The American Spectator

El Rey| 5.4.09 @ 7:12AM

Europe has little in the way of any redeeming features.

Get the U.S. out of NATO ..... and then get the U.N. out of the U.S., and the U.S. out of the U.N.

SLG| 5.4.09 @ 7:44AM

But, the will of how to remove ourselves from this ghastly waste-of-time (money, effort and "BS" too) is non-existent. No guts, cojones -- and the last sentence of the third paragraph sez it all... it would be laughable if it were not so weirdly pathetic - - the European Union(?) defending itself(?) from ANYONE???
What a circus. And it's not likely to cease anytime soon.
But it's too painful to laugh.

Sean| 5.4.09 @ 8:00AM

Nato was all about keeping Russia out of the Arab oil fields, and Americans in. Why should any Nato member invest their blood for US hegemony over yet another imperial conquest?

Melvin| 5.4.09 @ 8:38AM

Here we go again with comments from the local Communist Cafe at your local college Campus.
"NATO kept Russia out of Arab Oil Fields, and another Imperial Conquest."
It doesn't matter that Comrade Stalin, (The Boss) had millions murdered during his political purges and was hell bent on spreading his peace, love, and harmony all over the world.
Another point that is conveniently overlooked by the Young Communist Pioneers on college Campuses that Chairman Mao and his Little Red Book followers also murdered millions of their citizens achieve, "Equality" of the masses.
There is one thing that always puzzled me? If the elites in college academia are so enamoured with Socialist Communism and are all to eager to denigrate the US, then why in the hell to they still live here?
Could it be that there isn't much glamour in "equality" of the masses when you have to wait in long lines for toilet paper is there?

Ted| 5.4.09 @ 8:44AM

While NATO countries offer practically nothing to reinforce our effort in Afghanistan, we have Army National Guard units deployed in Kosovo.

Time to bring the 100,000 troops we have in Europe home.

WJ| 5.4.09 @ 9:13AM

I understand the sentiment in wanting to bring our troops home from Europe as the original NATO mission is done.

However, is there a good possibility that having these bases in England, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc. are an incredible strategic asset. ? Certainly logistically, having supplies based in that time zone allows for better supply lines in the Middle East and Africa.

I am certainly NO military expert, just thinking out loud.

Aaron| 5.4.09 @ 9:39AM

This is one subject that having a Dem Prez would come in handy, especially the extremely liberal one that we have now.

A little cage rattling would work wonders for waking up NATO. A casual threat here and a casual threat there, an off the cuff Biden comment thrown down and ba-da-bing!

It wouldn't surprise Europeans in the least to hear O say that he would want to stand down our Europe presence (even though he doesn't).

NATO and our European bases contribute directly to our military operations overseas. They are vitally important and both must be maintained for our national security. Of course NATO is acting like a bunch of Nancy boys but when it comes down to brass tacks they step up to the task.

As far as our bases go, we have stood down many of our bases overseas and opened new smaller ones where needed. The large ones that are left, while pricey to operate, imagine what it would cost and how long it would it take to get agreements to use when the time arises.

Ted| 5.4.09 @ 10:33AM

I am no isolationist, but the simple fact is we are $11-12 trillion in debt and simply can't afford to keep these kinds of numbers deployed in Europe.

If we really need to keep depots, hospitals etc open to support Iraq and Afghanistan operations, fine. But to maintain garrisons with 10s of thousands of soldiers with their familites strikes me as being slightly insane.

I was stationed in Germany from 1978 -81 when there were 250,000 US troops throughout Western Europe and about 500,000 Soviet troops in Eastern Europe. Now there are exactly zero Soviet soldiers in Eastern Europe, almost all of those countries are now members of NATO, yet we still have something like 100,000 troops stationed in throughout Europe.

Why we continue to not only subsidize NATO economies by the money spent on maintaining large numbers of troops in their countries, but to also allow them to turn their backs on us when we ask for a little assistance is beyond me.

P.S. Bandow failed to mention that IIRC Norway was actually flying combat missions in Afghanistan early on.

JP| 5.4.09 @ 11:46AM

There was a very short period of time right after unification, that France and Poland feared a united Germany (ghost of Bismarck and all that). However, nationalism died in Berlin in 1945, and the vaunted Prussian Warriors now are more concerned with unemployment benefits. If anyone has visited the old ruins of the ancient Junker estates, they are empty, rotting relics of a dead past (However, some Polish historians have turned a few of them into museums).

Europe, at least what is left of European Civilization, is dieing. Within a generation it will be gone. The average birth-rates of Europe outside of the Islamic communities is about 1.7 per woman. If this continues, Europe's population will be halved by 2110. French is now spoken more in L.A. than in either Montreal, Bourdeaux, or Rhiems. Dutch families are immigrating in larger numbers to Austrailia or Canada, as Islamic city councils now run Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Ditto for Belgium.

