Why Trump and Tillerson will view NATO as asset, not liability

President Donald Trump’s anti-NATO campaign rhetoric was just one incendiary topic raised during an election season in which even allies of nearly 70 years were not safe. At one point, Trump called the NATO “obsolete” and repeatedly complained that other member-states were lagging in their rightful financial contributions — all of which provoked anxiety domestically and around the world.

But Rome is not burning yet, and neither is NATO headquarters.

In fact, Trump’s controversial leadership style is not really as revolutionary as many fear. There are American precedents. The Trump approach combines a formal/CEO decision-making style that we saw with Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, with the aggressive promotion of advantageous trade dealings advanced by President Taft, a fellow Republican.

Trump’s personnel selections fit this model, intended to project to the world the image of the United States as a strong power. The proposed Cabinet is top-heavy with business and military leaders. The backgrounds of these professionals are powerful indications of a business-first diplomatic and trade approach, tightly interlaced with security and anti-terrorism considerations.

{mosads}It is a well-versed team that, with the support of career personnel, will convey to Trump the importance of NATO as a vital security asset.

NATO is the longest alliance in history, created by the U.S. in 1949 as a cornerstone of America’s and Europe’s intertwined trans-Atlantic defenses. All 28 member-states provide post-Cold War stability by foregoing past hostilities for common cooperation. Thirty-plus international partners are assuring arms control and international peacekeeping on behalf of the U.S. and the United Nations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya.

Some personal-political introductions have already been made. Trump had a cordial phone conversation with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in mid-December. Through such communications, and through the work of his national security team, Trump should soon recognize that although America traditionally has been the largest contributor to NATO’s defenses and budgets, the U.S. has also greatly benefitted.

To note:

• America and all other 27 allied member-states benefit equally from NATO’s Article 5 guarantee of alliance defense against attacks on any of its members. It was first applied in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. by al Qaeda.

• America still relies on NATO troop strength. Over the last 25 years, both the U.S. and its NATO allies have sharply reduced their combat forces from their Cold War peak. Today, U.S. forces committed in Europe under NATO and the U.S. European Command have declined from 350,000 to just 60,000.

• The use of NATO bases over time in Germany, and to a lesser degree in Great Britain, Italy and other ally nations, has offset some of the U.S. costs and commitments.

• NATO provides the international structure for current and future anti-terrorism, intelligence-sharing and cybersecurity policies against any future Russian and Chinese cyber-espionage and leaks.

• NATO provides air and intelligence support for the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Secretary of State-nominee Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense-nominee James Mattis both have international experience and mature views on world issues. To the extent that Tillerson and Mattis can forge a cooperative decision-making loop with National Security Adviser-designate Michael Flynn, they can help redress Trump’s initially uninformed views on NATO.

In the end, NATO and its 28 allied member-states are a vital structure for American security. As long as President Trump understands this and rises to the potentials of presidential leadership and responsibilities, NATO will continue to serve a key role as a unique asset to him, the nation and the alliance as a whole.

Marco Rimanelli is a professor at Saint Leo University in Florida and has studied and written extensively about NATO.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.