Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 13, 2017, 04:44:35 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106202 Posts in 2396 Topics by 1094 Members
Latest Member: Ice Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Death of NATO
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Death of NATO  (Read 7710 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9277


« on: September 02, 2008, 10:15:04 PM »

I would add to the thesis below, death of the UN also.

September 1, 2008
Farewell NATO
by Victor Davis Hanson

When I was growing up in the 1960s, we had a majestic Santa Rosa plum orchard on my family's farm. The trees were 40 years old and had grown to over 20 feet high. My grandfather would proudly recall how its once-bumper crops of big, sweet plums had helped him survive the Depression and a postwar fall in agricultural prices.

But by the 1960s, the towering, verdant trees were more a park than a profitable orchard. The aged limbs had grown almost too high to pick, the fruit there too few and too small to pack profitably. Yet my grandfather simply could not bring himself to bulldoze the money-losing, unproductive old orchard.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is like that noble Santa Rosa orchard. We all remember how NATO once saved Western Europe from the onslaught of global communism. Its success led to the present European Union. The Soviets were kept at bay. The Americans were engaged, while the postwar German colossus remained peaceful. A resurgent Europe followed, secure enough to prosper while complacent enough to slash defense expenditures and expand entitlements.

After the victory of the Cold War, NATO's raison d'etre became more problematic — even as its theoretical reach now went all the way to the old borders of the Soviet Union. Yet, without the Soviet menace that had prompted the alliance, what justified the continued need for transatlantic collective defense?

We saw NATO's paralysis in the European inaction over Serbia's ethnic cleansing in the 1990s. When NATO finally acted to remove Slobodan Milosevic in 1999, the much-criticized intervention proved little more than a de facto American air campaign.

Article 5 of NATO's charter requires its members to come to the aid of any fellow nation that is attacked. But when it was evoked after Sept. 11 for the first time, NATO — other than a few European gestures such as sending surveillance planes to fly above America — didn't risk much abroad to fight Islamic terrorists.

Australia, a non-NATO member, is doing far more to fight the Taliban than either Germany or Spain. Many Western European countries have national directives that prevent aggressive offensives against the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents, overriding NATO military doctrine.

Take away Canada, the United Kingdom and the U.S. from Afghanistan and the collective NATO force would collapse in hours.

The enemy in Afghanistan knows this. The savvy and sinister Taliban just targeted the French contingent. It figured the loss of 10 French soldiers might have a greater demoralizing effect on French public opinion than Verdun did in 1916, when France suffered nearly a half-million casualties in heroically stopping the German advance. But 90 years ago, France kept on fighting to win a war. Now, the French parliament may meet to discuss withdrawal altogether.

There is much talk that had Georgia been a NATO member, Russia might not have attacked it. The truth is far worse. Even if Georgia had belonged to NATO, no European armed forces would have been willing to die for Tbilisi. Remember the furor in 2003 when some NATO countries — angry at the United States — tried to block support to member Turkey should Saddam's Iraq have retaliated against Ankara for the American invasion to remove him.

The well-intended but ossified alliance keeps offering promises to new members that are weaker, poorer and in more dangerous and distant places, but its old smug founding states are ever more unlikely to honor them.

In the last two decades, the safety of a rich Western Europe also spawned a new continental creed of secularism, socialism and anti-Americanism that embraced the untruth that the United Nations kept the peace while the United States endangered it. But if a disarmed continent counted on continued expensive American protection, then it was suicidal to mock its protector.

If NATO dissolves, Europe will at least receive a much-needed reality check. It might even re-learn to invest in its own defense. European relations with America would be more grounded in reality, and the United States could still forge individual ties with countries that wished to be true partners, not loud caricatures of allies.

That stately Santa Rosa orchard? When it finally was toppled, uprooted and cut up, we all nearly wept — but my grandfather had new varieties of plum trees planted in its place by the next spring.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2268


« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2017, 01:34:15 PM »

You were prescient, Doug.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41775


« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2017, 04:18:53 PM »

Nearly 7,000 reads for one post!  shocked
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9277


« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2017, 09:44:52 AM »

You were prescient, Doug.


Thank you BD.  I should give some credit to my co-author, Prof. Hanson.  )

Repeal and replace:  NATO
Repeal and replace:  UN

All the points VDH made in there were true then and becoming even more so. 

The article could have been used a blueprint for some celebrity to run for high office...
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7683


« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2017, 12:42:42 PM »

Yes VDH could be my favorite pundit.  I don't know how he can keep it up at the volume pace he does.

I wish I had that kind of talent.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41775


« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2017, 01:27:44 PM »

His erudition is very much part of the equation too.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2268


« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2017, 10:16:27 AM »

https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/abandon-the-2-percent-obsession-a-new-rating-for-pulling-your-weight-in-nato/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41775


« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2017, 10:40:14 AM »

An interesting contribution Big Dog.

After a first read though I find that I still aligned with a point the article itself openly acknowledges-- the political virtue of simplicity for the diversity of twenty eight countries. 

Such simplicity allows, for example, the American president to state, as President Trump did today,  that if everyone paid their share, there would be $120 billion more. 

Such simplicity allows for serious political pressure to be applied e.g. a statement that we will Article 5 defend first those who meet their 2% responsibility.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2268


« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2017, 08:57:56 PM »

http://carnegieeurope.eu/2017/05/23/new-transatlantic-security-bargain-pub-70050

"Europe should propose to the United States a new security project of transformative significance. This could come in the shape of a joint Marshall Plan–like effort to shore up the fledgling democracies of North Africa, for example. The idea is to generate a security benefit—such as fewer terrorists with the potential to harm the United States—at a scale that would firmly imprint on American minds that a joint effort with Europe makes America safer."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15387


« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2017, 09:02:25 PM »

http://carnegieeurope.eu/2017/05/23/new-transatlantic-security-bargain-pub-70050

"Europe should propose to the United States a new security project of transformative significance. This could come in the shape of a joint Marshall Plan–like effort to shore up the fledgling democracies of North Africa, for example. The idea is to generate a security benefit—such as fewer terrorists with the potential to harm the United States—at a scale that would firmly imprint on American minds that a joint effort with Europe makes America safer."

Or, Europe and the US could start with securing their borders. Cheaper, easier and basic common sense.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41775


« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2017, 01:08:33 AM »

FWIW IMHO:

Europe is demographically contracting and substantial parts are already balkanized with Muslim (Turkey, Middle East, North Africa) immigration.  The Euro elites are afraid of confronting the fifth column .  Most of NATO does not even come up with 2% for defense, and quite a bit of it (Germany) is dependent on Russian gas.   The EU is economically and politically fragile , , , and Trump is looking to cut a deal with the Russians.

"After all, as the historian Robert Kagan observed in an interview, “What the U.S. has done over the past seventy years is unique. No one, not even the Roman Empire, has tried to sustain a global order. It is not a normal or natural state of things.”"

Exactly so.  We have moved from the bi-polar Soviet Empire vs. the US through the uni-polar moment and now we are in a new multi-polar era and tectonic plates are shifting.  I think Trump intuitively gets this and that America is badly overextended-- we have more on our plate than we can handle.  In this context I would advise the Euros to pay the fk up real soon , , ,

PS:  On whose side is Turkey?  Does Article 5 really reflect how they and we feel about each other?

The US mood for a new Marshall plan I would rate as really low.  Trust in our nation building capabilities (how did Hillary and the Euros do with Libya?) is near zero.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 01:15:06 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!