NATO Nonsense

--Free Ride, Paresh Nath (UAE)

Make yourself a mule,
and someone will ride you
--Carl Sandburg
__________________

U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused NATO of "collective military irrelevance" in a recent speech in Brussels, a long-time stance of RangerAgainstWar.

NATO has been superannuated since the fall of the Soviet Union, and was irrelevant in the 1970's and 80's -- it has always been a legerdemain foisted upon the American taxpayer.

From The Week's "Putting NATO in its Place":

"(fr. Madrid's El Mundo): The European countries (who else would be in Nato?) have slashed their defense budgets, with the result that, while the U.S. used to count for half of Nato's funding, it now makes up 75%. ... Only 4 of Nato's other 27 members spend 2% of their GDP on defense, as required by the treaty." [Pablo Pardo's report can be read @ "The UN, NATO and Nuclear Weapons".]

George Will recently wrote that the Libya imbroglio "is igniting a reassessment of NATO, a Potemkin alliance whose primary use these days is perverse: It provides a patina of multilateralism to U.S. military interventions on which Europe is essentially a free rider" (Libya and the Potemkin Alliance). Will suggests that some legislators are awakening to their job, in the face of Obama's disingenuous assertion that the U.S.'s involvement in Libya does not constitute a war. Fellow WaPo columnist Eugene Robinson asked poignantly in "Obama's Novel Definition of "Hostilities":

"The advent of robotic drone aircraft makes it easier to wage war without suffering casualties. But without risk, can military action even be called war? Or is it really just slaughter?"

This is a question that demands an answer.

There is no discernable military threat to the European conglomerate, so WHY is there still a NATO structure sans a threat? From Saudi Arabia's Arab News ("End of NATO?"):

"What will it take for the West to face the reality that the Cold War is over and the NATO is long past its sell-by date? It might have had its uses and played its role in checking communism. But it’s time to give it a decent burial. If the world needs an international peace keeping force to deal with trouble spots like Libya, it should exist under the UN command. "

In addition, NATO's activities should be clearly defined. For instance, it is spurious to label NATO's actions in Libya Peacekeeping (PKO) since PKO's are supposed to be neutral and humanitarian in nature. The Libyan venture is an undeclared war of aggression, plain and simple.

Now, after a NATO airstrike killed 9 civilians this weekend, Moammer Gaddafi now calls for Global Jihad against the U.S. and the West. Twenty years of grooming "the madman", down the drain. Faint traces of another fouled up "intervention" termed success waft by . . .

"Heckuva job, Brownie."


[cross-posted @ milpub.]

yakUSA?

To my utter despair I have discovered,
and discover every day anew,
that there is in the masses
no revolutionary idea or hope or passion
--Mikhail Bakunin

Tell me: How does this end?
--Gen. David Petraeus

He's Judge, Jury and Executioner!
--Death Wish, tagline (1974)
_____________________

In a shade of things past and things to come, NATO forces bombed the home of Libyan leader Muammer Gaddafi this weekend, killing his son and three grandchildren. How is this enforcing the NATO mandate of "protecting" Libyan citizens? How does this action differ from the bombings of 9-11-01?

The U.S. is not the Mafia or Yakuza; just as with Saddam's sons, why are we targeting his family or even Gaddafi himself? When did the U.S./NATO get into the business of killing national leaders? All for a bunch of rabble-rousers?

Gaddafi has repeatedly called for a cease-fire, as late as this Saturday. The rebels claim this is a ploy. Well-meaning Westerners may well be being played the dupe in this game of uprisings. Fixated upon our own nation's experience, we imagine democracy to be the way of the world. "Arab Spring" trips off the tongue so nicely and sounds so clean, like a bar of green soap, almost. But why is the U.S. so quick to back a minority band of discontents versus negotiating with a sovereign leader, if indeed this is even our purview?

Canadian Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of NATO's operation in Libya, said, "we do not target individuals," but this was not a wayward missile. Gaddafi -- who thought he was now a good guy when he dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons program, cooperated with investigations into Libyan state-sponsored terrorism and paid reparations, earning the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya in 2003 -- is now being treated to the full U.S. turncoat treatment.

