A discussion I’ve been having for years with all sorts of people is about the disposition of America’s NATO allies, and whether or not they are actually worth the effort to maintain an alliance with them. I contend that the majority of our NATO allies (or alliances in general) have been an albatross on the neck of America, and that the NATO alliance has not been a net benefit for America long term. Furthermore, our partnership with NATO has encouraged our government to engage in behaviors that are fundamentally anti-American, and go against the interests of the American people. However, the people countering me for years have argued that the NATO alliance, and broadly speaking, America’s post World War 2 foreign policy has benefited America. I disagree, and I believe that America ought to engage in more isolationist behavior, both for the good of the American people, and to stop the federal government from growing outside its originally intended state.
The foundations of American post war policy reside in the lead up to WW2, and the belief that a militarily drawn down, and isolationist America was a major factor in why Germany and Japan engaged in war. The counterfactual’s logic is built on the idea that if America had a strong, muscular, and aggressive foreign policy, it is unlikely that Germany and Japan would have engaged in war, and the loss of American life during the war would have been mitigated. The basis of NATO, which was “to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” (General Hastings Lionel Ismay, the 1st NATO General Secretary). The destruction of the war had a profound effect on those who fought in it, and many believed that Germany, among other nations, would keep fighting generation after generation unless their defensive and economic position was secured by a higher power. One of the main economic reasons Germany engaged in bellicose behavior was due to having unsecured energy logistics, which is one reason Germany invaded the Soviet Union (aside from Hitler believing racial superiority nonsense). Similarly, Japan also argued that a just casus belli was due to their own lack of domestic energy reserves, and attacked Pearl Harbor preemptively to smack the Americans down, and make America believe that fighting a war against Japan would be a hopeless bloodbath. The postwar consensus among the Western Europeans and Americans was that keeping tens of thousands of American troops, tanks, and aircraft forward deployed, would deter the Soviet Union/People’s Republic of China from engaging in a war, and inevitably dragging America into the war.
This however, led to the next issue: Keeping people in the alliance. Germany was literally split down the middle. America need to incentivize keeping Germany and the Central Europeans in NATO, which they believed they could do through economic cooperation. If America protected Europe’s main supply of oil from the Middle East, and prevented Middle Eastern countries from falling under the Soviet sphere of influence, Central Europe would not fall to the Soviets, and war would be averted. This was the beginning of Domino theory, the idea that if one country fell to Soviet/Chinese communism, the neighboring countries would as well, and like a line of domino’s they would all fall and eventually cause Europe to fall to communism. This is the reason America became heavily involved in Vietnam, and why America supported numerous dictatorships around the world that were ostensibly anti-American in terms of ideals. To foot stomp the point home even harder, the primary reason America was involved specifically with Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, and Iran, was directly due to our military and economic alliances through NATO with Europe. The direct reason we have contemporary conflicts with Iran, and the affiliated proxy terrorist groups (The Houthis, Hamas, al Shabab, etc), is due directly to American involvement in NATO, and protecting European energy interests to keep them outside of the Russian sphere of influence.
The Europeans, during the Cold War, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union, prioritized social welfare spending, over defense spending, and ultimately contributing to the NATO alliance. Individually, these nations are small, so it makes sense that no nation would contribute the same number of men or equipment to the alliance like America could, because no other nation in the alliance has the population or economy to support a military, or military industrial complex like America could. However, even proportionally, the European allies, for the most part, did not even contribute what they were mandated to contribute. Up until the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022, only a handful (usually 5 or less, depending on the year) European NATO allies had military spending up to 2% of economic GDP spending. This is to say that the majority of the NATO allies were not spending 2% of the value of their economy on military spending. Since the end of the Cold War, Europe has more or less expected America to be their defense policy, and instead of being good stewards of the alliance, selfishly focused inward on domestic social policy. This inward focus benefited Europe at the expense of the America in terms of American blood and treasure. This is an extreme slap in the face, as during contemporary military conflicts with Iran, European politicians have laughed at the President for requesting military assistance with the Strait of Hormuz.
Many I have discussed this issue with have stated that America benefits from the alliance, because it allows us to forward deploy troops in areas of interest for the American Empire, and we (somehow) benefit from the alliance through intelligence sharing. I would contend that the blood and treasure spent maintaining the alliance at the primary benefits of the Europeans is not a policy the American government ought to engage in, and that isolationism would serve the interests of the American people, which is who the American government is supposed to be serving. I do not believe that being the guard dog of Europe makes America any safer, or benefits us economically in ways that a more self sufficient economy wouldn’t (Considering European trade policy, a completely different discussion).
Another point brought up is that in the conflicts where Europeans have sent combat troops to support American campaigns, some of those Europeans died in combat, and because they died on an American campaign, America forever owes that European nation a debt of service, and thus we ought to be welded to the NATO alliance forever. To which I respond by saying that America has given ten times over (easily) the number of lives in defending and freeing Europe, than Europe has ever done for America. If we are to base loyalty on blood spilt, then Europe has a larger blood debt to America than America to Europe, which makes the entirety of what was previously discussed even more ridiculous that we continue to engage with the Europeans in the way that we do. We ought to leave the alliance with forth haste. The Europeans do not deserve anymore of America’s best.