The Trip Wires of War: U.S. Gives War Guarantee To Sweden
Sweden officially became the 31st country in NATO--meaning the United States is now treaty-bound for their defense. It's time for this reckless, war-inviting foreign policy to stop.
I’ve never been to Sweden, but I understand it’s a beautiful country. They produce some great skiers and hockey players. As a person who functions better in cold weather, I’m sure I would appreciate the Scandinavian climate. Sweden further earned the respect of a lot of us in the United States during the height of the COVID-19 hysteria, when they declined to lock everyone down and showed no ill effects for their commitment to freedom.
All of which is to say, I’ve got nothing against the Swedes. But do I think American blood and treasure should be used to defend them, regardless of the circumstances? That’s a bigger ask. Yet that’s exactly what Sweden’s newly approved membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) commits us to.
Article 5 of the NATO treaty reads as follows: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…”
To think through the implications of this, let’s try a little exercise. Fix in your mind the image of someone in the military that you know. Maybe it’s your spouse or one of your kids. Maybe it’s a family friend. Maybe it’s the soldier you saw at the airport and thanked for their service, or the one who got their name put up on the scoreboard at the ballpark, and you stood up to give a round of applause.
Think of them—because they are the actual people that are behind what can seem like obscure—even geek-like language—in discussing things like Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
It starts with this. Thanks to our Article 5 commitments, if you were to hear of another country launching a military strike on Sweden, you are now duty-bound to have the exact same reaction as you might have when Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, when the British burned the White House in 1814, on 9/11/2001, or when human trafficking cartels usher thousands of people across the unsecured Arizona border every day.
After all, an attack on one is an attack on an all. An attack on Sweden is now just like an attack on the American homeland. That’s what your government has committed you to, not just with Sweden, but with 31 other countries.
Even beyond the actual commitment we make to go to war on behalf of these countries, are the “trip wires” they set up. One the arguments made for U.S. involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war is that “if Putin takes Ukraine, he will then attack Poland and Hungary.”
Set aside for a moment whether you think that’s true—although it’s at least notable that the actual leaders of Poland and Hungary are far less concerned that about this possibility then is Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, or any of the other self-anointed defenders of freedom. Just set that aside. Let’s say Putin really does attack Poland or Hungary. Does this impact your life any more than the war with Ukraine does? Let’s return to that solider you’ve got in your mind from our exercise—is an attack on Poland or Hungary worth their life any more than an attack on Ukraine is?
The answer is probably no, but here’s the catch—Poland and Hungary are NATO allies. They are part of the United States’ security umbrella. Your government has already committed you, in advance, to go to war on their behalf. If they are attacked, you will be left with two unattractive options—advocate for a war that has absolutely no bearing on your life or the national interest of the United States. Or advocate breaking a treaty commitment, thereby dealing a drastic self-induced blow to American credibility around the world. For the record, I’d go with the latter as the lesser of two evils. But none of the choices are good—which is why our first president, George Washington, specifically warned against “entangling alliances” in his Farewell Address.
The constant extension of the U.S. security umbrella through the mechanism of NATO’s Article 5 leads to continued escalation of wars that might otherwise be resolved. In the Ukraine War, French president Emmanuel Macron is pushing to send in more NATO troops--which are really U.S. troops under a different banner. Our meddling abroad in situations that don’t concern us is only serving to get more people killed.
Let’s conclude this by thinking of whatever soldier you thought of during our exercise. Think about what they give up. It’s more than just going to the battlefield. They also give up the right to advocate, at least publicly, their opinion on issues like this. In the first Top Gun movie, Evan Drake’s character—the veteran instructor for Tom Cruise’s Maverick—tells his class of fighter pilots that “we don’t make policy here gentlemen. Elected officials, civilians, do that. Our job is to be the instruments of that policy.”
This willingness to be the “instrument of policy” is a profound sacrifice. In Christian terms, it amounts to a crucifixion of one’s own will, to be at the service of one’s country. As a result, you won’t hear the average soldier raise their voice against being used as a pawn to defend any of the 31 countries in NATO. They’re just doing their job. But shouldn’t those elected officials and civilians exercise a little more care and prudence in what they do with the lives of those who step forward to serve?
The expansion—even the existence—of NATO, 33 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, should be a big national debate. What the obligations—if any—are of the United States for every bad thing happening around the world should be rigorously debated. You may have different definitions of what’s right and what’s prudent. That’s all fair in what still passes for a democracy.
But in every race coming up this fall—from the Senate, which voted 95-1 to approve Sweden’s NATO membership, to the House, which funds these wars, to the presidency itself, weigh all of that. Then go vote.
~ My mother's family immigrated legally to the U.S. from Lithuania at the start of the last century. (We have certificates from the Ellis Island Foundation to prove it.) So being anti-Communist & anti-Soviet was a constant focus during family political discussions. But we did not hate the Russian people. We enjoyed Russian literature & devoured Solzhenitsyn as a beacon of truth to fight the autocratic governments everywhere. We proudly recalled the Lithuanian-Polish 14th century empire which held sway over current day Belorussia, Ukraine, & western Russia. We boasted that a not-so distant relative Jonas Basanavicius was the patriarch of the independence movement which failed in 1905 but worked in 1918 until Poland invaded in 1920. And we rejoiced when the wall fell and Lithuania became free again: something that I never expected to see in my lifetime. But w/the Soviet hierarchy dismantled, & Communism completely discredited, the value of NATO began to be questioned. While no treaties were signed, promises were made by the U.S. government to not expand NATO. Obviously the former Soviet states, especially the Baltics wanted assurances that they would never be under the Soviet/Russian yoke again. The U.S. brought them in as a counter to Russia's aggressive actions in Georgia, Ossetia & Chechnya (wonder who was funding the Islamic extremists there?) As the years after the Cold War went by strategic forces in Europe diminished as plowshares of social programs took their place. The nuclear umbrella of the U.S., France & Great Britain became the largest deterrent to Russian aggression. The problem is that, as we see now, MAD doesn't appear to be as MAD as it was to those of us aware during the Cold War. Instead of tying each other tighter together economically (which had been the German model, Nordstream anyone?) which would have given trillions of Euros as reasons to seek peace to resolve Crimea & the Donbass, the U.S. undermined Russia. First by letting the wolves of Wall Street how to teach Russians kleptocracy on an international scale, and then when that was insufficient to bring them under the heal of 'Rules Based Order', the west tried to subvert them by lighting the fuse of Maidan. Which is a long way of me saying that even when or representatives vote for expansion of NATO without a substantive national discussion, they go further to undermine peace and will try to force us to pay with our young peoples lives their desire for empire. And if things get out of hand, will Europe or the U.S. deign to use 'tactical' nuclear weapons, and risk the future of the world?