-
The Biggest Fool of All
June 17, 2013 | 121 comments
-
Intervention Temptation
June 13, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Korean Déjà Vu
June 11, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Turkey Is Different
June 10, 2013 | 18 comments
-
Religion Living Dangerously
June 6, 2013 | 22 comments
A Further Perspective
Libya’s Lesson for Europe
You need military power to be a military power.
(Page 2 of 2)
BUT THE EUROPEANS FACE an even more fundamental problem than disunity. They don’t have the military assets necessary to do anything more substantial.
European governments long have emphasized quantity over quality in their militaries. During the 78-day war against Serbia, military analysts estimated that the Europeans possessed barely 15 percent of America’s effective combat capabilities. Only U.S. participation, despite the lack of any serious American geopolitical interests, made that operation possible.
Even during the Cold War, facing the Soviet Union, European governments underfunded defense. The European members of NATO routinely promised to up military outlays and just as routinely violated their promises. But they knew Washington would defend them in any case.
The pattern has repeated itself with the rise of the European Union. In the midst of routine chatter about creating the European Security and Defense Policy, now part of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Europeans regularly reduced the size of their militaries. While strengthening the EU structure in order to establish a common international approach, member governments cut back on the military forces necessary to implement such an approach. The Europeans seem to believe the continent can be a military power without possessing military power.
The ongoing fiscal crisis has caused the Europeans to reduce defense outlays even more deeply. Virtually every country, including Italy, Germany, Great Britain, and France, is making substantial cuts.
European governments are shrinking their militaries because they perceive few security threats. The likelihood of a Russian attack on major Western states is about the same as that of a Martian invasion, à la a modern War of the Worlds. The Central and Eastern Europeans worry more about Moscow, but are doing little more to maintain effective militaries. Virtually all European peoples prefer to preserve welfare benefits than guard against security threats.
NATO’s Rasmussen worried: “If the cuts are too deep, we won’t be able to defend the security on which our democratic societies and prosperous economies depend.” Those deep cuts, however, seem inevitable. Stated Ian Brzezinski and Damon Wilson of the Atlantic Council: “All allies are cutting or flat-lining defense spending.”
U.S. officials grumble about the negative impact on Europe’s military capabilities, which they worry will force greater reliance on American forces in a crisis. But the Europeans have every right to tailor their militaries to perceived dangers. Washington should stop hoping the Europeans will convert to neoconservatism. Instead, the U.S. should stop taking on Europe’s problems as America’s own.
In Libya the Obama administration should not let the Europeans dictate U.S. decision-making. Officials say they hope to achieve consensus within NATO. But there will be no consensus on military forces within NATO. Any action would be America and a couple others.
Rather than worry about whether the Europeans reach agreement on Libya, the Obama administration leave the issue to the Europeans. Libya was an Italian colony and long has had closer relations with Europe than with America. Protracted conflict or civil war in North Africa would have far greater consequences on Europe than on the U.S. There is no geopolitical reason to drag Americans into the Libyan imbroglio.
The unnecessary debacle in Iraq illustrates what happens when Washington leads badly. The point is not that a failed Libyan state would have no consequences for the U.S., but that the consequences likely would be far less costly than getting involved. Being a superpower means being able to ignore foreign chaos and war. Doing so wouldn’t lessen the humanitarian tragedy, but military intervention is not charity. Even those supposedly being helped pay a high price: Perhaps 200,000 Iraqi civilians have died, and many more have been wounded. Washington should not repeat this disaster.
European politicians desperately want to make a difference internationally. But they lack the continental unity necessary to act as a world power. They also lack the military means to back their decisions. Washington should impart a simple message regarding Libya and beyond: the U.S. government will not treat Europe like a great power until the latter starts acting like one.
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 (59) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/16/libyas-lesson-for-europe
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Thatcher Legacy
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Current Wisdom
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bigmo| 3.16.11 @ 6:23AM
Neocon?
Alan Brooks| 3.16.11 @ 7:31PM
Word to the wise: don't say neocon with Clint around this blog. Let's be 'nice' to him.
Clint| 3.16.11 @ 9:59PM
Word to Brooks: You're An ObamaBoy Bootlicker.
Alan Brooks| 3.16.11 @ 10:33PM
De Mint has the same odds of being elected president as a snowball in Hell has of remaining solid.
Clint| 3.17.11 @ 5:44AM
More Trash Talkin' Shuck & Jive from ObamaBoy Brooks.
Just More Negative Attention Craving Brooks.
tdiinva| 3.16.11 @ 7:59AM
Although my views on Libya happen to coincide with Mr. Bandow's his historically ignorant assumptions on what does and does not effect US security still is evident in this article. From the early days of the Republic foreign conflicts, no matter how geographically distant, had an adverse impact on US economic and political security and always resulted in the commitment of US militiary forces to defend US interests.
