IF TRUMP GIVES UP AMERICAN CONTROL IN NATO, THE SACEUR ROLE COULD BE ELIMINATED
When NATO decides to devise or execute a military strategy, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) is the leader in charge of such decisions. Dwight D. Eisenhower has held the position and while it doesn’t have to be an American, for well over seven decades, it has been. So, why does President Donald Trump want to give up such a powerful role? Let’s dive deeper.
America Might Not Be the SACEUR for the First Time in Over 74 Years
Having a four-star general from the US as the SACEUR has been a mainstay for NATO; however, officials are now saying that The Pentagon’s restructuring could change that.
Overseeing European security is a big deal, especially at a time in which the continent continues to experience war.
However, with The Pentagon reviewing how military commands are structured, giving up such a powerful position is still on the table.
While reorganization could be a good thing for the United States, experts are warning that giving up the role of NATO's SACEUR is a huge misstep from a military and political standpoint.
In an email, retired Adm. James Stavridis said the following:
“For the United States to give up the role of Supreme Allied Commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance. It would be a political mistake of epic proportion, and once we give it up, they are not going to give it back. We would lose an enormous amount of influence within NATO, and this would be seen, correctly, as probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether.”
It’s worth noting that Stavridis served as SACEUR as well as the Head of European Command from 2009 to 2013.
Cutting Costs and Consequences
If the U.S. gives up its role as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), the shift will trigger more responsibility from European allies.
It's not the most surprising thing being proposed, considering Trump wants Europe to pay more for NATO's defenses.
This is all at a time when the government is undergoing major changes, including federal budget cuts, and officials are looking at as much as $270 million in savings by merging several military commands in the first year alone.
Plans include potentially consolidating U.S. European Command with Africa Command as well as shutting down U.S. Southern Command in Florida.
Critics argue the restructuring prioritizes cost-cutting over strategy and could reduce U.S. influence in Europe, limiting access to key bases and weakening intelligence and planning capabilities.
“When you start reducing capabilities of headquarters that do planning and intelligence…that only hurts us. What strategic analysis led them to want to do this? This has happened so early that this clearly smells like a cost-cutting thing than a strategic analysis,” said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who also served as the Army’s Senior Commander in Europe.
Additional Changes Are on the Table
The Pentagon is considering a merger between EUCOM and AFRICOM, despite concerns that managing such a vast region would be too complex for one leader.
Critics like Stavridis aren't as worried about other consolidations, such as a potential merger of the Southern and Northern Commands.
However, there are several cost-saving measures on the table, which include relocating hundreds of Pentagon-based staff to Virginia, eliminating the J7 training directorate, and potentially cutting 375 civilian jobs.
The plan aims to save $470 million over five years but there are still questions about whether or not coordination and expertise will suffer as a result.
Additionally, U.S. Space Command may lose its missile defense component, and a planned expansion of U.S. Forces Japan could be scrapped and while almost $1.2 billion could be saved, relations might suffer with our biggest ally as tensions rise in the Pacific.
Such changes show that even though the role of SACEUR is up for debate, it's just one piece of the puzzle.
Despite a possible reduction in intel, influence, and readiness, the U.S. is almost certainly experiencing a notable shakeup in its military presence around the globe.
Why Is the SACEUR Always American?
Technically the SACEUR doesn't have to be an American, but because the U.S. provides the most military power to NATO, it traditionally is.
While this office, for now, is held by an American, it's not the only one to follow this tradition either.
Up until 2009, the second top NATO role, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), was also held by a U.S. Officer, but now, it's held by a French military leader, Gen. Philippe Lavigne.
Whether or not the SACEUR remains under the direction of the United States remains a mystery but Trump’s rhetoric continues to cause tension in international relations among Europe and our time in the role could be coming to an end.
Suggested reads:
SHARE:
TAGS:
JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER
Get the latest news and military discounts
