Elon Musk is a wealthy, powerful man who has bought his way into the Oval Office, the U.S. Government and the Republican and Democratic Parties. He is a venture capitalist, an investor and has some understanding of engineering and software. One thing he is not is a historian.
In the aftermath of World War II, one of the greatest concerns of both the Soviet Union and the Allied powers was how to maintain the uneasy peace resulting from the defeat of the fascist powers. The Western allies boasted the immense logistical and manpower resources of the United States, but the British and Commonwealth powers had been horrifically mauled by the war, and the Continental powers liberated in 1944 and 1945 were literally recovering from starvation, infrastructure devastation and impoverishment. Entire economies needed to be rebuilt, new workers needed to be raised and massive debts needed to be paid. A fringe few recognized the imminent struggles of the Cold War and advocated turning the forces massed to defeat the nascent Soviet threat (famously, General Patton advocated this view) but their voices were drowned out by those more sensible and more war-weary. Whether the Allied Forces of 1945 could have beaten the Red Army is uncertain, but the human toll on all sides would have been catastrophic. Opposite them, the Soviet Union and its captive Warsaw Pact proxies faced similar problems. Twice in the space of 25 years, they had been savaged by German invaders, and even with the creation of a “willing” Communist client state block of ablative armor, the Russians did not feel secure, only protected by their massive military investments. Neither side could sustain their 1945 levels of military spending. In both cases, the answer needed to cover multiple aspects- it needed to provide military security, military/industrial continuity and ongoing function, and do it at a cost point that would allow for economies of scale, rebuilding and eventually prosperity to return.
Going it alone was a non-starter for both the Russians and the United States.
The American military was technologically advanced, but after four years of war, it was primarily dependent on draftees and funded largely by war bonds, even as the same advanced technologies of the late-War era became quickly obsolete. Domestic political pressures would not permit the maintenance of large forces in general, and there was no political appetite for ongoing war-like sacrifices to maintain the broad resource supremacy that the American military had come to expect in both theaters. Additionally, there was the practical issue of where those battles would happen. In World War I, the AEF had come late to the war, haphazardly, and paid dearly for its lack of readiness (a great reference is “Sons of Freedom”, by Geoffrey Wawro, and “The Western Front” by Nick Lloyd). That war had been a slowly-burning stalemate, and even then, it had taken 18 months for a functional American army devoid of its own advanced weaponry, training or doctrine to even come into being, much less be fielded. The same feat in World War II had taken nearly two years to start (arguably, late 1942-mid 1943 with the local invasions of North Africa and Sicily, and a task not completed until 1944), and required comprehensive integration with the British military force – and massive distractions by the Russians- to come into being. For the men who had planned Overlord and executed the invasion and destruction of the Nazi regime, it was obvious that a future war would not give America the luxury of time. On the Soviet side, the Red Army was a colossally unsustainable force. Millions of men at arms were active, but again, the time and effort required to raise them and forge them into a conquering, victorious force had cost the Soviet Union dearly. Stalin and his successors had far fewer worries about the cost of a future victory or about the civil rights of conscripts, but the traumas of two catastrophic wars had taught the Russians that they would far rather fight the next war on someone else’s land, and that they would benefit from legions of expendable fighters.
Alliances were the natural answer. American and Russian forces could remain forward-deployed on the likely battlefields of Germany, with a war-ready posture, and they could demand (and receive) local supplemental contingents from their European allies, whom were naturally compelled to cooperate both due to economic incentives and the obvious risk of being isolated in a Europe that was ruthless about devouring isolated powers. The tragedies that Yugoslavia and the other Eastern European nations faced immediately after the end of the war were illustrative- failure to join NATO would result in upheaval, violence and a disappearance behind the Iron Curtain. Conversely, membership in the Warsaw Pact was more of a pragmatic expression of reality, in that it was the only way to align with the Russian occupiers who were politely informing the local governments who was in command. Only Finland and Sweden, both fairly inhospitable targets with relatively robust militaries and limited strategic value, were able to avoid being swept up in the alliances. Costs were shared, both monetary and social. The profession of arms did not deteriorate catastrophically, even though drawdowns certainly harmed readiness and performance. Most critically (for NATO especially), the permanence of the organization and development of shared doctrine allowed work together to become more than a sum of its parts. NATO allowed for Americans and Europeans to get to know each other- and this significantly improved relations. Thanks to NATO and the cooperation that it fostered, Western and Central Europe are far more integrated socially, culturally, politically and even economically; in that the European Union likely would not exist without the underlying predicate of NATO. The Warsaw Pact never really had this opportunity, but this is mostly due to the way that the Soviets used their power to stifle dissent. Neither structure was explicitly offensive in purpose, but with hair-trigger readiness and the doctrine, structure, infrastructure, equipment and resources to fight a total war until destruction on both sides, the difference between offense and defense was really just which direction the tank’s driver took it.
