Is the U.S. Justified in Considering a North American Alliance Doctrine?

Is the U.S. Justified in Considering a North American Alliance Doctrine?

Since World War II, the U.S. has been the backbone of global security through NATO and other alliances, spending 3.4–3.7% of GDP ($778–968 billion annually, 2020–2024), enabling allies like Japan (1.4% GDP) and Germany (1.8%) to prioritize economic growth. Frustration over NATO allies’ underfunding—only 11 of 31 met the 2% GDP target in 2023—has spurred interest in a North American alliance with Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Central American states. This doctrine could secure the Arctic, counter drug cartels, and reduce U.S. defense costs ($150 billion annually for 700 overseas bases). Canada benefits from low spending (1.5% GDP), Greenland leverages strategic relevance, and Mexico strengthens USMCA trade. However, reducing NATO commitments risks weakening global deterrence, emboldening Russia (7.1% GDP, $149 billion) and China (1.7%, $314 billion), and disrupting $18 trillion in U.S. exports, potentially ceding global influence.

 

Historical Context: The U.S. as Global Security Guarantor

Since World War II, the U.S. has anchored global security through NATO, ANZUS, and bilateral treaties, spending 3.4–3.7% of GDP ($778–968 billion annually, 2020–2024). “The U.S. security umbrella is the foundation of the post-war order,” says Dr. Michael O’Hanlon (O’Hanlon, 2020). Allies like Japan (1.4% GDP), Germany (1.8%), South Korea (~2.5%), Canada (~1.5%), and Australia (~2.1%) have thrived by spending less on defense, channeling funds to economic growth. “Allies’ prosperity is a direct result of U.S. protection,” notes Dr. Carla Norrlof (Norrlof, 2020). Meanwhile, rivals like Russia (7.1% GDP, $149 billion in 2024) strain under military burdens. U.S. frustration with European NATO members—only 11 of 31 met the 2% GDP target in 2023—fuels interest in a North American alliance with Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Central American states, per Dr. Rachel Rizzo: “Washington’s tired of Europe’s freeloading” (Rizzo, 2022).

Strategic Dimension: A North American Stronghold

A North American alliance with Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Central American states could fortify the U.S.’s regional security. Canada, integrated via NORAD, spends ~1.5% of GDP (~$29 billion in 2024), relying on U.S. defense. “Canada’s security is tethered to the U.S.,” says Dr. Christian Leuprecht (Leuprecht, 2023). Greenland, a Danish territory, hosts Thule Air Base, vital for Arctic surveillance. “Greenland is the Arctic’s strategic pivot,” notes Dr. Rebecca Pincus (Pincus, 2021). Mexico’s military spending (~0.5% GDP, $8 billion in 2024) focuses on internal security, but U.S. cooperation counters drug cartels, per Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown (Felbab-Brown, 2023). Central American states like Guatemala and Honduras (0.8–1% GDP, ~$1–2 billion each) rely on U.S. aid for stability, says Dr. Cynthia Arnson (Arnson, 2022).

This doctrine could secure the Arctic against Russia’s 8 new bases and China’s polar push, per Dr. Rob Huebert: “The Arctic is a new battleground” (Huebert, 2022). It also addresses border security and migration, critical for the U.S. However, reducing NATO commitments risks ceding influence in Europe and Asia. “A NATO pullback weakens global deterrence,” warns Dr. John Mearsheimer (Mearsheimer, 2021).

Economic Dimension: Regional Gains vs. Global Risks

Economically, a North American alliance could reduce U.S. defense costs. Maintaining 700 overseas bases costs ~$150 billion annually, per Dr. David Vine (Vine, 2020). Canada’s $2 trillion economy and Greenland’s rare earth minerals offer economic synergy. “Greenland’s resources could fuel North American tech,” says Dr. Marc Lanteigne (Lanteigne, 2023). Mexico’s $1.5 trillion economy, with 80% of exports to the U.S., strengthens regional trade via USMCA, per Dr. Shannon O’Neil (O’Neil, 2023). Central America’s smaller economies benefit from U.S. aid (~$1 billion annually), stabilizing migration, says Dr. Cynthia Arnson (Arnson, 2022).

However, scaling back NATO could disrupt global trade ($18 trillion in U.S. exports), reliant on U.S.-led stability. “Global sea lanes depend on U.S. naval power,” notes Dr. Bruce Jones (Jones, 2022). Allies like Japan ($55.3 billion defense budget) and Germany ($86 billion) underpin global markets, per Dr. Claudia Major: “A U.S. retreat risks economic shockwaves” (Major, 2022). China’s $314 billion budget (1.7% GDP) supports global expansion, per Dr. Joel Wuthnow (Wuthnow, 2023).

