Former Pentagon and NATO Officials Karlin, Smith: Basing Europe Troop Posture Review on Political Loyalty Is 'The Wrong Way' to Do It

Mara Karlin, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Capabilities, and Julianne Smith, former US Permanent Representative to NATO, published a joint critique in Defense One on August 23, 2026 arguing the Pentagon's Europe force-posture review is being conducted the wrong way by folding in the ideological-loyalty criteria first reported by Bloomberg on August 14 — whether allies publicly backed the 2026 Iran War, restricted US base access, or opposed EU "Made in Europe" defense-procurement rules. Their core argument: "loyalty tests don't build loyalty. They erode it," and conditioning US military presence on political fealty contradicts NATO's foundational principle that being an ally has never required blind loyalty. They warn that if the review produces drastic posture changes on that basis, Russia could conclude Washington is signaling disinterest in European security — emboldening exactly the kind of testing of NATO unity, via aggression, cyberattacks or sabotage, that the posture review is nominally meant to deter. As a substantive alternative, Karlin and Smith propose the review instead focus on four questions: how the Russia-Ukraine war might conclude, what global military dependencies will exist in three to five years, how European defense capabilities will evolve, and what basing considerations affect US force recruitment and readiness. The op-ed is the most senior former-official critique yet of the questionnaire controversy that has dominated this tracker's coverage since mid-August.