“The idea until recently was that there were no more threats in Europe and no need for a U.S. presence in Europe any more,” Siemoniak said, speaking through an interpreter. “Events show that what is needed is a re-pivot, and that Europe was safe and secure because America was in Europe.”
Why yes. Russia's revival as a self-proclaimed foe of the West which has added Crimea to their territorial holdings and still hopes for more of Ukraine does show us we still need to hold our gains in Europe after two world wars and a Cold War in the 20th century.
As an aside, is it really so outrageous that we'd need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to defend our gains in those places? Really?
But I digress (as I can).
I haven't been in the camp that wants NATO to reform into an arm of power projection at our side as the European militaries decline. If Europe is really concerned about their military power, I had suggestions:
Europe could start by eliminating their ambitions to have an EU military force separate from NATO. After that, I just want Europe to be able to defend themselves, be capable of handling problems within a thousand miles of their border, and be able to contribute small contingents of air, naval, and especially ground forces trained and equipped to operate under one of our headquarters for more distant missions[.]
For allies in missions abroad, I'm satisfied to have NATO acting as an institution that aids in joint training and interoperability so that when willing allies within NATO want to join us in a fight outside of NATO's command structure, we can smoothly integrate our forces for the mission.
But defending Europe is not an obsolete mission. The Russians are not capable of marching across Europe right now to park their tanks on the Rhine River. But do we really want to wait to react until the situation is that bad?