I suspect that if you asked most people which period in American history had the highest percentage of time spent at war with foreign poweres they would not come up with 1789-1815. Sadly that is correct answer. During this early days of the Republic we fought the French (1797-1800), Barbary Pirates (1802-05) and of course the ruinous war with the British (1812-early 1815). Isolationists like Mr. Bandow have formed their beliefs based on the period between Waterloo and the First Battle of the Marne when we spend as much time at war with ourselves as we did with foreign powers. However, this was a hundred years of relative peace with short wars of limited objectives. The lesson of history is clear. When the world is in turmoil the United States will inevitably become involved in external conflicts. If that was an obvious truth in the age of sail, it will true in the age of ballistic missiles.
Mike W| 3.16.11 @ 11:15AM
It's bad enough that we got involved in pointless, wasteful counter-productive war in Iraq, but now you would have us involved in conflicts in ever dark corner of the world, because somehow it will impact us.
"conflicts....no matter how geographically distant, had an adverse impact on US economic and political security and always resulted in the commitment of US militiary forces to defend US interests."
Really? So you are saying that the dozens of current conflicts and the thousands of past conflicts have always had an impact on the USA and have always required US military intervention?
As someone that freely tosses around the word "ignorant" perhaps you should reconsider your thoughts before tossing out nonsensical absolutes.
tdiinva| 3.16.11 @ 12:04PM
I see that you are illiterate, which is probably the reason you are historically ignorant.
I quote from my first line:
"Although my views on Libya happen to coincide with Mr. Bandow's ..."
Libya will probably end up like Somalia whether Qaddafi survives or not. There isn't a lot we can do about it. However, just because I don't want to intervene it doesn't mean that I don't recognize that a Somalia on the Mediterranian will not present problems for the United State and our allies. For one thing there will be a lot of ungovernmed space where AQ and other terrorist groups can thrive, plan and execute attacks against the North America and Europe. Libya is about to become a serious headache for the civilized world.
Alan Brooks| 3.16.11 @ 10:42PM
Whatever the prospects (not rosy at this time) for a new government in Libya, Gadhafi's days are numbered, he has killed and maimed too
many; he now has too many enemies to make his life worth more than a crippled camel in the desert.
Moammar Gadhafi is not long for this world, which is why he fights so hard- it is his life he is fighting for in vain.
JimH| 3.16.11 @ 8:32AM
Excepting the punitive expedition against the Barbary Pirates, more a police action than a war, the other two examples, the war of 1812 and the fight with the French were fought at least in part on or near US territory. I think the people you term isolationist, I prefer non internventionists or MYOBs, would consider use of the military in defense of the nation in these places legitimate.
tdiinva| 3.16.11 @ 9:04AM
You are poster boy for historical illiteracy. Do you ever wonder what the underlying cause of these conflicts was?
Our undeclared war with the French was a product of the turmoil in Europe during the French Revolutionary wars. The causes of the War of 1812 were an outgrowth of the Napoleonic wars. Did you think that the French just decided it would be a cool thing to attack US commerce in the Western Hemisphere or that the British impressed American seaman and seized US ships just because they were mean and nasty? Both conflicts were a result of events occurring in other parts of the world.
No French Revolution, no French Revolutionary or Napoleonic Wars. No French Revolutionary Wars, no XYZ affair. No Napoleonic Wars, no impressment of US seaman or interference in US trade. No XYZ affair, no undeclared naval war with France. No impressment of US seaman or interference with US trade, no War of 1812.
JimH| 3.16.11 @ 12:57PM
Just commenting on where they were fought. Nothing about their merits or causes. Is it possible for people to disagree here without being imediately insulting?
tdiinva| 3.16.11 @ 2:22PM
I get as exercised about the isolationist right as I do about the pro-dictator left.
Conservatives like to talk about how insane leftists are for making the same choices over and over again and expecting a different result. Well from Albert Gallatin to Charles Lindbergh the MYOB crowd has wanted to make the same choices over and over again on national security and has yet to get a different result. Both sides have one thing in common. Lack of historical knowledge.
During the 1960s Senator Mike Mansfield introduced legislation in the Senate to withdraw all US forces from Europe. Had that happened the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War with all the negative consequences that would imply for US security interests
The business of the United State in either 1789 or 2011 is not seperate from the business of the rest of the world.
