Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
NATO members are not legally required to join any member’s military operations that are not formally sanctioned by the alliance or not aimed at protecting the homelands of the membership.
But they often do just that.
Some NATO members joined the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq on the theory that, in the post-9/11 environment, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were dangers to all Western security.
They followed the precedent set by America’s 1999 intervention in the distant Balkans, leading a three-month NATO campaign to dismantle Slobodan Milošević’s often bloody ambitions of a Greater Serbia. The U.S. also joined the 2011 U.N.-approved, and French- and British-inspired, NATO “coalition of the willing” bombing campaign in Libya.
That effort proved a seven-month misadventure—especially since the targeted Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi had given up his nuclear weapons program and was desperately trying to cut a deal with the West.
When NATO members in the past have operated unilaterally to defend their own national interests, they have often called on the U.S., as NATO’s strongest member, for overt help.
For nearly 40 years, the U.S. had offered logistical, intelligence, reconnaissance, refueling, and diplomatic support to the French in their unilateral and postcolonial efforts to protect Chad from Libya and, later, Islamists.
During the 1982 Falklands War, a solitary Britain faced enormous logistical challenges in steaming halfway around the world to eject Argentina from its windswept and sparse islands.
U.S. aid was critical to the effort.
So America stepped up to help with intelligence, reconnaissance, the supply of some two million gallons of much-needed gasoline, and crucial restocking of Britain’s depleted Tomahawk missiles.
The American tilt to Britain prompted anger from most Latin American nations of the shared Western hemisphere, as well as from many Hispanic American citizens at home.
No matter—Ronald Reagan rightly saw the importance of solidarity with a NATO member and a long-time American ally. So he gave Britain a veritable blank check for American aid.
Currently, America has not asked NATO members to help bomb Iran—even though Europe, not the U.S., was in range of Iranian ballistic missiles, and soon perhaps nuclear-tipped ones as well.
Europeans are far more vulnerable to Iranian-inspired Islamic terrorism. They are more reliant on foreign oil from the Middle East, some of it passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
All the U.S. had initially asked for was basing support in disarming a common Western enemy that, for nearly half a century, has slaughtered American diplomats and soldiers and tried to kill a U.S. president and secretary of state.
But most NATO members could not even offer tacit help. Some damned the U.S. effort as either illegal or unnecessary.
The American public watched the British waffle for days over permitting Americans to use their Diego Garcia base.
The Spanish banned American use of their NATO bases and airspace.
The Italians refused a request from American bombers to land and refuel at a Sicilian NATO base.
Many NATO heads of state rebuked the U.S. to their domestic audiences while, in typical two-faced fashion, publicly offering empty verbal support for the U.S. effort.
The NATO response to an Iranian missile aimed at fellow NATO member Turkey was anemic.
Even worse was the pathetic British reaction to another Iranian missile launch at a British base at Akrotiri, Cyprus.
Yet a successful American effort in neutering a theocratic Iran was clearly of benefit to Europe. So is preventing the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz from becoming a toll booth run by the Iranian mullahs.
Such passivity was in sharp contrast to the five-year-long Ukraine War on the borders of Europe.
Ukraine was not in NATO.
Ukrainian politicos and ambassadors had sometimes played an intrusive, partisan role in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 American presidential elections.
Nonetheless, there were urgent European requests for the U.S. to honor the spirit of NATO solidarity and to get across the Atlantic as quickly as possible to protect the territorial integrity of Europe.
Yet continental Europe is not intrinsically weak. The combined population of the European Union and European NATO members is around 450 million—a population more than 100 million greater than that of the U.S.
These same European nations enjoy an aggregate annual GDP of more than $22 trillion, 10 times the size of the Russian economy.
European diffidence comes on top of the perennial American effort to harangue NATO members to honor their 2 percent of GDP defense commitments—especially in the case of deadbeat Spain and Canada, who for years welched on their pledges.
Trump’s harangues were not what was undermining NATO.
Instead, he ripped off a happy-face scab and exposed a festering wound of increasingly anti-American hypocrisy beneath.
If you wanted to wreck the alliance, there would be no better way than to follow the duplicitous examples of Western European NATO members.
It’s all about Trump. The way he goes about things rubs European, American, and worldwide leftists the wrong way. America First is Trump’s ideology. The left wants America leveled.
This reminds me of the old joke Lone Ranger: “Tonto, we’re surrounded by Indians”. Tonto: “What you mean “we” Kemosabe”? We have to somehow show the Europeans (as well as our other putative allies”) that there are consequences for their perfidy in our time of need. Before withdrawing from NATO, America should both remove all our military bases in Spain as well as refuse to participate in any joint military preparedness exercises if Spain is involved. No American troops. No American ships. No American satellites or American intelligence resources made available if there is any involvement by Spain. Let Europe make the choice of Spain or America. If enough European countries are really willing to stand behind Spain rather than America, then the alliance is effectively dead and there is no need to withdraw.
