Thread by @lindsaypcohn

@smsaideman wrote a great little blog on why NATO’s still a good investment. I’d like to add a few points, bc I have friends who are smart but not into politics and who genuinely would like to know why the US still bothers with NATO.
1/

The big thing most people are missing is: what are the alternatives? So here they are, as I see them.
1) Fortress America - this is where we exit all alliances and institutions, cut our defense budget way back, focus on homeland defense, and stay out of most world events.
2/

This is a valid position/value system to have, but ppl who advocate it tend to forget something: the US’s econ competitiveness edge is declining, and in a Fortress America world, US standard of living would almost certainly drop significantly, exacerbating inequality.
3/

The other major alternative world is 2) multipolarity w spheres of influence - this is where the US pulls out of Europe and Asia and competes w the other great power contenders (currently China, EU, Russia) for spheres of influence.
4/

The big downside to this is that it will increase the likelihood of great power and proxy war, and won’t save the US much $$. The US can try to stay out of major wars, but that will be hard, since it would be dumb to let a potential foe get rid of all our potential allies.
5/

I think the US-led international order has problems and has done some dumb things and some terrible things. But if your argument against NATO is that the US would save lots of money or be better off without it ... I hope you understand what the trade-offs are.
6/

I guess some ppl think there’s another alternative:
3) Global Primacy - in which the US leaves all entangling alliances but stays globally involved and does whatever it wants.
7/

Primacy is also a valid position/value set, but it’s also massively expensive and ... well, the US isn’t usually the one being dragged into war by allies. In short, current alliances make US primacy MORE attainable/affordable, so if that’s your fave, then you shld *like* NATO.
8/

So, to sum up, the alternatives are:
1) much poorer America
2) more war
3) unsustainable mil spending on diminishing returns
(Yes, 3 is pretty much where we are right now, but that’s our choice. That spending isn’t necessitated by our alliances).
9/

Oh, and one last thing: NATO was *never* *just* about defeating the USSR. It was part of a larger effort to prevent another war in Europe by creating institutions that improved everyone’s security, reducing the chances of conflict escalation.
10/

That’s one of the main reasons it was so easy (I know it wasn’t super-easy, but in relative terms, ok?) to re-purpose it after 1991: it was always about more than the Soviets.
11/

A couple of ppl have asked for clarification on my arg that Fortress America is Poorer America. Here goes:
1) you can’t do Fortress America unless you define US interests very narrowly. Otherwise you’d have to be out messing about in global affairs to protect your interests.
12/

2) you can’t define your interests narrowly unless you keep global economic involvement relatively low.
3) keeping global econ involvement low means less wealth generation at home. I know ppl think we’ll somehow juice up the engines and produce everything ourselves ...
13/

But a) that’s not how economics actually works, and b) even if we DID that, everything would almost by definition be more expensive. Also, even if we did manage such a turnaround, it would take decades/generations, and life would suck in the meantime.
14/

I’m not arguing that we’d be living in Yurts eating cabbage; I’m arguing that Fortress America would almost have to be highly protectionist, and that would mean a MUCH lower standard of living than most Americans take for granted. Self-sufficiency is ALWAYS less efficient.
15/