US DISENGAGING FROM NATO SPARKS AMERICAN ANGST

Last week in what was a relatively well covered Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, the current Supreme Allied Commander Europe who also doubles as CinC EUCOM (American forces European Command), gave extensive answers to some key questions. General Cavolli explained some really important considerations to the Senators, may of whom were already fairly aware. However it was a prime opportunity to set the record straight and correct some of the misrepresentations running rife in the disinformation sphere.

The reason this has happened now is that Cavolli’s three year term is almost up and there’s genuine consideration that America no longer wants the position. If its to withdraw sizable forces from Europe and move them to the Pacific – as well as seeking cost cuts of 90,000 in the size of the US army in general, then understanding what the position provides and why it matters, needed to be heard.

Add to that there are many in the Senate on both sides who are not happy about the direction of the administration even though Republicans are too scared to speak on it publicly. They don’t want to disengage on this scale from Europe.

Cavolli made it clear that not having an American SACEUR ‘would be problematic’, and outlined why.

His first concern – and he seemed he wanted to make this crystal clear, is on nuclear weapons control in-theater generally and on the battlefield. “It would put us in a position where, in an Article 5 [mutual defense] situation, we could have for the first time since the First World War, large numbers of American troops under non-US command. So I think those are things that would have to be considered carefully.”

As things stand, the American SACEUR requests American tactical nuclear weapons release from the American President, and then passes that authority and approves the targeting and use to either US or NATO air forces assigned the nuclear role, to deliver their package. There is no middle-man, it’s generally understood that SACEUR would in essence be automatically authorised, and if the National Military Command was un-contactable he’s authorised to operate alone.

Put simply the General made it clear there is no other process, a non-US SACEUR would have to be given a procedure and command system that doesn’t even exist at present if US weapons were to be used. And that seems very unlikely.

What was not said, and which I wish they had discussed, was if the hardliners in the Administration get their way, and military integration with NATO is withdrawn (which Congress would have to fund), it could take nuclear weapons out of Europe altogether and then render that question irrelevant. Removing the B-61-12’s from NATO’s sharing platform is entirely up to the President. It could be done in a matter of days.

Only days before Lt.General Dan Caine, Trumps nominee for head of the Joint Chiefs said, “Any time we have US forces deployed, we generally have wanted them under a US commander and that was the history behind the establishment of SACEUR and putting the dual-hat EUCOM commander and SACEUR together. And I think it is an opportunity for global leadership, particular in Europe, but again would defer to the president as he considers what the future policy may look like.”

What the military was trying to say in as coded way as it could, given the fact the administration would be listening to every word, was pulling out of NATO would seriously diminish American military authority and once it was removed, like anything else, its almost impossible to restore. It would be the end of US forces in Europe for the first time since 1945. Bizarrely nobody asked about withdrawing from the NATO joint exercises program going forward – and the general never mentioned it directly. However he would not be happy about it – no general given such a position would. Failing to work in tandem with allies is almost a deliberate effort to undermine cohesion.

There’s no doubt that many of the senators and the general are opposed to the process buy they have no idea or in the generals case the power, to stop it. The Democratic senators are against it, the Republican senators for the most part are too, but not one of them will speak against the diminishing role of the US in European security. It’s not just about military power, it’s about soft power and influence that a physical presence creates culturally, in good will and business. Let alone the political power it brings with it. But the administration doesn’t seem to care or even understand the subtleties.

What they did understand very quickly was the fact that the Europeans were heading towards a waste no time policy, and are fast on the road to working out a mutual defence procurement systems deal, and ways of ensuring their money is spent wisely and on time. And the rub: in Europe. Some are committed to American equipment – the UK has no choice for its carriers or for its submarines – the decision point on those is well past. Poland sees the F-35 as crucial, as does Finland and Greece (if only in their case because the Turks aren’t allowed them). Yet the Americans know it’s far worse than that in the long term. Europe has some outstanding defence companies, and they have worked in tandem with American defence manufacturers. That’s going to be drastically reduced. American weapons will not be their first choice, because to make things work they will pick Europe+ manufacturers first and foremost.

The Americans seemed horrified and even annoyed that it would mean billions in lost business. And this is what stuns me; these policies are being instituted at a pace and scale that shows no consideration for the consequences good or bad. It’s like a child has been let loose in a room full of glass with a giant hammer, on a smash it all mission; its just destruction without consideration. And they seemed shocked we would even consider not buying from them, then got all aggressive about the decisions they had forced us into making.

The attitude that they don’t seem to care what they do and what the circumstances are, let alone the consequences, is beyond reckless. But this is what we have to deal with. And unless it changes very suddenly and immediately, it’s over.

No matter what the Americans think now, Europe+ is going in a different direction. Its my opinion that unless they recommit to NATO and are serious about it (and they won’t because they don’t change their minds), then I would rather America withdraw everything, in an orderly way, and we use NATO as the foundation of Europe+ defence. It’s best placed and best equipped to do it. A half in half out America is bad for both of us.

Time to disengage. America wants to trash the world economy – but I think that’s more resilient than we think if everyone keeps their head too. Stock markets and oil prices are not a banking crisis, and yes their will be damage, but as long as the rest of the word doesn’t stand fighting each other with tariffs – which seems unlikely – then long term the only country suffering badly is going to be America.

It’s almost like America is committing national suicide. Its ’empire’ is collapsing because its made it happen, both real, and soft power. The decisions that will be made about the military in the coming weeks are totally the opposite to the fake strength Trump believes he displays.

Those who can and want to stop it seem powerless to do so until it’s too late. As Edmund Burke said so long ago, “All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing”.

And we Brits thought Liz Truss was bad. She only took down one country.

The Analyst.

militaryanalyst.bsky.social