The government forces still hold most of the country, and the "rebels" are doing a feeble effort. This NATO action will not make Gaddafi a moderate. Moreover, what does this say about us?

Subsequent to the destruction of Gaddafi's home, angry mobs destroyed the UK and Italy's Embassies. In a sort of double jeopardy, the AP reports:

The U.S. evacuated its diplomatic staff at the start of the Libyan crisis, leaving Turkey to represent American interests in the country. In Washington, the State Department said it was aware of the reports of damage. "If true, we condemn these attacks in the strongest possible terms," the statement said, adding that by failing to protect the diplomatic missions, the regime "has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations (Libyans burn UK, Italy missions after NATO strike)."

So while NATO was bombing Libya's leader, it condemns him for not protecting the diplomatic missions that were burned because NATO bombed the Libyan leader's home. Catch-22, anyone?

If the U.S. bases its legitimacy in the order of law, it cannot stomp around the world killing people. That is not how diplomacy works. Secretary of State Clinton has proved a monumental failure in encouraging this undertaking. The U.S. is clearly encouraging Libyans' (the Middle East's?) radicalization.

How do our actions differ from those of terrorists?

Qua Daffy

[People] don't want to be trapped
into a condition that the level of support
for war is equated with patriotism
--Dennis Kucinich

I will let you down
I will make you hurt
--Hurt, Nine Inch nails

I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"
--You Can't Always Get What You Want,
The Rolling Stones
__________________

One factoid is noticeably missing from news reports of recent happening in the Middle East, yet it is instrumental in understanding the flow of events. It is simply this: The majority of the Middle East is batshit crazy, and we fail when we cast the disruptive events as an inexorable march toward democracy. Maybe not!

Let us begin with Muammar Qaddafy, Libya's long-time leader. Muammar has never been sane, yet we have recently concluded that Brother Colonel must go. However, the reality we are ignoring is that the Libyans have embraced his brand of crazy for the last 42 years. He did not turn batshit crazy yesterday, so why is everyone noting this rather egregious and obvious fact now? Ditto Egypt.

For some historical perspective, when the Russian Czar fired on the crowds in the early 1900's, the crowds had legitimate concerns that were democratic in nature. While the czarist stance was autocratic and conservative, was it ultimately beneficial to have the monarchy overthrown? This action put Russia into a crisis mode which still has not been satisfactorily resolved.

There are numerous interpretations to all historical events. The U.S. sent the Wolfhound Regiment (27th Infantry) to fight the Bolsheviks, indicating that democracy (or eliminating a monarchy) was not a strategic interest of the U.S. in 1918. Democracy is not always a desirable US export if it engenders destabilization of a region.

The Russian Revolution may share some commonalities with the (possible) ones in Egypt and Libya. Still, does the revolutionary impulse arise from within the population, or is it the result of outsider agitation? The concept of such outside parachustists is a theme central in unconventional and guerrilla warfare (UW/GW), and Qaddafy may be correct in his assertions that the people's restiveness has been stoked by outsiders interested in destabilizing the region further (thank you, United States).

And who shall benefit? Batshit crazy Iran (but to paraphrase Condoleeza Rice in the wake of the 9-11-01 attacks -- who could have known?). Does this credulousness irk anyone else out there?

One can imagine a mob to represent an impulse to democracy, but what if it is not? Is change always positive?

The reason we tolerate the Qadaffis and Mubareks of the world is because we never know if his successor will be worse. The U.S. is so pumped up with HOPE and CHANGE that we ignore the ugly realities on the ground. Such gullibilty is to our detriment. The Tunisian fruit vendor's offense is their Rosa Parks moment but as we all know, Ms. Parks was a contrived mascot, for the true work of the Civil Rights movement was borne by countless behind-the-scenes agitators, lawyers and organizers.

A cell phone photo of a riot does not equate to positive change, and the guy taking the shot is as crazy as the dude he may be trying to depose.