Category Archives: NATO

Vice President Mike Pence expressed U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on Monday at an Atlantic Council awards ceremony honoring NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

"Make no mistake, our commitment is unwavering," Pence said. "We will meet our obligations to our people to provide for the collective defense of all of our allies....An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us."

The clause has only been triggered once, following the attacks on 9/11.

"A strong NATO is vitally important, especially in these trying times," Pence said.

Play Video

Associated Press reporter Ken Thomas breaks down President Trump's message to world leaders at the NATO summit in Brussels.

Pence's remarks came weeks after President Trump, in his own recent speech before NATO leaders, did not explicitly mention Article 5 and instead called on NATO's European members to spend more on defense.

While he was a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump often talked about reforming NATO.

"NATO was set up at a different time," then-candidate Trump said. "NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We're not a rich country anymore. We're borrowing, we're borrowing all of this money...NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we're protecting Europe with NATO but we're spending a lot of money. Number one, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved."

However, on Sunday, Stoltenbergappeared on CBS News' "Face the Nation" and suggested Mr. Trump's criticism had been helpful, in sending a "clear message about the need for increased defense spending across Canada and Europe."

"And a good thing is that the European Allies now understand that we have to invest more in defense, not only to please the United States, but because it is in the interest of Europe to invest more in security because we live in a more dangerous world," Stoltenberg said.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Visit link:
Pence: US commitment to NATO "is unwavering" - CBS News

U.S. Sen. John N. Kennedy has returned from an overseas trip with a bipartisan group of members of the U.S. House and Senate.

Kennedy, R-Madisonville, traveled to Belgium, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and France on a trip that focused on NATO and defense spending.

According to a news release, Kennedy also took the opportunity to promote Louisiana economic development opportunities.

Louisiana is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. In addition to being a leader in oil and natural gas production, our state produces high-quality agriculture and manufactured products. As such, during this trip I focused specifically on selling Louisiana and our products to the countries that we visited, Kennedy said in the release.

U.S. Sen. John Kennedy said that a recent trip to China and Japan gave him an opportunity to

Kennedy met with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite, Lithuanian Minister of Defense Raimundas Karoblis, Speaker of the Seimas Viktoras Pranckietis, Estonian Minister of Defense Margus Tsahkna, Republic of Finland President Sauli Niinisto, Finnish Minister of Defense Jussi Niinisto and Finnish Speaker of Parliament Maria Lohela as well as NATO officials during the seven-day trip.

Kennedy, a Madisonville Republican who joined the Senate in January, traveled to Asia earlier this year in a trip that highlighted North Korea's nuclear threats.

Others on the trip to the Baltic States included Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate Health Education, Labor and Pension Committee; Senate Appropriations Chair Thad Cochran, R-Mississippi; Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri; and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland; and House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Phil Roe, R-Tennessee.

The fight against terrorism is a collective fight," Kennedy said. This was a productive trip as we were able to have serious conversations with presidents and defense ministers about the need to enhance defense spending.

Follow Elizabeth Crisp on Twitter, @elizabethcrisp.

Original post:
US Sen. John Kennedy returns from overseas trip highlighting NATO - The Advocate

Montenegro Prime Minister Dusko Markovic, center, shakes hands with U.S. Under Secretary of State Thomas Shannon, right, with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, during an accession ceremony at the State Department in Washington on Monday June 5, 2017. Shawn Thew / EPA

NATO's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg acknowledged that member nations were not always on the same page.

We are an alliance of democracies and we have at time different political perspectives, but together we rise above those differences and unite around a common purpose, Stoltenberg said. To stand with each other, to protect each other, and if necessary to fight to defend each other.

The mood at the ceremony was celebratory as the small former Yugoslav republic of Montenegro, once considered a Russian stronghold, was formally inducted as the newest member of the security alliance.

"Montenegro should be commended in particular for asserting its sovereign right to choose its alliances even of the face of concerted foreign pressure," said Shannon. "America respects the right of all nations to chart their own path."

Related:

"[This] is a historic event for a country and a nation which endured enormous sacrifices in the 19th and 20th centuries in order to defend their right to a free life, the right to decide on our own future, the right to be recognized by the world under our own name, and with our national symbols," said Montenegrin Prime Minister Dusko Markovic. "This is also confirmation of something that has never been questioned that Americans remain committed to the stability and security of the Western Balkans and Europe."

Still, it is unclear what the alliance's recent victory will do to sooth the concerns of U.S. European allies after the President's recent performance in Brussels.

President Trump is the only U.S. President since the alliance was formed almost seven decades to not explicitly state the U.S. commitment to "Article five" the core tenet of NATO's charter: "an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all."

"The times in which we could rely fully on others, they are somewhat over," German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared earlier this month following President Trump's remarks in Brussels. We have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans.

Anxiety over the administration's position on international agreements was only compounded by the recent decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, a landmark global agreement meant to curb emissions that cause climate change.

"I condemn this brutal act against #ParisAccord @realDonaldTrump Leadership means fighting climate change together. Not forsaking commitment," Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel tweeted following the announcement.

Secretary of State Tillerson unable to attend today's ceremony in Washington, was asked during a press conference in Sydney with his Australian allies to explain the administration's seeming move towards isolationism.

"I hope the fact that we are here demonstrates that that is certainly not this administrations view or intention to somehow put at arms length those important allies and partners in the world," said the Secretary of State.

See the original post here:
Montenegro Joins NATO, First New Member in a Decade - NBCNews.com

Although barely discussed at the May mini-summit in Brussels, Russia remains a growing threat to NATO. To deal effectively with this threat and others, the alliance is designing a new air power strategy. To take full advantage of NATOs overwhelming potential to deliver precise combat power from the air, this new strategy should focus on three long-term tasks.

For its first task, NATO air forces must improve readiness and sustainability to maximize its deterrent posture.

After the 2016 Warsaw Summit, NATO forward deployed a battle group to each of the Baltic states and Poland to demonstrate the alliances resolve and intent to meet its Article 5 defense obligations. Given the modest size of these NATO forces, they could be overwhelmed by a well-planned, determined short-notice Russian attack.

Some defense analysts fear Russia might be tempted to attack on the bet that the alliance could not achieve a timely consensus on the follow-on course of action.During a pause after the initial attack, Russia might seek to control the situation by threatening nuclear escalation or petitioning for a diplomatic solution, thus creating further political paralysis.

Several steps would go a long way to prevent or negate the dangerous pause that could put NATO and Russia at odds. European fighter aircraft need to be kept at high readiness, ready to fight tonight. Munition stockpiles must be robust and combat operations sustainable with precision-guided munitions. Aircrews and ground crews need to be available, combat ready and well trained. NATO airfields must accommodate high-tempo combat operations that support sortie generation to high levels.

For its second task, NATO air power must assure air superiority in anti-access area-denial (A2/AD) environments created by potential adversaries.Russian A2/AD deploymentsin the Kola Peninsula by the Barents Sea, Kaliningrad by the Baltic Sea, Crimea by the Black Sea and Syria by the Eastern Mediterranean will challenge NATO operations in those areas.The complete air superiority enjoyed by NATO during combat operations against terrorists may not be easily achieved in the future.Air superiority is not optional. If the Russians perceive that they can deny NATO flight operations, deterrence will be severely degraded and could invite conflict.

To signal a strong intent to maintain air superiority in peacetime or in conflict, NATO should transition from air policing to a more robust and enduring air defense posture under the command and control (C2) of a fully manned, fully integrated and validated air operations center (AOC) under the leadership of standing joint force air component (JFAC) commander and staff. To protect its own assets, NATOs Integrated Air and Missile Defense system also needs to be strengthened.

European air forces have very capable fourth generation fighter aircraft, but procuring fifth generation aircraft will provide the independent capabilities necessary to neutralize A2/AD environments. These overall improvements will require Europe to set a long-term goal of a capacity to manage at least one major combat operation on its own.

NATO allies should meet their obligation to the Defense Investment Pledge (2 percent of GDP for defense) and use enough of the increased defense spending to invest strategically in NATO air capabilities. Maximizing NATOs framework nation concept (in which a lead nation is supported by a smaller nation) will reduce duplication, enhance coordination and insure that the increase in defense spending is invested wisely to enhance deterrence and increase collective defense capacity. An air power framework nation consortium should be considered.

The three tasks discussed here plus the means to implement them should be central to NATOs new air power strategy.

Gen. Frank Gorenc served as the commander of NATOs Allied Air Command; commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe; and commander of U.S. Air Forces Africa. Hans Binnendijk served as the U.S. National Security Council senior director for defense policy, as well as the director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies. Both participated in a recent NATO Joint Air Power Competence Centre study on air power strategy.

Go here to see the original:
Make a move: Key steps to a new NATO air power game plan - DefenseNews.com

On May 25th, President Trump, during his visit to the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium, sharply criticized our European allies for, in effect, freeloading off the military dominance, and the military spending, of the United States. This is an accurate analysis, since only 4 of the 26 European countries in NATO currently spend the minimum level of GDP, 2%, judged by the organization itself to be sufficient to meet their obligations. (The U.S., by contrast, spends 3.5% of GDP on defense, and its defense budget roughly triples the spending of all other NATO countries combined.)

Moreover, the U.S. faces most of its military challenges in the Middle East, and European countries consistently lack either the will or the capability to contribute meaningfully to those missions. Ergo, Europe continues to rely on the United States to provide for its collective defense, but it fails to spend adequately to supplement and support U.S. forces, and it fails also to support U.S. operations elsewhere in the world, even when those missions are clearly relevant to European security (e.g. the struggle against ISIS). In a nutshell, the U.S. pays to defend Europe, and gets little or nothing in return.

Those who favor a continuation of this ruinous policy do so largely because they are stuck in a Cold War mentality, and, indeed, during the Cold War NATO made excellent sense to all of its member states, including the U.S. NATOs core mission was and is collective defense, achieved by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, penned in 1948-49 at the start of the Cold War. Article 5 states that, if a single NATO country is attacked, all NATO countries will respond as if they were themselves attacked, and consequently rush to the rescue. During the Cold War, this meant that, if the Soviet Union attacked any country in Western Europe, all of Western Europe, plus the United States and Canada, would go to war with the Soviet Union. Whether this pledge was genuine or merely a bluff, it succeeded in preventing Soviet aggression. And, in the tense atmosphere of the Cold War, although the United States bore the primary burden of defending Europe against Soviet assault, most NATO members took their defense obligations seriously and maintained militaries that could credibly have assisted U.S. forces. They also sometimes contributed substantially to anti-communist military operations around the world during the Korean War, for example. In short, during the Cold War, NATO imposed great burdens and risks on its members, but those burdens and risks were shared, and no one disputed the seriousness of the challenge posed by communist aggression.

Today, though, the Soviet Union no longer exists. For those panicked by the latest upsurge of Russophobia (or, for the John McCains of this world, for whom Russophobia has always been a way of life), this may seem like a hollow declaration, since Russia still possesses powerful military forces, and has proved willing to use them against several of its neighbors. The fact, though, is that no country on earth, including Russia, poses a threat to Europe in any way analagous to that of the Soviet Union. European countries have the human, technological, industrial, and economic resources to defend themselves, with ease, from any credible enemy and yet, unsurprisingly, they choose not to do so, because the United States continues to provide Europe with a blank check in the form of a security guarantee.

Europes position is understandable, as is American resentment of European freeloading, but what is different about the Trump administrations position is that, 1) President Trump is pointedly insisting that European countries boost their defense spending, and 2) Trump has not explicitly endorsed Article 5 and the concept of collective defense. In other words, he is being cagey about whether, if a European country was attacked, the U.S. would uphold its treaty obligations and use armed force to assist it. He has not disavowed the North Atlantic Treaty, but he seems to regard its obligations as reciprocal and therefore contingent on European nations paying their fair share. (They seem to be minimally receptive to this demand.) One can naturally criticize the message this policy sends to potential aggressors, since it calls into question NATOs reliability, but the only alternative is for the U.S. to fund Europes defense indefinitely and without conditions. Surely, this is unacceptable. Something has to give.