JimH| 3.16.11 @ 4:03PM
I will agree that my instincts are for non-intervention. But I am not doctrinaire. And while I do have some concerns on principle, I am even more concerned because when we do it we tend to do it badly. I just don’t think we do very well at playing the Great game. I would not go into a war with ROEs and strategies that get our troops killed as they have in Korea, Vietnam, GWII and Afghanistan. If you are going in, go with a clear goal, sufficient force and maybe a declaration of war. You can argue all kinds of alternate history scenarios you like, but can never know for sure. For instance, had we not gone into WWI there might have been a more balanced negotiated truce. This may have prevented the rise of the Nazis, and possibly kept the Soviets from obtaining power. On the other hand, a stronger Germany, still with all of its Jewish scientists might have come up the bomb first. In the long term this sort of thing is all speculation.
Bob K.| 3.16.11 @ 8:31PM
John Lukacs who is not at all without historical knowledge appears to disagree with your analysis of Russia and it's threat of winning the cold war.
See page 100 of his historical essay "Democracy and Populism." Published in 2006. "The top peaks of American military and nuclear preparations,.........occurred during the very periods when the Soviet Union was in retreat--in the 1950's during the Eisenhower years, and again in the 1980's during the Reagan years. In the 1980's the Russians gave up their East European empire, their presence in Germany and Berlin and much of their Communism, not because Reagan forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy, but because people there (including their appointed leaders) hardly believed in Communism any longer-----something, with all it's intelligence apparatus, even the CIA was able to foresee, as indeed it admitted after the Berlin Wall had toppled."
Admittedly, this is counter to Conservative popular opinion, but Professor Lukacs is a Conservative, (not a neo-con-whatever that is at the moment) who has written among many other works "A History of the Cold War" and other works including studies of Toqueville, Churchill, Hitler and others.
David W| 3.16.11 @ 8:41AM
how the mighty Europeans have fallen. Maybe they should just be satisfied with being a quaint tourist attraction instead of a group of countries with any consequence.
Unfortunately, given the apparent direction of our current adminsitration it looks like the US may well join the Europeans. Perhaps it's for the best, otherwise we would not be able to take care of those poor, innocent US citizens (and soon-to-be citizens) who do not want to work for a living.
ncatty| 3.16.11 @ 9:50AM
I would consider involvement in Libya on the condition that we annex it and take their oil. Ater all, we are accused of doing that in Iraq and we don't have anything to show for it.
ACynIC| 3.16.11 @ 9:50AM
If the Europeans had the military wherewithal to intervene in Libya, they still would not. Having a capability is quite different than having a will to act. They will dither and discuss and wait for some idiotic UN vote - that will never appear.
This lack of backbone is just another manifestation of the "diversity" and "political correctness" sickness that has overtaken Europe, and WILL lead to their destruction (and ours as well, if not reversed).
On a different note, the conflicts in which the USA found itself betwixt 1775 - 1815 were literally unavoidable; the USA was very, very weak and had initiated NO ACTIONS to invite these conflicts. The USA was literally stuck betwixt two world powers - the UK and France - as they tried to destroy each other and expand their territorial ambitions; including once again re-asserting their claims in their former N.American regions.
The US at this time was still trying to mind it's own business - after the advice of Hamilton and G.Washington - but this advice was not binding on the UK or France .
Unfortunately, when the USA did become a world power, it began to ignore this sage advice and decided that every part of the world now affected our national "security."
The period from 1898 (onset of the Spanish American War) thru today has literally been a non-stop series of military conflicts, of various magnitudes, in which the USA INSERTED ITSELF into conflicts in which we had no business; the first two being the Spanish American War and WWI. Throughout the 20th century there has been almost no time where the US military was not engaged; Nicaragua, Panama, Dominican Republic, Mexico, the Phillipines, Haiti, China; ALL OF THESE BEFORE WWII !!!
(See "The Savage Wars of Peace" by Max Boot").
Now, supposedly the middle east is a an area of national security for the USA. Why??? Because our criminally negligent, reprehensible US "Congress" has enacted energy policies to GUARANTEE dependence of Arab oil. Our govt. has outlawed obtaining oil and gas from our coasts and, mark my word, will do the same to destroy obtaining natural gas from shale. They have made it impossible to build refineries and develop other domestic sources of energy production.
It is the inept, negligent, obscene policies of our govt. that have forced the USA to look overseas to obtain the requisite energy sources we need. Because to this, parts of the world we should allow to go to hell - like the mideast - are now a US "security concern." What BS.
Brazil, Norway, Russia, Israel, Japan, Argentina, and China are proceeding full bore to find and develop sources of energy. We are going full bore NOT TO FIND souces of energy. As a result, you can expect the USA to stay entangled in the affairs of foreign nations until these suicidal policies are reversed.
tdiinva| 3.16.11 @ 10:08AM
Not quite. The US first inserted itself into the First World War. The Spanish-American war was strictly an aggressive war against a European power who had an outpost in the Western Hemisphere. By the end of the 19th Century the US finally had the military muscle to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.
