The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

Old NATO Turns 60

By on 4.2.09 @ 6:06AM

Isn’t it finally time for a European defense of Europe?

(Page 2 of 2)

Alas, the risks to America are growing. In the main, the newest members of the alliance, such as Albania and Croatia, have negligible military capabilities but significant political liabilities. Prospective members Georgia and Ukraine, which face instability at home and threats from abroad, are military sinkholes.

If Moscow believes the U.S. would go to war over states that were part of Imperial Russia as well as the Soviet Union, NATO membership might limit Russian action. But Moscow understandably doubts American willingness to fight over what are, in truth, peripheral geopolitical interests for Washington. And attempting to coerce Russia, in contrast to bombing Serbia and invading Iraq, would risk a nuclear confrontation. By multiplying its security guarantees the U.S. is becoming less secure.

Yet at least most alliance aficionados believe that NATO should remain theoretically connected to Europe. Not so Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute, who advocates “offering NATO membership to some stable, non-Western democracies” such as Brazil, India, Japan, and South Africa. Doing so, he explains, “would give the international community a more powerful tool for carrying out vital tasks ranging from peacekeeping to emergency relief around the world.” Yet almost by definition these tasks do not affect basic U.S. security and are not vital. Moreover, both peacekeeping and relief operations are routinely carried out through existing international organizations. Differences among NATO members today often are dramatic; Marshall’s prospective membership could agree on even less.

Fourth, Washington gets little out-of-area benefits in return for its continental security guarantee and military garrison. This doesn’t mean that the Europeans do nothing elsewhere. Michael Ruehle, deputy head of NATO’s Policy Planning Section, proudly declares that “NATO is busier than ever before and increasingly acting in concert with the wider international community” and involved in “an ever-broader spectrum of missions.” 

Yet most of these activities are irrelevant to U.S. security, have been performed poorly, or could be handled outside of NATO. The only alliance military mission that really matters, Afghanistan, verges on failure. European peoples see little to gain from risking their troops in Afghanistan, limiting the commitment of all but the most stalwart European governments. Moreover, many of the NATO contingents, out of combat and out of shape, are well nigh useless.

Neither U.S. pressure nor European embarrassment has improved alliance performance. British defense secretary John Hutton has warned: “Success in Afghanistan is fast emerging as the test of NATO’s relevance in this new post-cold war age.” Otherwise, “NATO will risk being irrelevant, a talking shop where process is everything.” But the alliance became that long ago. NATO’s inability and unwillingness to do more in a conflict that really matters to America demonstrate just how little Washington gets for its efforts in Europe. Better for the U.S. to bring its troops home and seek allied support on an ad hoc basis than maintain the pretense that NATO substantially advances America’s interests around in the world.

The U.S. and Europe continue to have much in common and could forge new, more effective forms of cooperation for the 21st century. Washington could replace American membership in NATO with a more flexible system of regular if informal consultation and cooperation in and out of Europe, backed by agreements for intelligence sharing, emergency base access, and joint training exercises.

A couple of weeks ago Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he wasn’t going to NATO’s upcoming anniversary celebration in order to spend the time reviewing the Pentagon budget. The best reason for Secretary Gates to stay home would be to revamp American defense policy to better reflect American interests. Which would include taking the moribund trans-Atlantic alliance off of life support.

Page:   12

About the Author

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (32) |

Melvin| 4.2.09 @ 7:40AM

European socialists provide for their own security...Please don't patronize us, that bunch of Euro-snobs couldn't defend their way out of a wet paper bag with a hole poked in it.
It is one thing to have the best military equipment in the world, then it is an altogether different thing to have the will to use it. The EU doesn't have the will.

ncatty| 4.2.09 @ 10:06AM

Our military and diplomatic policies should be measured against what is in the best interest of Jane Doe US citizen. If that means creating NATO and staying in it forever, great. If that means getting out, also great. All other concerns are secondary.

Vlad-the-Impaler| 4.2.09 @ 10:42AM

I don't think we have all that many troops stationed in Europe anymore. Most army units are in Iraq. We have a few Air Bases, but our presence is actually quite small at this time. We maintained over 300,000 troops 20 years ago, can't be over 50,000 total now. Makes sense to maintain forward bases with stockpiles of supplies and equipment. As long as the U.S. is the world's policeman, we're stuck with NATO.