For diplomatic reasons, President Trump has backed off the claim he made during the campaign that NATO is obsolete, but in many ways he was right. NATO was founded based on two presuppositions: that Europes freedom was in imminent jeopardy, and that Europeans were incapable of defending that freedom by themselves. Neither of these assumptions holds water today. Thus, we should applaud President Trump for pushing NATO members to rethink their roles and obligations. His message may not have been a popular one, but it is ultimately in the best interests of Americans and Europeans to heed it.

More:
On NATO, Trump Gets It Right - The Daily Caller

Vice President Mike PenceMike (Michael) Richard PencePence on NATO: 'Our commitment is unwavering' Trump unveils plan to separate air traffic control from government US defense leaders offer Asia reassurances in age of Trump MORE on Monday reaffirmed the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members to stand together in the fight against terrorism, citing the recent deadly London terror attacks.

"And make no mistake: Our commitment is unwavering. We will meet our obligations to our people to provide for the collective defense of all our allies," Pence said at the Atlantic Council's Global Citizen Awards event.

Penceexpressed condolences on behalf of the Trump administration for the people affected by the attacks at left dozens dead and many more injured in the United Kingdom.

He voiced support for NATO Article 5, which says "an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies."

"An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us," he said at the event hosted by the nonpartisan organization.

President Trump cited the recent attacks this week as further reason to institute a travel ban to protect the U.S. and prevent individuals from "dangerous countries" coming over the nation's border.

Trump also repeatedly spoke out against NATO on the campaign trail, calling it "obsolete" and complaining that it is too reliant on the U.S. for funding.

The president has softened his stance on the organization since, in April saying it was "no longer obsolete" at a White House press conference with the NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other foreign leaders also spoke at the Atlantic Council event Monday night.

NATO was created in 1949 as a collective military and security alliance among several Western states against the growing threat of the Soviet Union.

See more here:
Pence on NATO: 'Our commitment is unwavering' - The Hill

WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trumps Mideast visit just two weeks ago was marked by speculation he would discuss an Arab NATO military alliance. But it was never mentioned by name.

Now a diplomatic rift between Qatar and four Gulf neighbors shows why a military union to fight terrorism and push back against Iran is easier said than done. The diplomatic row has also left U.S. officials to play down the incidents impact even as the host of the largest U.S. naval base in the region, Bahrain, and the host of the largest U.S. air base in the region, Qatar, no longer share diplomatic relations.

On the trip, Trump vowed to improve ties with both Riyadh and Cairo to combat regional terror groups and contain Iran and announced$110 billion in U.S. arms sales to Riyadh. The White House said the sale, "bolsters the Kingdom's ability to provide for its own security and continue contributing to counterterrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on U.S. military forces."

Some analysts argued that Trumps over-simplistic rhetoric set the stage for the crisis, giving Saudi Arabia and other countries the green light to isolate Qatar, which irritated its neighbors with a softer line on Iran and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood as political expressions of Islam.

Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, on Monday cut ties with Qatar over its support of militant groups aligned with Iran, sparking a major diplomatic crisis in the Middle East as the nations began pulling out diplomatic staffs. Airlines also suspended flights into and out of Doha, the capital of Qatar. And Saudi Arabia closed its land border, cutting off much of the food imports into Qatar and leading to a run on supermarkets there.

The concept of an Arab NATO is now falling apart. Bruce Riedel, a former C.I.A., Pentagon, and National Security Council staffer, concluded. And beyond damaging the prospects for an alliance, Riyadhs aim appears to be regime change in Qatar, Riedel said.

The Saudis and Emiratis late last month blocked Qatar's Al-Jazeera network last month after Qatari Emir Shaykh Tamim bin Hamid Al Thani publicly said the Gulf states need to engage Tehran, and called Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to congratulate him on his re-election, Riedel noted. But the best indicator of how serious the Saudis are, he said, is that the kingdom orchestrated a May 28 letter from the Wahhabi clerical establishment challenging the legitimacy of the Qatari ruling family.

This is now about regime change in Doha, not muzzling al Jazeera, Riedel said.

