Usually NATO secretary is European, currently that is Rutte and the NATO commander is American currently Grynkewich. So this would give Europe a lot more power within NATO.
Think of it this way: Article 5 is activated after an attack on its eastern members and Europe is mobilizing. German NATO command issues a marching order to all personal, which obviously includes US forces. However, a certain US president tells his troops to stand down for whatever reason. Who are they listening to? A foreign general or their commander in chief? With an US NATO commander there is at least a level of guarantee that US forces get involved.
With an US NATO commander there is at least a level of guarantee that US forces get involved.
I’m skeptical about this. Relying on Americans to honor their commitments seems almost irrational. Having solid and reliable structures in place from the outset of a confrontation seems advantageous, but I must admit: I know nothing about military planning and command.
Usually NATO secretary is European, currently that is Rutte and the NATO commander is American currently Grynkewich. So this would give Europe a lot more power within NATO.
Does it though?
Think of it this way: Article 5 is activated after an attack on its eastern members and Europe is mobilizing. German NATO command issues a marching order to all personal, which obviously includes US forces. However, a certain US president tells his troops to stand down for whatever reason. Who are they listening to? A foreign general or their commander in chief? With an US NATO commander there is at least a level of guarantee that US forces get involved.
I’m skeptical about this. Relying on Americans to honor their commitments seems almost irrational. Having solid and reliable structures in place from the outset of a confrontation seems advantageous, but I must admit: I know nothing about military planning and command.