NATO is Vital to US Security

Sixteen US Ambassadors and Supreme Commanders who served at NATO this century issued a statement today on why NATO is vital to US national Security.

As the global security community gathers in Munich this week for the annual Security Conference, a group of former US Ambassadors and Supreme Commanders who served at NATO this century under Democratic and Republican administrations (see signatories at bottom) issued this statement on why NATO is vital to US national security:

For over three-quarters of a century, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has served as the cornerstone of United States national security. Far from being a “charity” or a one-way security guarantee, NATO is a vital force multiplier that allows the United States to project power, protect its economy, and share the immense burdens of global leadership in ways that would be impossible—or prohibitively expensive—to achieve on its own.

As former U.S. Ambassadors to NATO and Supreme Commanders of the Alliance in the past quarter century, we experienced the real value of the Alliance every day we worked with the organization. A strong NATO enhances deterrence in the transatlantic region and enables the U.S. to ensure security in other global regions. It is crucial to our future security that Americans recognize the value of NATO to our security and ensure its vitality for decades to come.

Global Power Projection

The U.S. does not maintain a military presence in Europe solely to protect Europeans; it does so to protect American interests. NATO provides the legal and physical infrastructure for the United States to operate globally.

• Strategic Basing: Through NATO, U.S. forces have guaranteed access to a network of air, naval, and ground force bases throughout Europe. These serve as the “jumping-off points” for U.S. operations in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. In military operations, geography matters and Europe is a continent closer to global hot spots where U.S. interests can be challenged.

• The “Bilateral” Alternative: Without NATO, the United States would have to negotiate individual Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) with dozens of nations. These would be subject to shifting local politics and would likely involve significant “rent” payments, whereas NATO provides a unified, stable legal framework for America’s global reach.

Burden Sharing in Military Operations

While the U.S. debate often focuses on who spends how much on defense as a percentage of national GDP, the real value of NATO lies in the deployment of non-U.S. resources in support of U.S. security objectives.

• Post-9/11 Solidarity: The only time NATO’s Article 5 was ever invoked was in defense of the United States. Following the 9/11 attacks, NATO allies deployed its AWACS early-warning aircraft to patrol U.S. skies (Operation Eagle Assist) and eventually committed over 50,000 troops at the height of the NATO mission in Afghanistan, where the Al Qaeda forces were recruited and trained to attack the United States. NATO allies and partners were at our side for 20 years in Afghanistan, providing about one-third of the troops in the coalition at the beginning and rising over the years to 66 percent at the end of the mission.

• Human and Financial Contributions: In Afghanistan alone, non-U.S. allies suffered over 1100 fatalities and contributed more than $3.4 billion to the Afghan National Army Trust Fund to build the Afghan security forces. Later, in the fight against ISIS, European allies provided roughly 20–30% of all airstrikes, significantly reducing the wear and tear on U.S. airframes and personnel.

• Readiness: NATO’s standing military headquarters and its extensive program of exercises ensure that the U.S. has a ready option on which to base a military coalition in the future. Allies that work together and trust one another give the U.S. an unmatched strategic advantage.

• The Spending Surge: As of 2025, non-U.S. NATO allies’ defense spending has surged to over $560 billion annually. At the July 2025 summit, NATO allies pledged to commit 5% of their national GDP to defense. If the United States were not in NATO, it would likely need to increase its own nearly $1 trillion budget by an estimated $100B–$200B annually to fill the security vacuum left by a fragmented Europe.

Economic Security and Trade Stability

U.S. national security is inseparable from U.S. economic security. The U.S. economy relies on the stability of the European market and the safety of the Atlantic sea lanes.

• Securing the “Main Street” of Global Trade: Over $1.6 trillion in bilateral trade flows across the Atlantic annually, making Europe America’s single largest economic partner. NATO’s maritime commands ensure this trade remains open and free from harassment by hostile actors. Without NATO, the United States would have to deploy vastly more naval resources to the Atlantic.