Saudi Arabia said it took the decision to cut diplomatic ties due to Qatars embrace of various terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at destabilizing the region including the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida, the Islamic State group and groups supported by Iran in the kingdoms restive Eastern Province. Egypts Foreign Ministry accused Qatar of taking an antagonist approach toward Cairo and said all attempts to stop it from supporting terrorist groups failed.

Tensions between Qatar and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are longstanding, and inter-Arab politics have long stymied Western efforts to build greater unity on security, or forge formal treaty arrangements, said Ilan Goldenberg, director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

On discrete issues, like the Islamic State, the Arab states will band together, but progress on a cross-border approach to missile defense against Iran has been slow. The countries are generally more comfortable with the U.S. as the role of coordinator, Goldenberg said.

Its a lot more complicated than were just going to unify the entire Sunni world against Iran, Goldenberg said. Its not NATO, where you can bring all these countries together, like in Europe, with something that has quite frankly evolved over a long period.

Setting aside the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition has been intervening in the civil war since 2015, the security cooperation there between the Gulf partners in the war is a remarkable step toward an alliance, Goldenberg said.

Meanwhile, advocacy groups are expressing concern about the administrations emphasis on arms sales without it acknowledging the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

Im very concerned about the ratcheting up of the arms race in the region, and that all the pressure on Iran will lead them to militarize as much as they can, said Jeff Abramson, of the Arms Control Association. From the rhetoric from Trump you wouldnt even know that we care about the people on the ground, in Yemen. I dont see what his military-only approach will accomplish.

Bockenfeld, of the Project on Middle East Democracy, noted that in spite of Bahrain's human rights abuses, Trump met with its king, Sheikh Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa, and vowed warmer ties. His administration is planning to pursue a $5 billion sale to Bahrain of 19 Lockheed Martin F-16 aircraft and related equipment, which was held up last year by human rights concerns, according to Reuters.

The United States maintains the largest concentration of military personnel in the Middle East at Al Udeid Air Base, outside Doha. The base serves as a logistics, command, and basing hub for the U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, area of operations.

In the near term, U.S. officials are saying the dispute between the Gulf states and Qatar will not have a significant impact on the fight against the Islamic State.

"I think what we're witnessing is a growing list of irritants in the region that have been been there for some time, and obviously they have now bubbled up to a level that countries decided they needed to take action in an effort to have those differences addressed," Tillerson said.

Defense Secretary James Mattis, speaking beside Tillerson, said he believes the issue will resolve itself.

At a breakfast in Washington Monday, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said, "It hasn't changed our operations at all at Al Udeid and, obviously, it's more of a diplomatic issue at the moment."

A Pentagon spokesman said U.S. military aircraft continue to conduct missions in support of ongoing operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

"The United States and the coalition are grateful to the Qataris for their longstanding support of our presence and their enduring commitment to regional security," Marine Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway said in a statement. "We have no plans to change our posture in Qatar. We encourage all our partners in the region to reduce tensions and work towards common solutions that enable regional security."

According to a Congressional Research Service report, U.S. concerns regarding alleged material support for terrorist groups by some Qataris have been balanced over time by Qatars counterterrorism efforts and its broader, long-term commitment to host and support U.S. military forces active in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the CENTCOM area.

In December 2013, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel visited Doha, met with Emir Tamim, and signed a new 10-year defense cooperation agreement, followed in July 2014 by agreements for $11 billion in advanced arms sales.

Military Times Staff Writer Stephen Losey and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Qatar rift sets back Trump's 'Arab NATO' - DefenseNews.com

This to me is the most worrisome [signal] that I have seen from this administration. Richard Haass, Council on Foreign Relations

Thats Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, reacting early Monday on MSNBC to a Politico report that a reaffirmation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations founding document the collective-defense commitment appeared in an earlier draft of the remarks President Trump was to make late last month at the alliances new headquarters in Brussels but then was left out when Trump actually spoke.

See: President Trump doesnt affirm mutual-defense pact in speech to NATO leaders

To Haass, widely believed to have been considered by Trump as a prospective secretary of state before that post went to Rex Tillerson, that suggested a danger that the so-called Steve Bannon wing had drowned out more moderating influences and reawakened a perception that the last adviser in the room with Trump is likely to have outsized influence on an ultimate decision. Haass, on Twitter, called it a recipe for disaster.