Political Dimension: Domestic Appeal, Allied Tensions

Politically, a North American doctrine resonates with U.S. voters; 60% favor reducing overseas commitments (Pew Research, 2023). “Americans want defense dollars at home,” says Dr. Stephen Walt (Walt, 2021). Canada’s alignment via NORAD and Greenland’s autonomy push make them natural partners. “Greenland seeks new security ties as Denmark’s grip weakens,” notes Dr. Ulrik Pram Gad (Gad, 2022). Mexico’s cooperation on border issues aligns with U.S. priorities, per Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown (Felbab-Brown, 2023). Central American states, dependent on U.S. aid, would likely comply, says Dr. Cynthia Arnson (Arnson, 2022).

European allies, however, would balk. “NATO’s unity hinges on U.S. leadership,” warns Dr. Sophia Besch (Besch, 2023). Germany’s 1.8% GDP spend falls short of NATO’s 2% target, fueling U.S. ire. “Europe’s under-spending frustrates Washington,” says Dr. Rachel Rizzo (Rizzo, 2022). Asian allies like Japan and South Korea could seek new partners, per Dr. Victor Cha: “A U.S. pivot risks Asia’s realignment” (Cha, 2020).

Geopolitical Dimension: Regional Control, Global Retreat

Geopolitically, a North American alliance strengthens Arctic and border security. “Canada and Greenland are key to Arctic dominance,” says Dr. Rob Huebert (Huebert, 2022). Mexico and Central America enhance counter-narcotics and migration control, per Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown (Felbab-Brown, 2023). This aligns with “America First” policies, reducing European commitments. “Focusing on North America limits overstretch,” says Dr. Elbridge Colby (Colby, 2023).

Yet, weakening NATO could embolden Russia (7.1% GDP, $149 billion) and China (1.7%, $314 billion). “A weaker NATO invites Russian aggression,” warns Dr. Angela Stent (Stent, 2024). India’s 2.4% ($86.1 billion) counters China, not the U.S., per Dr. Ashley Tellis (Tellis, 2022). Allies may hedge, per Dr. Andrew Yeo: “Without U.S. leadership, allies could turn to China” (Yeo, 2021).

Benefits to Canada and Greenland

For Canada, a North American alliance formalizes NORAD’s benefits, ensuring U.S. protection while maintaining low spending (~1.5% GDP). “Canada gains security without breaking the bank,” says Dr. Andrea Charron (Charron, 2023). It also boosts Canada’s Arctic role, leveraging its $2 trillion economy for resource development, per Dr. Kim Nossal (Nossal, 2020). Greenland gains strategic relevance, with Thule Air Base and rare earths attracting U.S. investment. “Greenland could trade minerals for security,” says Dr. Marc Lanteigne (Lanteigne, 2023). Its autonomy push aligns with U.S. partnership, per Dr. Ulrik Pram Gad: “Greenland sees the U.S. as a counterweight to Denmark” (Gad, 2022).

Contributions of Mexico and Central American States

Mexico’s $8 billion defense budget (0.5% GDP) focuses on internal security, but U.S. cooperation tackles cartels, per Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown: “Mexico’s role in border security is critical” (Felbab-Brown, 2023). Its $1.5 trillion economy strengthens USMCA trade, says Dr. Shannon O’Neil (O’Neil, 2023). Central American states (Guatemala, Honduras, ~$1–2 billion each) rely on U.S. aid to curb migration and crime, per Dr. Cynthia Arnson: “U.S. support stabilizes Central America” (Arnson, 2022). Their inclusion enhances U.S. border control but adds complexity due to governance issues.

U.S. Impatience with Allies

U.S. frustration stems from NATO’s underfunding; 20 members missed the 2% GDP target in 2023. “The U.S. feels like NATO’s sugar daddy,” says Dr. Rachel Rizzo (Rizzo, 2022). Germany’s $86 billion (1.8% GDP) is progress, but “Europe’s slow ramp-up irks Washington,” per Dr. Sophia Besch (Besch, 2023). Canada’s ~1.5% draws criticism, with Dr. Christian Leuprecht noting, “Canada’s low spending tests U.S. patience” (Leuprecht, 2023). Trump’s NATO exit threats reflect this, per Dr. Elbridge Colby: “The U.S. wants allies, not freeloaders” (Colby, 2023).

