SINCE GEN. DWIGHT EISENHOWER BECAME the first supreme allied commander Europe in 1951, every top NATO commander has been an American. “SACEUR” is likely the coolest name for the position, but it’s more than a title—the person who holds that job serves as the strategic glue binding the transatlantic alliance together, and that person becomes the symbol of leadership and commitment to the most successful security alliance in history. That’s why recent reports suggesting that President Trump is considering relinquishing the SACEUR role—as part of an initiative to transform U.S. combatant commands around the world—should alarm allies, military planners, and every American who values global stability and a strong relationship with our most important allies.

Strategic leadership in any military position is not just about a title or a rank. It’s about presence, trust, and influence. The post is as much about strategic vision, international diplomacy, and sound operational management as about leading troops in combat. The person in that role must project both power and unity, equanimity and a bit of detached fairness toward countries large and small. That’s why the role has often been held by America’s most capable and talented officers, from Eisenhower to Matthew Ridgway to Wes Clark to the current occupant, Christopher Cavoli. Removing the U.S. general from this post would create a vacuum of leadership at the very center of NATO, and such a vacuum would immediately create confusion, friction, unnecessary competition, and risk in coalition operations.

The tradition of American military leadership in NATO dates to World War II, when Eisenhower was appointed supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force. The logic is relatively simple: French, British, Belgian, Canadian, Polish, and other allied forces would fight under an American commander because the Americans had brought an enormous military across an ocean to liberate the continent. Would Americans fight under a Brit or a Frenchman? Not as likely.

Transferring the position to another country’s general as European nations are expanding their defenses against an emboldened Russia would be changing horses midstream; this change would not be a minor administrative reshuffle or a simple “change of command” but a seismic shift in the architecture of collective defense. The SACEUR is dual-hatted as commander of U.S. European Command (EUCOM), one of the combatant commands that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is considering for transformation, downsizing, and integration with other commands. But being dual-hatted in this position allows SACEUR to integrate U.S. military power directly into NATO operations, ensuring the alliance can rapidly coordinate during a crisis. From deterring Soviet aggression during the Cold War, to responding to frictions in frozen conflicts throughout Europe, to addressing complex challenges like the wars in the Baltics and Libya, to leading multinational deployments to Afghanistan, to countering Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the American-led SACEUR command has been the keystone of NATO’s deterrence, deployments, and operational strength.

The fact that the man (and so far it has been all men) leading the most successful alliance in history wears the Stars and Stripes on his shoulder gives the United States extra clout in Europe. As valuable as our allies are, it seems inexplicable that any American would want to defer to a foreigner about the fate of the alliance—and the blood and treasure of Americans.

Share

Some proponents may argue this move is part of a much-needed recalibration, especially to reduce the number of headquarters and general-officer positions. They might say it’s time for Europe to lead, for America’s allies to take on more responsibility, and for the United States to shift its attention to the Indo-Pacific while consolidating other combatant commands like Northern Command and Southern Command. I was involved in such a transformation in 2010, when I was asked to take command of U.S. Army Europe, the key U.S. Army subordinate command to NATO. Accepting the role meant that I would be the first officer since Eisenhower to take the command without gaining a fourth star. The change made sense, since the size of the Army in Europe had rapidly declined, and I was proud to fight above my weight class as a junior partner—in rank only!—to many of my European counterparts. In fact, I enjoyed being treated as an equal to European officers who outranked me—such is the power and influence of the United States.

Relinquishing the SACEUR post would have the exact opposite effect of my non-promotion. Rather than emphasizing American leadership, it would abrogate it. Europe is stepping up: Defense spending has surged since 2014, primarily because the 31 other allies are increasingly concerned about the Russian threat. But leadership is not just about burden-sharing; it’s about strategic vision, unity of effort, and credibility. Without a U.S. commander at the helm, NATO’s political cohesion and military interoperability would suffer.

Share The Bulwark

And if not an American, then who? Would it be a British or French general? German, Polish, Italian, Slovenian? Each alternative brings its own complex political, cultural, historical, and personal baggage. Competing national interests, interservice rivalries, and differing threat perceptions could easily fracture unity and inflame behind-the-scenes competition for the role. What has long been a stable, meritocratic, and strategically anchored appointment from the U.S. military could quickly devolve into a divisive politicized struggle. The very process of choosing a non-American SACEUR could become a source of intra-alliance tension at a time when unity is most vital.

Moreover, the geopolitical signals of such a decision would be catastrophic. Moscow would see it as an unmistakable sign of Western division and American retreat. When President Obama announced the “rebalance to Asia,” I was in command in Europe, and I was immediately called by representatives from most of our NATO allies asking what it all meant for U.S. support. I also saw intelligence that noted Russia’s glee. Allies on NATO’s eastern flank—Poland, the Baltic states, Romania—felt especially vulnerable. Even more importantly, Beijing and Tehran would certainly take note: America no longer leads the world’s most successful military alliance.

Make no mistake: Removing the U.S. general from the SACEUR post would be a soft exit from NATO leadership, even if Article 5 commitments remain on paper. It would undercut American influence at the very moment when a fragmented world demands unity among democracies. If the United States steps back, others will step in—but not necessarily in ways that serve American interests or global security. The SACEUR role is not a burden, it is a major strategic advantage in a strong multinational alliance. Leadership in this multinational coalition isn’t just about directing forces—it’s about projecting trust, capability, and the moral authority that binds coalitions together. Relinquishing that would be a self-inflicted wound and a gift to our adversaries. Now is certainly not the time for additional retreat. Now is the time to lead.

Share