@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Trump has publicly proclaimed that if elected he is going to implement Vladimir Putin's foreign policy for America and withdraw from NATO.
You keep making this argument.
Who knew you were such a dedicated Cold Warrior?
Why do I have the feeling that if Trump had proclaimed Russia was the greatest threat to US security and had to be confronted, you would a) Mock him as you mocked Romney for saying the same thing and regurgitate the Obama rhetoric about how Russia is a basket-case nation barely kept from economic ruin because of over exploited energy resources or b) Warning us that Trump is an aggressive lunatic who is going to start a war with Russia?
Do you have a cite for the Trump proclamation to which you refer?
I know he has questioned whether the US should continue to be a part of NATO and denounced the fact that we have done virtually nothing about the European freeloaders who won't even live up to their modest defense spending pledges, but announced that if President, he will withdraw the US from NATO? I missed that one.
It's interesting, as well, that you seem to subscribe to a sort of Eastern European Domino Theory. This could be entirely unfair, but, again, why do I have a strong feeling that you, more than once, discredited the Domino Theory that led to our entanglement in Southeast Asia (Remember, that theory was based on Russian Bad Guys too)?
So, if the US withdraws from NATO, how long will it be before the Russian Military Machine rolls over Eastern Europe and into the Western region? Presumably, nations like Poland and the Czech Republic will fold like tents and the rest of Europe will sit on their hands? (Not to mention that the Chinese will sit back idly and watch their position as the #2 power in the world be usurped)
If that's the case,
and I don't for a minute believe it is, why should American men and women lose their lives to preserve liberty for Europeans, when the Europeans are, themselves,unwilling to fight for it? Why should the US bear the cost in lives and treasure to preserve the current Eastern European standard of living for people who would rather return to the days of long lines and shortages than engage in armed conflict with the Russia Bear?
You are, essentially, making the argument that the US
is NATO and that without the US as a member, NATO and the ability and will of Europeans to resist a Russian invasion will disappear.
Does it seem right to you that the value of NATO should so entirely hinge upon the membership of the US? That the nations directly benefiting from the security provided by NATO should be minor players (responsible for roughly only 25% of the cost) in the maintenance of the alliance and it's capacity to resist the enemies of Europe?
It's not as if these nations are a collection of pauper-states, new to Democracy but legitimately incapable of contributing to their own defense. (Such nations seldom, if ever, are seen as worth allies). The collective European economy is a giant, and many of the citizens of NATO countries live fairly comfortable lives thanks to the generous social programs you and your fellow progressives would love to see replicated in America, because their governments aren't forced to spend the sort of money on defense that would be necessary if the US wasn't footing the bill.
Obviously the US benefits from a free Europe and by protecting Europe we protect our own interests, but you sound like a neo-con, insisting that the US must,
in it's role as the #1 Good Guy in the battle against the Bad Guys, protect the liberties and economic prosperity of Europeans.
I'm not an isolationist and I think leaving NATO would be a big mistake, but I don't think Trump has ever declared that as President he would order such a move. (I'm not even sure the President has the power to unilaterally dissolve a signed treaty).
On this issue though, I think Trump is close to being right, although, as usual, his rhetoric about it has been ham-fisted. European nations that are entirely capable of not only paying their agreed to share of the cost of being a NATO member, but of paying a greater and more fair share (based on who are the primary beneficiaries) shouldn't continue to assume that the US needs NATO more than they do, and should be coerced, as necessary, into ponying up, since
polite requests are consistently ignored.
As of this time last year, only 5 of the 28 members were meeting their defense spending goals: the US, the UK, Poland, Estonia and, surprisingly, Greece. Six nations had plans to increase their spending and six planned on
decreasing it: France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria and Albania
Now, Bulgaria and Albania may not have rebounded from the centrally controlled economies of the Soviet days as well as some of their neighbors and may be close to being "pauper nations," but the other four countries have no such excuse.
Regardless it's a matter of priorities and cause & effect: National security should be every nation's #1 priority because without it there is nothing else, but, clearly, there have been no meaningful consequences for failure to meet spending commitments, and nations like France, Germany, Belgium and Italy have taken advantage of this fact, all the while not making corresponding cuts in their domestic spending.
It's fine for a nation to prize plowshares over swords and if they want to gamble their future freedom of greater comforts now, that's their business. I would even go so far to say that from a realpolitik basis, they are the "smart" ones. Why should they pay more when they know Uncle Sam will be there (yet again) to pull their assess out of the fire if need be?
Is honor an outdated value? Clearly, in this arena, the Brits have always displayed it. Not only have they exceeded the required spending, they are always among the first NATO members to join the fray when called upon and always in a way that goes far beyond the sort of symbolic contributions of sending 15 soldiers to guard medical facilities hundreds of miles from the front lines. This hasn't been well received by all Brits, but it should be by all Americans.
Generally speaking, the members for who the memory of an absence of freedom is most fresh are the most committed. This isn't surprising, but the fear and threat of Soviet nukes isn't all that old and WWII is less than 100 years old. There are still people alive in Europe who experienced it.
In order for this imbalance to change and the
freeloaders brought to heel, there has to be some change in the US position. Frankly, if the prospect of a Trump presidency has made European leaders sit up and take notice of the possibility that they could be left holding their entire defense bag, Trump's done a good thing.
Successful deals often involve some degree of brinkmanship, but the other guy has to believe you mean business when you say you will walk away. If he or she knows you'll never walk-away, you've lost all leverage, except the insignificant bits and pieces that come from providing fringe benefits like who gets to sit where at NATO meetings.
If Trump becomes president and, as he has repeatedly promised, begins to rework US deals (such as NATO) he can't be seen as or revealed to be little more than a bluffer. Presumably he's a shark in the waters of deal-making but so too are the people with whom he will be dealing. Whenever you want something more than the other guy does you are at a disadvantage. There's nothing, at all, wrong with helping the Europeans to think that with Trump in the White House, perhaps the US will no longer care more about NATO than they do.
We've been dealing with Europe on this issue like the ineffective parents of a selfish child who has Mom & Dad's number. All the threats, pleading and cajoling are a complete waste of time if the kids knows the parents are all bluff and will never make good on the consequences they promise.
And finally...words are different than deeds, particularly when the words are distorted to make a favored point.
