<What follows is directed at the points made in the article, not at my Salty friend>
Ok then, let's talk policy.
There is indeed a "commitment" issue when it comes to NATO, but it's on the part of the Europeans, not the Americans. America is (quite rightly, in my opinion) tired of Europe freeriding on the the US-funded NATO gravy train. NATO member countries are supposed to contribute 2% of their GDP to defense. Almost none of them (2/28, I think?) do. Many of Europe's ground forces, considered in whole, are inexperienced, "overstretched," poorly funded, and ill-equipped. They are not pulling their own weight. They are not ready. NATO overlies on American military and economic power. America is tired of it and wants NATO to step up their game. I think that's a pretty reasonable policy.
And as much as people would like it to be, this problem did not start with, nor is it confined to, the Trump administration, nor is it limited to European financial contribution to their own defense. It has been a problem for a long, long time. The US has other grievances as well: they were pretty pissed about NATO's contributions (or lack thereof) during the GWOT. And let's not forget the fact that NATO member Turkey wouldn't even let the US cross their territory into Iraq.
I'm not blaming any other country for doing what they think was right for their nation. I'm just pointing out some reasons why current policy is the way it is. Nor am I claiming that the US underwrites NATO economically and militarily out of blind altruism. It's very good for us as well. But it could be--it needs to be--better.
When it comes to the US commitment to the alliance, the sitting Vice President of the United States declared, in Germany, mere weeks ago, that the US commitment to NATO is "unwavering." But he also stipulated that the Europeans need to do their parts. I think that's totally reasonable. But hey, some people in Europe cooked up some half-assed, utterly unobtainable policy that ignores very basic issues of sovereignty and political realism so let's run with that as an indicator of future US foreign policy!
The EU can't even get people to agree on a common monetary policy, and they're going to have one, combined military command? Under the French? With nukes? This article is ridiculous fear-mongering. A French-led "eurodeterrent?" Without the United States?Against whom, the Italians? Because they're sure not going to deter the Russians.
Those aren't French tanks in Poland (well, I mean there were, but they left. In 2015. After two months). Those aren't German troops taking the lead in Ukraine. The Baltic states aren't begging for the Brits. America is committed to NATO, and I think it's only reasonable to expect the other member nations to AT LEAST meet their agreed-to obligations.
How well did a US-less "deterrent" work out for Europe in the last two World Wars? That idea briefs well, but even if they COULD pull it off politically they can't afford it. The United States of America, the world's best economy, contributes 3.5% of their GDP to defense. The countries of European Union only spend 1.5%. Only five of the 28 NATO countries are contributing their targeted share of GDP to their own defense... and guess what? Germany and France aren't in that number.
No European military, individually or en masse, has the logistical, economic, intelligence, or experiential "ass" to pull something like this off. If it's anything between managing low-level conflict against third-rate non-state actors, or all-out nuclear war, the armies of Europe are ill-suited to handle it without the United States. And they know it.
France is always trying to start shit about NATO. In fact, they quit NATO's military command structure once before. And then, in 2009, they came back. Why? Because it's one of the best deals going. Even the Germans, who have the best economy in Europe and probably one of the best armies, recognize they need the US. They're not going to jump in bed with the French, not over something as important as national security. Not at the expense of their relationship with the US.
But hey, if they don't want to, they always have the French...
Hard agree with this post. Just like it is not correct to blame Trump for the EU getting ready to start requiring visas for US travelers. That is a result of the expiration of a two-year grace period that the EU had extended to countries that still required visas for certain travelers hailing from member states (In our case, Poland, Romania, and Croatia). Australia complied within the two years, we did not. Blaming Trump would be incorrect this time.
:-"
