NATO is marking its 75^th anniversary. The ever-expanding gang of U.S. military dependents will hold its summit in Washington this July.

It should be a time for celebration. However, the specter of another Trump presidency will hang over the gathering. Although the 45^th chief executive did not dismantle the transatlantic alliance, he was constantly undermined by appointees from America’s past equivalent to the Ancien Regime. That likely would change if he gets a second chance. At the anniversary ceremony in Brussels, reported the Washington Post, “toasts about unity were in many cases undercut by the conversations on the margins of the party, most notably about the possible return to the U.S. presidency of Donald Trump.” (READ MORE from Doug Bandow: Xi Jinping’s Persecution of Chinese Christians)

These fears span the Atlantic. Listen to the endless parade of webinars from Washington think tanks, and you will witness wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments on a Biblical scale. There is little difference between Eurocrats and Washingtonians when it comes to ensuring that America keeps the defense gravy train going for Europe. Policy elites largely think alike.

None of this would shock American policymakers who connected the U.S. and Europe militarily. They were prepared to defend the continent when necessary — to end World War II and forestall more Soviet gains during the onset of the Cold War. However, they did not intend to create an enduring defense dole.

Observed James McAllister in No Exit: America and the German Problem: “American policymakers from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower strenuously tried to avoid having the future of Europe dependent on a permanent U.S. military presence on the continent.” Columbia’s Mark Sheetz made a similar point:

Postwar American statesmen, such as Kennan, Dulles and Eisenhower, did not want European stability to be permanently dependent on the presence of American forces. They did not want to assume the burden of defending Europe permanently against the Soviet Union, nor did they want to serve permanently as Europe’s protector against a possible resurgence of German power.

U.S. officials recognized the temptation that their support would pose to Europe. Wrote author Marc Trachtenberg: “During the crucial formative period in the early 1950s, everyone wanted a permanent American presence in Europe — everyone, that is, except the Americans themselves.”

In particular, Eisenhower, NATO’s first Supreme Allied Commander U.S. president, wanted America’s military presence to be temporary. He explained:

There is no defense for Western Europe that depends exclusively or even materially upon the existence, in Europe, of strong American units. The spirit must be here and the strength must be produced here. We cannot be a modern Rome guarding the far frontiers with our legions if for no other reason than that these are not, politically, our frontiers. What we must do is to assist these people [to] regain their confidence and get on their own military feet.

The latter point was critical. Europeans were expected to take over responsibility for their futures. Observed University of Cincinnati’s Brendan Green: “The United States would build Western Europe into an independent pole of power that could balance the Soviet Union by itself. The United States would then pass the buck, withdrawing its forces from the continent and positioning itself as the balancer of last resort.”

Obviously, this never happened. Why seems best explained by human nature. First was caution, reluctance to change policy while the Cold War persisted. Although Joseph Stalin’s death eased tensions, most notably the end of the Korean War, events such as the Hungarian Revolution reminded Americans and Europeans about the Evil Empire to the east. With the Red Army apparently poised for action, it seemed risky to weaken the U.S. presence.

Second was simple greed. The Europeans did not want to replace American forces. Being defense dependents might have been demeaning, but the financial benefit of Washington’s military subsidies was enormous. Only Kremlin allies and a few errant nationalists wanted U.S. forces to withdraw. So European governments would never mount the sort of military build-up that would invite an American military departure.

On the other side of the Atlantic ego discouraged change. With Europeans opposed to defense self-sufficiency, Washington felt no pressure to transfer responsibility. And with American policymakers reveling in their position atop the “leader of the free world,” they preferred to keep Europe in an ostentatiously submissive role, despite the added cost. After all, this was the era of both guns and butter. Although the Vietnam War offered an obvious justification to expand Europe’s role, Uncle Sam was determined to do it all. The Nixon administration ended up pushing allies to do more, but only in Vietnam did that mean the withdrawal of all U.S. troops.

Now decades more have passed, and Uncle Sam is still acting as nursemaid to Europe. The shock of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has spurred many European governments to spend more, but they continue to lag badly, especially in terms of combat capability. Even the United Kingdom, which possesses the continent’s best military, remains a major disappointment.

The UK’s army is actually shrinking. Reported Sky News: “The chronic erosion has created what defense sources describe as a ‘hollow force,’ with insufficient personnel, not enough money to train and arm those still on the books, out-dated weapons and depleted stockpiles of ammunition and spare parts.” More specifically:

• The armed forces would run out of ammunition “in a few days” if called upon to fight;

• The UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring;

• It would take five to 10 years for the army to be able to field a war-fighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops backed by tanks, artillery, and helicopters;

• Some 30% of UK forces on high readiness are reservists who are unable to mobilize within NATO timelines — “so we’d turn up under strength”;

• The majority of the army’s fleet of armored vehicles, including tanks, was built between 30 to 60 years ago and full replacements are not due for years.

