I find that Stephen Kinzer’s op-ed in the Boston Globe captures my views of NATO pretty succinctly:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 as a way for American troops to protect a war-shattered Europe from Stalin’s Soviet Union. Today Europe is quite capable of shaping and paying for its own security, but NATO’s structure remains unchanged. The United States still pays nearly three-quarters of its budget. That no longer makes sense. The United States should remain politically close to European countries but stop telling them how to defend themselves. Left to their own devices, they might pull back from the snarling confrontation with Russia into which NATO is leading them.
Russia threatens none of America’s vital interests. On the contrary, it shares our eagerness to fight global terror, control nuclear threats, and confront other urgent challenges to global security. Depending on one’s perspective, Russia may be seen as a destabilizing force in Europe or as simply defending its border regions. Either way, it is a challenge for Europeans, not for us.
Furthermore, managing whatever challenge Russia poses to the Europeans is completely within their capabilities.
As it stands NATO performs three functions:
- It provides a method for European countries to spend less than 2% of GDP on their own defense, transferring the burden to the U. S.
- It provides a venue other than the United Nations Security Council in which the United States can seek approval for making aggressive war.
- It provides jobs for a relative handful of bureaucrats, generals, and scholars.
I don’t think that any of those functions advances our national interests.
4. It prevents the Europeans from having a military force independent of American influence.
That Europe should bear its own expenses seems obvious. And it’s not like politicians have a propensity to pick up others bar tabs when they could use the funds for buying votes. So who is the constituency for NATO, or are there real reasons for the current arrangement? More than appeasement of a few generals and academics, which seems superficial and insufficient. I’m thinking along the lines of lack of a unified response to issues. Eg the every man for himself attitude towards Muslim integration.
PD:
Another objective that I don’t believe furthers American interests. I know that the notion that we should be the ONLY power is widespread among the defense community but I don’t share that view.
It also functions as a forum for the Cold Warriors. They really, really don’t want to let it go.
Steve