Do we still need NATO?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, is a Cold War-era organization, originally intended, as the saying goes, to keep the World War 2 allies in Europe, the Soviet Union out, and the Germans down. Formed in 1949, in a very different world, there's an argument to be made that NATO has outlived its usefulness. Now, Operation Epic Fury is going on, wherein the problem that is theocratic Iran is being resolved by the suitable application of American and Israeli high explosives - and possibly soon explosives from some of Iran's Gulf neighbors, who are growing annoyed at Iran's chucking missiles and drones at them.
Not only have some NATO allies been less than forthcoming in helping out with this, but some are actually impeding the operation. Granted, this isn't necessarily a NATO problem - but you would expect at least a little cooperation between nations that are allies by treaty.
President Donald Trump and key cabinet members escalated criticism on Tuesday toward U.S. allies for their reluctance to support the joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran.
As the U.S. and Israel continue attacks against Iran, Trump is hammering American allies for their reluctance to provide support. The administration argues that the lack of international assistance exposes deep divisions within longstanding alliances and raises questions about the future of global security cooperation and the economic ramifications of the conflict.
NATO was formed to oppose the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, but organizations like this have to learn to change with the times or become irrelevant.
Trump said Tuesday that it is time for allies to assume more responsibility or learn to protect themselves from global threats. He highlighted Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that carries about 20% of the world’s oil trade, as a pressing example.
"Build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT," the U.S. president wrote in a social media post. "You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!"
Iran's capacity to resist is almost completely destroyed. They still have drones and missiles to launch, but their logistics chain is shot to pieces, and it is always logistics that wins or loses a war. Add to that the fact that Iran's 1st, 2nd, and probably 3rd-tier leadership has been reduced to scattered spare parts, their navy is now a collection of aquarium decorations on the bottom of the ocean, and their air force is permanently grounded, as its aircraft are heaps of smoking junk.
NATO didn't really have any involvement in that, and if this comes off, resulting in a new, free Iran, then NATO will have had nothing to do with it.
Read More: The French Straw Just Broke NATO's Back
Watch: Rubio Delivers Blunt Message to NATO Allies - They Need to Listen
That, again, brings up the question: What do we need NATO for? Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, speaking on Tuesday, had some thoughts.
"A lot has been laid bare. A lot has been shown to the world about what our allies would be willing to do for the United States of America when we undertake an effort of this scope on behalf of the free world," Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon. "You don't have much of an alliance if you have countries that are not willing to stand with you when you need them."
The United States pays the lion's share of the bill for NATO. While we pick up about 15 percent of NATO's common-funded budget, there's a lot more to it than that; the common budget is only a small part of all spending required in keeping NATO and the member nations' forces up and running. The total defense spending by all NATO nations runs as high as $1.5 billion, and the United States pays about 60 percent of the entire alliance's expenditures; that's because we have a much larger economy than most of the nations of Europe, and therefore spend a lot more on our War Department and armed services. At least, thanks to nudging by President Trump, most of the rest of NATO's member nations have at least - finally - agreed to bring spending on defense up to the 2 percent required by treaty.
Maybe it's time to rethink NATO's purpose. Russia is still a threat, but they aren't the threat the Soviet Union was in 1949. Iran is on its way to no longer being able to threaten a Boy Scout troop. There are a few NATO nations that are still solid allies, but many others, such as Spain, aren't so much; this is the Spain, a NATO ally in name only, that refused to let American aircraft transit their airspace on the way to detonate Iranian forces.
Here's a thought: How about a Western Hemisphere version of NATO? Encompass American allies, old and new, in a mutual defense pact. That would result in a Donroe Doctrine on steroids, forming a Western Hemisphere Treaty Organization, or WHTO (Wheat-O?). A solid treaty that says, in effect, "mess with one of us, you mess with all of us - including the United States." That wouldn't rule out our continued membership in NATO, but it would present another argument for the other nations of NATO starting to look to their own resources for defense, instead of sheltering under the United States' defense umbrella, as they have been doing since 1949.
