There is a lot of outcry at the moment, understandably, following comments Donald Trump made in an interview with Fox News at Davos.
Trump claimed that NATO were unlikely to come to the US’ aid and in any case, the help of other countries was not needed. He also claimed that those countries, implicitly including Britain may have answered an article 5 call and joined the Afghan war but had stayed back from the Frontline. It’s that last bit that was shocking because the reality is that the UK and other NATO allies suffered heavy casualties in Afghanistan.
Although to some extent, he is only saying what many Hollywood films seem to think and what, judging by social media what a lot of Americans happen to think.
However, in one sense, Trunp was correct. In military terms, the US did not need us in 2001. Their military might dwarves that of her allies. However, what that coalition gave was psychological support and political cover. That’s why President Bush believed that he needed us standing shoulder to shoulder.
I suspect that also Bush was signalling that the attack on America mattered to all of us too. We shared an enemy. Indeed, that is the point if NATO. It’s not that the nations have lots of different enemies and can just call on aid like some mutual insurance policy. So the British response to Argentina wasn’t a NATO one. Article 5 wasn’t used then. Indeed it has only been called upon that one time.
The point is that because we have shared values and interests, economic, political, cultural that there are shared enemies, shared threats. That’s crucial to the argument about the US staying in NATO and remaining engaged in Europe. It’s in America’s own interest to counter the threat of Putin’s Russia just as it was in Europe’s interest to stand with the US against Islamist terror in 2001 even when we were not attacked directly.
If freedom and democracy still matter, then yes the US still needs Britain and Europe. The question is whether or not the current administration can see that.
Faithroots 