The Second Big Lie

Georgie boy is really mad
Bombing Baghdad for his dad
* * *
You bend and break to your politician's will
The world moves forward, they stand still.
--lyrics, Not in My Name, Lato

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results
--Sir Winston Churchill

Following the First Big Lie--that the War on Terror actually is a war--comes the Second Big lie, namely, that the U.S. is the world's sole remaining superpower. To anyone who believes it, they're soon in for one of those emperor's new clothes moments. This lie also accepts that NATO is vital to the protection of Europe. To propagate this lie is to ignore the reality of Russia, China and India as contenders for this title.

This troika consists of sleeping military giants, much as was the U.S. in 1940. All possess the nuclear capability to light up our lives, but they are dismissed as non-viable threats. Why? Because the efforts of all three are focused on internal, non-military objectives, which in the long-run will defeat the U.S. without the foolish wastefulness of military misadventures. I should say, precisely because of the avoidance of the latter.

An example is Chinese economic policy, which both has the U.S. in its back pocket, and is becoming the world lender of choice for many countries. While the U.S. is tied down in Baghdad, moderating petty contests between religious factions, China is blowing communications satellites out of the sky. China has extended their nuclear strike capabilities, while the U.S. is moderating minutiae in Iraq. Recalcitrant minutiae, at that. It's not that we're moving little things around and they're getting better; rather, we're moving little things around and they're getting worse. Why, and who is benefiting?

Next to NATO. This is the basis of European security as it ties into U.S. policy. However, U.S. policy is no longer the guiding principle of NATO policy. The E.U. Euro has just surpassed the U.S. dollar, while the U.S. still supports the fiction that NATO is supporting our interests. Strangely, the factions that attack the United Nations never even consider that NATO is a house of cards.

The EU is generally equated with the NATO nations. The overlap is clear, but what is the threat posed to NATO? Unless prodded, Russia is content with economic growth. So where is the justification for spending U.S. dollars to protect a European Community that is an opponent on the economic playing field?

In effect, U.S. dollars are protecting E.U. economic growth. Again, why, and who is benefiting? Certainly, it's not the U.S. taxpayer. There is no reason for continued U.S. presence in NATO. Let the Europeans defend their own interests, especially as they are no longer tied to U.S. foreign policy goals.

Next: The Economy