The efforts in the media to change start new storms around President Trump and to take attention away from the basic dispute of border security continues apace. Today's installment is a report in the NY Times that last year on a few occasions, President Trump discussed with his advisers whether or not the USA might withdraw from NATO. As usual with these sorts of articles, there are no named sources. Supposedly, we are hearing from leaks out of the NSC or the Pentagon. So who leaked? Was it former National Security Adviser McMaster or former Secretary of Defense Mattis? I doubt it. These men left the administration, but they hardly want to cause problems for the USA and they know that an attack on Trump would not help. Indeed, these people would know that an article written about a possible US withdrawal from NATO might well weaken the alliance. They are too much patriots to do that. So who leaked? The likely answer is no one. I don't believe the story.
But let's assume that the story is correct (even though I doubt it.) Why is it a bad thing for the President to reconsider the basic structure of US foreign policy. Remember, NATO was constructed to defend Europe from the Soviet Union. The USSR has been gone for over 25 years now. Is there really a need for a defensive alliance with Europe? Who are we all defending against? The quick answer from the media and the Democrats would be Russia, but the Russians are hardly the threat that the USSR was. The Russian army is weak; it has not even been able to win against Ukraine (which, by the way, was also part of the old USSR.) Just because there was a cold war does not mean that the USA undertook the responsibility to be the perpetual defender of Europe. And if the European countries won't met their responsibilities under the NATO treaty, must America foot the bill? Shouldn't we want the need for NATO to be re-examined periodically? To me the answer is a clear YES.
Remember also that the story is not that we are withdrawing, but rather that the President brought up the subject with advisers. We didn't withdraw. President Trump didn't threaten withdrawal. It wasn't mentioned at all in public. It was just considered and obviously rejected.
So we have a likely false story about something that didn't happen concerning a discussion held among the President and his advisers.
But let's assume that the story is correct (even though I doubt it.) Why is it a bad thing for the President to reconsider the basic structure of US foreign policy. Remember, NATO was constructed to defend Europe from the Soviet Union. The USSR has been gone for over 25 years now. Is there really a need for a defensive alliance with Europe? Who are we all defending against? The quick answer from the media and the Democrats would be Russia, but the Russians are hardly the threat that the USSR was. The Russian army is weak; it has not even been able to win against Ukraine (which, by the way, was also part of the old USSR.) Just because there was a cold war does not mean that the USA undertook the responsibility to be the perpetual defender of Europe. And if the European countries won't met their responsibilities under the NATO treaty, must America foot the bill? Shouldn't we want the need for NATO to be re-examined periodically? To me the answer is a clear YES.
Remember also that the story is not that we are withdrawing, but rather that the President brought up the subject with advisers. We didn't withdraw. President Trump didn't threaten withdrawal. It wasn't mentioned at all in public. It was just considered and obviously rejected.
So we have a likely false story about something that didn't happen concerning a discussion held among the President and his advisers.
No comments:
Post a Comment