Author Topic: The Sun Sets in the West  (Read 1617 times)

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
The Sun Sets in the West
« on: March 02, 2007, 09:47:13 AM »
King Theoden: "How did it come to this?"

Quote
The Sun Sets in the West
by Patrick J. Buchanan  (More by this author)

Posted: 02/23/2007
The Brits are going home.

Forty thousand marched in beside the Americans. Only 7,100 remain; 1,600 will be heading home by Easter.

By August, the Danish force of 470 is to be withdrawn, as is the tiny Lithuanian unit. South Korea has 2,200 troops in the Kurdish north. Though they rarely leave base, 1,100 are to depart by August, the rest by year's end.

The Italians are gone. The Spanish pulled out after the Madrid bombings. Ukraine's 1,600 have departed. The Japanese have gone. Declaring the war "unjust and wrong," Slovakia's new prime minister just ordered home his country's contingent of 110 engineers.

Only the Americans are going deeper in. Aussies excepted, the "coalition of the willing" is no longer willing

In Afghanistan, Americans, and Brits, Canadians and Dutch fight, as Germans, French and Italians do "reconstruction." In World War I, France, Italy and Germany lost 4 million men. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the three together have probably not lost 50.

Prime Minister Romano Prodi resigned Wednesday, when his plan to stay in Afghanistan and enlarge a U.S. base in Italy, lest refusal be seen as "a hostile act toward the U.S.A.," was rejected in the Senate.

Vice President Cheney hails Tony Blair's announced withdrawal of British troops as a sign of success. Yet, he says the Pelosi-Murtha plan to withdraw U.S. troops would only "validate the al-Qaida strategy."

The White House says the British pullout is an affirmation of our partnership, but the Brits could have sent those 1,600 to Baghdad or Anbar. They did not.

The Brits are leaving with mission unaccomplished. They are being shot at and mortared every day in Basra. Tribal and Shia militias have not been disarmed. The Sunni are being ethnically cleansed from the south. Militant Shia want the Brits gone, so they can take over.

The British people are bridling at the cost in blood and money of a war that destroyed Tony Blair, who is weeks away from resigning as prime minister. One British historian said at year's end he has never such levels of anti-Americanism in his country.

There is a larger meaning to all this, and Americans must come to terms with it. NATO is packing it in as a world power. NATO is little more than a U.S. guarantee to pull Europe's chestnuts out of the fire if Europeans encounter a fight they cannot handle, like an insurgency in Bosnia or Kosovo. NATO has one breadwinner, and 25 dependents.

At the end of the Cold War, internationalists like Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana declared, "NATO must go out of area, or go out of business." What Lugar meant was, with the Soviet threat lifted from Europe, NATO must shoulder more of the global burden.

But the Balkan crises of the 1990s showed that Europeans are not even up to policing their own playground. The Americans had to come in, gently push them aside and do the job. The message Europe is today sending to America, with the withdrawals from Iraq and the refusal of Italy, Germany and France to fight in Afghanistan:

"We are not going out of area again. If you Americans want to play empire, go right ahead. We will not again send our sons overseas to fight in regions of the world from which we withdrew half a century ago. You're on your own."

Where does this leave NATO? This leaves NATO as little more than a U.S. guarantee to go to war for the nations of Europe, while Europeans can be freeloading critics of U.S. policy around the world.

NATO is an expensive proposition. We maintain dozens of bases and scores of thousands of troops from Norway to the Balkans, from Spain to the Baltic republics, from the Black Sea to the Irish Sea.

What do we get for this? Why do we tax ourselves to defend rich nations who refuse to defend themselves? Is the security of Europe more important to us than to Europe?

In the early years of World Wars I and II, Europeans implored us to come save them from the Germans. We did. In the early Cold War, Europeans welcomed returning GIs who stood guard in the Fulda Gap.

Now, with the threat gone, the gratitude is gone. Now, with their welfare states eating up their wealth, their peoples aging, their cities filling up with militant migrants, they want America to continue defending them, as they sit in moral judgment on how we go about it.

This isn't an alliance. This isn't a partnership. Time to split the blanket. If they won't defend themselves, let them, as weaker nations have done to stronger states down through the ages, pay tribute

Sixty years after World War II, 15 years after the Cold War, Europe's defense should become Europe's responsibility.


