Are Our Military Alliances Meaningful?

Abstract

Between 1945 and 1949, motivated by fear of world communism, the United States negotiated pacts which tied its defense posture to the military security of forty-two other nations. World conditions have changed radically since that time. The Sino-Soviet dispute and East European developments have shown that a monolithic Communist bloc does not exist. West Europe and Japan have recovered economically and are now capable of sharing the burden of their own defense and of assistance to others. A technological revolution has occurred in weaponry, resulting in emphasis on ICBM's and mobile striking forces, rather than local security forces. Our NATO commitment should be reduced from six to one or two divisions, symbolizing our continued interest in defending West Europe. This would ease tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, especially in the confrontation over Germany. SEATO has always been an unrealistic treaty. Its signatory nations have never exhibited unified motives or policies. SEATO left the United States with an open-ended commitment to maintain Asian stability; our efforts to do so have endangered our relations with strategic allies and have lessened the likelihood of our ever reaching an understanding with Mainland China. American dissent and protest to the Vietnam war have demonstrated that a democracy can conduct a war only with the wholehearted support of more than a bare majority and with belief of those fighting the war in the justice of its purpose and the wisdom of its policy-makers. Any commitment of troops to combat should be considered war, and should require prior congressional legislation. We should emphasize arms and alliances less, and an international system for maintaining peace more, in our efforts to ensure American security and world peace.—Ed.