Commentary: Big Tent Ideas

JD FOSTER: Trump Seems To Have Really Rattled NATO’s Cage

No featured image available

Former President Donald Trump’s recent remarks regarding NATO created a typical Trumpian firestorm. No wonder.

NATO presents itself as an effective collective security organization. Would that it was. Instead, it is and has for many years been a club of posturing, preening dependents on the American security umbrella. Trump spoke for many Americans who’ve had enough of this nonsense.

Trump recounted a conversation with an unnamed foreign leader. “If we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia – will you protect us?” Trump was asked.

“I said: ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?…No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever they hell they want.” Trump’s remarks have the establishments on both continents puffed up with equal parts outrage and trepidation.

To review the bidding, NATO’s members agreed to a paltry 2% of GDP on national defense. Trump should demand at least 3%.

The first part of Trump’s remarks simply said if a country won’t pay for its own defense, won’t pay its dues to NATO, then why should the U.S. send its men and women to fight and some to die for them? No reason whatsoever.

NATO President Jens Stoltenberg then proudly announced 18 of 31 members will meet the 2% target this year. That’s less than half the membership. Rather than a source of pride, Stoltenberg should have been embarrassed.

In response to Trump’s remarks, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz suddenly committed to hitting the 2% target this year after years of falling far short. France quickly followed suit. As much as it pains the foreign policy establishment, sometimes it really does take a 2 by 4 to get the mule’s attention. Trump is fully stocked with lumber.

America’s security would be greatly enhanced by a properly funded, well-functioning, well-armed NATO. The concept was sound and it worked well decades ago with thousands of Soviet tanks on the doorstep.

In simple numbers, the combined economies of the non-U.S. NATO members are roughly similar with United States, with the former boasting a larger total population. The foundation of military capacity is economic might and population. Joined to a funded NATO, America’s effective military capacity doubles.

Properly funded, the Europeans could handle Russia’s troublemaking in their own back yard rather than rely on American forces and the U.S. Treasury. And if Russia attacked a NATO member, the United States would engage with all force necessary to convince Moscow of its grievous error. America will stand with Europe, but only if Europe doesn’t take a seat.

A united, funded NATO would also present a formidable front to China. Chairman Xi Jinping intends that China gain a dominating global position. China would rattle fewer sabers if the U.S. in response had a credible partner in the rest of NATO.

While Trump’s comment about defending a NATO member in arrears was well-justified, inviting Russia’s President Putin to attack a neighbor was extraordinarily inappropriate. Caught up in the moment and angry, one hopes Trump just got carried away as, frankly, he’s been known to do. In these moments he is unfortunately like the radio shock jock of years past.

Whatever the explanation, President Trump was wrong to encourage Putin and his shocker detracted from his important message to Europe, a message President Biden would never send credibly and one Europe appears to finally hear.

Putin, like a threatening Russia, will eventually fade to black. The China threat will remain.

Will NATO be an effective partner in facing the threat? Their defense spending will answer the question and, if it’s the wrong answer, then Trump may need another 2 by 4.

JD Foster is the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and former chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now resides in relative freedom in the hills of Idaho.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.