Republican lawmakers have mainly supported every decision President Donald Trump made since he returned to the White House. However, a rift is now developing over the command of the NATO alliance.
NBC News first reported that the Trump administration has considered “giving up the role of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe.” Also known as SACEUR, a four-star U.S. general has always filled this position,” a command that began with then-World War II hero and future president Dwight D. Eisenhower.”
America Opting Out of SACEUR
The United States may opt out of the NATO command role as the Department of Defense (DoD) undergoes restructuring. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth calls for an eight percent cut to the Pentagon’s budget.
Stepping aside from the SACEUR would leave another NATO member to fill the role.
That was quickly met with sharp criticism, including from those who have served in the position.
“For the United States to give up the role of supreme allied commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance,” Adm. James Stavridis, United States Navy, who served as SACEUR and head of European Command from 2009 to 2013, said in an email to ABC News.
“It would be a political mistake of epic proportions, and once we give it up, they will not give it back. We would lose an enormous amount of influence within NATO, and this would be seen, correctly, as probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether.”
In addition to commanding NATO forces, the U.S. four-star general oversees the U.S. European Command (USEC), one of the U.S. military’s six geographical combat commands.
America and NATO at a Crossroads
President Donald Trump has long been critical of NATO, often suggesting that members have failed to pay “their fair share.” His supporters have argued that his tough stance has forced those countries to increase defense spending.
“NATO is costing us a fortune and, yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money,” he told The Washington Post in early 2016 during his first presidential run.
Trump’s stance on NATO has only seemed to have further diminished since he returned to the Oval Office.
American Lawmakers Are Pushing Back
Some Republican lawmakers may find giving up NATO command a step too far. On Wednesday, the House and Senate Armed Services Committee chairs responded in a joint statement.
“U.S. combatant commands are the tip of the American warfighting spear,” wrote Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) in the statement.
“Therefore, we are very concerned about reports that claim DoD is considering unilateral changes on major strategic issues, including significant reductions to U.S. forces stationed abroad, absent coordination with the White House and Congress. We support President Trump’s efforts to ensure our allies and partners increase their contributions to strengthen our alliance structure, and we support continuing America’s leadership abroad,” the lawmakers added.
“As such, we will not accept significant changes to our warfighting structure without a rigorous interagency process, coordination with combatant commanders and the Joint Staff, and collaboration with Congress. Such moves risk undermining American deterrence around the globe and detracting from our negotiating positions with America’s adversaries.”
Significant Changes in America Equals Small Savings
Secretary Hegseth’s restructuring plan also calls for the “consolidation of U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command into one command based in Stuttgart, Germany, and the shuttering of U.S. Southern Command headquarters in Florida to combine it with U.S. Northern Command.”.
Supporters of such consolidation could reduce staffing, including those with “overlapping responsibilities,” and could save up to $270 million in the first year. However, that figure needs to be put into perspective as it accounts for just 0.03 percent of the DoD’s total annual budget of $850 billion.
Critics contend it would “reduce American influence” but warn that the U.S. would lose at least some access to facilities in Europe that could be critical to future missions.
“When you start reducing headquarters capabilities that do planning and intelligence, that only hurts us,” Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, United States Army and former commander of United States Army Europe, told Bloomberg.
“What strategic analysis led them to want to do this? This has happened so early that this smells like a cost-cutting thing than a strategic analysis.”
About the Author: Peter Suciu
Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: at [email protected].
Image: Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff.
