Its not just President Donald Trump who is skeptical of the North Atlantic alliance, in other words. Its the American people. To the extent that U.S. citizens think about NATO at all, they disagree about whether honoring its commitments would be worth the sacrifice.

This wavering commitment likely signals a belief that American protection is no longer necessary for European security or that the United States has different priorities from when NATO was created 70 years ago. If NATO wants to earn the confidence of American citizenswho, after all, elect the American president whom NATO allies deal withthe alliance must rethink its mission for the 21st century.

To be sure, most Americans still have a general sense that NATO is important to our countrys security, according to another recent survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. But even that survey found the same divide on whether Americans would opt to retaliate against a Russian attack on a NATO ally. As recently as the late 1990s, nearly 70 percent of surveyed Americans supported sending U.S. troops to defend a new NATO member from a military attack.

Whats going on? NATO is in the midst of an existential crisis; its original mission is a vestige of an earlier era. Even the current secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, acknowledges that theres no imminent military threat from Russia (whose economy has dwindled to the size of Italys), and the Germans certainly dont seem intent on territorial expansion. So, Americans who retain a positive impression of the alliance might yet hesitate to sacrifice blood and treasure on a mission they dont see as vital to their interests.

Trump has seized on NATOs troubles, dismissing the treaty as obsolete. That critique is not particularly constructive, and his transactional accounting of member states financial contributions smacks more of petty grievance than of grand strategy. But his provocations have led to some soul searching.

French President Emmanuel Macron recently worried aloud about the brain death of NATO and encouraged Europe to regain military sovereignty and reassess the reality of what NATO is in the light of the commitment of the United States. Macron doesnt lay this all at Trumps feet, though; he says it was very astute for the United States to refocus on the rest of North America, as it did beginning under President Barack Obama, and to shift the U.S. geopolitical gaze toward Asia. In the wake of these comments, NATO will now convene a group of experts to strategize about the alliances futurean encouraging step.

If every crisis also represents an opportunity, leaders ought to use their meeting in London and subsequent gatherings to reimagine NATOs mission. Doing so could revive the popular support that gives it license to operate.

Russian meddling in democratic elections might be a place to start. Its increasingly clear the main threats to open societies are not military. If NATO remains a military alliance, it is unfit to respond to these types of threats. Three years after Estonia acceded into NATO in 2004, Russia in fact did attack the Baltic country. But because it was a cyberattack on banks, media outlets and government agencies, and there was no major loss of life, the alliance was powerless. One could imagine, in our era, that the integrity of European democracy would be better defended, Russian hostility better deterred and public support better assured if a cyberattack on one NATO country were treated as a cyberattack on all.

NATO members might argue the alliance is adapting to modern times by expandingit has grown from 12 countries 70 years ago to 29 today. But, on some level, expansion perpetuates the problem NATO seeks to solve. This sprawl has brought in a motley set of national interests to a body that requires consensus. Would Bulgarians fight for Belgium if it were attacked? Or, as Macron ponders, if Syria decides to retaliate against Turkey, will we commit ourselves under [Article 5]?

The real danger of an alliance with neither a clear purpose nor a clear adversary is its tendency to unnecessarily provoke citizens of nonallied countries. As Michael OHanlon at the Brookings Institution has pointed out, Russians see a psychologically and politically imposing former enemy that has approached right up to their border. NATO has strengthened autocracy and weakened democracy movements in and around Russia.

This was utterly foreseeable. In fact, it was foreseen by the man whose policy of containment helped to defeat Soviet communism. In 1998, at 94 years old, George Kennan spotted the perversity of expanding NATO when, he said, Russias democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries weve just signed up to defend from Russia. Kennan predicted, Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are. In a sense, his prophecy has come true.

If the Russian military is not the nemesis of the 29 NATO member countries, then who or what is? In a news conference with Stoltenberg on Thursday, Macron ventured it was terrorism, not Russia or China. This isnt so far-fetched: The only time any member country invoked Article 5 was when the United States did so after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But Macrons comment quickly led to derision from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who suggested Macron doesnt know what the fight against terror is and should have his own brain death checked out first. In a case of badly entangled alliances, Erdogan is annoyed because French troops are in Syria working with Kurdish forces that Turkey considers terrorists, while Turkey is striking a deal with Russia on controlling parts of Syria that were once patrolled by the United States.

NATO has a proud history and could yet have a productive future. But it must seek a new purpose that Americansand the citizens of other member statescan get behind. And it must heed Ismays call to use the kind of clear language that is only achievable with clear purpose. Only then will it be more than an alliance in search of both a mission and an adversary.

More here:

Opinion | Its Not Just Trump. The American People Are Skeptical of NATO, Too. - Politico