El Tejon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,641
    • http://www.kirkfreemanlaw.com
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2007, 10:01:11 AM »
Ummm, and Pat is upset by this self-absorption?  Hasn't he been whining about it for decades?
I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2007, 10:28:40 AM »
Quote
There is a larger meaning to all this, and Americans must come to terms with it. NATO is packing it in as a world power. NATO is little more than a U.S. guarantee to pull Europe's chestnuts out of the fire if Europeans encounter a fight they cannot handle, like an insurgency in Bosnia or Kosovo. NATO has one breadwinner, and 25 dependents.

That, or they've just realized that it's a strategic black hole before the US has.

The Romans, near the end, went and sent off legions to places where they were lost, too, while at the same time not defending the borders at home. Didn't seem strategically wise then, either.

BozemanMT

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 253
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2007, 03:25:48 PM »
Quote
NATO is packing it in as a world power. NATO is little more than a U.S. guarantee to pull Europe's chestnuts out of the fire if Europeans encounter a fight they cannot handle, like an insurgency in Bosnia or Kosovo. NATO has one breadwinner, and 25 dependents.

yep
well said
Fine, they don't like us, that's their right and perfectly fair
However, don't expect us to defend you either.
Close the bases, bring 'em home.
Brian
CO

From land of the free and home of the brave to land of the fee and home of the slave

Ron

  • Guest
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2007, 03:30:09 PM »
Quote
Close the bases, bring 'em home.
I agree, lets cut and run...out of Europe.


Antibubba

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,836
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2007, 06:57:48 AM »
Agreed, but--

When will we see a President who is willing to stand up to all the military contractors who supply, at a handsome profit, those bases, troops, fleets, etc; and a Congress willing to back him, even though it will result in the loss of jobs in their districts?

It isn't going to be a "big government, strong on defense" Republican.  No, the only ones willing to reduce military capacity are Democrats, because they know they can offset the job losses through subsidies-never mind that doing so doesn't save us taxpayers any money.
If life gives you melons, you may be dyslexic.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2007, 08:28:11 AM »
Antibubba:

There ought not be a problem.  Pick up stakes in Germany & the UK...and build new bases in Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, etc. 

We keep the contractors happy, keep some of our troops stationed forward, and the new countries are happy to have us and more positively disposed to the USA.

Also, labor in those countries is cheaper, therefore the bases ought to come somewhat cheaper.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,456
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2007, 03:04:46 PM »
As far as NATO is concerned, a huge blunder has been made in this regard.  The US has been courting E. European nations that used to be part of the USSR to be members of NATO While at the same time ignoring Russia, who believes the West is bitch slapping it because of this courtship of its former satellites.

The US, imho should have been paying more attention to reinforcing a friendship with Russia than wooing it's former appendages.  Putin has been doing his thing because of this.  Does not bode well for the future.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2007, 04:05:36 PM »
Quote
The US, imho should have been paying more attention to reinforcing a friendship with Russia than wooing it's former appendages. 

Even with the loss of the former soviet satellites and provinces, the Russian Federation is an enormous country and a nuclear power. In fact, the loss only consolidated the Russian nationalism, rather than weakening it, because they essentially lost the former soviet multiculturalism and the big dilutants to their national character. Therefore, it is inevitable that with the slow economic recovery, Russia would renew its proud stance and imperialistic ambitions.

I certainly agree that it is better to have Russia as a friend than as an enemy. In fact we have many common cultural and political interests, which we should reinforce. However, we also have to be realistic in that no amount of flirting will change the few areas of conflicting interests. Thus it is certainly advisable to have the former satellites on our side as our own buffer to Russia's influence. We don't even need to send troops - just help them politically if Russia starts leaning on them too much, and only in the cases where our own interests are at stake. In that respect, Clinton's interference in the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s against Russian-backed Serbia and in favor of muslim enclaves in Europe was beyond idiotic.

Incidentally, was there even one major thing in Clinton's foreign policy that did not prove a failure?

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,886
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2007, 05:47:37 AM »
I guess there is the question:  Do we really need all those European bases?  Seems to me that we could get along with one or two to act as forward areas and can the rest. 

I think NATO ought to be dissolved.  If we need/want to set up a new alliance, fine.  I think we keep it simply out of bureaucratic momentum. 