See the article here:
Article 5 reaffirmation appeared in Trump's NATO speech before being edited out: report - MarketWatch

The head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) said Sunday that he absolutely believes President Trump is committed to the alliance.

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary-general, said that while he believes Trump is committed to the alliance because it is a treaty obligation, the president has also reaffirmed his support for NATO in various meetings.

Trump has stated that hes committed to NATO, and his security team has also stated that very clearly, Stoltenberg said.

The NATO chief said that Trump has stated several times that he is committed to the alliance and that the presidents calls for member nations to increase defense spending have helped to convey a very clear message about NATO commitments.

Stoltenberg's comments also follow Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and his first trip to NATO headquarters in Brussels. The president received criticism after the visit for not explicitly mentioning his support for Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty, which stipulates that a threat to one nation member is a threat to all nation members.

Read this article:
NATO head 'absolutely' believes Trump is committed to alliance - The Hill

Subscribe to The Global POLITICO on iTunes here. | Subscribe via Stitcher.

When President Donald Trump addressed NATO leaders during his debut overseas trip little more than a week ago, he surprised and disappointed European allies who hopedand expectedhe would use his speech to explicitly reaffirm Americas commitment to mutual defense of the alliances members, a one-for-all, all-for-one provision that looks increasingly urgent as Eastern European members worry about the threat from a resurgent Russia on their borders.

Story Continued Below

That part of the Trump visit is known.

Whats not is that the president also disappointedand surprisedhis own top national security officials by failing to include the language reaffirming the so-called Article 5 provision in his speech. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all supported Trump doing so and had worked in the weeks leading up to the trip to make sure it was included in the speech, according to five sources familiar with the episode. They thought it was, and a White House aide even told the New York Times the day before the line was definitely included.

It was not until the next day, Thursday, May 25, when Trump started talking at an opening ceremony for NATOs new Brussels headquarters, that the presidents national security team realized their boss had made a decision with major consequences without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.

They had the right speech and it was cleared through McMaster, said a source briefed by National Security Council officials in the immediate aftermath of the NATO meeting. As late as that same morning, it was the right one.

Added a senior White House official, There was a fully coordinated other speech everybody else had worked onand it wasnt the one Trump gave. They didnt know it had been removed, said a third source of the Trump national security officials on hand for the ceremony. It was only upon delivery.

The president appears to have deleted it himself, according to one version making the rounds inside the government, reflecting his personal skepticism about NATO and insistence on lecturing NATO allies about spending more on defense rather than offering reassurances of any sort; another version relayed to others by several White House aides is that Trumps nationalist chief strategist Steve Bannon and policy aide Stephen Miller played a role in the deletion. (According to NSC spokesman Michael Anton, who did not dispute this account, The president attended the summit to show his support for the NATO alliance, including Article 5. His continued effort to secure greater defense commitments from other nations is making our alliance stronger.)

Either way, the episode suggests that what has been portrayedcorrectlyas a major rift within the 70-year-old Atlantic alliance is also a significant moment of rupture inside the Trump administration, with the president withholding crucial information from his top national security officialsand then embarrassing them by forcing them to go out in public with awkward, unconvincing, after-the-fact claims that the speech really did amount to a commitment they knew it did not make.

The frantic, last-minute maneuvering over the speech, Im told, included MM&T, as some now refer to the trio of Mattis, McMaster and Tillerson, lobbying in the days leading up to it to get a copy of the presidents planned remarks and then pushing hard once they obtained the draft to get the Article 5 language in it, only to see it removed again. All of which further confirms a level of White House dysfunction that veterans of both parties Ive talked with in recent months say is beyond anything they can recall.

Susan B. Glassers new weekly podcast takes you backstage in a world disrupted.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

And it suggests Trumps impulsive instincts on foreign policy are not necessarily going to be contained by the team of experienced leaders hes hired for Defense, the NSC and State. Were all seeing the fallout from itand all the fallout was anticipated, the White House official told me.

