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.]

Bear-baiting

_________________

If Russia is leaving its Matrioshkya doll, it is we who are goading the bear to do so.

The proposed missile shield for Europe, which the U.S. is so magnanimously offering to construct, is not a necessary component of the trumped up Iran/U.S. to-do. Instead, these new missile sites are a provocation to Russia, a front we do not need to open. The Cold War gave us something to do when we weren't otherwise occupied, but we are now otherwise occupied.

Everything is so contrived in Bush's bald-faced, trumped-up marches to war. Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles during war games Wednesday in the Strait of Hormuz, and the White House responded saying the test "was 'completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world' and served to further isolate the country."

Hypocrisy never has hobbled this administration. The U.S. may explode missiles in space, militarizing yet another dimension of man's environment, but that is democracy in action. While the U.S. has vital interests in keeping the Strait and Gulf open to oil traffic, goading Iran does not favor securing that goal.

The U.S. also has a vital interest in protecting Europe, but goading Russia does not facilitate achieving that goal, either. U.S. Gulf policy has destabilized the region and is counterproductive for the attainment of overall Mideast security. Forgetting missile technology for a moment -- let's talk spears.

If Iran wants to disrupt the flow of oil all they have to do is block the Straits, which can be achieved via a number of low-tech means. The Egyptians blocked the Suez Canal with sunken ships. Imagine the consequences to the price and availability of oil on the world market were Iran to undertake such actions.

In fact, this issue of maintaining shipping lines is a world issue, not simply a national concern. Why is the U.S. again playing a High Noon scenario in the region? Any possible Iranian aggression is a United Nations issue. If Bush and Co. talk diplomacy, then let them put their money where their mouths are.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood clear of discussing possible military responses, arguing that the tests instead were proof that a proposed missile shield for Europe, a system that has drawn vehement opposition from Russia, is vital to defending U.S. interests and allies (US and Iran Appear on Collision Course.)"

No hard intelligence has been presented of strategic indicators that Iran intends to attack Europe. Just going on common sense (something in short supply in the U.S. today): Why would an oil exporter attack its best paying customers? In the New World's preferred currency, the Euro, to boot?

That may be the kind of of paranoiac, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot behavior that characterizes the U.S.'s current treatment even of its own citizens via civil rights curtailment. But most people and countries are more pragmatic than that.

Europe is no longer the Old Europe of 1946-66. This Europe has outgrown NATO, as the members have entered into a stronger alliance sans the U.S., the European Union. the military situation will eventually realign to this new reality.

Therefore, if Europe is to be protected from missiles or spears, let the EU nations protect themselves. Doesn't make much sense for the U.S. to be protecting Europe's oil lanes and homeland while the Euro is supplanting the USD on the world market. Their Army's and Air Forces taken as a whole exceed U.S. military capabilities.

Iraq displays this sorry fact nicely, when the U.S. cannot secure a nation in which they are not even fighting an army. The U.S. must stop acting as white knight to the world. the AP article depicts Washington and Tehran as "jousting," but the reality is, neither are knights. They are players with economic interests. In this game, the EU can assume the mantle for their own defense.

The U.S. lacks the assets and funds to protect Europe from a questionable threat.