Posts with the tag 'NATO'
Exactly the sort of thing needed to inject a note of reality into Russian deliberations:
The United States and Poland reached a long-stalled deal on Thursday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory, in the strongest reaction so far to Russia’s military operation in Georgia.
Russia reacted angrily, saying that the move would worsen relations with the United States that have already been strained severely in the week since Russian troops entered separatist enclaves in Georgia, a close American ally.
But the deal reflected growing alarm in countries like Poland, once a conquered Soviet client state, about a newly rich and powerful Russia’s intentions in its former cold war sphere of power. In fact, negotiations dragged on for 18 months — but were completed only as old memories and new fears surfaced in recent days.
Those fears were codified to some degree in what Polish and American officials characterized as unusual aspects of the final deal: that at least temporarily American soldiers would staff air defense sites in Poland oriented toward Russia, and that the United States would be obliged to defend Poland in case of an attack with greater speed than required under NATO, of which Poland is a member.
Polish officials said the agreement would strengthen the mutual commitment of the United States to defend Poland, and vice versa. “Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people,” the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Polish television. “Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of — knock on wood — any possible conflict.”
Next up, the Baltic States - we really need to teach Russia a lesson about which nation is the super power and which nation is the rapidly declining power of the second rank. Putin and his gang seem to labor under the illusion that Russia has the strength to stand on her own in the world - she doesn’t. Russia either gives up her imperial ambitions and agrees to alliance with the United States (after, of course, becoming a full democracy), or Russia will eventually find itself the conscript ally of China. There is only one way Russia retains her Asian territories beyond 2050, and that is in alliance with the United States.
The world changes and things do shift - and one of the shifts has been the eclipse of Europe by the Americas and Asia. Europe has its choices to make, and the wisest choice for all of Europe is to cling tightly to the United States, the bulwark of western (ie, European) civilization. Poland has figured this out, and we pray that Russia will eventually figure it out, too.
Tags: Georgia, NATO, Poland, Russia, South Ossetia, Strategic Defense Initiative
August 15th, 2008
As I write this the latest news from Georgia indicates that Russia intends a complete subjugation of that nation and the imposition of a puppet regime.
While all decent people are disgusted with the Russian action, there is not much we can immediately do, at this point, unless we are prepared for full scale war with Russia. While Georgia is only about 300 air miles from northern Iraq, the real limiting factor on sending US forces to Georgia is the difficulty in getting American air power established in the area. The effort to do so would essentially mean challenging the Russians directly including, perhaps, bombing of Russian airfields near Georgia. A war between the United States and Russia would only have one conclusion - the utter defeat of Russia. Russia is playing the Great Power game but really lacks the military and economic wherewithall to play such a role - Georgia, quite honestly, is about the largest thing Russia can handle at the moment. Such a war, however, even with its foregone conclusion would be a long and costly struggle, with the risk that someone who is proving himself as insane as Putin might actually pull the nuclear trigger. So, while we must try to save an independent Georgia, our tasks for the future is to treat Russia in light of Russia’s actions.
It appears from Russia’s actions that Russia has embarked upon an attempt - in one form or another - to revive the Russian Empire. Given our ability to swallow hypocrisy these days, the Russians would present their new empire as a collection of independent States, just as the USSR pretended that the east European States were independent, and we went along with the fiction. In the year of 2008, we must not allow the world to slip back into a place and time where larger nations preyed upon smaller nations and made them colonies or protectorates - nor can we allow large countries to carve out spheres of influence amongst other nations. Russia is indicating it wants an empire, our task is to thwart them in this effort.
First and foremost is the exposure of the UN as entirely useless - if one member of the Security Council, wielding a veto over UN action, is determined to violate the UN Charter in letter and spirit, then the whole thing becomes an entire waste of time. There is no purpose in being in an international body which cannot do what it was designed to do. Of course, those who know realise that the UN long ago became moribund, but now its actually counter-productive, and its time for it to go. In its place should be - as long ago suggest by myself, and more recently by Senator McCain - a Leage of Democratic Nations. This would be a grouping of free nations and free peoples, pledged to the defense and expansion of freedom around the world - and most emphatically nations like Russia (and China, and Iran, etc, etc, etc) would have no place in it. Only by so doing will we have an international body which we can act for good in the world.
Secondly, we’ll want a larger military. Russia is feeling expansive, and so is Iran - meanwhile, China modernises its military and greedily eyes the wealth of Taiwan as a means of cutting its way out of the sea of bad debt China floats upon. We have to be prepared for a two front war requiring very large military establishments on opposite ends of the world. This will require several more active divisions for the army, at least one more for the Marines, quite a large number of aircraft for the Air Force and a major beefing up of the US Navy so that we can ensure absolute command of all the world’s seas no matter what combination of enemies we fight. Essentially, we’ll have to rebuild our military size to about where it was at the end of the Cold War, and perhaps even larger.