Michele San Pietro| 4.2.09 @ 10:46AM

I think it's time the U.S. simply sends this thankless Europe to hell; beside that, the NATO is a surpassed organization nowadays.

Dustoff| 4.2.09 @ 10:56AM

As long as the U.S. is the world's policeman, we're stuck with NATO.
+++++++++++++++++++

I agree with others. We have been the police for far too long. The EU needs to step up.

DJ| 4.2.09 @ 11:11AM

The ONLY reason to remain in NATO today is to retain our bases in Europe... but I suspect we already negotiate keeping them seperately. We should decide what makes sense for the US to keep on the continent, for our convenience only, then pull everything else out and lock the front gate until the leases expire. And leave *nothing* standing when we go...

Len| 4.2.09 @ 4:49PM

Seeing as how there has been no amendment passed for keeping troops overseas, and that the Constitution gives the purpose of the military as being for the Common Defence of the states, one really need not make an argument for bringing them back, but say "You sir are by law are required to bring them back". No treaty involving us in Europe can be justified as we have never been under attack from that arena. Wilson and Rooosevelt got us involved where otherwise we had no reason to be. We are being invaded here and doing nothing about it, yet we leave our borders unprotected. Time to put an end to this overinvolvement in world affairs.

John T. O'Connor | 4.2.09 @ 11:03PM

Boy ain't all of this the truth. And for the effort we get criticized, mocked and derided. Especially now, let these sanctimonious SOBs learn the realities of life. And if these clowns are really in the middle to later stages of cultural decay, we can't save them anyway, so why go broke trying.
I would also put Korea on the watch list. For years, the younger generation have demonstrated against the US and sought to kiss the Dear Leader's butt, while selling tons of Hyundais and Kias.
So go ahead, Knock yourself out. Face the crazy north on your own. See if you can handle crazy Kim and whomsoever emerges from the maelstrom if some rumors are true and the little creep is sick.
And don't forget to write.

John T. O'Connor
Wallingford CT

Selvy| 4.3.09 @ 1:07AM

Russia will get more aggressive (even more than it already has), we'll need to be around...but not for Western Europe's benefit. Europe's future lies in the East. Regardless, consider reading "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman. Very interesting.

Gazinya| 4.3.09 @ 6:57AM

N.A.T.O. like the old Warsaw Pact will soon be defunct. The U.S. still has, I believe, about 35,000 troops in South Korea but they are just for show. Since every square inch of that peninsula is pre-targeted with artillary I don't think it likely any combat troops will be necessary. Africa has been left to cannabilize itself and poses little international threat. Mexico and the other countries south of the U.S. are tribal. These are indiginous peoples who are still trying to figure out what happened to the Incas. Except for Argintina, which is not a buzz word for democratic stability, there has been no mass imigration from other countries and so Latin America is as homogeneous as Japan. I think Central and South America are in the last stages of tourism.

Asia is becoming technological but again has no history of being more than a local player. Japan was the only global player with global designs until it got squished. Japan can still be an important regional player. China is becoming the big man on the block but is not unassailable. Not yet anyway. In most of Asia there is the huge anchor of Islam which is more bloodthirsty than even the Middle East.

Australia and Canada are still tied to England and are considered commonwealth countries to England. Though each have military prowes they are not independent. They are not exempt from a European socialism.

The U.S.A. is the only country that is unique in all history in its formation and values. The individual was the driving force. Though we began as a British colony when we left them we left behind king and culture. We built our life on a Juedo-Christian system of laws and social constructs. Private property and the nuclear family were central, with advice taken from the Bible. Except for slavery, which was doomed from the start because of the teaching of Jesus, we became a buzz word for freedom and properity. This is also changing because we have chosen to change. We have chosen to become slaves to government and that is doomed because of the teachings of Jesus.

Russia, which is still tribal but dangerous will link up with the tribes of the middle east to essentially take out Isreal. Isreal which is one of the smallest countries is the most dangerous because it is the only nation, tribal as it is , that will be left standing when the real poop hits the fan.

Paul Crowley| 4.3.09 @ 10:53PM

-->“the U.S. got little out of the trans-Atlantic alliance”

This is rubbish (especially 1978 onward).

