By Phil Huber, ADVANCE COLUMNIST
I have seen war from more than one direction. I formally served in four U.S. military operations in four theaters: Vietnam; Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Southwest Asia; Bosnia in Europe; and Haiti operations during a short tour in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. I also lived in Germany for four years and, as a Reserve intelligence officer working above corps level, took part in NATO training exercises. Later, I attended the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, now the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy.
That does not make me a prophet. But I have seen how decisions made in Washington reach the front lines. The view changes with the assignment, but the lesson does not: nations pay dearly when they ignore what earlier wars have taught. Wars often start before the shooting—when leaders discount warnings, neglect allies, bend intelligence to politics, or believe they can control the next step.
That is why I am troubled by today’s American policy. We are losing the ability to keep several dangerous crises separate—not because the United States lacks military power, but because this administration too often treats allies, diplomacy, and independent institutions as bargaining tools rather than safeguards against war.
Start in Europe. Russia has broadened the circumstances in which its nuclear doctrine says it may use nuclear weapons, including after a conventional attack it judges a critical threat to Russian or Belarusian territory. It has warned NATO that an attempt to cut off Kaliningrad, its enclave between Poland and Lithuania, could bring a response using its full arsenal, including nuclear weapons. NATO is defensive. Article 5 says an attack on one ally is an attack on all, and every ally must assist.
That promise needs more than treaty language. It needs shared plans, trust, training, and the certainty that allies will not be sorted into favorites and outsiders. Yet Politico reported that a Pentagon-led meeting in Poland on NATO’s future was planned without Britain, France, or the Baltic states—countries central to Europe’s defense and, in the Baltic case, closest to Russia’s threat. A small working group may have an innocent purpose. Still, leaving out key allies during a nuclear crisis sends uncertainty where unity is needed.
The Middle East is a second pressure point. The U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran has shown how quickly a regional fight can endanger American forces, Gulf partners, shipping, and energy markets. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has warned that further U.S. escalation would change the geography of the war, its targets, tactics, and weapons. A wider conflict would not require a U.S. invasion of Iran to become global. It could draw down air defenses, ships, intelligence, munitions, diplomacy, and presidential attention needed in Europe and Asia.
Other governments are watching. The Congressional Research Service says North Korea has sent more than 10,000 troops to Russia and that U.S. officials believe it is gaining valuable combat experience that could increase the threat to America and its allies. That does not mean North Korea plans to attack South Korea. It does mean any future crisis there could involve a more capable force. China may not need to invade Taiwan to test American commitments. A blockade, cyberattack, seizure of an offshore island, or major military exercise could create a crisis short of invasion. The U.S. intelligence community says Chinese leaders do not currently plan an invasion in 2027, but Beijing has other ways to coerce Taiwan.
There is no public proof that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are running one joint plan for world war. That is not the warning. Each can see the same opening: an America facing several emergencies, alliances made less dependable, and a White House more focused on transactional leverage than the slow work of keeping a coalition together.
What we cannot see matters, too. We do not see classified intelligence, private military plans, or private messages among governments. We should not pretend that we do. But we can see where pressure may come: a cyberattack on a port, power grid, hospital, bank, or rail system; sabotage of a cable or fuel site; a drone incident; a false story spread to confuse the public; or a strike whose source cannot quickly be proven. NATO calls these “hybrid threats”—a mix of cyberattacks, sabotage, economic pressure, disinformation, irregular forces, and conventional military power.
We can also see the arithmetic. America cannot send the same missile interceptor, air-defense battery, carrier, intelligence asset, precision weapon, or diplomatic team to several crises at once. Congress is already asking about munition stocks and industrial capacity as the Iran fight uses missile defenses and other supplies. America is not helpless. But choices in one theater can reduce choices in another before most citizens know a choice has been made.
The answer is not retreat. Nor is it blind faith that military strength alone will keep the peace. Allies should carry a fair share of defense costs, and a president must be able to move quickly in a real emergency. But burden-sharing is not alliance-breaking. Emergency action is not a blank check for an open-ended war. Strength without consultation creates uncertainty—and uncertainty is what nuclear-armed rivals exploit.
The immediate remedy is disciplined statecraft: restore full consultation with every NATO ally; state plainly that Article 5 is not subject to personal favor; keep military and diplomatic channels open to prevent mistakes; require the administration to tell Congress how it can meet commitments in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific at the same time; and insist that any major new use of force have a clear goal, legal authority, enough resources, and an honest plan for what comes next.
We also need leaders who can think clearly under pressure. They must ask what is known and unknown; what an adversary may be trying to do; what allies need; what resources are available; and what follows after the next decision. Critical thinking means listening to unwelcome intelligence and dissenting military advice. Personal loyalty is no substitute for judgment.
From the foxhole to the policy meeting in Washington, the price for ignored lessons eventually comes due. Those who pay first are rarely the people who treated restraint, alliances, intelligence, and constitutional oversight as inconveniences.
The Constitution divides war powers. Congress can declare war, raise and support the armed forces, and control appropriations; the president is commander in chief. That does not stop a president from defending the country in an emergency. It prevents the sword and the purse from staying permanently in one pair of hands. Congress is not any president’s cheering section. It is the constitutional circuit breaker before a crisis becomes a war.
In the next election, ask every candidate for Congress: Will you demand a vote before a new major war? Will you require clear goals, enough resources, measures of success, and an exit plan? Will you defend NATO consultation and treaty commitments? Will you protect independent military, intelligence, and diplomatic advice when it challenges the White House? Will you put the Constitution above party and personal loyalty?
No one can predict where or when a wider war would begin. But citizens can see the warning lights and ask whether their government is ready for dangers it cannot announce in advance. The next crisis may reach us through a damaged cable, a closed port, an overwhelmed air-defense system, a lie spreading online, or an ally wondering whether America’s word still counts. Russia is testing NATO. The Middle East can widen overnight. North Korea is learning from a real war. China is watching. We need representatives willing to stop this administration—or any administration—from treating war as a personal tool of power. That is how a constitutional republic keeps separate crises from becoming one catastrophe.
***
Phil Huber is a retired Army Reserve colonel, a federal civil servant, and a retired consultant who writes on civic education. He lives in Fredericksburg.
