top of page
  • fastbrowncar

United States needs to withdraw from NATO

My argument is primarily about domestic finances. Federal spending is on a collision course with a harsh reality. We are spending our children into bankruptcy.

Our impending financial ruin is clear and unavoidable. We have already begun to see warning signs of serious financial trouble. Over the next five to seven years, as our national debt increases by another ten trillion dollars to a total of forty trillion, we will begin paying an increasingly high price for our over spending. Our federal government needs to take immediate action before our long-term spending habit becomes a sudden bankruptcy.

As President, a key priority will be to mandate a balanced budget that also allocates funds for debt repayment. The way I see it, we have only two viable paths: either I rein in federal spending, or the United States faces bankruptcy. To begin with, I'll implement substantial reductions in the Pentagon's overseas obligations. I want to clarify that by 'reductions,' I don't mean minor adjustments. I am advocating for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America. Such a move aligns not only with our fiscal responsibilities but also with our core values of genuine freedom. To understand more, let's focus on the crown jewel of our overseas military empire: NATO and its extreme costs.

The United States derives minimal benefit from its NATO membership, while Europe is fully capable of defending itself. NATO not only escalates the potential for military conflict, resembling the entangling alliances that plunged Europe into World War I, but also burdens American taxpayers. Given the focus of this essay on domestic financial issues, it's crucial to highlight that the annual cost of our NATO commitments—covering contributions to its budgets, training, exercises, and the stationing of U.S. troops in Europe—exceeds $200 billion.

Our defense of other nations around the globe accounts for another $100 billion in annual cost. We spend over $300 billion dollars each year defending dozens of nations. If there's 360 million Americans, defending the world cost every man, woman, and child $833 last year. And our military budget is actually higher than the amounts I'm giving, the cost of defending our allies is over $1000 per American, per year. Our national defense costs another $1000 per person per year, plus many additional costs such as research, administration, veteran's care, and other operational costs. The total military budget is well over $2000 for every American man, woman, and child. Since not too many children in the pre-K to high school age can muster a spare $2000 annually, the cost is piled a little higher for actual tax payers.

I'd like to ask, what do we get for all this spending? I feel like we're a chump, spending all our money on our friends who get to live charmed lives. Oh, sure we get to call shots around the globe. But what do we get for that? It's certainly not a financial return. How are we in such massive debt if we're supposedly getting so much in return for our military expenditures? I say we're being bled dry and Europe is the biggest beneficiary.

And against whom? Russia? The minimal threat that Russia poses can be dealt with by European nations working together in NATO. It can do everything it did before, just without us and our money. Are we seriously to believe that Europe is so weak, so pathetic, so helpless, so anemic, that they can't defend themselves from Russia? If Europe had any pride at all, they would have shown us the door decades ago. But I get it. European governments love American security guarantees because they are worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

I've got an idea. It's called balance. If Europe wants us to keep defending them, which I know they do, then let's balance things out. If we keep 60,000 to 70,000 troops there, earning between $30,000 to $100,000, spending much of it in Europe, then they need to send over 60,000 to 70,000 workers to the United States that earn between $30,000 to $100,000 of European tax money. Then spend that money over here. They can also make large infrastructure investments over here in buildings, hospitals, and schools. I won't feel half as bad about defending them if they're at least coming back to work here and spend European money here. Will this plan work?

I have feeling that this plan would be considered insulting by many in academia and military circles. I think I would be called a simpleton for making such a proposal. I think they would heap other insults on me. They would definitely call me inexperienced and even dangerous. In short, they would call me a fool and be very angry that I would even suggest something so ridiculous as partially balancing the financial terms. Their more academic speakers and writers would carefully pick apart my numbers, point out my folly in high fallutin' terms, and safely conclude, with a broad consensus, that my plan would even harm the American economy. It would be a 'non-starter'. But there's much more to my plan for them to not like.

Even if Europe paid every penny and then more for us to defend them, the moral weight is still unbalanced. If there is a war in Europe and our troops die fighting it, no amount of money can make things right. Our soldiers lives aren't for sale. At least they shouldn't be. And right now, the way NATO is organized, we're paying them so that we can die on their behalf. They do lead a charmed life.

None of this means that we couldn't fight in Europe someday. But Europe is not in danger. They're not going to be in danger for a long time. And even if they are, they can deal with it. Danger is part of life. They need to deal with their level of danger as they see fit. That's what we do. They can do that to. But even thought I don't think we should ever fight a war in Europe again, if there is a need to intervene in a European war at some point in the future, Congress can declare war at that time. Our Congress only needs a few hours to declare war.

Let's take a look at the financial balance again. If Europe needs 60,000 of our troops there, then our lowest paid soldier should be earning $100,000 per year for risking his or her life defending them. That's just $20 billion in salaries. If Europe isn't willing to pay that amount, then they need to look elsewhere for support. For some crazy reason, our lowest paid troops earn just $35,000 and we're still spending $200 billion on top of that. This equation is deeply imbalanced in their favor.

Hey, I fully expect there will be attempts on my life for the 25 to 30% spending cut I will enact. But don't worry. That's nothing. When our forefathers fought off the British, some of them walked around in bare feet, even in the frozen winters of New York. George Washington's retreating soldiers left a trail of blood from cracked, frozen feet. And they were chased daily by people who wanted them dead. Our forefathers lived through that because they wanted freedom from European rule. Today our nation is on a path of impending bankruptcy, partly due to defending Europe and many other nations. As president, I will get our freedom and our finances back, just by spending less money.

8 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Europe Can Defend Europe

Americans are increasingly struggling financially. This includes daily food insecurity, monthly bills like housing, power, and water. Health care like cancer treatments or other surgeries can send peo

Peace in NATO-Russian War in Ukraine

As President of the United States, I will immediately begin making efforts at peace in what I will call the NATO-Russian War in Ukraine. While no action of the United States can single-handedly brin

Plan for America

People will call me an extremist. I don't think there is any way around that. And in a sense, it's an accurate description. The positions I take are grounded in having a limited government. Limited go


bottom of page