Who commands the alliance, and to what end?

National Review reports that former British Prime Minister Keir Starmer may seek the position of NATO secretary-general, and that this outcome would, in the editors' judgment, constitute a nightmare for the United States. I will not render a verdict on the man's character — that is not my office here. But the civic question the story raises is one I feel deeply equipped to address: how should a republic govern its posture within a military alliance, and what does it owe to the question of who leads that institution?

I have always held, and said plainly in what some have called my Farewell counsel, that permanent affection for any foreign nation is as dangerous as permanent hostility toward one. Both conditions cloud the judgment. The moment a republic begins selecting its partners or its alliance leaders on the basis of sentiment — of shared language, shared history, shared cultural warmth — rather than on the cold measure of shared interest and demonstrated competence, it has begun to mortgage its independence to feeling.

National Review's concern, as I read the lead, appears to be that a Starmer-led NATO would pull the alliance in a direction misaligned with American strategic priorities. That is a legitimate concern — not because Starmer is British, and certainly not because of any animus toward the British people, with whom this Republic has long maintained a relationship of productive consequence. The concern is legitimate because the secretary-general of a military alliance is not a ceremonial post. That office shapes doctrine, manages burden-sharing disputes, and speaks to adversaries and members alike with a voice that members must trust reflects their collective will.

Here is where I would counsel the present administration and the Senate — which retains its advise-and-consent role in treaty matters — to proceed with sober deliberation rather than reflexive opposition or reflexive endorsement. Ask not whether the candidate flatters our preferences, but whether the candidate will hold the alliance to the discipline of collective defense, distribute its burdens equitably, and resist the temptation to let the institution become the instrument of any single member's foreign policy ambition. Those are the questions of interest. Sentiment can wait outside.

I am also drawn to note — as inference, not recollection, since I cannot claim knowledge of events after my own time — that alliances grow fragile not only when adversaries press against them but when members quarrel over leadership and prestige. The Republic's credibility within NATO depends on its being seen as a principled actor: one that insists on fair standards, applies them consistently, and does not veto or endorse candidates purely on the basis of factional alignment at home. A foreign policy that lurches with the domestic political weather teaches allies that American commitments are seasonal, and that lesson, once learned, is not quickly unlearned.

My counsel, then, is this: judge the fitness of any alliance leader by the standard of the alliance's mission, not by the standard of partisan convenience. The Republic's interest in a strong, coherent NATO — or in any successor arrangement that secures its strategic position — is durable. The personalities involved are transient. Hold to the durable thing.