-
Mitt Romney's Tattered Economic Credentials
January 20, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Service Personnel Prefer Ron Paul
December 24, 2011 | 158 comments
-
No Christmas Celebrations in Baghdad
December 24, 2011 | 16 comments
-
Lighting Up Democratic Crony Capitalism
December 23, 2011 | 15 comments
-
Otherworldly Defense of North Korea
December 22, 2011 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Now Bosnia wants to join. Reports the Kuwait News Agency:
Bosnia-Herzegovina Presidency Chairman Zeljko Komsic on Saturday submitted a request for receiving the NATO membership action plan. The military alliance's Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said after his meeting with the Bosnian delegation on Friday in Brussels that the bid was "the best way toward lasting stability in the Euro-Atlantic region." "I would like for all Western Balkans countries to be integrated into NATO, " he said.
The Bosnian delegation also included Foreign Minister Sven Alkalaj and Defense Minister Selmo Cikotic. The action plan in question is meant to prepare candidate countries for a full-fledged NATO membership. Rasmussen also discussed Bosnia's contribution to the NATO mission in Afghanistan with the Bosnian delegation, and the progress made in the Partnership for Peace program.
What conceivable value does Bosnia--an artificial state which remains sharply divided internally along ethnic lines--add to the Western alliance? Why should Americans promise to defend such a bizarre and unstable geopolitical creature?
Bosnia's request illustrates yet again why Washington should step away and leave Balkans affairs to the Europeans. Even if the latter make a mess of it--again!--it doesn't matter for the U.S. which is, if people haven't noticed, rather busy elsewhere.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/04/just-what-is-nato-for
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Let's Return to the Gold Standard
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Rich| 10.4.09 @ 11:20AM
The Europeans did such a good job before, right. Why don't we quit the pretenses and call "realism" what it really is, bigotry.
S.L. Toddard| 10.4.09 @ 11:40AM
"The Europeans did such a good job before, right. Why don't we quit the pretenses and call "realism" what it really is, bigotry."
What a worthless post. Why waste the time to even write something so bereft of substance? The implication is that America must offer security guarantees to the entire world or else it is racist. It is a position so idiotic and indefensible that it's not even worth the scorn I've already lavished upon it. Pathetic.
Thanks again, Mr. Bandow, for being one of the very few sane voices at this publication.
Red Phillips| 10.4.09 @ 1:49PM
Thank the Good Lord for Bandow's sanity amongst all the war crazed interventionists who post here.
Red Phillips| 10.4.09 @ 1:49PM
Thank the Good Lord for Bandow's sanity amongst all the war crazed interventionists who post here.
J.C.Eaton| 10.4.09 @ 5:33PM
Treaty terms can vary widely I suppose, and probably each and every treaty out senate ratifies and our presidents sign doesn't commit our citizens to risk their necks on the matter. But IF said treaty DOES commit us to that kind of obligation....then for the love of Mercy, make goddam certain it's an alliance worthy of the sacrifice.
Tim| 10.5.09 @ 9:48AM
Bosnia can't defend itself, much less contribute anything to an alliance. Plus, half the population wants to kill the other half. If Bosnia attacks itself- which happened many times in the last century, who would NATO support? Insanity.
ruin| 1.17.10 @ 4:58AM
nike shoes outlet
adidas shoes outlet