America (“USia?”) standing alone’ is nonsense.

American citizens bore numerous burdens: First in facilitating the development, and maintenance, of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) the re-industrialization, and reform of western Europe into the European Economic Community (EEC) (now
European Union: EU). The same applies to Japan and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO).

American citizens bore, and continue to bear, numerous burdens and the consequences of these organizations developed for the Cold War (1946-89), and expanded since its end.

Consequences of the reform, deconstruction, and redevelopment of American infrastructure, circa 1956-2005, and the expenses charged to them (National Debt) (The “American Taxpayers” do, and will, “pay,” but couldn’t finance this directly, even if they wanted to).

American citizens continue to bear many of the costs, definitely those in the form of consequences, for which the American government uses the alliance: Global Military advance and geo-political advance.

LINES OF COMMUNICATION (in the military science definition of the term).

LOGISTICS.

The American government, and military, Department of State, and Department of Defense, receive the same benefits that the American government received in the Pacific during World War II (and in the Korean and Vietnam Wars), via alliance with the British and Dutch (Advanced Bases), and a good bit more. Anglo-Dutch military contributions in the Pacific in WWII, in terms of men and contribution to the war machine, were infinitesimal. The British provided a bit more during the Korean War, but far less during the Vietnam War (primarily cadres of Aussies, for whom the "contribution" was more valuable for them, in the experience gained, than it was for Americans).

NATO, Japan, SEATO and Britain, provides the American government, and military, Advanced Bases, especially naval and air bases, that have been critical to the military advance, especially the post-1971, into the Indian Ocean basin, nothern Africa, south-west Asia and the Persian Gulf region (and now south-central Asia).

By facilitating the industrial reconstruction of western Europe, and Japan, the American government received an indispensable military asset: Advanced industrial production and logistical support.

The present advance into south-central Asia would be impossible without the Advance Bases and without the logistical support of advanced industrial processing and production in western Europe, the Western Pacific, and now the Persian Gulf states, including Iraq.

The United States of America (U.S.A.), as a country, and as reformed, 1971-2001, does not have the capability of supporting its military ventures, as it did during world war II, even if the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the members of the National Security Council (NSC) wanted it to, which they obviously don’t, and haven’t.

The reformed U.S.A. bears more resemblence to the 13 British colonies of 1753 than it does to the pre-WWII (or pre-1969) Republic it once was. A supply of colonial militia canon fodder.

Finance has been continuously developed, modernized, reformed, and re-regulated to military advance (The G-20 Summit in London is the latest regulatory reform).

Lines of Communication (maritime, road, rail, air, information communications) have been continuously reformed to facilitate this military advance.

Industrial production, mining, processing, manufacturing, have been continuously developed, modernized, reformed, and re-regulated to facilitate this military advance.

Entire populations of peoples have been continuously reformed to facilitate this military advance.

Of course it's a sane question to ask why the retention of NATO, SEATO and every other Cold War organization formed during, and for, the Cold War, and, more importantly, why the steady, and continuous, expansion of these entitites over the course of the 20 years after its end?

The real questions are what is the purpose of this military advance? What is the Strategic target? Are we advancing toward another general war (this time centered in Asia, with the People's Republic of China the target, and to include campaigns in Central and South America and Africa)?

Paul Crowley| 4.4.09 @ 2:36AM

-->“Throughout the Cold War the allies constantly repeated a bit of Kabuki Theater.”

“Kabuki Theatre” isn't a bad description, of both the western European and American governments.

Essays like Bandow’s here are a diversion.

Brandow’s essay, like so many others, left, right, and, libertarian, contributes to to the “Kabuki Theatre” effect by helping to form ignorance.

It also contributes to the vulgarity and arrogance of people Who Are Taught by such as this.

Paul Crowley| 4.4.09 @ 3:41AM

-->“France refused to grant overflight rights to American aircraft to attack Libya.”

Big deal. So did Spain.

The year before, Italy appeared to be un-cooperative in 'fighting terrorism,' and now much is made of Italian notification to Libya, via Malta, of the approaching air force attack group.

Support from France, Italy, western European, Japan, western Pacific countries and SEATO countries was indispensable to American naval and air operations against Libya in 1986.

