Is It Time for a European SACEUR in NATO?
History gives General Dwight Eisenhower the credit for leading the Allies to victory in Europe in the Second World War. Of course, the command was deep with leaders of expertise and courage, but it took special skills to marshal that talent into an effective team. Immediately after the war, European countries were preoccupied with reconstruction and containing dissent. Communist partisans represented a serious threat, as the Soviet Union had not only solidified its zone by denying the free elections under the Yalta agreement, but also was actively undermining the Western sphere by secretly supporting communist party efforts to gain power. Discord was particularly acute in Greece and the Balkan countries. There was no trust between France and Britain. Germany was being demilitarized. Ties within the former British Empire were loose to non-existent. NATO was formed in 1949 to meet this threat and in 1951, Eisenhower resumed his role as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) with Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery as his deputy commander. The old team once again saved Europe. Since then, SACEUR has always been an American officer with a British deputy most of the time. A strong, well-organized NATO deterred the Soviet Union from using force to extend its control of Europe. This deterrence remained effective for 70 years.
Things are different now. For two decades, President Putin undermined the Western alliance. Forceful annexation of parts of Georgia, violent suppression of democracy in the Caucasus and the invasion of Crimea were met with silence from NATO. Putin may even have permitted NATO expansion, knowing that countries like Hungary would undermine the unwieldy 32-country alliance. The Trump-Vance administration has made it clear that the old deterrence is over. They may even be actively undermining other efforts at defense. President Trump has decapitated his own armed forces and proposed less than stellar replacements. There must be great concern in NATO knowing that Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the current SACEUR, is due to complete his three-year tour this summer.
In a March 1984 op-ed for Time, Henry Kissinger described a plan to reshape NATO. He anticipated President Trump’s demand that Europe do more to defend itself. Kissinger proposed that SACEUR should be a European and that Europe should have more responsibility for nuclear deterrence and ground defense. This was the time when there was uncertainty about who would succeed Yuri Andropov, the longtime KGB director who had become leader of the Soviet Union. Kissinger felt that a strong united Europe would force the new leadership to negotiate an end to the Cold War. The Kissinger plan was never considered. Europe lost the opportunity for a smooth transition from confrontation with an autocratic Soviet Union to collaboration with a democratic Russia.
European planners have declined leadership of NATO forces in Europe because they hope that the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ for SACEUR to be American ties the United States to the alliance. American planners object to SACEUR being European because they believe that no one has sufficient personal authority to prevent squabbling among the leaders of armies in Europe. Strategically, an American SACEUR was more intimidating to adversaries – until the current US administration. There is talk that President Trump may demand a European SACEUR but an even worse scenario is that he proposes a general who is not up to the task or is perceived by Russia to be so.
Past demands for Europe and Canada to contribute more to NATO that focused on GDP and defense spending undermined the alliance. The recent European responses to the Three Stooges display of US displeasure are more hopeful. Increased member state spending, revitalization of the European Defence Agency, and a British-led “coalition of the willing” from NATO and the European Union have demonstrated the political backing that is required for effective European leadership of the alliance. Using terminology that harkens back to British support for the United States in the war on terror after the 9/11 attacks, Britain has proposed a mechanism to defend Europe even if the United States declines to participate, as it did for the first two years of World War I and II. Italy has proposed that Ukraine be offered real security guarantees along the lines of NATO’s Article 5. Ukraine’s battlefield experience will be critical in any conflict between Europe and Russia.
But can Europe produce a NATO leadership team that will be respected by its adversaries? It was the United States that led the “coalition of the willing,” and NATO participation in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that gave current commanders in Europe’s armies their combat experience. The generals of those conflicts have retired, but their experience of asymmetric warfare may not apply to the threatened conflict. On the other hand, the junior officers, who collaborated on the battlefield then, are now in charge. Russia would be wise not to underestimate them. A show of strength and unity under a European SACEUR may well have the effect that Kissinger envisaged, allowing common sense to prevail.
