"[T]he 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years."
--President Barack Obama, to Mitt Romney
The headline is a joke. That is, an editor long ago suggested putting "Whither NATO?" in type, keeping it ready, and slapping it on any opinion piece about military affairs in Europe. Another editor countered that we should just put the damnable headline on any opinion piece we didn't want subscribers to read. "Whither NATO?" is the No. 1 overall seed, first-round bye, grand master champion of spiritless headlines.
Of course American editorial pages should keep it in type!
The president of the United States, on his first trip abroad as president, made it to NATO headquarters early in the week before heading to his tete-a-tete with Vlad the Impaler. President Biden made two things clear: His dealings with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin would be different from American policy the last four years. And the United States' policy toward NATO would be different, too.
As far as Comrade Putin goes, we shall see.
As far as NATO goes, the different approach is good news for Americans and the West. Because no matter what a president named Obama said during his re-election campaign in 2012, and no matter what the last president said about Putin's smarts, Russia really is the biggest geopolitical foe of the West. At least while the government in Moscow protects hackers breaking into our pipelines, hospitals and meat suppliers. And while it militarily picks off border regions surrounding the western alliance. And while it threatens Europe with economic blackmail and fuel shortages.
A strong NATO--and strong alliances anywhere, to keep the bear away--is a conservative precept going back to the aftermath of World War II.
Much like the troops this country has stationed in South Korea, the Americans stationed in Europe aren't there to prevent a Russian invasion. As Dr. Charles Krauthammer once noted, coldly, they are there to die. They are a tripwire. They are there to make sure that any Russian invasion of Europe would include thousands of American casualties, and thus force the United States into the war. And so keep Moscow from making a move in the first place. It's a dangerous game, the alliance business, but it has worked to keep the peace in that area of operations since 1945. The trick is to never be too direct, too clear, too coherent about intentions. Would an American president really go to war over Estonia? The Chinese are asking that same question about our promises to Taiwan. The best policy is to keep everybody guessing and to create no lines in the sand, or water. Peace, it's wonderful.
But continuing that peace means glad-handing our allies. They are our BFFs, as the kids say. Hugs all around. The current American president's actions on Monday and Tuesday sent exactly the right message to our global opponents: The Americans support NATO. The American president backs NATO. Let's not test Article 5. "Whither NATO?" is a question we'd better not press.
World peace is easier kept when western alliances hold strong--and when NATO makes it known that it's not bear hunting, but neither is it running scared through the woods, in global retreat.