Some other views on the NATO Article 5 omission by Trump (my view here.). Charles Krauthammer, a neocon, has a mystified conclusion in The National Review:
Angela Merkel said Sunday (without mentioning his name) that after Trump’s visit it is clear that Europe can no longer rely on others. It’s not that yesterday Europe could fully rely — and today it cannot rely at all. It’s simply that the American deterrent has been weakened. And deterrence weakened is an invitation to instability, miscalculation, provocation and worse.
And for what?
You’re a fellow conservative. Just follow the money. Kevin Drum on Mother Jones:
Holy shit. It’s one thing to lose a battle about what goes into a presidential speech—that happens all the time—but it’s quite another to agree to include something and then remove it without telling your top national security advisors. And then send them out to face the press.
This isn’t a case of Trump listening to the last guy in the room. It sounds more like Trump being unwilling to tell his national security team to their faces that he disagrees with them—and then screwing them behind their backs. How long can you keep working for a guy like that?
Indeed. Andrew Sullivan:
And in a few months, Trump has all but trashed it. NATO’s Article 5 — the rock-solid assurance that an attack on any alliance member will be treated as an attack on all — was always the linchpin, and its credibility, especially with the Russians, was essential. Every single American president has therefore immediately, reflexively, emphatically reaffirmed it. And yet Trump pointedly and pettily refused to last week — even though an explicit assurance was apparently in the original text of his speech, and even though Mattis, McMaster, et al. know perfectly well why it is indispensable. Without this unquestioned trust, a defensive alliance falls apart. Yes, there is a real question of the European commitment to defense spending — and Trump had every right to bring that up. But by threatening to withhold military support without such an increase in spending, Trump turned an alliance into a protection racket. Such rackets depend on fear, not trust. He effectively — in a fit of apparent pique — threw away the work and lives of generations like a child tosses a toy from a bassinet.
Which illustrates the limitations of Trump’s cognitive ability – he can’t get beyond seeing money. There are great, if directly intangible, advantages to being the leader among leaders, and the top of that list may be the ability to set the agenda for the world. Trump’s problem is that he’s always been secure and advantaged – and he doesn’t understand that the sandbox he’s in now could become a flaming nuclear hell if he’s not careful. So he doesn’t understand how useful and important it can be to hold the agenda ledger – until another world power snatches it away.
Current Secretary of Defense and former General Mattis (!) in The New York Times:
“To quote a British observer of us from some years ago, bear with us,” Mr. Mattis said. “Once we have exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing,” he continued, invoking a famous quote often attributed to Winston Churchill.
“So we will still be there, and we will be there with you,” he added.
At another point, Mr. Mattis implored his audience to understand that just because the United States had backed away from the multilateral Pacific trade agreement “does not mean we are turning our back” on the prospect of negotiating bilateral trade agreements.
Which is to say, we’ll get this kid under control and all growed up any day now. I dunno, sir, he’s already 70 years old and set in his ways.
Zeeshan Aleem on Vox:
European leaders probably found the timing of Trump’s refusal to pledge to uphold Article 5 to be particularly galling. Trump is unveiling a memorial to the victims of 9/11 while in Brussels — the only event that has caused NATO to invoke Article 5. The NATO alliance collectively fought the war in Afghanistan which was launched in the wake of those attacks on the US.
In the meantime, NATO is stepping up its commitment to US-led initiatives. On Thursday, NATO decided to officially join the US-led coalition against ISIS, although it did not pledge the use of combat troops as part of that commitment.
The strength of NATO is particularly relevant these days in light of terrorist violence and a resurgent Russia. The continent is currently enduring a fairly steady wave of terrorist attacks — most recently, a suicide bombing this week at a concert in Manchester, England, that killed 22. And Russia’s belligerence in recent years, with its meddling and territorial expansion into Ukraine and its involvement in the Syrian civil war, has its neighbors on edge about the possibility of more expansionism. Trump’s deliberate decision to keep mum on his stance on Article 5 broadcasts a clear message to the West’s military adversaries: NATO is not stable, the US cannot be relied upon to pull its weight on behalf of its allies.
Galling, hypocritical, there are so many adjectives that apply.
Susan Wright on RedState:
Nobody knows if they should take Trump seriously, or should they listen to his cabinet? Right now, the message isn’t always the same, and Trump has repeatedly undercut his own team, often a day or two after sending them out to deliver a message to the world.
Now people with solid names and reputations are seeing those reputations tarnished, as they’re reduced to muck work, shovel in hand, following behind Trump to scoop up the messes he leaves on the world stage.
I’ve not been paying attention to the folks on RedState, so I don’t know if they generally approve of Trump or not. Susan’s conclusion seems fairly generic and mundane.