From a militatry perspective, the EU couldn't project its forces beyond Poland, and only France has a Navy worthy of respect.

SLG| 5.4.09 @ 11:56AM

Whaaaa'? France has a navy of respect???
That lower-case "N" was intentional.......
Just like the UN, NATO has become a supercilious "debating society" of a sort It’s neither equipped nor organized to cooperate and fight. Germany, Italy and Spain, among others, have reached a state that can only be called unilateral disarmament. NATO fight against terrorism? Doubtful -- unless the EU members are willing to multiply their defense expenditures by a factor of ten (twenty? Thirty? To the nth power?) and sustain them at that level for at least a decade, NATO is nothing more than a hollow shell.
The 2,000 soldiers who constitute the Italian detachment in Afghanistan seem to be using the “kinder, gentler approach; they’re barred by their government from actually fighting (so why are they called soldiers?) in combat – so they “listen to residents’ problems, offer food and medical care,“ ad nauseum. We’ve already heard plenty about fat Germans…
Then -- I recall reading where France, under De Gaulle, pulled out of NATO as a gesture of gratitude, after we had saved-their-bacon once again - - and our United States (innocent to the last) hung in. Until, finally, the Berlin Wall came down and we were, truly, not needed any longer. NATO was irrelevant -- a mere social club that existed as an excuse to maintain a headquarters and conduct lavish conferences. This point was most emphatically driven home when a genocidal conflict erupted on Europe's flank, Kosovo, and NATO -- Europe -- couldn't manage a response….
And not even the painless, proverbial “lip-service” in regard to Iran, North Korea or anyplace else!
Let’s split that sick effort-in-futility. To do otherwise is sheer stupidity, ultra-dumbness!

Thomas| 5.4.09 @ 1:07PM

Lessons of history, folks; lessons of history. After WWI, the US essentially helped to save Western Europe from German dominance. They we went home. With a simple wave of our hand and a "Glad we could be of help, have a good future," the US got out of European affairs. Then we were back 33 years later. After WWII, we decided to maintain a presence on the continent to provide a military response force should Europe have to face an invasion from the USSR, which already had invaded and controlled the Eastern Bloc of European nations. None of these conditions have changed appreciable. Europe, with the exception of Great Britain, has never provided significant forces for their own self defense, including the anti-American French. So, this falls to the US. For, we can either have forces in place now or try to insert them onto the continent later.

NATO allows the US to have some influence, and sometimes even some control, over European military assets; control that we would not have without NATO.

It is true that NATO, as an efficient defense organization is a complete joke. But, it is a necessary joke.

Sean| 5.4.09 @ 1:19PM

Melvin, I just stated fact. You need to unclench.

The US can ashcan NATO because their troops are astride the oil fields again, after being expelled from Saudi Arabia. The US also has an unsinkable "carrier" in the region, USS Israel.

Roy| 5.4.09 @ 2:18PM

"NATO allows the US to have some influence, and sometimes even some control, over European military assets; control that we would not have without NATO."
----------------------------------
I wonder what sort of influence china has holding $2 trillion of american debt?

JP| 5.4.09 @ 3:43PM

Yes SLG, the French do have a couple of carrier task forces; one is actually patrolling the Persian Gulf.

Anna Mac| 5.4.09 @ 5:07PM

El Ray is correct. Let's get out of NATO. It is my understanding that it's main purpose on the continent is to ferry European diplomats in U. S. military aircraft since they have few of their own. As for the U. N., a senseless exercise in naivete. Relocate to Belgium, withdraw and allow the mullah's to preside over nothing.

J.C Eaton| 5.4.09 @ 7:07PM

NATO at one time meant North Atlantic Treaty Organization, today it can accurately be explained as the North American Treaty Organisation. Once, even the most timid of european states would provide what they could in terms of men,materiel,and mutual cooperation. They had at least some tangible heart for the exercise. And, they coupled their contribution with some moral gratitude. No longer the case.The Russians are killing themselves with strong tobacco and stronger drink. Much of the country seemingly can test at a robust.250 anytime, day or night. The rest of Eurolands' "troops" are either witless oafs or not, either way, they are what their fatherlands want and I say:they"re welcome to them. In all events, they can defend those fatherlands or not. Maybe they can eat their enemies to death. About 20 years ago, I was an Army War College student. One of our assignments was to come up with proper missions and utilisations for NATO now that the Russians and their satellites had toweled their program. It struck me then as it strikes me now that to ask the question is to answer it.

