By Mike Gallagher & Colin Dueck
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
How important is NATO for U.S. national security?
American conservatives have long debated this question.
In early 1951, General Dwight Eisenhower met with Senator
Robert Taft (R., Ohio), his rival for the Republican presidential nomination.
Eisenhower offered Taft a simple deal: If the senator, who had voted against
the formation of NATO two years earlier, would commit to supporting the Western
alliance, Ike would end his candidacy and Taft would have a clear shot at the
White House. Taft declined his offer. Eisenhower eventually resolved to win the
election and, in so doing, he preserved America’s burgeoning alliance system in
Europe. As he told Congress that February, “in a world in which the power of
military might is still too much respected, we are going to build for ourselves
a secure wall of peace, of security.”
Eisenhower went on to preside over eight years of
relative peace and prosperity, in part through a sensible commitment to
international policies of peace through strength. Ike’s commitment to U.S.
alliances and collective defense was part of this package, and it became a
baseline for successful Republican foreign-policy presidencies after his, including
Ronald Reagan’s.
Today, we again see questions of whether and why
conservatives should support NATO, this time from the perspective that the
Soviet Union collapsed long ago.
President Trump has emphasized the need for America’s
European allies to spend more on their own defenses and to wean themselves off
Russian natural gas. He is right to do so, and recent NATO commitments to
increase defense spending by $100 billion suggest that such criticism may be
having a positive effect. Over the years, Trump has also more than once raised
the question of whether NATO is still an asset or has become a liability
instead. For American citizens to ask this question is not outrageous. The
question deserves an answer.
The conservative case for NATO is not that it strengthens
liberal world order. Rather, the conservative case for NATO is that it bolsters
American national interests. In an age of great-power competition, as
identified by the Trump administration, America’s Western alliance provides the
U.S. with some dramatic comparative advantages. The United States, Canada, and
their European allies have a number of common interests and common challenges
with regard to Beijing, Moscow, terrorism, cyberattacks, migration, nuclear
weapons, and military readiness. NATO is the one formal alliance that allows
for cooperation on these matters. It is also the only alliance that embodies
America’s civilizational ties with Europe — a point forcefully made by
President Trump when he visited Poland in 2017. Properly understood, NATO helps
keeps America’s strategic competitors at bay, pushing back on Russian and
Chinese influence. In all of these ways, the U.S. alliance system in Europe is
a bit like oxygen. You may take it for granted, but you’ll miss it when it’s
gone.
Now consider the alternative. American withdrawal from
NATO would be a grave error. Not only would it surrender the above advantages
and undo existing progress in Europe. It would also have negative long-term
implications globally pertaining to America’s foremost long-term strategic
challenge: namely, the People’s Republic of China. As Beijing extends its
influence worldwide, U.S. disengagement from NATO would send the signal that
the United States is an unreliable friend. America’s allies and partners in the
Indo-Pacific would have to rethink the integrated security architecture we have
painstakingly built since Eisenhower’s day. This is not to mention the obvious
and immediate tactical and operational military advantages that would accrue to
Russia in Europe, shifting the balance of power against the United States.
The irony is that the Trump administration actually has a
success story to tell about its policies toward NATO and Russia, particularly
in Europe. Under this administration, the U.S. has provided lethal aid to
Ukraine to fight off Russian-backed insurgents. It has made no concessions to
Moscow regarding that conflict. It has increased sanctions against Russia and
boosted America’s military presence in Eastern Europe. It has increased funding
to the European Defense Initiative, bolstered U.S. defense spending, held
Russia accountable for its breach of the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty) Treaty, and explored the place of low-yield nuclear weapons as a
necessary component of the American arsenal to deter Russian aggression. At the
same time, the president’s calls for increased European defense spending have
had some useful effects. Virtually all NATO allies have increased their levels
of defense spending over the past two years. As president, Mr. Trump has
regularly reiterated his support for NATO. The concomitant emphasis on allied
burden-sharing is not unreasonable, as Eisenhower regularly insisted.
In keeping with its treaty powers under the U.S.
Constitution, Congress should not be passive on this issue. Last week, a
bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill to express continuing
congressional support for the NATO alliance. The bill passed by a vote of 357
to 22 in the House of Representatives. The Senate is working on similar legislation.
Public-opinion polls taken over the last three years show
that a solid majority of Trump supporters, conservatives, Republicans, and
Americans continue to back the NATO alliance. Conservative voters in heartland
states such as Wisconsin certainly expect Europeans to do their fair share in
defending themselves. But they do not oppose NATO. On the contrary, they
support it.
An overarching support for America’s Western alliance has
been a key component in the conservative foreign-policy approach since
Eisenhower’s time. It remains relevant to this day. As conservative Republicans
and other Americans consider the costs and benefits of the U.S. alliance
system, recall Ike’s wise recommendation: “Now boys, let’s not make our mistakes
in a hurry.”