Third, we need to quickly strengthen the military side of our alliances in eastern Europe and do whatever we can to induce former Soviet Republicans to join NATO. We must surround the aggressor with such a large number of potential enemies that whatever military force he has at his disposal will be insufficient to meet all needs, and thus we can secure a cold peace. We’ll also give pause to Iran, China and other potential threats that we retain the power to deal with all contingencies.
As to why Russia has embarked upon this insanity, I don’t know - I hope they come to their senses, but we cannot rely on that. Russia has ranged itself, sadly, as an enemy of liberty, justice and basic human decency, and it is the task of the United States to contain this as far as possible and hope that some day the Russians will wake up and take full charge of their own future, no longer turning themselves over - body and soul - to whatever Czar promises to raise them to the peak of power in the world.
UPDATE: Richard Beeston at Times Online tells the true state of Russia in 2008, and it ain’t a pretty picture.
Tags: Georgia, NATO, Russia, South Ossetia
August 12th, 2008
Excellent news:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said France will send more troops to bolster Nato’s mission in Afghanistan, subject to certain conditions.
Mr Sarkozy, who is on a state visit to Britain, said he would make the offer at next week’s Nato summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest.
Britain and the US have frequently called on other Nato members to send more soldiers to fight the Taleban.
The Nato-led force, Isaf, currently has over 43,000 personnel in Afghanistan.
In a speech to the British parliament in London, Mr Sarkozy said the Taleban could not be allowed to regain power.
“In Afghanistan something essential is being played out,” he said.
“France has proposed a strategy to its allies in the Atlantic alliance to enable the Afghan people and their legitimate government to build peace.
“If these proposals are accepted, during the summit in Bucharest, France will propose reinforcing its military presence.”
France already has troops in Afghanistan but like all other NATO forces - other than US, UK and Australia - they work on such restrictive rules of engagement as to be useless in a military sense except as static, garrison troops. President Sarkozy’s proposal indicates that the French military will engergetically engage in battle - and this, in turn, might get the Germans and others to step up to the plate. In the end, we are all in tihs together, and it will be over a lot faster if all concerned put some will into the fight.
The problem with Europe seems to be a lack of will to live, and a resultant unwillingness to fight. But it wasn’t always so - less than 100 years ago, France sternly sacrificed its manhood on the anvil-altar of Verdun, fighting for the core principle that governments must derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The great-grandsons of those brave men now hold the destiny of France - and, perhaps, Europe - in their hands. President Sarkozy has made a brave offer, we’ll now see if there is any will to live in France, and Europe.
Tags: Afghan Campaign, France, NATO, President Nicolas Sarkozy
March 27th, 2008
I’m in the process of reading two books, 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East and The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City. I’m about half way through the latter, two thirds done with the former. Both are fascinating books providing me with new information and new insights into the Arab/Israeli War - and War it is, and it has been ongoing since the proclamation of the State of Israel in 1948. And it will go on until the war ends. Unstated by either author so far, but clear to me is that the reason we’re still engaged over the issue of Israel, Jerusalem and the threat of radical Islam is because we’ve never allowed the Arab/Israeli war to be fought to a conclusion.
In 1967, one of the pre-battle acts was Irael’s internal debate over whether or not they could go to war without approval from the western powers, especially the United States and whether these same powers would allow Israel to go all out. Neither issue was settled - at the start of the battle, all concerned were laboring under various misconceptions over the position of everyone else involved. And, as we all know, the world community came to the rescue of a completely defeated Arab coalition after a mere six days of battle in 1967 - a completely defeated Arab coalition, but a coalition which was spared having to surrender and accept peace terms from the victor. Just a few more days of military action, and the war would really have been over with Israeli forces in Cairo, Damascus and Amman and able to force a peace as the price for withdrawing not from properly Israeli territories in the West Bank and Gaza, but from the heartland of the enemy coalition.
In The Fight for Jerusalem, the author details, among other things, the way Moslem have desecrated non-Moslem holy sites under their control but more central has been the Moslem campaign to deny a historic Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Aided by western academics with a vested interest in denying the truth of the Bible, some radical Moslems have been attempting to convince the world that David and Solomon never had a capitol city in Jerusalem, and that the Temple never existed on the Temple Mount. All of this is in service of the Moslem desire to have the entirey of the Old City of Jerusalem in their hands in any future peace deal. Ultimately, the reason we’ve got a Palestinian Authority which has, among other things, permitted the desecration of the Tomb of Joseph and the Church of the Nativity and which is making an attempt at forcing the Jews of Israel to give up their historic and religious capitol city is because of the unfinished war of 1967 - failure to force an end to the war and a peace deal 40 years ago has left us in the quandry of a continuing war, and yet another attempt by the defeated to reverse their overwhelming, and justly deserved, defeat. There is a lesson to be learned here.
Over at Captain’s Quarters, Captain Ed takes note of former Clinton Administration official Richard Holbrooke’s hand wringing over the deteriorating situation in Kosovo. You remember Kosovo, don’t you? The one unqualified triumph of the Clinton Administration? The template for American intervention? The proof that GW’s program is wrong? Well, it seems that things are falling apart a bit in Kosovo with a renewed threat of war - with the Serbs unwilling to surrender forever their claim to this historic piece of Serb territory and the Europeans unable to force a settlement. Naturally, Holbrooke figures this is all President Bush’s fault - you know, in a post-9/11 world, our highest priority should have been Kosovo, right? The real fault of this, however, is that the war against Serbia over Kosovo wasn’t finished.
Bill Clinton’s purpose, as far as I can determine, in the Kosovo War was to do something - but there wasn’t a clear idea of what was to be done; meaning, there wasn’t any clear idea of what result was desired from the war. I recall from that war that Clinton’s statement announcing the commencement of hostilities had some absurd references to two world wars starting in the Balkans…of course, only one did, and if Clinton really thought that the conflict over Kosovo was going to lead to World War III, then he is either an idiot or, more likely, that he just figured the American people would buy one more whopper from him. (As an aside, I’d like to find that speech, but I wasn’t able to find it in the archives over at the Clinton Foundation; I can find just about everything but what I exactly heard over the radio that day while driving in my car). Be all that as it may, there was no clearly defined goal other than a nebulous lack of war on the agenda - and so we bombed and bombed and bombed and, eventually, the Serbs got tired of it and called it quits…except, of course, that they didn’t. They did want very much for the bombing to stop, and it did stop - but there was no signed peace agreement where Serbia surrendered sovereignty over Kosovo…their claim to it, thus, was - and is - very much alive. And now there’s a Serbian government willing to press for Kosovo, backed by a Russia willing to throw its weight around behind the Serbs. The war of 1999 over Kosovo isn’t over.
Once peace is broken, the only way to restore it is to bring a war to a conclusion - a hard-and-fast decision which is inescapable and inarguable. When Lee surrendered, that ended the Civil War - Southerns could argue all they want that we won it unfairly, but regardless of how we did it, it was done; there was no arguing over the facts of defeat for the South. When Jodel surrendered for Germany in 1945, there was also no question about it - even the most died-in-the-wool Nazi couldn’t say other than that Germany was utterly crushed. Both of these defeats led to peace - even though plenty of people on the losing side didn’t like the result of it and wished it had come out differently and even, at times, nursed some hopes of a re-match at a latter date. Regardless - the wars were over. Peace had been established because a conclusion had been reached. In Kosovo, no such decision was reached…Serbia was forced out, but no agreement was made about the finality of it all. That would have taken ground forces and a march on Belgrade and the eventual dictation of peace terms to the Serbs. They wouldn’t have liked it, but they would have had to accept it. Of course, that would have required the United States to lose some lives - and while Bill Clinton was desperate to avert WW III, he wasn’t so desperate that he was willing to risk high casualties, and the possibility of lower public opinion ratings.
But what does he care? His loyalists in the Democratic party and the MSM will forever call Kosovo an unqualified success - and he doesn’t have to ever deal with it again. But in this small lesson in Kosovo we see illustrated the larger lesson of the Arab/Israeli war - that a war will go on until it is finished. And this lesson we must lay to heart as we carry on in the War on Terrorism. We can’t just “end” it - it has to be fought out. One side has to win, the other side has to lose - and the winning and losing must be of such an unmistakable character that even the most ardent Islamo-fascist will have to admit his side lost. It is either fight this war, now, to a conclusion or just allow it to go on, perhaps to flare up heavily at a time and place where America is ill-prepared to engage in major hostilities. The enemy is patient - he doesn’t want peace; he wants victory. And he’s sure he’ll attain it simply because he knows he’ll keep fighting to the end - and he’s convinced that we won’t.
Think about that, as the debates over the war go forward.
Tags: Bill Clinton, Europe, Kosovo, NATO, President Bush
November 25th, 2007
