No, security alliances are not sacred commitments

President Trump is in London this week as part of a NATO summit, designed to celebrate the Cold War alliance’s 70th anniversary. Trump has come under intense criticism in the past for reportedly considering withdrawing from NATO, due to other member nations not contributing enough money towards the NATO umbrella.

Former vice president, and current front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Joe Biden has repeatedly excoriated Trump in debates and on the campaign trail for his flippant regard for America’s alliances, recently hailing these strategic partnerships as “sacred commitments.” Security alliances are, apparently, sacrosanct in Washington.

Despite this persistent view, alliances such as NATO are not “sacred.” It’s not 1949 anymore and there is plenty to question about the necessity of a 70 year-old treaty. Foreign policy should be driven by a frank discussion of what the U.S.’s vital national interests are, not a knee-jerk obsequiousness and nostalgia for institutions that may have outlived their usefulness.

NATO was a success in its own time. After World War II, the Soviet Union could have credibly conquered a weakened and war-weary Europe, gaining power in a way that could directly threaten U.S. security interests. NATO was initially important for the balance of power on the European continent.

But that all changed in 1991. The USSR collapsed under the weight of its own economic contradictions and dissolved — suddenly, America had entered its unipolar moment.

Instead of re-thinking the radically different European strategic situation in a post-Cold War world, NATO continued on autopilot absent its raison d’etre. Its size nearly tripled. Europe became one of the most peaceful and prosperous places on Earth, and European NATO members dedicated less and less of their domestic spending on their own defensive resilience, tacitly placing the security burden on the United States via Article 5 of NATO. 

For those who cling to NATO as a bulwark against Russian revanchism, it is worth pointing out that Russia is not the Soviet Union. Before it collapsed, the Soviet Union had the second largest economy in the world, after the U.S. Today, Texas has a bigger economy, and Russia is even plagued with a shrinking population. Likewise, member states of the European Union tower over Russia in terms of population and GDP. Europe is rich enough to provide for its own defense without American forces acting as a security blanket

It is true that Russia has a sizeable nuclear arsenal, but that isn’t “very useful for power projection or war fighting, unless the political leadership wants to risk national suicide.” The Cold War is over, but the oft-cited doctrine of mutually assured destruction remains not just a reality, but a powerful deterrent. 

In general, viewing alliances as sacred and permanent is counter-productive. It implies that our country’s interests are static and unchanging. Allies are useful in advancing shared interests, but those interests can and do diverge over time, therefore permanent alliances should not be held up as the policy gold-standard. But the absence of NATO would not mean the absence of American engagement in Europe. There would still be significant space for continued diplomatic outreach and increased economic partnerships. 

Lest we forget, viewing our commitments as sacred goes against the wisdom found in George Washington’s farewell address, wherein our first president advised us “to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”

None of this necessarily implies that NATO needs to immediately dissolve, but at the very least it needs to be reformed. It should stop adding small, insignificant countries that bring more burden than defense — not to mention giving states like Montenegro the same veto power the U.S. has in the alliance.

There needs to be a mechanism for expelling members, including Turkey, that are ostensibly acting contrary to the alliance’s stated purpose while flaunting their membership. The number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe needs to decline, so those nations will be incentivized to protect themselves. 

The world is dynamic and context-specific. U.S. security alliances should be too. Viewing NATO and other treaties as sacred invites stale thinking and counterproductive policy while shutting out consideration of workable alternatives. The Cold War ended 30 years ago. It’s time western nations finally act like it. 

Jerrod A. Laber is a fellow at Defense Priorities. Follow him on Twitter @JerrodALaber.