The Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 scared almost everyone that World War III was imminent. The Soviet Union had been discovered to be building missile-launch facilities in Cuba and shipping missiles there. At the time, I was a commissioned officer not yet trained for active duty; instead, I had a temporary deferment while earning a master’s degree in education and doing my student teaching in central New York state.
Late Friday, 19 October, I returned to my temporary motel quarters to make my dinner and listen to the news. The midterm election campaigns were in full swing, but Kennedy, who had been in Chicago that day, unexpectedly flew back to Washington for treatment of a severe cold, so it was reported. Thinks I, who in their right mind would think that Kennedy could not get treatment for a bad cold in Chicago? Who in their right mind would not think that Kennedy flew back to Washington to confer with his advisers and take action? I lay on the couch after dinner, stared at the ceiling, and pondered what that action would be. It took me only a few minutes to figure out that he would impose a blockade of Cuba, one option among many being proposed at the time, and force the Soviet Union to decide what to do in case of a confrontation nearly ten thousand miles from the Kremlin. I slept soundly that night.
In all of my Monday classes, the students were anxious and fearful. They wanted to know whether I thought there would be a war. In the morning, I said that I was sure that there would be no war; in the afternoon, I said that I was certain there would be none. The difference was the news which I got at lunchtime on my car radio (the school did not have a radio!). As I recall, votes of support for the US were lopsided in the UN General Assembly (like 120 to 15) and the Organization of American States (19 to 0, with an abstention for lack of instructions). In short, in both organizations, all US allies and an overwhelming number of other countries, supported the US against the USSR. Results: the USSR backed down, and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was ousted from his political positions two years later.
* * *
This instance is only one of many. Britain supported the US throughout the Berlin Airlift. Several countries supported the US in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The countries in NATO, OAS, and ANZUS fulfilled their treaty obligations after 9/11 as the US fought against terrorist groups. Whatever judgment we make about these wars, in all of them, the US had allies who supported its efforts and made the efforts stronger than they would have been if the US had fought alone.
Since at least the First World War, the US has been the dominant political and military leader in the world. Its record is blemished because it has invaded countries, installed or overthrown governments, and meddled in civil wars. With the exception of Vietnam, most of these actions are peripheral blemishes. The US record in opposing aggression by major powers (Germany, Japan) or proxies supported by major powers (North Korea) is a distinguished one. US military forces were the difference between victory and defeat in the First World War, the Second World War, and Korea. Again, the US did not win those wars alone; it had allies contributing to victory.
For the past eighty years since the end of the Second World War, the international order has been predicated on the strength and stability of the US throughout the world and of NATO in Europe. NATO’s coherence depends on a beneficial mutuality of interests shared by the US and its European allies. In the past twenty years, the US has joined with other democratic countries to form military alliances in the Pacific. In short, the US has long recognized the value of allies with similar political systems.
* * *
Times have changed, America has changed, presidents have changed. Under the direction of President Trump, the US is limiting its participation in or withdrawing from these democratic alliances; even offending, threatening, and betraying long-standing allies; and thereby causing allies to question the reliability of the US as their leader. His display of favoritism toward Russia has created widespread distrust in NATO countries as well as in other countries around the world which have relied on US commitments and treaties for their protection. Despite the novelty and magnitude of these departures from US foreign policy, Trump has not provided any coherent, much less cogent or convincing, rationale for these reversals of direction in international relationships. At best, he expresses a sense of national victimhood, as if the US has long been duped in providing military support to allies not paying what he thinks is their fair share for defense. At worst, some reasons appear personal and petty, like his responses to foreign leaders; others appear political, like his disdain for democracy and admiration for dictators.
Whatever his reasons, Trump is acting on the dubious, dangerous, damaging assumption that the US can go it alone and yet be militarily strong enough to repel or defeat, say, Russia or China in the event of a major confrontation. Current US military assessments suggest otherwise. Without the additional military and associated political support of allies, US strength alone is unlikely to be sufficient to ensure the attainment of its objectives. Obviously, the risk of defeat is inversely proportional to the aggregate strength of US and allied forces.