Democrats are willing to cut military spending simply because they are unwilling to cut other programs.  At least that is what I saw in the 90's. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Ron

  • Guest
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2007, 06:09:10 AM »
Without having to man all those bases would our military still be stretched too thin as the mantra in the media keeps repeating?

Laurent du Var

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 719
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2007, 06:27:14 AM »
This article is poorly written, apples and oranges,
the little truth in it must have happend by accident.


"Now, with the threat gone, the gratitude is gone. Now, with their welfare states eating up their wealth, their peoples aging, their cities filling up with militant migrants, "     - fair enough IMO -     "  they want America to continue defending them, as they sit in moral judgment on how we go about it."
where does he take the second part of the sentence from,
and how does it fit to the first part? , I don't get it.


I did my military service when the first  conflict between the Serbs and the seperatist Slowenians started, I recall being in Austria after that listening to guys who answered when asked for donations for that particular region that the only thing they would give willingly was more ammunition. Europe didn't need to end that war, Europe couldn't if they wanted to and they  simply didn't care. Why Clinton needed to send troops is beyond me.     

As for to gather a coalition of the willing while daring anyone who wouldn't
join at the UN and the Nato, I didn't get it : what was that for ? The US didn't need anybody to help intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq, we learned in Desertstorm 1 that different Armies fighting together are causing more trouble than they are helping.

Why not say : Dear world we are going to do this alone and efficient -
if you like to help send a check, good - if you don't well stuff it ....

Closing the bases and bring 'em home sounds like fair advise to me and I much rather had Europe waking up and start taking care of business instead of
becoming a reverse colonie and waiting once more for the big brother to help us out.


   
Vada a bordo, Cazzo!

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2007, 09:00:04 AM »
Without having to man all those bases would our military still be stretched too thin as the mantra in the media keeps repeating?

I think it'd be difficult to have to airlift injured troops all the way back to the US instead of to Rammstein, Germany. Our base there is huge.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,886
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2007, 10:04:22 AM »
I guess if we completely left Europe, they would likely militarize the EU sooner.  I tend to agree with keeping some bases, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to keep NATO.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

drewtam

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,985
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2007, 03:53:32 PM »
I think it'd be difficult to have to airlift injured troops all the way back to the US instead of to Rammstein, Germany. Our base there is huge.

Really?

I have a hard time seeing the logistic difference. For the wounded, whats the difference between 6hours on the plane and 16? Personally, I would rather do the 16hrs if it meant traveling to a place where friends, family, and home culture and language lives.

Isn't that base then just a lay over for the wounded anyway? They stay a week, get patched up and re-examined, but then another 9hr trek back to the US for ReHab.


MechAg,

So what if they militarize the EU, (sooner or later)? My wildest imagination can't see them being aggressive. Maybe I'm being naive, but I just don't see it. And it may help them grow a backbone if they come to a realization that they are in this world alone and need to fend for themselves.

Drew
I’m not saying I invented the turtleneck. But I was the first person to realize its potential as a tactical garment. The tactical turtleneck! The… tactleneck!

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2007, 04:58:21 PM »
EU cannot militarize. They cannot field a united army. What language are they going to speak without offending somebody? Iraq showed the problems with united armies from a technical and organizational perspective. It will take many years, probably decades, before they can be even close to the effectiveness of our own military as a cohesive unit. They should start writing big checks payable to Uncle Sam and tone down the anti-Americanism. About time they paid for services provided.

Stand_watie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,925
Re: The Sun Sets in the West
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2007, 05:52:08 PM »
Laurent, you must not really be French, you make too much sense laugh

To answer your question

Quote
Why not say : Dear world we are going to do this alone and efficient -
if you like to help send a check, good - if you don't well stuff it ....

Politics. Building an American consensus for the war meant convincing many Americans - most, but not all of them left of center that "world opinion" was, if not completely in favor of this action,  at least not completely against it.

Considering what a miniscule portion of the world's population holds values similar to those of American values, outside of pragmatism, I don't know why we should care.

Buchanan's old school isolationism is quite frankly a very tempting ideological proposition. Unfortunately it neglects the reality that we will likely never have a President with the willingness to wield the "big stick" that would be neccessary to protect us from terrorism if we were isolationist, nor a Congress willing to back it up with secure borders.
Yizkor. Lo Od Pa'am

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

"Never again"

"Malone Labe"