A little more than half the original article...
In the largest military realignment in years, Washington plans to withdraw 70,000 troops plus 100,000 family members and support personnel from overseas US bases. That means, for the most part, from Europe. This will undoubtedly be welcome news to the likes of Goran Persson, the Swedish prime minister, who famously declared that the purpose of the European Union is that "it's one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to US world domination". It must surely be awfully embarrassing to be the first superpower in history to be permanently garrisoned by your principal rival superpower. But it's also grand news for those of us who've long argued that America's six-decade security guarantee to Europe has been a massive strategic error.
The basic flaw in the Atlantic "alliance" is that, for almost all its participants, the free world is a free lunch: a defence pact of wealthy nations in which only one guy picks up the tab. I said as much in a Canadian column I wrote on 9/11, and a few weeks later the dominion's deputy prime minister, John Manley, conceded that his country was dining in the best restaurants without paying its way: as he put it, "You can't just sit at the G8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom." But in Nato, for generations, whenever the bill's come, there's been a stampede to the washroom, not just from the Canadians but the Continentals, too. Like any other form of welfare, defence welfare is a hard habit to break and profoundly damaging to the recipient. The peculiarly obnoxious character of modern Europe is a logical consequence of Washington's willingness to absolve it of responsibility for its own security. Our Defence Editor, John Keegan, once wrote that "without armed forces a state does not exist". That's true in a certain sense. But, in another, for wealthy nations who've found a sugar daddy, it's marvellously liberating. You're able to preen and pose on the world stage secure in the knowledge that nobody expects you to do anything about it.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Bulldog ||
08/17/2004 5:41:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Europe had better pay attention to why the gentleman is saying, for it's own sake.
I personally will not support any defense of Germany or France if they are attacked by an external force of any type until they admit they are and were wrong about Iraq. I am glad we are removing 170,000 bodies from Germany. 10 years is to long. For me it is over, over there
#5
and nice dig on Barbra too! Another Steyn classic...
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/17/2004 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#6
FB: I personally will not support any defense of Germany or France if they are attacked by an external force of any type until they admit they are and were wrong about Iraq.
No country is in a position to launch an invasion on Western Europe. The Russians are having great difficulty overwhelming a ragtag bunch of rebels in Chechnya using rules of engagement that permit leveling civilian infrastructure at will - I doubt they'll have any appetite for overseas adventures. Threats and attacks with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles are another matter. Is France willing to risk the nuking of Paris by an Islamic state to defend Berlin? That is the question.
#7
As Stephens points out, European countries now have attitudes in inverse proportion to the likelihood of their acting upon them. They're like my hippy-dippy Vermont neighbours who drive around with "Free Tibet" bumper stickers
snicker.
Posted by: B ||
08/17/2004 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"FREE TIBET! with equal or larger purchaseâ¢"
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/17/2004 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The Russians are having great difficulty overwhelming a ragtag bunch of rebels in Chechnya using rules of engagement that permit leveling civilian infrastructure at will - I doubt they'll have any appetite for overseas adventures
A couple of observations.
Right now Russia is dancing with the devil, Iran, helping them with their nuke facilities while ignoring Iran is most likely one of the routes of jihadniki in and out of Chechnya. It's a sad game of whack a mole that Putin must play for Russia's economic survival, and it may well cost the world a nuclear exchange with Iran.
Russia has been traditionally a defense oriented nation, from time immemorial. Their military culture has shined when they have defended the land from invasion. Russians, for lack of a better word, suck at aggression.
At the moment Putin is failing to recognize the west, including Russia is undergoing an invasion by Islamists. Bush partially got the message 911, but it may take another massive attack to pull together the resouces of the west to deal with the sole true remaining terrorist state, Iran.
#13
I noticed the team from liberated Afghanistan drew far more enthusiastic cheers from the Athens crowd than the team of the country that actually liberated them... At the time of the Afghan liberation, a poll found only 5.2 per cent of Greeks supported the war.
#14
The external attack is not going to come from any country excepting perhaps Iran. The Terrorists are living in their societys. I can't support helping them. If taking out Saddam is wrong then defending them against islamic terror must be wrong likewise.
Full Title: World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win
Severely EFL. This is the article that Wretchard @ Belmont talks about. But I think it deserves it's own post. This sucker is LONG. LONGER than denbeste-Long. But it's a fascinating read.
This past spring, when it seemed that everything that could go wrong in Iraq was going wrong, a plague of amnesia began sweeping through the country. Caught up in the particulars with which we were being assaulted 24 hours a day, we seemed to have lost sight of the context in which such details could be measured and understood and related to one another. Small things became large, large things became invisible, and hysteria filled the air.
Since then, of course, and especially after the hand over of authority on June 30 to an interim Iraqi government, matters have become more complicated. But the relentless pressure of events, and the continuing onslaught both of details and of their often tendentious or partisan interpretation, have hardly let up at all. It is for this reason that, in what follows, I have tried to step back from the daily barrage and to piece together the story of what this nation has been fighting to accomplish since September 11, 2001.
...