Contrary to Reagan’s statement in his “memoir,” the French denial of overflight probably AIDED the air raid and Department of Defense (DoD) R&D.

Reagan’s statement of his belief that French denial of overflight being responsible for the loss of one F-111, only detracts from the truly remarkable fact that ONLY one warplane was lost in the raid (which was due to the new weapons systems and tactics employed for the first time; particularly in SAM suppression).

Reagan’s memoir makes no mention of Spanish denial of overflight at all. So, no thanks to Spain, and its government’s silence over the incident, for the saving of one F-111, which had to make an emergency landing at NAS Rota, due to mechanical failure (Advanced Bases ARE CRITICAL to military operations).

ADVANCE SUPPLY
Lack of French, Dutch, Italian and British produced chemicals and fuels, German produced chemicals and manufactured parts, and western European textiles & produce would have made American military operations IMPOSSIBLE.

ADVANCE BASES
Lack of naval facilities in Spain and Italy would have made American naval operations impossible.

Lack of air bases and facilities in western Europe would have made American air operations impossible.

North Africa, circa 1980-89.
American naval and air operations against Libya in 1986 were part of the broader American-Anglo-French-Dutch-Egyptian-Israeli military ventures in north Africa, east to west, circa 1980-89, set up by the Carter Administration and conducted during the Reagan Administration.

Most Americans were, and remain, utterly ignorant of the extent of the numerous American expeditions in north Africa, circa 1980-89, including the majority of American airmen and sailors who served as part of the expeditions.

French military pressure was applied against Libya, from the south, and east, in Chad, and from Djibouti (now garrisoned by American troops, rather than a French Foreign Legion garrison, as then).French air and ground forces took part in the fighting in Chad.

Egyptian military pressure was applied against Libya, from the east, by Egyptian ground and air forces, supported by American air forces, out of Egypt and Sudan, and American naval forces in the Mediterranean Sea.

American naval pressure was applied against Libya, from the north, in the Mediterranean Sea, and west, off the coast of west Africa.

Other French, Egyptian, and Israeli military units, applied military pressure against Libya, from the south, in sub-Saharan Africa, in (now ex) Zambia (the ex Belgian Congo), and British Commonwealth countries, Sudan, Kenya, and Angola.

The American military operations in north Africa were under Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) unified commands, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command. Africa was divided between these two JCS unified commands.

Libya was under U.S. European Command

Libya is now under U.S. Africa Command, established during the G.W. Bush Administration.

The JCS U.S. Pacific Command, provided naval and air forces serving as part of the Persian Gulf expedition

The Persian Gulf expedition was established during the Carter Administration, via U.S. Pacific Command, with "Kermit" and "Gonzo" stations in the Arabian Sea, in 1978.

The Carter Administration established the Rapid Deployment Force, which was institutionalized as the JCS unified command, U.S. Central Command, during the Reagan Administration.

American air and naval units of U.S. European Command relied upon logistical support (maintenance, repair, basing, fuel, parts, weapons, food. . .) from western European and NATO countries and upon Advance Bases, naval and air, in those countries.

American air and naval units of U.S. Pacific command relied upon logistical support (maintenance, repair, basing, fuel, parts, weapons, food. . .) from Japan and SEATO countries, and upon Advance Bases, naval and air, in those countries.

Libya, 1986:
Four military operations were conducted against Libya, January-April 1986.

The four operations were conducted under the command of JCS unified command, U.S.European Command. U.S. European Command had headquarters at the NATO air base in Ramstein, Germany.

Direct units included Task Force 60, of the U.S. 6th Fleet, of the U.S. Navy (USN), the 48th Tactical Fighter Wing (48 TFW) of the U.S. Air Force (USAF), and other American naval units off of the west coast of Africa.

The USN TF-60 (now “Battle Force 60?”), was supported by the naval supply base, naval air station and naval magazine in Rota, Spain, a naval air station in Siganella, Sicily, and a naval base, with ship repair facility in Gaeta, Italy.

48th Tactical Fighter Wing (48 TFW) was based at the NATO air base in Lackenheath, England.

