I submit that worse than fighting with contentious allies is fighting alone and isolated.
In less than a fortnight this administration has alienated the following countries: Canada and Mexico with tariff threats and, in the case of Canada, annexation; Panama with threats of invasion if necessary to secure control of the canal; Denmark with threats of invasion of Greenland, a Danish protectorate, allegedly is to secure domination of the North Sea passage and to secure access to certain minerals in Greenland; Germany by actively supporting in opposing party A F D in an election in which CDU/CSU won the plurality; the UK with support of Nigel Farage; every EU country, especially Germany, with threats of tariffs; Ukraine with allegations that is premier is a dictator, the country is corrupt, that is responsible for the war and more recently with a fiasco in the Oval Office; virtually every EU nation, several such as United Kingdom and Germany mentioned by name, criticized for their alleged violations of freedom of speech, association and opinion; European union nations criticized for digital privacy policies; virtually every EU nation by threats of broadside 25% tariffs; virtually every NATO country apart from Hungary and a couple others in reaction to the fiasco in the Oval Office in which the president of Ukraine was humiliated, support for Ukraine in the war was threatened, causing NATO nations who openly question whether the United States will actually comply with its article 5 promises to defend NATO members who might be attacked; many nations around the world by withdrawal from the Paris Accords concerning CO2 emissions; many nations around the world by possible withdrawal from the World Health Organization; nations around the world who no longer receive (for better or for worse) USAID funds.
Note: this recital of actions by the administration is merely a list, it does not contain nor is it intended to imply any value judgment as to whether the administration is well motivated, well advised, morally justified or even successful in any of these actions. It is merely a list cataloging the "global" effects of these policies to be considered against the relative value of accumulating or losing allies. Do we want allies or not? Allies, are we accumulating them or losing them?
Napoleon was a martial genius at dividing allies time and again and defeating them piecemeal. History tells us, however, he met his Waterloo when he could not prevent the juncture of Wellington and Blücher. Once again Britain, a dominant seapower but inferior on land, contrived to find allies to bleed and die for the Empire. Much of American foreign policy, especially under the influence of Admiral Mahon echoed the warmaking strategy of its parent nation.
It is astonishing to learn in the wake of World War II with 20 million or more Russian dead, 7 million or more German dead, millions of Japanese dead, and many Italians dead, that the United States emerged victorious, rich, and militarily dominant with only 400,000 fatalities. I like the British model better than Napoleon's.
It is of course only prudent to place oneself in the shoes of an adversary, a potential adversary, an ally or a potential ally to evaluate their potential actions. How would the head of state or the senior military advisor of a nation react to the events of the last fortnight and especially how would they react to what occurred in the Oval Office? That man would have historical knowledge in his analysis.
He would consider how, postwar with the Marshall plan etc., we buoyed our allies and helped restore them to democracy and prosperity. They remain our allies today, at least tentatively so.
He would know that we fought in Korea, ultimately held the line, and served our South Korean ally well by bringing it to democracy and prosperity. Korea is a staunch ally today.
He would know that we did not fare so well in Vietnam. There those Vietnamese who fought alongside America were lucky to make escape in a helicopter but the bulk were abandoned by America, forced into concentration camps, desperately took to the ocean in open boats to escape Vietnam. Vietnam is not an ally, but the realities of economics have made them something other than an enemy.
Iran was a mixed bag, but no credit to the United States, it certainly did not enhance our reputation for reliability with our allies.
Afghanistan was a disaster similar to the fiasco in Vietnam. Countless Afghan allies were abandoned to their fate to be taken prisoners by the Taliban and worse. We abandoned billions of dollars worth of first-class military equipment along with our Western and Afghan allies. Many credit the humiliation of this withdrawal, that might well be confused with Vietnam, except we used planes in Afghanistan and helicopters in Vietnam, with inciting Putin to invade Ukraine. Like Vietnam, we managed to humiliate ourselves on television. Worse, we failed our allies once again.
The same head of state or security advisor now ponders what he saw as it occurred live on television from the Oval Office. The Europeans: We already know the reaction across-the-board of the Europeans, they are appalled. Many think that Trump has become an agent of Putin, others, more moderate, believe that Trump is a prisoner of his own anti-globalist ideology. They do not accept that America has no responsibility for the outcome of the war in Ukraine. They note that Neuland turned Ukraine away from the Cairo deal into war. They do not forget that United States, again acting in its official capacity, formerly promised to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine in exchange for the surrender nuclear weapons. European leaders do not accept the legitimacy of saying that a deal or a promise no longer binds America because Biden has become Trump.
Even before this episode they had been communicating among themselves about the best course of action to proceed without the United States in NATO. They had begun to analyze the costs of setting up a European army apart from American influence. I believe that the high expense of conventional armies will push Europe to conclude that there security must be had through nuclear deterrence. It is now the common belief that America is an unreliable ally, at least while Trump was president, who will not adhere to its pledge to defend member states against invasion especially will it retaliate in a nuclear exchange, thus initiating deterrent value in America's nuclear umbrella. The implications of nuclear proliferation are sobering and should be apparent to everyone.
It appears that the NATO alliance is at best threatened, certainly undermined with member states at cross purposes. Just the kind of allies Napoleon likes.
As to the Pacific:
What do we suppose the reaction of heads of state of those Pacific nations who are currently physically threatened by China will be when they contemplate their dependence on America? Will they double down and tie their fate to America, or will they start to cut their own deals? Will they say, we cannot tie our fate to America because America is simply not trustworthy. Will we be safer with Pacific nations liable to be picked off by China one by one? Will the Chinese belt and Road tentacles of envelopment be thwarted under these circumstances? If not, can we rely on the left in America to rally around the flag when we are isolated and alone? I do not expect China to invade the United States by landing Marines in San Diego, I expect them to undermine and encircle us. If we are ever credibly threatened by a nuclear China will we crouch into a fetal position as a nation, paralyzed by our leftists and uncertain of our values, and simply let China absorb us? Will we be better off as Patriots with allies around the world resisting the Chinese, or better off isolated and alone?
These questions are rhetorical, the answers are self-evident.
