The media today is touting a letter signed by "national security experts" which says that Donald Trump ought not be president. It's a shame that these people don't discuss whom they think should be president. It's a choice, you see. The problem with being anti-Trump like these people is that it's the same as being pro-Hillary. Sadly, these supposed national security experts don't seem to see that.
I have to wonder if these experts are really concerned about Trump or if their true concern is themselves. Are they worried that as president Trump would not rely on them for national security advice? Are they worried that he would change our defense posture and our positions in foreign relations? The problem, you see, is that these guys are married to the past, and Trump is not. Let's look at NATO as an example. For these experts, NATO is a cornerstone of America's defense and foreign policy; the American president has to support it as is. But what really is NATO? It was formed as a defense of Europe against the Soviet Union. It's a remnant of the Cold War. It was but one of many such common defense organizations. There used to be SEATO, the South East Asian Treaty Organization for example. It disappeared decades ago with no effect. Clearly NATO is unneeded for its original purpose; the Soviet Union collapsed over twenty years ago. So is there a reason to keep NATO in place? These "experts" are committed to saying yes; they can't see a need for change. But is NATO working? And what does NATO accomplish?
Under the NATO treaty, member states are required to maintain certain minimum defense postures. The main one is that each member is to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. Right now fewer than 20% of the NATO members comply with that requirement. The other countries spend next to nothing on defense but rely on the defense that the USA provides for them under the NATO treaty. Although our politicians keep telling us that we cannot become the policeman of the world, that seems to be our role in NATO. We spend over 4% of GDP on defense and most of the NATO countries freeload off of that.
To his credit, Trump is willing to look at NATO with fresh eyes. For nearly a year, he kept saying that NATO had to start dealing with terrorism. Recently, NATO formed a unit to do that. But Trump says more. He makes clear that unless the other NATO members start meeting their obligations, the USA is no longer going to provide them with a free defense. There is no reason why prosperous European countries should be given a free defense by America; they can well afford to meet their obligations.
Hillary won't change NATO. Hillary won't even consider changes to NATO. She's not interested. She made that clear when she was secretary of state. Indeed, from her time there, we already know what a foreign policy under Hillary would be like. In one word, it would be a "disaster". I suppose these experts think she might give them jobs, though.
I have to wonder if these experts are really concerned about Trump or if their true concern is themselves. Are they worried that as president Trump would not rely on them for national security advice? Are they worried that he would change our defense posture and our positions in foreign relations? The problem, you see, is that these guys are married to the past, and Trump is not. Let's look at NATO as an example. For these experts, NATO is a cornerstone of America's defense and foreign policy; the American president has to support it as is. But what really is NATO? It was formed as a defense of Europe against the Soviet Union. It's a remnant of the Cold War. It was but one of many such common defense organizations. There used to be SEATO, the South East Asian Treaty Organization for example. It disappeared decades ago with no effect. Clearly NATO is unneeded for its original purpose; the Soviet Union collapsed over twenty years ago. So is there a reason to keep NATO in place? These "experts" are committed to saying yes; they can't see a need for change. But is NATO working? And what does NATO accomplish?
Under the NATO treaty, member states are required to maintain certain minimum defense postures. The main one is that each member is to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. Right now fewer than 20% of the NATO members comply with that requirement. The other countries spend next to nothing on defense but rely on the defense that the USA provides for them under the NATO treaty. Although our politicians keep telling us that we cannot become the policeman of the world, that seems to be our role in NATO. We spend over 4% of GDP on defense and most of the NATO countries freeload off of that.
To his credit, Trump is willing to look at NATO with fresh eyes. For nearly a year, he kept saying that NATO had to start dealing with terrorism. Recently, NATO formed a unit to do that. But Trump says more. He makes clear that unless the other NATO members start meeting their obligations, the USA is no longer going to provide them with a free defense. There is no reason why prosperous European countries should be given a free defense by America; they can well afford to meet their obligations.
Hillary won't change NATO. Hillary won't even consider changes to NATO. She's not interested. She made that clear when she was secretary of state. Indeed, from her time there, we already know what a foreign policy under Hillary would be like. In one word, it would be a "disaster". I suppose these experts think she might give them jobs, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment