Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1511622704-scaled

If not now, when is a good time for a US troop withdrawal from Europe?

Critics of a reduced US role in NATO can't explain why it needs to maintain a substantial military posture across the Atlantic.

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Eurasia Group president Ian Bremmer says my criticism of the U.S. role in NATO "misses the mark," arguing that a U.S.-led NATO remains "critically important" to the United States. Readers should read both pieces — here's mine — to decide for themselves. I just hope Bremmer will expand on his closing remark that "right now" is not the time for the United States to begin to reduce its military role in Europe.

If not now, when? Under what plausible future circumstances does he think U.S. forces should ever pull back? Or should the United States make itself the dominant military power in Europe in perpetuity?

In the 1990s, when there was next to no risk of major war with a reeling Russia, America insisted on remaining the chief, forward-deployed power in Europe. Decades later, U.S.-backed NATO expansion has pushed so far as to help provoke conflict with Russia in Ukraine and Georgia. What are we waiting for — relations to get so poor as to bring America and Russia to the brink of major war? By that point, it could be too late to pull back responsibly. Better to act now: make a gradual, coordinated transition to European leadership of European defense.

Those who believe in the benefits of NATO can retain those benefits — with Europe defending Europe, instead of the often capricious United States trying to do so from afar, amid mounting pressure to address higher priorities elsewhere and deliver for the American people at home. Germany, France, and Britain — these are stable, prosperous liberal democracies, no less than the United States is. They and other European states are capable of defending Europe, as Stephen Walt has recently written in Foreign Policy.

So if not now, when? And if not from Europe, then from where else could the United States ever responsibly pull back its military forces and commitments?


Image: Vitalii Vodolazskyi via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Panama invasion 1989
Top photo credit: One of approximately 100 Panamanian demonstrators in favor of the Vatican handing over General Noriega to the US, waves a Panamanian and US flag. December 28, 1989 REUTERS/Zoraida Diaz

Invading Panama and deposing Noriega in 1989 was easy, right?

Latin America

On Dec. 20, 1989, the U.S. military launched “Operation Just Cause” in Panama. The target: dictator, drug trafficker, and former CIA informant Manuel Noriega.

Citing the protection of U.S. citizens living in Panama, the lack of democracy, and illegal drug flows, the George H.W. Bush administration said Noriega must go. Within days of the invasion, he was captured, bound up and sent back to the United States to face racketeering and drug trafficking charges. U.S. forces fought on in Panama for several weeks before mopping up the operation and handing the keys back to a new president, Noriega opposition leader Guillermo Endar, who international observers said had won the 1989 election that Noriega later annulled. He was sworn in with the help of U.S. forces hours after the invasion.

keep readingShow less
Trump Central Asia
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) attend a dinner with the leaders of the C5+1Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Central Asia doesn't need another great game

Asia-Pacific

The November 6 summit between President Donald Trump and the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. represents a significant moment in U.S.-Central Asia relations (C5+1). It was the first time a U.S. president hosted the C5+1 group in the White House, marking a turning point for U.S. relations with Central Asia.

The summit signaled a clear shift toward economic engagement. Uzbekistan pledged $35 billion in U.S. investments over three years (potentially $100 billion over a decade) and Kazakhstan signed $17 billion in bilateral agreements and agreed to cooperate with the U.S. on critical minerals. Most controversially, Kazakhstan became the first country in Trump's second term to join the Abraham Accords.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Golden Dome, mission impossible

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.