of sustained rain Friday but I will believe it when I see it.

The NATO visitors to the D.C. area this week surely will feel the heat, metaphorically and physically. I have been in and out of the area since 1970 but summer rarely manages to be anything other than uncomfortable. For someone from Oslo, Tallinn, or even London (this summer, at least), it will be downright ugly. If the electricity grid stays up, their discomfort will manifest primarily because of discussions inside the meeting venue while the heat blanket hits them head on as they dash out to motorcades bound to exacerbate unmanageable traffic.

Much is up in the air for the Alliance, of course. Commentator Marc Thiessen opined today that a second Trump administration could make the Alliance into a far better one primarily by enshrining spending in the Charter. This action would require members to spend an additional 1% of their gross domestic product on defense.

Today, all but eight members spend the obligatory 2% on defense. The United States spends roughly 3.5% in the most recent figures I could find for FY 2022. For the world’s biggest economy, that is big bucks but how about for the others we welcome into this mutual defense agreement? Those not meeting the mark, according to Alliance figures, include Croatia, Spain, Canada, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, Belgium (where the Supreme Allied Commander is located, by the way) and Italy.

Increasing spending commitments sounds so simple but most ‘simple’ things confront considerable opposition in any nation’s public policy as we ought recall. Most European states hold social commitments as at least as high a priority as they do security. Many of the nations struggle with budget expenditures, deficits, and national priorities far more visibly than we do. Under the threat of Russia’s rewriting history against Ukraine, several states, though not all, now reach the mandatory 2% spending which is a marked improvement over the past two and a half years. Looking at current expenditures, only Poland (with the highest spending), Estonia, the United States, Lithuania, and Greece would make the target at that level.

I view two considerably different problems in considering the Alliance. NATO has become the catch all for U.S. multilateral relations with Europe but that was not the intention of the organization. We are not party to the EU so we are not in that club. We definitely are central to NATO because one of our four stars is Supreme Allied Commander. That gives us greater sway and we do pay more into the NATO kitty than anyone else.

That is neither accidental nor inconsequential. But it skews our conversations towards defense as the central instrument of statecraft as if that were the answer to everything (this is even more exaggerated in relations with Asia). This condition also super empowers the United States because we are so crucial to the organization. That seems logical but often Americans kids themselves that we do that out of naïvete or goodness in our pure hearts. We do it because we believe it serves our national interests. If we put up the bucks, we get the biggest voice which is not always a welcome reality for the rest of the world. Why can’t we recognize that about our actions?

The second issue is that all evidence indicates former president Trump seeks to—although he would face some legal hurdles—withdraw from NATO because he doesn’t want foreign entanglements. Perhaps he believes in dividing the world into the United States and everyone else, allowing a Hobbesian environment. Perhaps he truly believes and values Vlad the Impaler’s vision over the seventy-five year consensus at home and abroad.Perhaps he just doesn’t like Europe, regretting that we have a toehold through this organization. There may well be other reasons, some good, some bad, and some inexplicable but I genuinely don’t see evidence he intends to remain in the Alliance, much less make NATO great again. I am happy to be shown evidence to the contrary but I just don’t see it.

As Europe struggles with its own future, a new generation of NATO leaders will also consider their commitments to the Alliance and its future. How will Turkey and Hungary fit in if they become even less democratic or, especially in Orban’s case, closer to Vlad the Impaler? With European birth rates declining steadily, how will the Alliance provide troops for its actions? Will European capitals advocate turning to NATO as a bulwark against immigration as a security threat comparable to Vlad the Impaler? These are three quick questions I see possibly arising from the domestic politics of member states. I am sure there are many others that will crop up.

President Biden will attempt to leverage his appearances at the 75th anniversary celebration to buttress his own position as a candidate for reelection. I hope, instead, he uses this as a valedictory for a wonderful career largely focused on foreign affairs before withdrawing from the presidential campaign. I believe he should not run again because I cannot see him leading through a second four years. Concerns about lapses for anyone and everyone in the ninth decade of life are serious, appropriate and necessary. Allies and our own public deserve reliable and coherent responses to their valid questions rather than anything reinforcing repeated doubts or unpredictable bad days. Sure, everyone has a rare bad day but the President of the United States isn’t just anyone. The 24/7/364 strains of the presidency are unavoidably real.

Former president Trump also must depart the race as he shows himself no more as any able to serve in the job, based on similar ‘mental acuity’ evidence and age. He is, as I noted in a column last week, 78, a mere three years younger that Biden. Trump is no more fit to serve for in a second four year term. Trump has always had trouble with facts and coherent arguments but the idea that a second term would be any less dangerous based on age is no more compelling for him than for Biden.

Both men need to withdraw from the race to enjoy their remaining years. The average life expectancy for men in the United States is 78 so each has spent a whole life in his field. Leave NATO, foreign policy, and choices on defense expenditures to the next generation for all of our sakes. Particularly in the paralyzing environment masquerading as a functioning national capital of Washington, D.C, neither of these candidates provides confidence in the ability to navigate these tough problems as Commander-in-Chief as required to finish a four year term for which we will vote in four months. Americans and our friends overseas recall seeing Winston Churchill clearly past his prime before his 1965 death or the spectacle of Dianne Feinstein spending her final months in the Senate as a hollow figure from the woman who arrived with such sharp analytical tools in the 1980s. Sadly, several other male Senators have not taken heed of her pathetic example. We certainly don’t need to pretend we lean on geriatic leaders as the Soviet Union or China have done, do we?

Let’s stop being partisan on either side as we create specious arguments for either of these men, both clearly struggling with their words, to carry out a campaign because neither party has a new generation able to bring the message or the Alliance forward.

There, I state my position as someone asked me to do this morning. The countless Oval Office issues, much less foreign policy alone, are too pressing and stressing to assure he can govern and lead for anyone at this stage in life .

NATO deserves someone who can commit the mental agility and acuity to being the primary but not singular voice to rally members. Big decisions are on the horizon. Let’s let the Alliance celebrate this week, then open the discussion for the new generation of leaders here and across the pond ready to take on these tough tasks. The work only gets harder, it seems, so sustainable energy, razor sharp analysis, and clear articulation are vital for all of us.

We need someone who can speak and govern for all of us. It must be a new candidate from the ones we have before us today.

Rebuttals? Questions? Comments? I welcome any and all of them to this or any other column so please chime in. If you find this of value, please circulate it. Thank you for all who subscribe as your financial support motivates me daily as does love for this country.

Be safe and be well. FIN

‘Military Expenditures’ (% of GDP)—United States, worldbank.org, retrieved at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US

Marc Thiessen, ‘How Trump Can Make NATO Great Again’, washingtonpost.com, 9 July 2024, retrieved at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/08/trump-nato-alliance-defense-spending/