Going it alone in the area of intelligence is particularly risky. If the US undertakes actions which harm its allies, they are likely to take counter-actions to protect their interests even at the expense of the US. Threats to the security of intelligence prompt concern, if not distrust, and restrictions on sharing. Trump’s secretly sequestering, insecurely storing, and casually showing off highly classified documents at Mar-a-Lago alarmed US allies, especially the other members of the Five Eyes (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). Although the US provides most of technical intelligence (e.g., SIGINT), other nations also provide much. They also provide more, and more varied, intelligence from agents (i.e., HUMINT) and others. They need what the US provides, but, in turn, the US needs what they provide. As the mutual trust which enables the sharing of intelligence is eroded, the US is deprived of important intelligence. Without it, the US is less able to know what its enemies can do, are doing, or plan to do—creating a vulnerability in defense and a handicap on offense.
Trump is also assuming that US allies will ignore sudden shifts in positions or policies, broken promises, and unfulfilled commitments, not to mention breaches of treaty obligations. Ukraine, an ally, is not a member of NATO, but it desires NATO membership and is supported by many NATO countries in its fight against Russian aggression. Biden provided Ukraine with support, too little, too slowly, but Trump has suddenly reversed the US position and switched sides. Trump accepts and repeats Russia’s lie that Ukraine started the war. He halted, then, after a period, promised to resume providing military equipment, supplies, and intelligence on his terms. But by interrupting this support even if for only a few though unknown number of days, the US is materially aiding a traditional enemy and an enemy of its allies by making it more difficult for Ukraine to defend both its military forces and its civilian population, which Russia, having committed any number of war crimes, is attacking with even greater intensity. Lacking intelligence, Ukraine has not been able to adequately defend civilians and infrastructure; as a result, many were killed and much damage done. These losses were deliberate. Trump wished death and destruction to punish Ukraine for not promptly submitting to his demands for access to its “raw earth” [sic: rare earths] and to advance Russian interests, a negotiated settlement of the conflict on Russian terms—cynically, in the name of peace—amounting to Ukraine’s surrender. Because of Trump’s betrayal of an ally and support of an enemy, blood is on America’s hands.
The European response is anger at the US and re-assessment of its role in Western affairs. At the personal and corporate level, this anger and reassessment are expressed in a growing boycott of American products by retailers and customers, and a refusal of some companies to re-fuel US Navy ships. Since Trump will double-down, more European retaliation is sure to follow.
Elisabeth Braw, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, wrote for the Centre for European Policy Analysis this week: “Nobody – nobody – would have thought that western businesses or consumers would use such tools against America.
“The United States is, after all, the leader of the free world. Or was: its vote with Russia, against Ukraine, at the United Nations last month, combined with Trump’s and Vance’s verbal attack on Zelenskyy, along with Trump’s denunciation of Zelenskyy as a dictator and a refusal to use similar language about the Russian despot, suggests to many that America is no longer an instinctive member of what we term the west.” (Peter Beaumont, “‘I feel utter anger’: From Canada to Europe, a movement to boycott US goods is spreading,” The Guardian [12 March 2025])
“Or was”—a turn of phrase which calls into question whether Trump’s dream to “make America great again” is not a nightmare, not only for Americans and America, but also for America’s allies, partners, and friends around the world.
In less than two months, Trump has undermined the Pax Americana of recent history; his means of doing so make it most improbable, if not nearly impossible, that he can restore it. If America is to avoid a modern version of the Dark Ages, its citizens must rise to the occasion, rouse themselves from their indolent ignorance, take informed political action to replace Republicans who have enabled Trump, Musk, other oligarchic troglodytes; and disempower corrupt institutions like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society which besmirch American ideals and pervert the Constitution and the rule of law. At the same time, to avoid a repetition of authoritarian rule, they must plan for a restoration which reforms the vulnerabilities of America’s political system. And, yes, they should plan punishment for malefactors who have committed crimes against the state and crimes against humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment