Trump has undermined deterrence as a credible tactic

SWASHINGTON already has, by ostentatiously o what if, in his refusing to recommit speech last week to to Article 5, is so shocking. NATO, Donald Deterrence is inherently a Trump didn’t explicitly barely believable bluff. Even reaffirm the provision at the height of the Cold War, that an attack on one when highly resolute presidents, is an attack on all? such as Eisenhower

What’s the big deal? and Kennedy, threatened Didn’t he affirm a general Russia with “massive retaliation” commitment to NATO during (i.e., all-out nuclear his visit? Hadn’t he earlier war), would we really have sent his vice president sacrificed New York for Berlin? and secretaries of state and defense to pledge allegiance No one knew for sure. Not to Article 5? Eisenhower, not Kennedy,

And anyway, who believes not the Soviets, not anyone. that the United States Yet that very uncertainty would really go to war with was enough to stay the hand Russia — and risk nuclear of any aggressor and keep annihilation — over Estonia? the peace of the world for 70 years.

Ah, but that’s precisely Deterrence does not depend the point. It is because deterrence on 100 percent certainty is so delicate, so problematic, that the other guy will so literally unbelievable go to war if you cross a red that it is not to be trifled line. Given the stakes, with. And why for an merely a chance of that happening American president to gratuitously can be enough. For 70 undermine what years, it enough. little credibility deterrence Leaders therefore do everything they can to bolster it. Install tripwires, for example. During the Cold War, we stationed troops in Germany to face the massive tank armies of Soviet Russia. Today we have 28,000 troops in South Korea, 12,000 near the demilitarized zone.

Why? Not to repel invasion. They couldn’t. They’re not strong enough. To put it very coldly, they’re there to die. They’re a deliberate message to the enemy that if you invade our ally, you will have to kill a lot of Americans first. Which will galvanize us into full-scale war against you.

Tripwires are risky, dangerous and cynical. Yet we resort to them because parchment promises are problematic and tripwires imply automaticity. We do what we can to strengthen deterrence.

Rhetorically as well. Which is why presidents from Truman on have regularly and powerfully reaffirmed our deterrent pledge to NATO. Until Mr. Trump.

His omission was all the more damaging because of his personal history. This is a man chronically disdainful of NATO. He campaigned on its obsolescence. His inaugural address denounced American allies as cunning parasites living off American wealth and generosity. One of Mr. Trump’s top outside advisers, Newt Gingrich, says that “Estonia is in the suburbs of St. Petersburg,” as if Russian designs on the Baltic states are not at all unreasonable.

Moreover, Mr. Trump devoted much of that very same speech, the highlight of his first presidential trip to NATO, to berating the allies for not paying their fair share. Nothing particularly wrong with that, or new — half a century ago Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield was so offended by NATO free-riding that he called for major reductions of U.S. troops in Europe.

That’s an American perennial. But if you’re going to berate, at least reassure as well. Especially given rising Russian threats and aggression. Especially given that Mr. Trump’s speech was teed up precisely for such reassurance. An administration official had spread the word that he would use the speech to endorse Article 5. And it was delivered at a ceremony honoring the first and only invocation of Article 5 — ironically enough, by the allies in support of America after 9/11.

And yet Mr. Trump deliberately, defiantly refused to simply say it:

It’s not that, had Mr. Trump said the magic words, everyone would have 100 percent confidence we would strike back if Russia were to infiltrate little green men into Estonia, as it did in Crimea. But Mr. Trump’s refusal to utter those words does lower whatever probability Vladimir Putin might attach to America responding with any seriousness to Russian aggression against a NATO ally.

Angela Merkel said Sunday (without mentioning his name) that after Mr. Trump’s visit it is clear that Europe can no longer rely on others. It’s not that yesterday Europe could fully rely — and today it cannot rely at all. It’s simply that the American deterrent has been weakened. And deterrence weakened is an invitation to instability, miscalculation, provocation and worse.

And for what?