Once WWI began the US faced the same kind of internatiional instability that occured during the early days of the Republic. After WWI new aggressive revolutionary forms of government came into existance that created conditions that would necessarily involve the United States in future conflicts.
The US could have avoided all of the early conflicts by listening to the Federalists, who were the neo-cons of their day, and paid for a Navy. Adams' naval plan would have created a sufficient force to deter the British while they were preoccupied with Napoleon. After the War of 1812 Jefferson admitted to Adams that his biggest mistate was killing the Federalist Navy. The MYOB crowd is alway penny wise and pound foolish.
ACynic| 3.16.11 @ 11:35AM
I must disagree.
Spain had colonized Cuba, etc. in the 1500's . This was well before the Monroe Doctrine (early 1800s) or the establishment of the American Republic.
The Monroe Doctrine was concerned about European powers EXTENDING their influence in the western hemisphere, not forcibly tossing out those nations that already had colonies in the western hemisphere. It was a policy enacted to prevent EXPANSION of european colonialism in the western hemisphere.
The USA had no business getting involved in Spanish American War because there was simply no way that Spain posed any threat at all to the USA. Spain had no claims nor asserted any claims on US sovereignty. Recall, in 1898 the ONLY world powers were the UK, Germany , France and the USA.
Further, because of that war the USA, for the first time in US history, became a colonial power over, of all places, the Philippines - an island nation on the other side of the planet !! How the hell does that conform to our own Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution or the advice of Washington or Hamilton to avoid foreign conflicts?
The Spanish American War was the first US war of CHOICE, and it established the unfortunate precedent that now the USA would stick it's nose where it had no business.
WWI was a European conflict in which the USA had no dog in the fight, nor any reason at all to be involved. Unlike the early days to the American Republic, the USA had the military and economic might to deter and dissaude any potential aggressive actions by any nation, and no nation - the UK, France or Germany - had any intention of attacking or threatening the USA; this is simply a fact and is in stark contrast to the treatement rec'd by the very weak USA by the French and UK in the 1800-1815 period.
As for revolutionary govt's forming, post WWI, there was only one, Bolshevik Russia; a backward economic basket case, mostly illiterate, militarily puny nation run by the mass murderer Lenin and his elitist thugs. The threat posed by that nation was their IDEOLOGY, which could have easily been handled here by deporting ALL - not a few, not some - the communists and radicals that emigrated here (mostly into NYC) back to eastern europe and Russia and prohibiting any entry into the USA of any communists, radicals or anarchists from Russia or eastern europe. Wilson just deported a few hundred; not nearly enough and not soon enough. In any case, during WWI and immediately thereafter, no nation on earth posed any military or existential threat to the USA ; the USA was simply too powerful economically and militarily.
It was the USA intervention in WWI that broke the stalemate and produced a German loss. Of course, the result was Hitler. How's that for a good result?
As for the MYOB crowd being wrong, when is the last time that Brazil or Chile got attacked? Or Sweden? Or Australia? Or Iceland?
MYOB has NOT worked for the USA because it has NOT BEEN TRIED post-1895 or thereabouts. Further, MYOB does not mean disarmament. It should mean arm yourself to the teeth - literally, use overwhelming and devastating force in your defense, and MYOB.
Being the world's policeman since 1898 has not brought the USA peace nor security; just problems, conflicts, war and now, bankruptcy.
The notion that every problem around the world is a matter of US security is total BS.
And if we had an aggressive policy to develop our energy resources, we would be treating the mideast or the S. China Sea as we treat most of sub-saharan Africa; we ignore it. As we should.
tdiinva| 3.16.11 @ 12:23PM
You obviously don't much about history or geography.
The United States is not Brazil, Chile, Argentina or Sweden. We have been a major player in the international economy since 1789. If you want to avoid international conflicts I suggest you move to a country that nobody cares about.
Nobody was interested in attacking Brazil or Chile. They were in a place that nobody cared much about and by the way Brazil entered the WWII on the Allied side.
Sweden managed to avoid wars because nobody cared about Sweden until the Twentieth Century and the managed to stay out of WWII by acting as a pro-Axis neutral.
When was the last time someone directed an attack on Australia? Bali -2001. Oh buy the way there was that little dust up in the Pacific between late 1941 and 1945. Australia was part of the Empire so when Britain went to war Australia went to war. Australia also fought in Korea and Vietnam.
Isolationism was tried first in WWI and then in the 1930's. The price of stay out of the either war would have been non-intercourse with rest Europe and Asia. We were drawn into the war by the German U-boat campaign and the German attempt to get Mexico to attack the United States.
