Leaving NATO is not the way to save money

By Bill Connor

Among a number of bold, some would say outrageous, pronouncements made by Donald Trump during the 2016 election cycle, none has been more dangerous than his suggestion of ending (or drastically reducing) American involvement in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump has said, NATO is “obsolete,” adding, “Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use.”

Some might chalk this Trump talking-point up with the other similar statements about foreign policy, like pulling back from Japan and Korea and providing those nations a nuclear capability. Considering Trump’s lack of foreign policy and national defense experience (for example, his ignorance of the concept of the Nuclear Triad), many might ignore the NATO comments as pure campaign “red meat” to his base supporters and leave it alone.

However, as our NATO allies intently follow the rhetoric of credible U.S. presidential campaigns, the rhetoric about NATO demands a reply. This is particularly true after Trump recently refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe in response to an Islamic State terror attack. Our NATO allies know that Trump would be able to put these thoughts into action as a possible commander-in-chief.

First point: NATO costs relatively little for its huge benefit to our national defense. According to the Washington Post, “The United States is responsible for 22.1 percent of the costs (of NATO), or about $514-million. That’s a fortune by average-American standards, but not by Trump standards, much less U.S.-government standards. The 2016 defense budget for the U.S. is $585-billion, meaning that this NATO expenditure is only 0.09 percent of the total. So for every $100 the military spends, nine cents is spent on NATO’s annual budget. And for every $100 the government spends, only about a penny is spent on NATO.”

It is true that Germany, the next highest spending ally, contributes 15 percent and the United Kingdom follows with 11 percent. However, due to the top contribution by the United States, we are able to fill the post of Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR) and the other top leadership positions in NATO. Basically, we pay more but we also drive the direction of the alliance. The fact that other NATO nations benefit is not a reason to end a good “deal” for the U.S.

Some might argue we spend more with indirect costs to NATO. But those costs go primarily toward maintaining our troops in a forward-deployed position in Europe. This includes major training bases for the U.S. in Europe, like the Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMTC formerly CMTC). JMTC is analogous to the National Training Center, and one of only three such bases offering operational-level land force on force operations so needed for combat readiness. The U.S. troops in Europe would have to be maintained elsewhere in the U.S., with the cost of deploying if necessary to overseas locations. The U.S. Seventh Corps, stationed in Europe as a NATO component during the Cold War, was used as the spearpoint of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Those troops were forward deployed and ready to fight due to the unique coalition training environment of Europe.

A reason NATO is such a “deal” for the U.S. comes with the security and quick access to NATO allies for operations in support of the U.S. For example, NATO allies were a substantial part of the forces deployed during the Gulf War. Additionally, NATO allies were with us from the beginning in Iraq and Afghanistan after the attacks of 9/11. The International Security and Advisory Forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan was a NATO force that became the major command in Afghanistan and commanded by U.S. general-officers. This was primarily to the benefit of the U.S., as we were the nation attacked on 9/11.

When I served as the senior U.S. military adviser to Afghan National Security Forces in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, the United Kingdom controlled the operational battlespace of that very volatile province. British Forces sustained countless casualties, wounded and dead, in their fight against Taliban Forces. The British forces were there as a NATO ally, just as they were stationed in Basra, Iraq at that time. Multiple NATO nations sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan during those wars, and the U.S. benefited from the unique capabilities of even small “new” NATO countries like Romania. I remember seeing the resolve of the Romanians and Polish Special Forces operating in Zabul, Afghanistan; and seeing the pride of these new NATO countries who might face Russian aggression back home.

Throughout the Cold War, our NATO allies helped keep the Soviets contained until the Soviet Union finally imploded from within. The successor Russian Federation remains a threat to both Europe and North America, particularly considering the massive nuclear force at Russia’s disposal and size of their military. Due to the new NATO allies in Central Europe, Russia cannot aggressively expand into Europe trying to “reclaim” lost territory. Many analysts believe this is Putin’s goal of a new Russian resurgence, and a reason for Russia’s involvement in the Ukraine. If Russia were to expand across Europe without the U.S. component to NATO, this would be at the expense of the national security interests of the U.S.

The U.S. does need to focus on U.S. interests first, unlike much of the “nation building” we’ve experienced over the past couple of decades. We must cut our national debt through a reduction in our spending. However, Trump’s purported savings of ending U.S. involvement in NATO for the $ half-billion per year is a tiny fraction of what we should cut with entitlements. A recent Heritage report provides the full picture: “Eighty-five percent of the projected growth in spending over the next decade is due to entitlement spending and interest on the debt. Obamacare is the largest driver of increasing federal health care spending, and it alone will add $1.8-trillion in federal spending by 2024.”

The $ half-billion in NATO spending is a grain of sand on the beach of our federal budget, and yet it keeps the U.S. far more secure. Interestingly, while decrying the alleged NATO “bad deal”, Trump has recommended universal health care ensured by the federal government, continued taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, and few proposals for tackling entitlements.

Participation in NATO is in our national interest and well worth it. The other member nations of NATO benefit, but their benefit is not to our detriment. It’s a win-win for all. We forged the alliance in the darkest days of the Cold War, went on to win the Cold War, and spilled blood together in the Middle East and Afghanistan. We now face the challenges of a common enemy in the Islamic State and a common potential enemy in Putin’s Russia. Let’s keep the alliance strong, and our national security sound. Let’s pray we have the right leadership in the White House to take us through this time of challenges at home and throughout the world.

– Bill Connor is a S.C.-based attorney and decorated U.S. Army Reserve infantry officer, Ranger (Airborne), an expert in counterinsurgency combat and a founding partner of National Defense Consultants, LLC. He is a former senior U.S. military advisor in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, and presently serves as the South Carolina Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer for S.C. under FEMA Region 4, Army North.