Mac-Coleman

27 March 2014 –

Is Anyone In Charge Around Here?

From 1992 to 1996, I was stationed at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, in Mons, Belgium.  It was the military headquarters for NATO in Europe.  I was the Military Assistant and Speechwriter to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General George A. Joulwan.  It was an exciting time to be in uniform in Europe.  In the three previous years, the Berlin Wall had fallen, the Soviet Union had dissolved, the Warsaw Pact had collapsed, diverse ethnic groups in the Former Yugoslavia were fomenting horrific genocide, and against Iraq in DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM, the finest military the world had ever seen had laid waste to the enemy.  Indeed, the world’s power structures were changing.  The United States needed a grand strategy to ensure that what would emerge would be in our best political, diplomatic, economic, and military interests. 

NATO’s leadership responded with the “New NATO” strategy.  Despite the collapse of the “Evil Empire”, the “New NATO” would reduce neither in membership nor in span of influence.  In fact, newe programs would eventually offer NATO’s proven formula of collective security and the prosperity it engendered to the newly liberated countries of Eastern Europe.  As well, to stop the ethnic-based massacres in the Balkans, NATO would carefully execute its first-ever out-of-area military operations.  The “New NATO” concept was a dynamic response to huge strategic challenges.  Strong U.S. leadership was needed to lead this, the U.S.’s most important alliance, into the future.

I wrote over 600 speeches, toasts, book chapters, position and background papers, and talking point outlines to stress that the “New NATO” would build on the strengths of the old NATO as it responded to the new challenges of Europe’s collective security.  Those strengths were simple to express and apply today as they did twenty years ago: committed U.S. leadership in the military and diplomatic arms of the alliance; continued presence of strong U.S. military forces in Europe; and, firm assurance by all NATO members to commit diplomatic and military resources if any NATO member were threatened by outside forces.  The eastern border of NATO would no longer run through a divided Germany and may someday be on the eastern border of the Baltic state of Estonia, but the mission of the alliance would  not change.  A strong NATO would ensure the peace and prosperity of its members through the coordinated and strong military capability of its members.  No economic, political, or diplomatic, mechanism such as the G-7, the European Union, or the UN could provide such peace.  NATO succeeded.  The New NATO also succeeded.    

Is today’s NATO working?  No.  It is failing because the United States has not fulfilled its continued role of strong and committed military leader.  Given Europe’s location on the map, what peoples inhabit and dominate that small continent, and where the strategic resources of the world are found, Europe will always need its U.S. cousins to be vitally involved in its strategic decision-making and in its day-to-day defense.  The American translation: it is in the United States’ compelling strategic interests to keep Europe peaceful and prosperous.  There always will be truth in the statement that NATO’s mission is to keep the United States in, Russia out, and Germany down. 

Dangerously, our current administration in particular cut back our deployed conventional forces and cancelled the deployment of a strategic missile defense capability in NATO.  They justify this by saying that we are now living in a post-cold-war world.  That statement shows that neither President Obama nor his advisors understand much about historic ethnic, cultural, and economic forces and their currency in today’s world.  The forces that caused most European conflicts from the 19^th into the 21^st century are stolidly grinding away at the European peace and security in places such as the Ukraine, the Balkans, and Turkey.  Europe’s instability threatens U.S. strategic interests, and, if left unanswered, our sovereignty. 

Are we too late to recover from our neglect of this most important responsibility?  No.  But, the President must declare now that our strategic interests in Europe are threatened, that we must immediately bolster our military commitment to the NATO alliance, and that our friends and allies in Europe extend to the Baltic, the Black Sea, and deep into the plains of Eastern Europe.  He must say it so that our allies will believe it and stand with us.  Russian leader Vladimir Putin understands only such strength.  Leading from behind is not an option for today’s Commander-in-Chief.  NATO’s challenges have always demanded more than that.