They may be the adults in the room, as the saying going around Washington these last few months had it. But Trumpand the NATO case shows this all too clearlyisnt in the room with them.

***

No one would find this episode more disturbing than Strobe Talbott, the Washington wise man who as much as anyone could be considered an architect of the modern NATO. As Bill Clintons deputy secretary of state, Talbott oversaw the successful push to redefine the alliance for the post-Cold War, expanding to the same countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics now so urgently looking for American reaffirmation of the commitment Clinton and Talbott gave them in the 1990s.

I spoke with Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution and a Russia watcher going back to the 1960s when he translated Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchevs memoirs as a Rhodes Scholar classmate of Clintons, for this weeks Global Politico podcast, and he warned at length about the consequences of Trumps seeming disregard for NATO at the same time hes touted his affinity with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Trumps rebuff of Americas European allies on his recent tripcombined with his decision last week to withdraw from the Paris climate-change agreementis not merely some rhetorical lapse, Talbott argued, but one with real consequences.

The failure to say something has had a very dangerous and damaging effect on the most successful military alliance in history, Talbott told me. Given that all Trumps top officials like McMaster and Mattis had spent months promising that the president didnt really mean it when he called NATO obsolete and insisting the Article 5 commitment from the U.S. was unshakable, Talbott noted, all we needed was for the commander-in-chief to say it, and he didnt say itan omission that from that day forward [means] the Atlantic community was less safe, and less together.

Compared with his volatile management style and struggles on domestic policy, some have argued in recent months that Trumps foreign policy is a relative outpost of competence, with strong hands like McMaster and Mattis on board to avoid major failures. But Talbott and others with whom Ive spoken since Trumps trip believe the NATO incident really overturns that assumption. Its destroyed the credibility of Trumps advisers when they offer reassurances for allies to discount the presidents inflammatory rhetoricand cast into doubt the kind of certainties necessary for an uncertain world to function.

I had a very high-placed Asian official from a major ally in Asia not long ago, where youre sitting, who shook his head with sorrow, and said, Washington, D.C. is now the epicenter of instability in the world, Talbott recounted. What it means is something that our friends and allies around the world have taken for granted for 70 years is no longer something that they can take for granted.

And in fact, were already seeing the ripple effects from the Trump NATO speech-that-wasntand what several of the sources told me was an even worse rift with the allies during the private dinner that followed. In the days immediately after, European leaders like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron went public with unusually frank criticisms. Meantime, Trumps rebuffed national security leaders have been left in increasingly awkward positions. Are these people going to steer Trump, one former senior U.S. official asked, or are they simply going to be made enablers?

McMaster, a widely respected three-star general before he took the job, had been presumed by the Trump-wary foreign policy establishment to be a smart pick because of his track record of being unafraid to speak truth to power (and a book on Vietnam in which he specifically argued that LBJs generals had failed by not doing so). But hes now being pilloried by some early supporters for his very public efforts to spin Trumps trip as a successand claim the president supported the Article 5 clause he never explicitly mentioned.

Mattis, meanwhile, has taken a different route.

Not only has the defense secretary, a former top general at NATO, not joined in the administrations spinning, he set Twitter abuzz over the weekend with an appearance at an Asian security forum in Singapore. In his speech, he praised the international institutions and alliances sustained by American leadership, seeking to reassure allies once again that the U.S. was not really pulling back from the world despite Trumps America First rhetoric.

But when asked about Trump moves like withdrawing from the Paris accord and whether they meant America was abandoning the very global order that Mattis was busy touting, the secretary responded with an allusion to Winston Churchills famous quote about the dysfunctions of democracy.

To quote a British observer of us from some years back, bear with us, Mattis told the questioner. Once we have exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing.

So, he added: we will still be there, and we will be there with you.

The audience chuckled, one attendee told me, because it was an elegant way out of an awkward question.

But the awkward question remains: Should we believe Jim Mattis, or Donald Trump?

Susan B. Glasser is POLITICOs chief international affairs columnist. Her new podcast, The Global Politico, comes out Mondays. Subscribe here. Follow her on Twitter @sbg1.

Original post:
Trump National Security Team Blindsided by NATO Speech - Politico