(Zimmerman Telegram) Had Hitler conquered Europe, we were next. Perhaps you missed Mein Kampf.
Here is a little more history for you: the MYOB crowd sought to stay out of Europe's wars by passing the Embargo and Non-intercourse Acts in 1807 and 1809. The result was an economic disaster and it led directly to the War of 1812.
JimH| 3.16.11 @ 4:57PM
Historically most MYOBs have been conservative. Much or our foreign adventures have been at the behest of progressives leading us on to the next great cause. Non interventionism requires a strong defense. Don’t confuse old right MYOBs with leftists who think that if we disarm, not threaten anyone and smile pleasantly no one will hate or bother us. A strong defense is a necessity in order to be able to mind one’s business in peace. While the configuration of forces might differ, the big stick is still needed. Actually, I think we agree more than disagree, with the major point of contention being where it is in our national interest to intervene militarily.
Pat| 3.16.11 @ 6:41PM
JimH: Non-intervention has little to do with sexual relations (non-intercourse with Europe and Asia as previously noted above) but a lot to do with our government alone deciding who we will make war with. Travel back in time to 1941 when cooler heads within the War Dept. looked at a map and were convinced Hitler had to be stopped – and no, not because of Mein Kampf or the funny mustache, but rather because control of continental Europe’s manufacturing base along with England’s eventually meant that Hitler would wield an industrial might equal to the United States – our planners did the simple math and effectively said “OMG, stop Hitler”. Who knew then he would turn his armies east? And through the succeeding years, Roosevelt constantly fretted the Soviet Union would make a separate peace with Hitler, leaving the Allies, sans the Soviet Union, to fight on alone.
Now, jump forward to May, 1945. The Soviet Union has over 200 battle hardened divisions in central and eastern Europe to our combined 90 Allied divisions. Could Russian peasants really fight? Well, they almost singlehandedly defeated one of the best armies in the world. Fact: prior to D-Day 1944, over 90% of German military casualties were inflicted by these Russian peasants. Us “victors” over the Nazi scourge begged Stalin to agree that the former European allies of Hitler, currently occupied by various Allied armies, would decide their own fates through democratic elections. Stalin agreed and then just ignored Truman’s complaints that Stalin wasn’t living up to his agreements in the central and eastern European countries occupied by Soviet troops. Did we abandon Hungary, Rumania, the Czechs and the Germans, et al to their fate under Soviet communism? You betcha and in a heartbeat, we decided MYOB was suddenly very appropriate, supposedly we had wars to finish in the Pacific and China, their fates under Stalin wasn’t our problem - or so we told ourselves. Was MYOB a little cowardly? Sure it was, better to run away and fight another day – except we dignified that concept with the term “Cold War”.
Charles Lindbergh was an isolationist prior to WWII, he didn’t agree with young Americans being killed to save Europe. Truman was a de-facto isolationist after WWII, he didn’t agree either but the Liberals can explain that as the logical non-isolationist position to take – go figure.
Thom| 3.16.11 @ 8:13PM
"Truman was a de-facto isolationist after WWII"
Pat,
So it was MacArthur who ordered forces into Korean without proper planning, resources and follow up and Truman just got the blame for a failed policy in Korean when he left office?
Thom| 3.16.11 @ 8:14PM
One has to wonder what Truman the isolationists would have done if the Russians called his bluff with that little Berlin misunderstanding?
your worst nightmare| 3.16.11 @ 10:34AM
We would like to have firepower but a house divided can not stand (different cultures, different languages, different interests and viewpoints). One point you overlook is Europe has to eat all the refugees that American wars displace. We have to political correct absorb and feed them. We are so fed up with America you cant believe how fed up we are with the barbarians at our gates.
Stammon| 3.16.11 @ 11:05AM
It would be a dream if Europe would learn to take care of itself. But no, every generation or so we have to come over there and wipe your butts and clean up your mess. Just like petulant children you want it all and whine when you get it. Guess what, Dad's wallet is a getting a little thin and he wants you to start growing up.
John| 3.16.11 @ 10:38AM
Europe has been a disappointment. It would not have taken much to oust the feeble gadafy. A few missiles, covert missions. But nothing. the dictators in Saudi , Bahrain etc.. Will now feel embolden. All very shameful. its almost like they want him to succeed. I'm so cynical!
Who Knows?| 3.16.11 @ 11:06AM
Enjoy the following howler from Commentarymagazine.com’ Contentions---
Rick Richman ---Lessons From Libya for Dictators in Distress
1. If you want to remain in power, you need to do more than send a man on a camel into crowds. Declare war on your people; hire other people to help out.
2. Do not worry if the U.S. president says you must “step down” and “leave.” It is only his personal opinion.
3. To ensure that the president does not focus unduly on your war, schedule it while he is preoccupied with other matters: a Motown concert, a conference on bullying, his golf game, and finalizing his Final Four picks.
4. Declare that the opposition is not “organic.” The president will not assist a non-organic revolution. If the revolution is organic, do not worry: an organic revolution is by definition one he does not need to assist. Either way, you’re fine.
5. Recognize that your membership on the UN Human Rights Council will be suspended — the president will send his secretary of state there to ensure that. Do not start a war against your people if you are not prepared for this.
6. Do not worry about a “no-fly zone” or some other U.S. military response. The president will consider it only if the world speaks with one voice. The world includes Russia, China, and Turkey.
7. Remember when the president adopted his Afghanistan policy after an extensive “review;” selected his own general to implement it; got the general’s recommendations; and then held endless meetings before finally reluctantly approving them? That was about a war he was already in. He will need many more meetings than that before he considers any new action against you.
8. You may eventually be subject to sanctions, so check to see if they’ve worked yet with Cuba, North Korea, or Iran.
9. Consider restarting your nuclear program, since the conditions that caused you to suspend it are gone. At most, the president will form a committee of several nations to talk to you; he will consider more sanctions if the world speaks as one. You need not worry about his “deadlines.”
10. There is basically only one thing you do need to worry about: do not, under any circumstances, approve any future Jewish housing in Jerusalem. The president will go ballistic if you do.
PCC| 3.16.11 @ 8:11PM
Very funny and apposite. Thanks for sharing.
Yosemeti Sam| 3.16.11 @ 1:24PM
There you go:
European pragmatism in the final analysis appears to increasingly trump European bluster.
Yo - dictators/tyrannical 'leaders' don't cotton to bluster - vis the BHO administation success rate
in those futile efforts.
Tim the Enchanter| 3.16.11 @ 1:24PM
Might be a bit off-topic, but Qaddafi- man, he REALLY brings teh ugly!
Shermans riding again!| 3.16.11 @ 2:10PM
It is amazing that the reality of the times we're living through is like some wierd alternate realitly.
The US, my country is broke and the evil in the world is growing and everyone is shoving their head in the sand. At least leadership, anyway. Amazing! Off to buy more ammo for the coming civil war.
glenny| 3.16.11 @ 6:08PM
Sherman,
"Off to buy more ammo for the coming civil war."
Hey, wait for me !!!!!! glenny
Thom| 3.16.11 @ 6:55PM
My views on Libya are somewhere between the Head Up Your Ass crowd and those that think we owe every person on the planet some of our blood and treasure in a vain hope that the rest of the world will become like us as a result…… Like most people it all comes down to “it depends……..”
I’m amused that 23 Arab League countries voted everyone but them should have skin in this game and bleed a little for the sake of the Libyan people. The largest and most capable Arab League country, Egypt sits right next door and does nothing….. I guess they are busy these days…… I’m not at all surprised that the Euros can’t figure out if they should impose a “no fly” zone over Libyan air space. Two points, their parade ground military forces don’t have the capability outside of Europe proper and getting shot at by some serious stuff is a real possibility here. The Euros simply aren’t interested in getting blood on their best dress uniforms. The Balkans venture pretty much demonstrated that for all to see.
Regardless of how Libya turns out, almost assuredly for the worse in the near term, a larger questions begs to be answered that has been coming ever closer to becoming real important since the end of the last war we won. At what point will this nation undertake a military task that it is willing to see through to a successful conclusion? Since WWII our record is pretty much 2 wins and 6 losses if you include Grenada and Panama, the only two clear cut “wins”.
We rushed into Korea without adequate forces or follow up and paid for that by being forced into a 40 mile diameter box on the southeast corner of the Korean Peninsula. MacArthur saved Truman’s butt by doing exactly what conventional wisdom said could not be done. For all of MacArthur’s faults, he did understand the big picture, something the Missouri Mule did not. Truman’s failed folly in Korea became his “containment” policy that led directly to our next folly Vietnam.
A horde has been written on Vietnam but suffice to say never in modern history has a nation committed so many troops to an endeavor for so long and accomplished nothing worthy of merit as a result.
After that we dropped into Lebanon for a visit and paid a pretty heavy price for forgetting the purpose of a military is to be a military not a humanitarian Boy Scout mission.
Then came the Gulf War I (or part one) where the US executed the largest live fire training exercise in this nation’s history and let the “enemy” escape to return home and brutalize what little resistance there was in Iraq. George H. Bush encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up and they did…. And died in large numbers while we sat safely in Kuwait.
Then came 9/11 where a larger number of people died than did at Pearl Harbor (but not Pearl and the Philippines combined) and we rightly took down the home base of the Terrorist organization in Afghanistan. At no time was there a plan for a large scale occupation of Afghanistan and at best all George W. Bush wanted to do in the near term was deny AQ a place to plan and train without interference. Most of the troops committed for most of the 9 years we’ve been there were logistic, support and a limited number of combat forces used primarily to train the Afghans….. Like Vietnam, what we accomplished in the initial stage of Afghanistan was to chase the bulk of AQ and their protection force the Taliban over the border into a sanctuary where they could recover and strengthen for future events. Like Vietnam we are playing the price for not following through on running them down and eliminating them in large numbers in a short period of time regardless of where they went. Again, like Korea we didn’t commit the number of forces required and follow up our initial success.
Then came Gulf War II (or part two) or the Iraq war as it became known. Right off the top not enough forces to control the situation on the ground and things spun out of control in short order on the COIN clock. As has been demonstrated more than once our Air and Sea Power doesn’t add much to the COIN playbook and outcome. Boots on the ground is everything, presence 24/7 is what works, and everything else fails over time. Such operations are always more costly than the Patton kind of get it over with this week not next month approach.
At no time could any of the countries mentioned above hold a candle to our total military capabilities and capacity but in each case the underdog either overcame our paper superiority or inflicted wounds on us we weren’t willing to bear. One has to wonder to what degree or the extent of damage to this Nation would have to be inflicted for the leadership of this Nation to get a clue here? The best weapons and training are worthless if you handicap that to the extent it is ineffective at resolving the matter at hand. With one of the dumbest Secretary of Defenses questioning why we have the carrier battle groups we have or shutting down the only Air Superiority design we will have in a few year still flying and being combat effective on the battlefield one also has to ask if anyone with all those advanced degrees in Public Speaking, International Relations and wearing a high level military uniform even has a clue how to win any kind of war?
While the Head up your Ass crowd takes stock in our follies and justifications for not venturing beyond visible sight of the continental US I have to wonder just what comfort these people take in seeing what should be slam dunk military operations falter and fail with what is assumed to be overwhelming force advantages? By the same token I would ask those that think we need to get involved in every conflict for humanitarian reasons at what point are you willing to admit we don’t have the capacity for these kinds of operations and are on a track to not have even limited capability with the right policies and people in charge?
Some day these two groups might wake up and suddenly realize they actually agree upon the need for the military to do something decisive and then realize we can’t any longer. That is the question no one wants to seriously discuss. That’s the one we can’t afford to be wrong about.
Somewhere over the rosy rainbow of some people’s expectations we are going to wake up some morning and find ourselves in the “shit” hip deep and someone else is going to make a mint writing a book about how at Dawn we were hung over from our drug induced stupor and didn’t notice the world had passed us by….. The essence of Pearl Harbor would be easier today to accomplish than in 1941. We are rudderless in a boiling sea of chaos and some desperately want to repeat the largest mistakes of the past because of the folly of misguided adventures that neither had the forces required or the mission statement that could be accomplished with what forces were committed.
From my perch we are dangerously close to being combat ineffective in ways that can’t be easily overcome. We are the only Nation on the planet that could execute an effective “no fly” zone in Libya and shut what is going on there down. We won’t and no one else has the capability and capacity to sustain it. We know where this will ultimately lead down the road. We’ve been there before.
Habu| 3.16.11 @ 7:01PM
I predicted to my politically minded friends when the EU was proposed and being inflated with membership that given Europes history it would never world. So far it hasn't and it's now on life support.
Given the animus that existed prior to the EU experiment I would not be surprised to see various populations go fter trade concessions of reparations for keeping afloat the PIIGS and developing piglets....
Couple that with the certain ccollaspe of the dollar, the rise of China, the Japanese melydown and Soviet rebirth and another world war in developing.
Habu| 3.16.11 @ 7:03PM
Ok, next time it gets composed on Word!
The Bruce| 3.16.11 @ 11:39PM
Haha, Firefox spell-checks too. :^)
Osamas Pajamas| 3.16.11 @ 8:49PM
Follow the money. Quacky Khadaffy has bought-off Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson --- and almost certainly Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer --- and dozens of European [NATO] politicians and bureaucrats. And all he has to do is blow the whistle and point at those whom he bought, to shut their mouths and sideline them from a serious discussion of a no-fly / no-tank zone --- while he crushes the protesters and the opposition forces. When those folks are dead, Khaddafy's puppets in America and Europe will heave a sigh and mumble a few words --- or nothing at all. Under the banner of Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer, we have shown our colors --- and they run in the rain of the first stormy weather.
Mike| 3.16.11 @ 11:17PM
Look everybody. Little Osamas Pajamas has been attending Glenn Beck U. From this post, it is clear that little Osama has been getting to class on time, is sitting up straight at his desk with his notebook open and pencil in hand.
Good boy, little Osama.
blackwatch| 3.17.11 @ 12:56AM
try refuting his points. your anti-Glen Beck rant makes you look foolish. Beck backs up what he says with actual qoutes not adhominen attacks. Don't be a Butt Pirate Mike it ain't a real lifestyle choice.
Mike | 3.17.11 @ 9:38AM
Beck backs up what he says with actual quotes.....
Okay, but the "actual quotes" are either partially true, taken out of context, or twisted. Some, in the tradition of Fox are simply made up.
You may have noticed that people with a half a brain are abandoning Beck in droves.
blackwatch| 3.17.11 @ 10:00AM
wow you can make a proper argument if you want to!
V8| 3.17.11 @ 1:16PM
"You may have noticed that people with a half a brain are abandoning Beck in droves."
Yep, they ran to MSNBC, CNN, and NPR. Those with slightly more than half a brain can tell the difference and separate the wheat from the Chaff on his show.
jomo2009| 3.16.11 @ 10:36PM
Once again the time is ripe to pull the US out of NATO; leave the Europeans to their own devices and save about $100-$200 billion over the next ten years. No more free rides!
Pelligrino| 3.16.11 @ 11:25PM
Interesting that the Europeans cannot with their navies and military intel, comms, satellites, etc. "conquer" the Somali coastline piracy.
A ‘Big New Big Guy on the Block’ initiative from France's Nicholas Sarkozy was the formation of the Med-18 (don't recall the name anymore). The idea was a coalition of nations that share the Mediterranean Sea, forming to unite on trade, defense, open sea lanes, free flow of commerce, etc.
A specific founding plank for this Med Basin Consortium was killing off the piracy. That was in 2007. And here we are now 4 years later with successful piracy attacks weekly.
We really are in a "lost" modern world when the combined assets of many NATO nations cannot "plug" the ______ Somali piracy hole.
Yes, we see a lack of commitment in the NATO nations' materiel + funding. The greater issue is that we lack the leaders. There is no resolve at problem solving.
I use the totally unacceptable piracy situation as just one example to say, "Get used to it U.S.A. You may hear Der Spiegel, The Economist, the BBC, The Guardian, and Le Figaro scream, 'There go the Yankees once again, unilaterally acting, going it alone!'"
Yeah. There is no other choice.
blackwatch| 3.17.11 @ 12:53AM
Jeez it's Libya in 2011 not the USSR in 1956!
Their air force is a day light air force. They hanger their craft at night. Their airports fuel bunkers are fixed in the ground. They have limited spares and armaments. Their rotary craft have the same issues. The radar sites are known to us.
Send a couple of dozen cruise missiles to each of these facilities and Quaddafi's hide out. It's not like the guy lives under a rock.
We owe that scum bag from Pan Am103 and the Berlin Disco bombing. Sec. State Clinton should annouce the raid and remind the world that dickhead approved and paid for these things to happen.
Pay back---this time its for real!!
Dee See| 3.18.11 @ 4:10AM
----The latest in 'destabilization' ops from our
now 2 decades Globalist hijacked government.
AS the reality of the 'MUTINY from above' being committed by the 'Big Boys' of RED China Nixon/MAO/Rockefeller TREASON stirs
uncomfortably near the surface in the aftermath
of this still suspiciously 'conveneient' Japanese
catastrophe ----a full blown program of
coordinated de-stablization elsewhere is the
perfect, agenda advancing distraction.
bozhidar balkas| 3.18.11 @ 7:08AM
if the world supremacists [fascists, if u like that better] intervene in libya, they'd do that solely to defend fascism.
i do not expect that u.s., arab lands, u.k., france wld ever help protesters if they are egalitarians or egalitarianism builders.
i.e., nonfascists. in libya or anywhere else.
and wasn't libya best governed afrikan or arab land?tnx
Michael Kenny| 3.18.11 @ 10:42AM
Mr Bandow's problem with the EU is that, as always, he is unable to conceive the world in anything other than American superpower terms. When the EU fails to follow the (disasterous!) path of the collapsing American superpower, he thinks it is "weak". The EU's role is to defend its own citizens. In regard to Libya, that means stability so as to avoid a flood of illegal immigrants. If Americans think that their country should play world messiah, that is their business, but more fools they!
Audrey Begley| 3.21.11 @ 8:42AM
The world is standing on the verge of a third world war. They must emphasize on the peaceful solution to this problem. Dialogue is the best way to resolve this issue.
http://superprobioticsite.com/
Creative Recreation | 8.11.11 @ 12:20AM
is good