"Loyalty tests don’t build loyalty. They erode it," warn Mara Karlin and Julianne Smith, framing a debate over how the United States should decide the size and disposition of its forces in Europe.
Secretary Hegseth’s European posture review and the proposed "pass/fail" criteria
Bloomberg has reported that the Trump administration will weigh European governments’ ideological alignment and support for U.S. policies as part of the European posture review announced by Secretary Hegseth in June. The questionnaire reportedly asks whether a country supported the 2026 Iran War, whether it has placed recent restrictions on U.S. forces based in its territory, or whether it “publicly opposed” regulations that constrain U.S. business in Europe. Mara Karlin and Julianne Smith call this approach a departure from decades of established posture practice, arguing it conflates political fealty with decisions that should rest on operational requirements.
Russia’s recent testing of NATO unity matters to posture calculations
Karlin and Smith emphasize that any posture review must start from credible operational scenarios. Over the last year, they write, Russia has increasingly tested NATO unity through airspace violations, cyber attacks, and sabotage operations. The authors warn that significant, politically driven reductions in U.S. presence could be read by Moscow as a signal of disinterest in European security, and that an emboldened Moscow “might choose to act against NATO territory.”
Audit-ready is a season. It shouldn't be.
Evidence in spreadsheets, controls drifting between audits, frameworks multiplying on flat headcount. Nubivance runs continuous compliance on Rapid7 Cyber GRC - SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 27001, PCI, CMMC.
End the scrambleEurope as an operational hub for the Middle East and Africa
The authors remind readers that U.S. forces in Europe are routinely used far beyond the Euro-Atlantic theater. They cite that U.S. forces in Europe helped enable last summer’s 12‑day war and Operation Midnight Hammer against Iranian nuclear facilities, and that they have been crucial for generating forces in the current 2026 war against Iran. The review also must account for Africa: AFRICOM’s headquarters has been located in Europe since the combatant command was created nearly two decades ago, and the “tyranny of distance” across the African continent — together with a smaller U.S. posture there since the 2023 Niger coup — underscores Europe’s operational relevance for the continent.
European defense spending, timelines, and the enablers the U.S. must retain
Europeans, the authors note, are spending substantially more on defense than they have in decades — a shift “turbocharged” by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But Karlin and Smith caution that it will be another five to ten years before European forces can reliably provide for the continent’s security. For the foreseeable future, they argue, the United States will likely need to keep in Europe strategic enablers such as lift, aerial refueling, long‑range strike platforms, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, and command-and-control infrastructure. Nuclear forces, they add, will need to remain part of that mix.
Rotational versus permanent basing, allied reactions, and the human dimension
Posture decisions carry personnel and partnership consequences. The Pentagon must weigh whether rotational or permanent stationing better fits today’s security environment and the health of the force; Karlin and Smith point out that rotational forces are often more costly and harder on troops because such tours are traditionally unaccompanied. They also warn that posture reviews handled without “deft and delicate diplomacy” can damage fragile alliances — and note that allies have already reacted to the leaked questionnaire by pushing back.
What this means for NATO allies, AFRICOM, and U.S. troops
- NATO allies: Expect heightened diplomatic friction if posture decisions are tied to political positions rather than operational need; the leaked questionnaire has already prompted pushback.
- AFRICOM and regional commanders: Will watch whether the review recognizes Europe’s continued role as a launch point for operations in Africa and the Middle East, especially given AFRICOM’s Europe‑based headquarters and the reduced posture in Africa since the 2023 Niger coup.
- U.S. troops and families: Face the tradeoffs between rotational and permanent stationing — Karlin and Smith underscore that rotations can be costlier and more disruptive because tours are traditionally unaccompanied.
The authors present a clear prescription: posture reviews should begin by answering four operationally framed questions — how the Russia‑Ukraine war might end, what global dependencies will exist in three to five years, how European capabilities will evolve, and whether rotational or permanent basing best serves readiness and force health. Basing decisions tied to political loyalty, they argue, risk eroding the very alliances that make the U.S. global posture possible. Allies are already signaling unease; the central question left on the table is whether the administration will anchor its review to those hard operational questions or to a checklist of political litmus tests.
Source: Defense One — The wrong way to review US force posture in Europe
