Secretary of State Marco Rubio attended his first NATO foreign ministers’ meeting and was more concerned about European sensibilities than American interests. Unfortunately, Rubio embraced the past rather than promoted the future. It would be tragic if the MAGA revolution resulted in more of the same.
Rubio sought to reassure European officials who have begun to do more in their own defense because they have been discomfited by both Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Rather than intensify European fears that the Trump administration finally meant business, the secretary disclaimed any intention to leave the alliance: “The United States is as active in NATO as it has ever been,” he insisted. While speaking next to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Rubio added: “Some of this hysteria and hyperbole that I see in the global media and some domestic media in the United States about NATO is unwarranted.”
Indeed, Rubio suggested that Trump was apparently a secret alliance enthusiast: “We want NATO to be stronger, we want NATO to be more visible and the only way NATO can get stronger, more visible is if our partners, the nation states that comprise this important alliance, have more capability.” That doesn’t sound like the Trump that most of us know, but the new U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matt Whitaker, similarly opined that “under President Trump’s leadership, NATO will be stronger and more effective than ever before, and I believe that a robust NATO can continue to serve as a bedrock of peace and prosperity.”
In short, per the president’s aides, America plans on sticking around to protect the Europeans. Rubio insisted, “President Trump has made clear he supports NATO. We’re going to remain in NATO.” What the latter dislikes, Rubio explained, is states which lack the capabilities to fulfill their obligations. This is the same message that Joe Biden, both as vice president and president, routinely brought to the continent. Indeed, he spent years actively discouraging the Europeans from doing more on their own behalf.
In contrast, during his first term Trump reportedly told aides he wanted to withdraw from the alliance. His failure to act during the first few weeks of this presidency doesn’t mean he has grown to love what he once sought to delete. Of course, Rubio still echoes his boss in pushing other NATO member governments to do more. But without ill consequences for their failure to act, enthusiasm for reform is likely to quickly wane. After all, President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, excoriated the Europeans for their lackadaisical attitude, but his message was drowned out by Biden singing a European variant of Bobby McFerrin’s hit tune “Don’t Worry Be Happy.”
Nevertheless, the secretary has a tough sales job. Reported Deutsche Welle, “Rubio’s task of putting fellow NATO members at ease was made even harder on Wednesday when Trump announced tariffs that many fear could kick off global trade war. A 10 percent levy now applies to virtually all goods imported into the U.S. Goods from the European Union, which includes 23 of the 31 NATO member states, face tariffs of 20 percent.” The U.S. and Europe are struggling to remain friends, but just as in any other busted romance, Uncle Sam obviously no longer respects his partner. An unnamed European diplomat told the Associated Press, “We need to preempt a rapid retreat, but we’ve had nothing precise from the U.S. yet.”
Indeed, Rubio’s promise misses the most important objective of getting the Europeans to do more: allowing Americans to do less. He told his counterparts that he wanted to leave with their commitment to increase military outlays to five percent of GDP. Alas, no one is close to that level, other than Poland, and few are likely to reach it, other than possibly the small but exposed Baltic states. Fear of Russia falls dramatically as one moves west on the continent, so a major military buildup makes little sense for them.
Apparently to encourage their efforts, he said of the five percent goal, “That includes the United States.” But, in contrast to Europe, America has no reason to spend so much on the military. The U.S. is the most secure great power ever. With vast oceans east and west and weak, peaceful neighbors north and south, Americans face no ground and limited sea and air threats. Only foreign missiles pose a serious danger, and Washington possesses the capacity to retaliate with devastating effect. The U.S. could defend itself at a fraction of its current level of military outlays.
Today most of America’s “defense” budget goes to offense. Some of that is for utterly inane operations, such as invading Iraq, defeating the Taliban to turn Afghanistan into a modern parliamentary democracy, and battling Yemen’s Ansar Allah to keep the oceans free for Europe and China. Even more resources are devoted to protecting prosperous, populous allies—Europe, along with South Korea, Japan, and numerous others. Whatever would the Pentagon do with hundreds of billions of dollars more? If all these nations spent according to their ability and need, there would be no reason for Washington to keep them as defense dependents. What new wars does Rubio imagine fighting? It is time for the U.S. to embrace peace.
The European balance is particularly nonsensical. Some 600 million Europeans are expecting 347 million Americans to protect them from 144 million Russians. European Union members—excluding the United Kingdom—have about ten times the GDP of Russia. Yet since its invasion of Ukraine, Russian military outlays have outpaced those of Europe. While that reflects Moscow’s involvement in a bitter hot war, when it comes to arms, determination is as important as capability, something most European governments still lack. They could do so much more. Nevertheless, they continue to look to Washington to cover their military deficiencies.
There no longer should be any need for the U.S. to be involved. The transatlantic alliance was a Cold War creation, intended to provide a shield behind which war-ravaged Europe could recover. Even President Dwight Eisenhower expected America’s military garrison to be temporary. To be fully secure, the Europeans would have to consider developing nuclear weapons. Controversial though that would be, a continental nuke, or additional European nations possessing nuclear weapons, would be preferable to Washington continuing to extend a “nuclear umbrella,” which would result in the destruction of American cities to protect European interests if deterrence failed.
Instead of telling NATO’s European members what to do, Washington should tell NATO’s European members what it intends to do. That is, turn Europe’s defense over to them. Then they could respond as they wished. Their protection is their problem, and eight decades after the end of the Second World War they should be able to decide their own future. The issue for Washington is not whether continental governments spend as much as the U.S. believes they should. It is whether they are able to spend as much as necessary to defend themselves. Responsibility for their defense should be on them, irrespective of how little they end up doing. America has no duty to protect them against their will.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
Then Washington should shrink the U.S. armed forces to a size sufficient to protect the U.S. Military spending is the price of one’s foreign policy. The more you want to do, the more force structure—manpower, weapons, equipment—you need. If you reduce your ambitions, you can reduce your costs. Turn over the defense of Europe, South Korea, Japan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to their governments, respectively, and Washington needn’t spend five percent of America’s GDP on the military. Or four percent, three percent, or even two percent. The U.S. would require a sufficient, effective nuclear deterrent and sizable, capable navy. A sophisticated, superior air force also would be important for forestalling more distant threats.
America’s objective would be sufficiency to protect its interests, not superiority to impose its preferences. There would be no more proxy wars for distant European states, abundant aid for corrupt dictators, incompetent crusades for faux democracies, and murderous assistance for political favorites. No more promises to fight nuclear wars for countries of middling importance. No more endless wars or occupations. And no illusion that routinely bombing, invading, and occupying other nations is an effective, let alone the best, means of promoting America’s interests around the world. Ultimately, true internationalism requires military restraint.
The Europeans share a long and valuable history with America. Mutual cooperation benefits people on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet Washington should end its defense dole for allied states. Treating them seriously, leaving them to sort out their destiny, would better show the sincerest respect of others. So it should be with the Trump administration and Europe.