The Four military operations conducted against Libya, January-April 1986, were:
Operation “Attain Document 1,” January 1986
Operation “Attain Document 2,” February1986
[both naval operations designed to assess Libyan military capabilities].
Operation “Attain Document 3/Prairie Fire,” March 1986
[A Freedom of Navigation (FON) exercise in the Gulf of Sidra, and the subsequent naval battles and air strikes on Libyan missile batteries]
Operation “El Dorado Canyon, ” April 1986
[The American air raids at Tripoli and Benghazi]

USN Task Force 60 (TF-60) was made up of two (2) aircraft carrier track groups (A.K.A. “Battle Groups”) for the operations in January, February and April.
TF-60 was made up of three (3) aircraft carrier task groups (A.K.A. “Battle Groups”) for the operation in March.
The aircraft carrier task groups, and associated carrier air wings, were made up of units from both the Pacific and the Atlantic Fleets.

The USAF 48th Tactical Fighter Wing (48 TFW) participated in the operations in March and April: Indirectly in the operation in March (via long-range flight maneuvers, using NATO air bases in countries from England, to Turkey) and directly in the operation in April.

TF-60 units in the operations ranged in size from 17 to 40 warships, and up to 240 warplanes (16-24,000 American officers and men).

USAF units in the April operation included 60 warplanes, launched from 4 different
NATO air bases in England, with 51 warplanes compring the attack group and taking part in the air raid in Libya: 18 Fighter/bombers (F-111), 4 electronic warfare planes (EF-111A), and 29 fuel tankers (KC-110A Extenders & KC-135 Statotankers).

NATO, French, Anglo, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, SEATO, and Saudi, Collusion.
Without it, then none of the air and naval operations against Libya in 1986 would have been possible (and neither would American-led naval, air and ground operations in the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, north Africa, or south-central Asia be possible, then or
today).

French and Spanish Collusion.
The aerial armada of 51 USAF warplanes were unavoidably) tracked the ENTIRE FLIGHT, the entire time, from England, to Libya, and back, by French, Air Traffic Controllers (ATC). While in regions of their control, not one word was said by any French, Spanish, or Portuguese ATCs, and all other commercial and military air flights were vectored away from the USAF group. The flight path kept the group out of Dutch, German and Italian air space, countries, like Britain, in which the majority of the populations opposed military action against Libya (publicly the German government gave support and the British government gave conditioned support). The majority of the French population supported American military action (publicly the French government, opposed).

When an F-111 made an emergency landing at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Rota, Spain, following the raid, due to mechanical malfunctions, and remained for days for repair, the Spanish government said nothing at all, until well after the repaired F-111 had returned to England.

Italian and Spanish Collusion.
The U.S. 6th Fleet could not function, then, or today, without its naval bases, air stations, magazines and naval air stations in Spain and Italy (and American naval operations in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf by Atlantic Fleet units would be impossible).

Italian air traffic controllers (ATCs) were the first to provide notification to Libya of the impending approach of the USAF attack group, via British Commonwealth Malta: 30 minutes notice. Personally, considering the new SAM Suppression weapons and tactics employed in the raid, then I believe that the Italian-Maltese 30-minute "heads up" was a tactic that benefited the new SAM Suppression techniques.

NATO Collusion.
The USAF F-111s, EF-111As could not possibly have been used, and would not have been able to train (as they did, December 1985 March 1986), with NATO air maintenance, repair, and supply (nevermind logistical support of facilities and personnel).

NATO and western European countries Collusion.
Without European processing and manufacturing [fuels (bunker, Jet, diesel, . . .), parts, textiles, ammunition, agriculture . . . ] and Lines of Communication distribution system (maritime, rail, road, air, information. . . ), tied to American Advanced Bases (naval, air, ground, and information), then NONE of the American air and naval operations in 1986 would have been possible, especially the air raid in April.

By 1986, domestic American industrial production, shipping, and sufficient expertise among the American population did not exist that would have sufficed to support American military operations overseas (anywhere), in the manner of World War II (“Arsenal of Democracy” days), even if a (HUGE) fleet of naval auxiliaries sufficient to support American naval operations in the Mediterranean Sea without Advanced Bases, existed, which it did not. No auxiliaries forces have ever existed to so support air forces.

Today, American-led military expeditions, naval, air and ground, of the American-Anglo-French Bloc, overwhelming American in manning, in the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, Africa, or south-central Asia, would be impossible without Europe, NATO, Japan, SEATO, Saudi Arabia, and associated satellites, structured as the advanced bases they are.