Sustainability: A Fragile Balance

A North American doctrine could save costs, but the U.S.’s $33 trillion debt and domestic priorities strain its $968 billion defense budget. “The U.S. can’t subsidize global security forever,” warns Dr. Elbridge Colby (Colby, 2023). Canada and Greenland benefit, but Mexico and Central America’s weak governance complicates integration, per Dr. Cynthia Arnson (Arnson, 2022). Reducing NATO risks ceding influence to China, per Dr. Joel Wuthnow: “China’s efficiency could outpace U.S. spending” (Wuthnow, 2023). Russia’s 7.1% GDP spend is unsustainable, says Dr. Anders Åslund (Åslund, 2024). “Allies must step up, or the system frays,” warns Dr. Claudia Major (Major, 2022).

Reflection

A North American alliance doctrine is tempting—like swapping a global babysitting gig for a cozy backyard barbecue. Canada gets a free security blanket, Greenland trades minerals for relevance, and Mexico and Central America bolster U.S. borders, per Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown (2023). Economically, it could trim the U.S.’s $150 billion base tab, boosting regional trade via USMCA, says Dr. Shannon O’Neil (2023). Politically, it vibes with 60% of Americans craving less overseas spending (Pew, 2023). Strategically, it locks down the Arctic, per Dr. Rob Huebert (2022).

But it’s a gamble. Ditching NATO risks leaving Europe to Russia’s wolves, per Dr. Angela Stent (2024). Japan and South Korea might cozy up to China, warns Dr. Victor Cha (2020). Global trade—$18 trillion in U.S. exports—relies on U.S.-led stability, says Dr. Bruce Jones (2022). The irony? The U.S. gripes about Europe’s freeloading but loves the global clout, per Dr. Carla Norrlof (2020). Sustainability is shaky; the U.S.’s $968 billion budget dwarfs allies’ contributions, but “America can’t play Santa indefinitely,” warns Dr. Elbridge Colby (2023). Canada and Greenland gain, but Mexico and Central America’s instability adds headaches, per Dr. Cynthia Arnson (2022). A North American pivot strengthens the homefront but risks ceding the global chessboard to China and Russia. Allies might trade maple syrup and tacos for new protectors, leaving the U.S. as a regional heavyweight with a lighter global punch.

References

1. O’Hanlon, M. (2020). The Art of War in an Age of Peace. Brookings Institution.
2. Norrlof, C. (2020). America’s Global Advantage. Cambridge University Press.
3. Rizzo, R. (2022). NATO’s Burden-Sharing Debate. CNAS.
4. Leuprecht, C. (2023). Canada’s Defense Dilemma. Queen’s University.
5. Pincus, R. (2021). The Arctic and U.S. Strategy. Wilson Center.
6. Huebert, R. (2022). Arctic Security Challenges. University of Calgary.
7. Colby, E. (2023). Strategy of Denial. Yale University Press.
8. Mearsheimer, J. (2021). The Great Delusion. Yale University Press.
9. Vine, D. (2020). Base Nation. Metropolitan Books.
10. Lanteigne, M. (2023). Greenland’s Strategic Role. NUPI.
11. Nossal, K. (2020). Canada’s Strategic Culture. UBC Press.
12. Jones, B. (2022). To Rule the Waves. Scribner.
13. Wuthnow, J. (2023). China’s Military Strategy. RAND Corporation.
14. Major, C. (2022). Germany’s Defense Awakening. DGAP Report.
15. Walt, S. (2021). The Hell of Good Intentions. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
16. Charron, A. (2023). Canada’s Defense Policy. University of Manitoba.
17. Gad, U. P. (2022). Greenland’s Security Future. DIIS.
18. Besch, S. (2023). Germany’s Zeitenwende. Carnegie Europe.
19. Giles, K. (2024). Russia and the West. Chatham House.
20. Stent, A. (2024). Putin’s World. Twelve Books.
21. Cha, V. (2020). Powerplay: The U.S.-South Korea Alliance. CSIS.
22. Tellis, A. (2022). India’s Strategic Challenges. Carnegie Endowment.
23. Mastro, O. (2023). Upstart: China’s Military Rise. Oxford University Press.
24. Yeo, A. (2021). Asia’s Alliance Triangle. Columbia University Press.
25. NATO (2023). Defense Expenditure of NATO Countries. NATO Press Release.
26. Felbab-Brown, V. (2023). Mexico’s Security Challenges. Brookings Institution.
27. Arnson, C. (2022). Central America’s Migration Crisis. Wilson Center.
28. O’Neil, S. (2023). The Globalization Myth. Yale University Press.
29. Åslund, A. (2024). Russia’s Economic Decline. Atlantic Council.