NATO countries' flags fly at alliance headquarters in Brussels. Former U.S. commanders in Europe who also served as NATO’s top allied leaders released a letter Thursday ahead of a major security conference, arguing that American participation in the alliance delivers economic benefits. (NATO)
A group of American former military leaders and envoys in Europe made an economic case for U.S. involvement in NATO ahead of a major security conference in southern Germany.
An open letter published Thursday by 16 former U.S. European Command leaders and American ambassadors to NATO argued that American leadership in the alliance projects power and protects the country’s economic interests worldwide.
“NATO is not an act of American generosity,” the letter states. “It is a strategic bargain that ensures the United States remains the world’s most powerful and economically secure nation at a fraction of the cost of going it alone.”
Among the letter’s signatories are retired generals Curtis Scaparrotti and Tod Wolters, who served under President Donald Trump during his first term. Trump’s former ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, also signed it.
The letter comes ahead of the Munich Security Conference, which kicks off Friday and brings together leaders from around the world.
The theme of this year’s gathering, “Under Destruction,” centers on the idea that the post-Cold War order organized by the United States is being upended.
However, the former EUCOM bosses, whose dual role included simultaneous service as NATO supreme allied commander Europe, argue that the U.S. can ensure order through the alliance.
The letter lays out a series of reasons why the U.S. should maintain involvement with NATO, which has been a linchpin of American security strategy for over 70 years.
But the alliance has increasingly become a point of debate in political circles. While U.S. membership in NATO has strong bipartisan support, the bloc has become a political hot button, with skeptics in Washington questioning the alliance’s value to American interests.
In December, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., introduced a proposal to withdraw the United States from NATO, which he deemed a costly Cold War relic.
The former EUCOM commanders and the other signatories of the letter argued the opposite.
“If the United States were to withdraw from NATO, or diminish its utility by eroding trust among allies, the immediate result would not be a ’peace dividend,’ ” they wrote.
To maintain global influence and trade security without NATO, the U.S. Navy and Air Force would need to expand significantly to replace allied fleets and air wings, they said.
Also, without a U.S. presence in Europe, Russia and China could be more inclined to challenge countries that were reliant on the collective security guarantee of NATO.
That would raise the likelihood of conflict with America’s largest trading partners, a result that continued U.S. presence in NATO would have prevented, the letter said.
With a loss of influence in the Continent’s security decisions, the U.S. could face the rise of a European military bloc that does not align with American interests, the signatories wrote.
NATO gives U.S. forces “guaranteed access” to a network of bases throughout Europe that provide a springboard for operations elsewhere, they noted.
“In military operations, geography matters and Europe is a continent closer to global hot spots where U.S. interests can be challenged,” the letter states.