In a future war, against a competent conventional military force, then Advanced Bases are absolutely essential and Advanced industral production, as in globally distributed, rather than concentrated, makes perfect sense in an age of long-range bombardment missiles (the 'new age,' 1955 onward).

Europe not only provides, but it contributes.

It is effectively an American-Anglo-French Bloc military (and nothing "defensive" about it these days).

-->"the expansion of NATO is creating a more rather than less dangerous world for America."

I believe this is true.

To be more accurate, the expansion of the American-Anglo-French Bloc is creating a more, rather than less, dangerous world.The Bloc is also creating a more human-unfriendly world and "culture," and doing so by raw, naked, conquest.

France and Britain have always excelled at perfidy. Now, unfortunately, add the U.S.A.

-->" Since the end of the Cold War the alliance has drawn the U.S. into conflict rather than protected Americans from conflict."

I believe that this is utter nonsense and misdirection.
It is absurd that NATO has "drawn" the U.S.A. into anything.

America was the driving force behind the formation of present-day Europe and NATO.

America, via JCS unified commands, provides and has provided throughout the post-1991 punative expeditions in the Balkan peninsula, north Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan, the primary leadership, political and military, the "Information Technogy" weapons systems, and the command and control. Iraq was a purely American-Anglo-led affair, militarily speaking, but with the usual collusion by all of the "usual suspects," including the French and NATO countries.

Paul Crowley| 4.4.09 @ 4:51AM

From some of the comments, then this essay seems to have contributed to confusing the Old NATO (Cold War), intermediate NATO (post-Cold War, 1989-2001) with the new NATO (post-2001 world).

NATO is now like "the old gray mare."

NATO began its public reform during the Bush Administration, under the pretense of announcements about withdrawing troops (and a good deal else).

1986 was Cold War days. . .

2003 was "Global War On Terror" days. . .

Now we're in the "Long War" days. . .
(to quote Bush & Obama administrations' Secretary of Defense Gates, who, as he noted, was paraphrasing Leon Trotsky).

It's not only western and south-east Europe any longer.

NATO is reforming itself, expanding, redistributing the manning, and ADVANCING.

Just as the primary American Advance Bases (especially air bases) in the Persian Gulf region, in Saudi Arabia, have shifted to the new ones constructed in Iraq (2003-08), NATO is expanding, reforming, and re-distributing its forces.

The advance is to the east, into the ex Warsaw Pact countries that its now absorbed (and, who cut their teeth in Iraq as "Coalition of the Willing" countries, in a manner similar to the Asian members of the "UN Command" in the Korean War who went on to become members of SEATO).

NATO is being integrated into the American Anti-Ballistic Missile system (e.g. Poland and the Czech Republic) and the new Advanced Bases are being established in eastern Europe.

"It's a fast moving world."

Paul Crowley| 4.4.09 @ 5:50AM

-->"It is one thing to have the best military equipment in the world, then it is an altogether different thing to have the will to use it. The EU doesn't have the will."
[--Melvin| 4.2.09]

Melvin seems to enjoy the miserable situation that the legislative and cultural reform of the United States of America, conducted over the course of the past 55 years, and accelerated over the course of the past 39 years, has reduced the country to: The state of
the 13 British colonies of 1753 [Hence the constant propagation of the Georgian British principle, “Rule By Law,” since the American (“USian?”) legal code has been thoroughly reformed, statutes, and precedents, with American principles purged from it, and new legislation and precedents establishing something starkly and radically different, British, rather than American. The Revolution of the past 39 years has actually served to facilitate a Counter Revolution.

At least the British American colonists of 1753 cared what they fought for. Hence their reaction to the “Intolerable Acts” of the Parliament at Westminster, George III’s support of them in response to the petition to the king, and, therefore, the American Revolution that threw off that miserable, tyrannical governance by perfidy (except in the instance of
George III’s candor, which subsequent Britons have complained about being “the cause” of Britain’s loss ever after). In contrast, younger Americans, hell, most Americans, now give little thought of the reason for which Americans are called to serve or to fight.
American youth are formed by the miserable “it’s all about your buddy,’ propagandized, ad nauseum.

