An unnamed former senior U.S. official stated on June 5 that President Trump plans to remove 9,500 U.S. troops from Germany, reducing the total number to 25,000. The plan aims to complete the withdrawal by September. The report was originally featured in the Wall Street Journal and also carried by the New York Times.
The decision reflects Trump’s position that other NATO members should bear a greater share of the cost of maintaining the U.S-European defense alliance. The Times report noted that while Germany spent 1.36 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense in 2019, that number is still significantly short of NATO’s stated target of two percent.
The Times noted that last August, Richard Grenell, who was then the U.S. ambassador to Germany, suggested that it made little sense that Germany would maintain a budget surplus while failing to meet the NATO spending guidelines and then rely on U.S. troops to bolster its defense.
“At the urging of President Trump, NATO allies increased their defense spending by $140 billion so it only makes sense that the American people don’t have to carry the burden as much,” Grenell was quoted by the Times.
Trump’s arguments concerning the proper level of U.S. involvement in NATO have so far been based solely on economics and have not addressed the greater question of why the United States has troops stationed in Europe in the first place.
Over many years, The New American has questioned not only U.S. support of NATO, in the form of both troops and money, but the very necessity of continuing the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
When NATO was created in 1949, its leaders claimed the pact was needed to block further Soviet advances in Europe after practically all of Eastern Europe’s nations had already been conquered and made part of a Soviet-ruled empire. However, if that were its real purpose, NATO should have closed its doors when the Soviet empire collapsed close to 30 years ago. Aside from the fact that NATO has outlived its original mandate, however, is the fact that its founders had a more sinister ulterior motive.
As we have noted,
Always a subsidiary of the United Nations to whom it owes its very existence (see Articles 52-54 of the UN Charter), the pact requires all participants to consider an attack on any NATO member an attack on all NATO members. Heavily promoted at its founding by world government advocates John Foster Dulles (who admitted it being “a step in a political evolution”) and Dean Acheson (who claimed “it will strengthen the United Nations”), it drew opposition from Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio) as a threat aimed at U.S. sovereignty.
President Emeritus of The John Birch Society and former publisher of The New American John McManus stated, “Our nation needs leaders who will restore undiluted U.S. independence. The clear way to accomplish this sorely needed restoration involves quitting NATO and withdrawing from the United Nations.”
Photo: AP Images
Warren Mass has served The New American since its launch in 1985 in several capacities, including marketing, editing, and writing. Since retiring from the staff several years ago, he has been a regular contributor to the magazine. Warren writes from Texas and can be reached at [email protected].
Related articles:
