Right, the US couldn’t just take command of NATO and other member states’ militaries without those countries signing off on it. But they can basically use political pressure to make countries join their excursions, like what happened after 9/11 (the only time Article 5 was ever invoked). And well, the “defensive” aspect of that entire campaign is questionable …
So while they don’t have direct control, I’d still say the US is very much the “head of NATO”.
I meant sort of like the US government being able to more or less directly command NATO, calling all the shots atleast.
Right, the US couldn’t just take command of NATO and other member states’ militaries without those countries signing off on it. But they can basically use political pressure to make countries join their excursions, like what happened after 9/11 (the only time Article 5 was ever invoked). And well, the “defensive” aspect of that entire campaign is questionable …
So while they don’t have direct control, I’d still say the US is very much the “head of NATO”.