Telling the story properly has required more than a straight narrative leading from 9/11 to the time of writing. For one thing, I have had to interrupt the narrative repeatedly in order to confront and clear away the many misconceptions, distortions, and outright falsifications that have been perpetrated. In addition, I have had to broaden the perspective so as to make it possible to see why the great struggle into which the United States was plunged by 9/11 can only be understood if we think of it as World War IV.
...
For today, no less than in those titanic conflicts, we are up against a truly malignant force in radical Islamism and in the states breeding, sheltering, or financing its terrorist armory. This new enemy has already attacked us on our own soil—a feat neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia ever managed to pull off—and openly announces his intention to hit us again, only this time with weapons of infinitely greater and deadlier power than those used on 9/11. His objective is not merely to murder as many of us as possible and to conquer our land. Like the Nazis and Communists before him, he is dedicated to the destruction of everything good for which America stands. It is this, then, that (to paraphrase George W. Bush and a long string of his predecessors, Republican and Democratic alike) we in our turn, no less than the "greatest generation" of the 1940's and its spiritual progeny of the 1950's and after, have a responsibility to uphold and are privileged to defend.
#2
I spent a goodly part of Sunday reading Norman Podhoretz's essay; it's excellent, especially in how it puts today's conflict into the perspective of the longer struggle that's been taking place since at least as far back as the PLO hijackings of the 60's, the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, and the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
This war did not start on 9/11; for anyone who has been paying attention, this war-- though not our active recognition of it-- has been going on for a long, long time. 9/11 was simply the turning point where we finally woke up, at long last, and started to realize that all those fanatical Muslims chanting "DEATH TO AMERICA!!!" year after year really meant what they said: they really do want to kill us all, provided they don't succeed first in forcing us onto our knees, heads bowed in submission to their dour, hateful, joyless god.
Podhoretz's capsule history of this struggle resonates perfectly with my own recollections; I can't find anything in it to criticize. The only place I part company from him is over his (apparent) assumption that the Democratic Party is sincere in it's criticisms of, and objections to, the war.
I don't buy that, even for a second: I really, REALLY doubt that any of the Democrats who are running their mouths right now (with the possible exception of poor, dippy little Dennis Kucinich) actually believe so much as a single word of any of the bullshit they've been slinging. In my opinion, what the Dem politicians have been doing is trying to tap into the energy of the angry, lunatic Left and turn it to their advantage.
They have deliberately awakened a ferocious monster in a cynical attempt at riding it to a political comeback. But now they can't get off.
It's a good essay; a must-read, especially those who are too young to have clear memories of the earlier days of this struggle. Enjoy.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/17/2004 17:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If WWIII was the Cold War in my opinion WWIV started in november of 1979 when the Iranians siezed the US embasy in Tehran
#4
#2, Dave, I think the Democratic party is in trouble, but it's not a bad thing. Well, it is, in that there needs to be a SANE adversary to help you plot the correct course of action in both war and peace.
Denbeste had a great article on what's happening to the Dems. They are essentially being Hijacked by the FAR left wing. The causes are probably related to the hatred of GWB and the loss of power they sustained in 2000.
They're still a few normal/sane democrats around, but I think we can only hear the loonies right now.
Eventually the loonies will be marginalized and hopefully, they'll return to being... somewhat sane.
Steyn of course
'We won't come back till it's over/Over There!' sang America's doughboys, marching off to war in 1917. In the Second World War, they had other songs to sing, which is just as well because, even though the World War was over over there 60 years ago, and the Cold War was over 15 years ago, only now are the Yanks heading home.
In the largest military realignment in years, Washington plans to withdraw 70,000 troops plus 100,000 family members and support personnel from overseas US bases. That means, for the most part, from Europe.
This will undoubtedly be welcome news to the likes of Goran Persson, the Swedish prime minister, who famously declared that the purpose of the European Union is that "it's one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to US world domination". It must surely be awfully embarrassing to be the first superpower in history to be permanently garrisoned by your principal rival superpower. But it's also grand news for those of us who've long argued that America's six-decade security guarantee to Europe has been a massive strategic error.
The basic flaw in the Atlantic "alliance" is that, for almost all its participants, the free world is a free lunch: a defence pact of wealthy nations in which only one guy picks up the tab. I said as much in a Canadian column I wrote on 9/11, and a few weeks later the dominion's deputy prime minister, John Manley, conceded that his country was dining in the best restaurants without paying its way: as he put it, "You can't just sit at the G8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom." But in Nato, for generations, whenever the bill's come, there's been a stampede to the washroom, not just from the Canadians but the Continentals, too.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
08/17/2004 10:20:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Up until recently, there has been no incentive for Europe (or South Korea, for that matter) to discontinue its freeloading of American military forces for protection. It is tolerating the American presence as a kind of 'stupid muscle' that is serving a master's greater needs: enhancing its self-important image and providing cover for the FANTASY that it has a better way to solve problems than by using military force to confront evil. Europe thinks it's funny that we even believe in such a thing as evil acts or bad guys. Of course, with others defending it, it has had little incentive to acknowledge that you have to fight (or flee) when confronted by predators-little incentive, that is, until now. Let's see, Grasshopper, whether you remember the life lesson of survival of the fittest.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