SLG| 5.4.09 @ 7:58PM

Suggest, JP, that that French navy stay as far as possible from the Somali coast -- pirates, you know...
So much for humor - - - -

D SAMMIS| 5.4.09 @ 8:29PM

In 1972-75 I was stationed in Paris at the Embassy in an Attache role. There was a State Dept. guy there who was the NATO wonk who I talked to now and then concerning what NATO was, what it did, etc. His answers were always rambling incoherent psychobabble, and to this day I don't know what good NATO did other that provide a base where I could buy groceries and get my teeth fixed

Andy| 5.5.09 @ 12:40AM

Reply to Thomas:

Everything you said is a falsehood. America's foolish intervention in the great war in 1917 led DIRECTLY to the dreadful Versailles peace treaty and directly to ww2. America should NEVER have stuck its nose in Europe's affairs. We should withdraw from South Korea and Japan too.

Thomas| 5.5.09 @ 2:54PM

Andy,

Actually, everything that I said is historical fact. Feel free to present any historical facts to the contrary.

Nod| 5.5.09 @ 3:32PM

The Versailles Treaty also inevitably associated the democracy of the ill-fated Weimar Republic with the stain of defeat in the consciousness of millions of Germans.
In effect, America in World War I proved to be a pawn to Great Britain and France. Without American involvement, the war might have resulted in a more balanced outcome.
A domestic effect of U.S. involvement in World War I was the effective destruction of the lively German-American culture by censorship and government-sponsored propaganda. Ironically, Woodrow Wilson won the presidential elections of 1916 on the premise that he would keep America out of war. Only months after Wilson's being sworn into office, America was entangled in the war.

Nod| 5.5.09 @ 3:37PM

Sorry, above is a quote from http://everything2.com
I did not want to quote everything. I would like to hear Thomas opinion about US involvement in Versailles Treaty.

History Wonk| 5.5.09 @ 4:23PM

Thomas said "Actually, everything that I said is historical fact. Feel free to present any historical facts to the contrary. " He also said "Then we were back 33 years later." That is an historical error.

Michele San Pietro| 5.6.09 @ 8:51AM

I agree with those who say that Nato has become just a farce. Let's abolish it!

Thomas| 5.6.09 @ 10:05AM

History Wonk,

Please explain my error. Thank you.

Thomas| 5.6.09 @ 10:32AM

Ah, the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was largely an Anglo-French document. The overall U.S. position was that it was a European matter and not an American one. Wilson stressed very lenient reparations and sanctions against Germany and his 14 Points of Light speech illuminated his "Can't we all just get along?" philosophy with regards to the post Great War world. Two things killed ratification of the Versailles Treaty in the US, Part 1 and Part 13. Part 1 established the League of Nations. Many in the US were ardent isolationists and would not cede any sovereignty to an international organization of that magnitude. Part 13 would have set wage and hour standards and set up an international body, the International Labor Organization, to set those standards and enforced them. You can probably guess why that would be a a ratification killer.

Where the US went wrong was in leaving the continent altogether. The British were more interested in stifling Germany as an economic [trading] competitor than in worrying about a German military build up. The French, if they had gotten their way, would have totally destroyed the State of Germany. The US simply didn't care. After all, the US had suffered light casualties, compared to the French and the British, and the war had little effect upon country, other than to stimulate the economy. As it turned out, Germany began circumventing the provisions of the Treaty in 1919 and continued right up to 1945. The Europeans proved themselves unable to either enforce the provisions of the Treaty or to protect themselves from German aggression, without the presence of the United States on the Continent.

That was the lesson that should be learned from WWI. You must never trust an enemy, until he proved to be at least trustworthy, or your friend. Until then, keep a close eye on him.

History Wonk,

I see, now. You are right. The actual time span should be 23 years. Thank you for pointing that out.

T| 5.7.09 @ 12:56PM

I remember having to write a similar paper on NATO. With a lack of anything better to do, they play in the sand and visit polar regions for iced cream. Their existence boggles the Russian thinker, and scares the Russian college student. Turns the US into bully boys, their corporations into millionaires. Whatever will accrue the Russians ire, and give the US a reason to attempt an economic stranglehold of a thrice fallen empire, so they can justify to the world. The Continued need for the bumbling soldier retard kid who can't get his shoes on the right feet, affectionately dubbed NATO. If NATO grows cojones, similar to what the UN attempted before the Afghan/Iraqi wars, America will merely question their usefulness... not existence

Richard Baker| 5.14.09 @ 3:24PM

Was stationed in Germany from '72-'74 with the 8th Infantry Division. Since the Soviets left the area, what exactly is the purpose of NATO now? If the Europeans have lost their will to survive then why is their a US Army Europe? As a jobs program for the sick, lame and lazy on the continent?

Richard Baker| 5.31.09 @ 9:25PM

There, not their.

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 9:58PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

replica jersey| 9.7.09 @ 5:44AM

Hey very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also...I seldom read this kind of great blog,you are an outstanding personUgg Shoes, air jordan shoesThese are ours,please do enjoy yourself with ours.Thank you so much for all your interesting insights which you shared with us on your blog.

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:17AM

are located in all major cities such Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
as Shanghai, New York, etc, you may travel to these cities and get one for yourself.