Three Signs That America Is On the Run

Naval ships are often metaphors for great events. The USS Forrest Sherman (DD931), one of the first post-World War II designed destroyers, is one of them. Sherman's main armament is its three rapid-fire guns — one mounted forward on the bow and two in the stern facing the rear. Hence, cynics claimed Sherman was the first warship built to fight running away. Three events last week reinforced this metaphor for America. First, in the face of a possible Iranian threat, 12 U.S. B-1 bombers were quickly moved from the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force base at Fairford in England, presumably to a safer location. Given Ukraine's brilliant Operation 'Spider's Web,' which launched drones smuggled into Russia at key bases, destroying several strategic bombers, the concern was that Iran might attempt to duplicate such an attack. In this case, drone quadcopters flown nearby could have been the agents of destruction. Inside the Trump administration, who is the advocate for a more balanced policy toward Europe? But what about other bases where U.S. forces are located? F-15 Strike Eagles are stationed in Suffolk, England, at Royal Air Force Lakenheath. And in Europe, U.S. Navy destroyers are homeported in Rota, Spain, as well as Army and Air Force units scattered throughout the continent. While actions have been taken to defend against possible attacks, American forces being widely distributed gives Iran or any terrorist group an array of potential targets. And under certain conditions, like the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. forces stationed inside the U.S. could also be potential targets. These potential dangers should not be exaggerated or ignored. The second event underscoring U.S. vulnerability was a stunning Congressional Research Service report released last week, detailing the surprising loss of 81 U.S. aircraft so far in Operation Epic Fury. Among the losses were 12 F-15 Strike Eagles, one F-35, seven KC-135 Stratotankers, one E-3 Sentry airborne warning aircraft and 50 drones or other unmanned aircraft. The total losses are estimated to cost up to $3.3 billion. And that does not include the estimated $38 billion for all the munitions and weapons used so far in the operation. War is not cheap. The third event was the Houthi attacks against the King Khalid Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that temporarily shut down operations. The airport complex for domestic flights was hit twice in two days. Twelve people were killed, and around 300 were wounded. Before the latest strikes, President Trump was reportedly considering bringing the U.S. into the battle against the Houthis. These three events show how vulnerable bases and infrastructure can be to remote attacks, reinforced by Ukraine's surprise attack in Spiderweb. Additionally, Iran has been intensifying attacks against Gulf energy facilities in apparent defiance of Trump's threat to strike Iran after the election. In a broader strategic sense, the U.S. seems to also be running away from Europe and NATO. The Trump administration has demanded that European members of the alliance assume a greater burden for their defence. Of course, all presidents since the alliance was founded have made similar requests. But no president has threatened or actually removed American forces from Europe to compel allies to shoulder greater responsibility for their defence. U.S. Defence Policy Undersecretary Elbridge Colby will hold a meeting in Poland next month on NATO's future, to which the United Kingdom, France and the Baltic States were reportedly not invited. Concurrently, the Pentagon is reviewing U.S. force posture in Europe. Along with the proposed 20 per cent cut in flag and general officer billets, could the four-star European Command be downgraded to three? And for the first and only time in NATO's history, could the alliance's supreme allied commander in Europe be a non-American? If this were to occur, it would be strategically catastrophic for the alliance. It would signal the abdication of U.S. leadership, with no other country able to take on the replacement role. Just as bad, it would cut the link with the U.S. nuclear deterrent, as Europe's supreme allied commander would no longer be in the U.S. chain of command. This would give Russian President Vladimir Putin the opportunity to expand the 'active measure' attacks designed to disrupt and divide NATO. And Ukraine could succumb to further Russian aggression. Inside the Trump administration, who is the advocate for a more balanced policy toward Europe? Who is arguing against the seemingly one-sided tilt into making China the enemy while ignoring Russia? If there is one, that advocate is biding his or her time. And the bedrock of U.S. security for the last 75 years could be thrown into the dustbin of history. The writer is a senior advisor at Washington, DC's Atlantic Council and a published author. He can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.