Additional benefits were obvious: standardized weapons and doctrine were on-ramps for larger group purchases and economies of scale, particularly for complex weapons systems. Gradually, political pressures and cost savings extinguished marginal competitors in high-technology, high-cost fields, while forcing survivors to integrate to provide higher-tech, high-cost equipment that nevertheless outperformed domestic products (this trend was visible as early as the 1970s with the development of the F-16 and Tornado). This strengthened large companies, particularly American ones, and spread defense dollars both nationally and internationally. Eventually, the NATO alliance was able to outspend the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union collapsed; this would not have happened if the Soviets were only spending against the United States or Europe. Reagan’s grand strategy to erode the Soviets was only possible due to cooperation.
NATO, like any defensive alliance, is not perfect. It was not designed for expeditionary wars, nor was it designed for long, bloody, controversial insurgencies. Its funding mechanisms are easily susceptible to political manipulations and there is no solid, forceful guarantee that a member would join in a war that did not directly threaten its national survival. Luckily, the Soviet assumption that war would lead to American and Western European total war forestalled World War III.
The flaws in NATO can and should be corrected. In some ways, Trump is doing good work with regards to forcing NATO’s European members to spend more, to take their militaries more seriously and to prompt discussions within NATO regarding the future. But that isn’t the calamity that would be full American withdrawal.
Here is where we leave the land of well-reasoned policy and go full Republican. Both elected Republican legislators and Republican celebrities like Charlie Kirk (https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1895523816958460398) , Elon Musk (https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-publicly-supports-call-084016959.html) and Marjorie Taylor Greene/Lauren Boebert/Thomas Massie/Mike Lee et al (https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-republicans-voted-defund-nato-1908334 ; https://www.foxnews.com/politics/thomas-massie-mike-lee-advocate-us-dump-nato ) have spent years, plenty of keystrokes and many many words criticizing NATO, to the point of advocating its dissolution or at least American conditions on participation. Some of these politicians are simply making cynical plays towards their base; trying to gather clicks and eyeballs and dollars (Mike Lee, Lindsey Graham) because they know that their individual words as senators are relatively meaningless when their lengthy careers are founded on lies and denials. Some of these opinions are coming from people with ideological beliefs, like Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. These people are not necessarily led by cynicism and political calculus, and that makes it even sillier, because they are coming from a place of honest belief. And some of these people, like Elon Musk, are simply accelerationists who take a trendy position as a way to generate public attention. And because they have the microphone, people assign them a sense of credibility and let their opinions drive their opinions.
Elon Musk, Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Charlie Kirk are not students of history. They are functionally illiterate as to the pertinent history. Elon Musk grew up rich, made the right friends and investments in college, and got a lot richer. MJT dick-rode Obama-era dissatisfaction and local notoriety into Congress, where her ill-informed bleats are well-received by people who think ‘Murica would have won in Vietnam if it wasn’t for Democrats and that they totally could have been Green Beret SEAL Ranger PJ Marines if it wasn’t for their being too bad-ass for basic training. Charlie Kirk just fellates that crowd openly, because the easiest and most glorious role in society is ‘conservative’ political pundit.
They have never considered the implications of a United States that is not integrally committed to the security of Europe and our allies. In their crazy world, American withdrawal has no consequences and only benefits. It’s a world that speaks to MAGA, a world where America is elite, alone and unbothered by problems in Poland or stresses in South Korea or politics in the UK. They have never considered a world where an independent Europe operates for their own benefit, not America’s lackey. They have never considered a world in which attacks on America’s economy, finances or even military might not necessarily be met with catastrophic allied action. They have never considered a world in which America could lose. And loss is something that is extremely plausible, particularly going it alone. We should know- we’re 1-2-1 in the last 80 years, and the only “win” we had (Korean War, 1950-1953) was largely the result of allies helping us at critical moments.
But then again, these people are also unaware of the difficulties faced when Americans have ignored our history. They are adults and they aren’t going to learn, change or engage, because that’s not in their best interests. So the answer is simple…cut them out. Don’t let them keep driving the train, because they are stupid.
Leave a Reply