The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Washington and NATO

Text Size

Washington and NATO

By W. James Antle, III on 1.2.09 @ 3:00PM

He might have liked it okay during the Cold War but started asking questions about it after the Soviet Union fell: "Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." But see what I mean about conservatives not being in agreement based on the Constitution and various utterances of the Founding Fathers?

View all comments (3) | Leave a comment

Chris| 1.2.09 @ 3:16PM

A 44-year extraordinary emergency? The key word in that sentence is "temporary."

Thomas| 1.3.09 @ 10:04AM

Times change. In Washington's time, the jurisdiction of the new nation did not extend beyond the Allegheny Mountains. There was a whole continent upon which to expand and two great oceans to protect its borders from the machinatians of the European courts. A letter took a more than a month to travel from Boston to London. Now communication is nearly instantaneous and physical travel between the two cities is a matter of a few hours. There is no longer time for prolonged debate, after a threat has manifested itself, before postive action must be taken. These debates are now held before hand to cover possible emergencies that may arise at a later time.

Washington's words on the subject of "defensive posture" have been largely adhered to by this nation. There has never been any real attempt at empire building by the United States, with the possible exception of Manifest Destiny.

As for NATO, it accomplished what it was intended to accoplish; stifling the imperial urges of the Soviet Union in Western Europe without the death of Americans.

J.C.Eaton| 1.3.09 @ 11:10AM

Yes, times change but fundamental priciples should not. I agree that NATO had its day, and perform effectively it did. Now though, we have the reality of national defense sluggards in Old Europe roiling in the mud, crabbing and griping about the ugly United States' defense policy and sotto voce thinking how glad they are for it. I guess it must be nice to get money for nothing and protection for free[nod to Dire Straits].Our policy made lots of sense 60 years ago; Europe was exhausted and nearly prostrate economically, Russia was hungry and marching, at least figuratively, and we had the men, materiel, and most of all, the money to do that which needed doing. Now we have none of it.Not only that, but the bastards aren't even grateful. I'd trow I wouldn't want NATO in its European glory guarding Chicago, I likewise think it time we stopped guarding Paris, Berlin, and the rest of it.