The US bears the financial burden of supporting NATO to a far greater degree than nearly the combined support of the rest of he members. We need to GET OUT NOW. We should have 20 years ago! There are far fewer CONS than PROS for staying! I am a 78 year old woman & I can see this very clearly!
How much, if any, of the European inaction comes from their fear of provoking a ballistic missile attack from Iran on one of their capitals? The missile shot at Diego Garcia may have had an intended and successful demonstration effect?
Well said VDH , as usual. Comments also all well thought out and expressed. Very disappointing NATO took this , “ you’re on your own, America “ attitude. Sad
Thanks Victor! Europes disgraceful response to our actions against the Islamic radicals in Iran shows the hold the new Islamist population within their countries have on them. It is also, it seems, a result of this phenomenon called Trump Derangement Syndrome that extends across the Atlantic. Iran’s death cult has proven to be the threat that we are attempting to eliminate in this conflict. The thought of where are world would be today if Obama had gotten his way with Iran is unbearable. Shame on England the most!
All of which I suggested just a few minutes ago in my earlier post would hinge on American getting its own house in order when it comes to our elections. This would entail the “Save Act” passing congress. Also it would certainly wake up America as to how precariously close we came to losing our Democracy if the gross illegalities and proponents of law fare during the treasonous (my opinion) administrations of Obama and Biden can be fully exposed.
Time is running out for this to happen. Hopefully, with our next attorney general it will be given the highest of all priorities for this exposure to happen before summer’s end. If so, it would really help Trump and all of us that love the America that he envisions preserve his agenda after the midterms.
Then truly, I believe the positive changes we are seeing in America with be permanent for the ensuing decades.
Yes, perhaps our focus should be on creating a stronger alliance among western hemisphere nations that subscribe to a MAGA like concept tailored to their nations’ and western hemispheric interests. This can be done without formally abandoning NATO, I believe/hope. Just as many of this alliance’s nations withheld base support for the U.S. during the Iranian war, the U.S. can be less supportive in the future without pulling out formally. That may be a wake-up call for the NATO freeloaders.
European NATO members, to include Denmark, will have to offer up Greenland at little to no cost to keep the U.S. in NATO. Meanwhile, Europe will have to arm itself and deport Muslim refugees for economic & political reasons. Conservative parties are gaining traction.
Promethean Action has sounded the same idea… a new world order of sovereign states, with the globalists sucking their tumbs and other things in the corner.
The countries of Europe have only ever, and will only ever, act in their own best interests. This is, however, the nature of sovereignty. Unfortunately, the elites in the US (who control our country) have forgotten that is why countries exist. Over the past century, US elites have allowed their desires for social acceptance equal standing by “their betters,” the European elites, blind them to the pursuit of US sovereign and national interests. The European elites have been perfectly happy to allow those in control of the US to do this, and why not? They’re perfectly happy to see the US sacrifice its interests by prioritizing those of Europe.
This is nothing new. The Europeans have used the US for their own purposes since the very inception of our country. Lous XVI, the king of France, didn’t support the US Revolution against another monarch, the king of England, out of the goodness of his heart and some belief in the moral rightness of US independence. It was then, and still is now, all about political and economic power for France. The same can be said for Britain and every other country in the EU.
Their behavior right now is perfectly predictable. They’re totally happy with the US spending US money and blood for something that will also benefit themselves, and they will avoid becoming involved as long as they can (and they hope forever). Let the US foot the butcher’s bill once again for them. The brilliance of Trump is that he recognizes and accepts this.
Europe is lost. The politicians are literally terrified of Islam. They know if they speak up for themselves and weatern civilization.. “someone “ may show up to butcher them on the front stoop.
Relying on islamists votes is a hell of a place to be. They are DOOMED!!
VDH, please tell us your view whether we should abandon NATO.
I am on the side of let them stew in their own juices, and then when attacked, they can come whining to the US, and we should then be busy taking a nap…
The US should stop subsidising ungrateful Europeans. There are maybe a few European countries who love and respect America, but many have contempt for America and are deeply jealous of its success and way of life. Americans have recently discovered who their true friends are, and it’s certainly not the current spineless batch of French, Spanish, or British politicians.
Exactly! Well said! The age of the Western European Dominated international system is fading away to be replaced by a new system with America at the center coupled with like minded countries such as Argentina and the countries to come out to help us.