TRUMP MAKES SENSE REGARDING NATO

   Although President Donald Trump’s critics point out that his open and unedited criticisms of NATO are a threat to U.S. commitment to the all-important Article V of the treaty, which commits each member to come directly to the aid of any other member that is attacked, it seems that this concern about undermining Article V is mere carping. It is carping because treaty obligations do not supersede a country’s sovereign responsibilities to its citizens. Those responsibilities are financial as well as military. The existence of a treaty does not amount to an abrogation of the member state’s sovereignty. Even if a member of NATO were attacked, would our planes just take off and start bombing the attacker? Would our troops just be loaded automatically into planes and ships to fight and die in the victim state’s land? Similarly, does our membership imply that we just pay and pay disproportionately forever, irrespective of the other members’ abilities to pay, and the financial stresses we as a country are experiencing? Such a view is not only untenable, but pathetic. Treaty obligations cannot be treated as though they are an abrogation of sovereignty.