• Preventing Regional Conflict: Historically, instability in Europe has twice drawn the United States into catastrophic world wars. By providing a “security foundation,” NATO prevents the type of regional arms races and border disputes that would disrupt global markets and eventually require U.S. intervention, as happened twice in the last century.

• Supporting our Security Efforts in the Indo-Pacific: NATO allies have worked closely with the United States to criticize China’s threats against Taiwan and against U.S. allies the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea. They have joined us in criticizing China’s human rights violations in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, and North Korean support for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

Intelligence, Cyber, and Technology Multipliers

In the 21st century, security is as much about data as it is about tanks. NATO provides a “global nervous system” for the U.S. intelligence community.

• Intelligence Fusion: The United States benefits from the specialized, local intelligence networks of 31 NATO allies. Whether it is monitoring Russian submarine activity in the North Sea, extremist movements in North Africa, or emerging cyber threats, NATO provides the United States a “fused” intelligence product it could not replicate alone.

• Standardization: NATO’s standardization agreements ensure that U.S. equipment is compatible with that of 31 other nations, and indeed many other U.S. allies around the world. This allows a U.S. F-35 to land, refuel, and re-arm at a Polish or Dutch base or a Japanese or South Korean base using the same fuel nozzles, munitions and spare parts. This interoperability is an operational and logistical advantage that no other nation or coalition on Earth possesses.

The Nuclear Umbrella and Proliferation Control

NATO’s “Nuclear Sharing” arrangements allow the United States to maintain a strategic deterrent in Europe without allies feeling the need to develop their own independent nuclear arsenals.

• Preventing Proliferation: By providing a credible nuclear “umbrella”, the United States prevents a “nuclear vacuum” in Europe. This keeps the number of nuclear-armed states low, which is a primary U.S. national security goal, as more nuclear states increase the statistical likelihood of accidental or intentional use.

Conclusion: The “Replacement Cost” of NATO

If the United States were to withdraw from NATO, or diminish its utility by eroding trust among allies, the immediate result would not be a “peace dividend.” Instead, the U.S. would face:

• Higher Costs: To maintain the same level of global influence and trade security, the U.S. Navy and Air Force would need to expand significantly to replace allied fleets and air wings.

• Greater Risk: Without a U.S. presence in Europe, Russia and China could be more inclined to challenge Europe, increasing the risk of conflict with America’s largest trading partners and potentially drawing it into a conflict that its continued presence would have prevented.

• Reduced Influence: The United States would lose its influence in European security decisions, potentially leading to the rise of a European military bloc that does not align with American interests.

• Less Legitimacy: U.S.-led operations would be seen as unilateral “police actions” rather than international mandates, making it harder to secure coalition partners for future crises.

NATO is not an act of American generosity. It is a strategic bargain that ensures the United States remains the world’s most powerful and economically secure nation at a fraction of the cost of going it alone. America’s allies are its single greatest geo-strategic advantage. Russia and China, despite their efforts to align with other nations like North Korea and Iran, simply have nothing to compare.

Signed

U.S. Ambassadors to NATO

Amb. Alexander Vershbow (1998-2001)

Amb. Nicholas Burns (2001-2005)

Amb. Victoria Nuland (2005-2008)

Amb. Kurt Volker (2008-2009)

Amb. Ivo Daalder (2009-2013)

Amb. Douglas Lute (2013-2017)

Amb. Kay Bailey Hutchison (2017-2021)

Amb. Julianne Smith (2021-2024)

Supreme Allied Commanders Europe

Gen. Wesley Clark (1997-2000)

Gen. Joseph Ralston (2000-2003)

Gen. James Jones (2003-2006)

Gen. John Craddock (2006-2009)

Gen. Philip Breedlove (2013-2016)

Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti (2016-2019)

Gen. Tod Wolters (2019-2022)

Gen. Christopher Cavoli (2022-2025)