This should have sparked sustained, if not frenzied, efforts to restore the UK’s military strength. But there is little urgency even within the ruling Conservative Party: “‘The money needed to fix defense is small when compared to other areas of spending like health, welfare and debt interest. So this is a matter of government choices, not affordability,’ [General Sir Richard Barrons] told Sky News.” If the threat is as great as so many Europeans claim, shouldn’t London choose to act decisively?(READ MORE: Leftists Blatantly Celebrate Lenin’s Legacy in New Book)

Yet advocates of continued continental dependence have come up with another reason for Americans to continue treating Europeans as children. Cherchez le Boche and the others!

NATO’s first secretary general, Lord Hastings Ismay, famously opined that the alliance’s purpose was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Aaron MacLean of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies seeks to revive that role for NATO. Never mind eight decades of peace in what Donald Rumsfeld unceremoniously called “Old Europe.” The Europeans, and especially Germans, just can’t be trusted. (So much for defending their democracies!) Obviously, these populations possess a double or maybe even treble dose of original sin.

Explained MacLean: “It isn’t Germany, specifically, that need preoccupy us — though the contributions of a unified Germany to international security over the past 150 years have been mixed. Ismay’s comment ought to remind us of the possibility of European politics more broadly.

Perhaps we forget the vast slaughterhouse into which the Continent transformed on two occasions in the first half of the last century. Its wealth and leadership did little to retard and much to accelerate the industrial and pitiless cruelty, the movements of populations, the murders of whole peoples, and the conscription and sacrifice of millions. Twice, reluctantly, America sent its own youth, many of them victims of the Minotaur of European ‘progress’.

Yet there was no reason for the U.S. to intervene in 1917, other than Woodrow Wilson’s vainglorious determination to reorder the globe, which exploded disastrously a generation later. Had the Americans stayed home, most likely was a compromise peace rather than French triumphalism. The result might have been ugly but almost certainly would have been nothing like World War II.

Moreover, after what was originally known as the Great War most everyone in Europe, other than Adolf Hitler, was determined not to repeat the past. After World War II truly everyone in Europe had learned that lesson. MacLean worries about Germany’s Alternative for Germany and France’s National Rally, as well as “plenty of others outside the typical mainstream gaining public favor.”

Yet which of these movements is promoting violence internally and aggression externally? To the contrary, they tend to oppose fighting a proxy war with Russia and related calls for rearmament.

Marine Le Pen doesn’t look much like a Napoleon in waiting. If anyone in Germany is interested in creating the Fourth Reich, it is the Greens, who have become Berlin’s new uber-hawks. Still, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock is a poor substitute for Hitler. Given how fervently most Europeans, including Brits, French, and Germans, continue to resist rearmament, a return to fratricidal intra-European conflict looks unlikely, to put it politely.

Indeed, the agenda MacLean complains of looks a lot like that of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. Love it or hate it, it is less likely to lead to World War III than the Biden administration’s interventionist policies. Indeed, President Trump was noticeably reluctant to use force despite his sometimes-truculent rhetoric. Today’s nationalists look tame compared to those currently wielding power.

But assume MacLean is right that putting “these countries on their own feet may merely be the prelude to their hands reaching for one another’s throats.” If that is the price of independence, so be it. Eight decades of babysitting is enough. U.S. debts are rocketing upward. Annual interest payments already run more than military outlays. Social spending, especially Social Security and Medicare, is on an inevitable upward trajectory. Americans no longer can afford the cost and risk of patrolling the globe.

Europe requires defense. That is the most important lesson of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, almost 80 years have passed since the end of World War II. It is time for Europeans to defend Europe. That could mean a European-led NATO. Or a new defense organization tied to the European Union. Or an entirely new system. Washington should assist in the transition and cooperate with the Europeans on shared interests. However, the U.S. should set a time certain for the ultimate withdrawal of its combat forces from the continent. It is well past time to realize the intentions of America’s NATO founders. (READ MORE: A Century Ago, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Died)

The transatlantic alliance was intended as a temporary shield to allow the Europeans to recover from war, overcome hatreds of the past, and rebuild militaries. By all accounts, they have achieved the first two, the rise of nationalist movements notwithstanding. Now they should complete the third. It really is time for the Europeans to do the paying and dying for their own defense.