So while the country has regressed to the state of 1753, younger Americans (Melvin may be one of them) have been mindlessly militarized, and, thereby, reduced to the level of late Georgian and early Victorian era Brain troops of the Royal Army (“scum of the earth, so amazingly redeemed by discipline and dangers shared”). The latter is what young Americans are actually Formed by today!

The Tea Party for such today, would be to celebrate the unification of America and British Bengal, India (the Hindu Raj) and Pakistan (the Muslim Raj), in the
American-Anglo-French Bloc that has been developed, since 1971, and been rapidly expanding since 1998.

“to have the will to use it?”

The upper 0.5% of the American population directs, the Japanese & Europeans provide and provision, and American urbanized bad-hillbilly-stereotype operators drive. Now the “purpose-driven-life,” “service-for-service sake, “new communities” type volunteers and
community service corps will provide support.

The reformed, and reforming, American “Human Resources” are certainly shaping up to more efficient than ever before!
.
-->"the expansion of NATO is creating a more rather than less dangerous world for
America."

Among a great deal else.

Paul Crowley| 4.4.09 @ 6:23AM

“Rule By Law,” has only become widely propagated in the past six to seven years;
"unprecedented" in only the past 2-3 years.

Prior to 2001, no one was much concerned with advocating “Rule By Law” since our laws, especially 1971-2007, and their associated precedents, were in the process of being steadily, and rapidly, erased (a"bi-partisan" project, by officials, elected and appointed, of both major political parties, in our government, and in all branches (legislative, executive
and judicial), federal and state (and now increasingly municipal, in the last enclaves of the new metropolitan areas).

The so-called Liberation Movements of the so-called Cultural Revolution, and the debauching and corrupting of the American population, 1969 onward, only facilitated the “process.” They’re not cause of the reform, or solely responsible for what the country and its population (e.g. it’s “Human Resources”) are today.

The propagandists and sham "grass-roots" movements, who coined nonsense like "Culture Wars" (it wasn't a "war," it was a slaughter and reform), misled and led astray, and provided the service of "vitriol and instruction."

Now the “Human Resources” can be cleaned up and reformed (“amazingly redeemed”) by “discipline and dangers shared.”

In the workds of Joseph ("Joe") Biden, echoed by John ("Country First") McCain, "we've all fallen down, and now we can all get up together."

Bring on the “Rule By Law.”

Let the military-political advance in south-central Asia, Africa, and Central and South America continue.

The moral midget Melvins of America, with some spirit in them, right and left (don't kid yourself, this is "bi-partisan" too), Have Been Taught to "have the will" to "kick Ass and Take Names!"

Millions more, right and left, with more human inclinations, Have Been Taught to want to have "purpose driven lives" of "service" for service' sake.

Pingback| 4.25.09 @ 1:13PM

Doug Bandow » Blog Archive » Why are Americans Continuing to Defend Europe? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…it certainly isn’t to help the U.S. carry out its security objectives–just watch how Europe resists doing anything meaningful in Afghanistan.  It’s time for America to home, I argue, on American Spectator online. Post a Comment Name (required) E-mail (will not be published) (required) Website Doug Bandow is Vice President of Policy for Citizen Outreach, a Washington-based grassroots political…

Pingback| 9.23.09 @ 10:54PM

The Brilliance of Zigniew Brzezinski : Rhodes News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…States airspace during the operation.  From air bases in the United Kingdom, our F-111 long-range bombers flew around the continent of western Europe. According to Doug Bandow, http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/02/old-nato-turns-60 , although France was outwardly non-compliant in the operation, behind the scenes French air controllers were instrumental in tracking our planes enroute and cleared the airspace of…

gfhfg| 11.30.09 @ 3:54AM

TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac

jhgjhg| 11.30.09 @ 10:08PM

iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac

More Articles by Doug Bandow

More Articles From Another Perspective

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

May 21, 2013 | Lars Walker

Stifle This, Mr. President

May 16, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

The Scheme to Make America Fat

May 10, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

The Plantation President

May 7, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

In Defense of Mark Sanford

May 2, 2013 | Reid Smith

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/02/old-nato-turns-60

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|44 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|41 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|55 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|97 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|28 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|44 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|17 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 4:27PM

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.