Re: On European defense and NATO...a letter to NATO leaders.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:32:23 GMT, "ESLaPorte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>On European defense and NATO...a letter to NATO leaders.
>by ESLaPorte
>Sat, Oct 18 2003
>
>Slightly edited for this post from the one faxed to NATO leaders...
>
>Once again, there is "concern" for the European Union's attempts to have an
>independent defense capability. Well, what we could do is stand off and see
>if the Union has the political will to spend anything for a meaningful
>defense and move be on just "paper armies." Second, the Greens, "food not
>bombs" pacifists and the "citizen weapons inspectors" lunatic fringe (...of
>which there are more in Europe than anyplace else on Earth...) in European
>politics could place stumbling blocks in the way of a more "robust" European
>defense. "Decoupling" of our transatlantic relationship and a European
>defense that can replace NATO are a long ways off.but there are other ways
>to maintain and enhance our Alliance without a mortal fear of an
>independent, European Union defense capability. The greatest danger to the
>transatlantic relationship is not European Union defense, but in the mindset
>of NATO as a "Cold War military-alliance" only, without any other roles or
>functions.

And what do you see as the mission of this `European defense force'?
The specter of the USSR is dead. The main threat to peaceful existence
seems to be the new aggressive stance of the French and German
socialists who could easily backslide into the old familiar fascist
rut again.  Do you propose a `defense force' that would be the
policemen of the world, snuffing out little aggressive fires at the
behest of the UN? The UN is nothing more than a comic opera,
resembling a minstrel show. The Europeans have already had a go at
being the `world policeman', and had to be destroyed to control police
brutality. Could European `policemen' be trusted in the middle-east
where their shady deals have already allowed great tyrannies to rise
up and threaten the world with violent terrorism? The Ayatollah was
sheltered in Paris. Sadaam bought his nuclear equipment in France. I
wonder if France could be trusted to take any part in maintaining
peace in the region. It was Degalle, after all, who set Quebec on the
quest for independence in Canada, and the French who first mismanaged
the situation in Vietnam (French IndoChina).  France seems to be a
insane country with a delusion that they still have Napoleon as their
emperor.

> defense can be another relationship that could be devolped between
>Europe and North America (include Canada also) and that is one of
>complimentary cooperation and the two-pillar approach. Robert Hunter in his
>book "The European Security and Defense Policy: NATO's Companion - or
>Competitor?" (2002, RAND Europe) advocates a balancing of the Atlantic
>Alliance's two pillars by encouraging the Union to develop its defense
>capabilities in a fashion that are not redundant in NATO and would
>compliment our transatlantic security. Hunter advocates a complimentary
>security arrangement, not a competitive relationship between the Union and
>NATO on defense.

Two organizations doing the same job are seldom if ever
`complimentary'. There is competition at every level. Various branches
of the service of any nation always compete with other branches though
their missions are the same - security. It would be a very welcome
boost for the US taxpayer to be relieved of the burden of protecting
Europe and trying to bring peace to diverse regions such as Balkans.
No International Force offered to set in and share the burden, until
forced to do so - then the message was competition not compliment -
with a race to occupy every trivial strong point. Europe has an
imperial complex that is difficult to stifle.

>The Union, as NATO is currently, should also develop security capabilities
>that are more suited for the war on terrorism and not some organized
>military invasion, as was the thinking during the Cold War. For example, I
>believe that there could be a civilian security/law enforcement committee
>created in NATO. As you know, such a committee would be under the control of
>the North Atlantic Council (as well as create it) and still maintain our
>tradition here in the Atlantic Community of the separation of the military
>and civilian authorities. Such a committee on civilian security in NATO,
>fostering civil cooperation between North America and the Union in the war
>on terrorism, could be highly effective and enhance our transatlantic
>relationship, as well as protect our collective civilization from non-state,
>terrorist-actors. We are already doing something like this in NATO with our
>EAPC Partners in Eastern Europe.

Pap for babies. Terrorist are defeated by occupying the countries that
shelter them and slowly digging out the roots. They must be denied
money with which to carry on terrorism (much of which is hidden in
European bank accounts. The munitions industries of Europe must be
deterred from selling them the weapons of terrorism.

>NATO should be mulitfunctionalized and an equal, cooperative relationship
>should be sought between North America and the European Union. Wesley Clark
>advocates the mulitfunctionalizing of NATO - and that is the main reason why
>I am involved in our former SACEUR's presidential bid in my local community.
>We need not decouple our transatlantic alliance, but mulitfunctionalize it
>and make it a complimentary relationship across the Atlantic Community. Part
>of this solution is ridding the NATO Alliance -once and for all- of the Cold
>War notion that it is a military-only alliance and cannot take on any other
>roles and functions. The Union and America's Allies should not occupy a
>second class status to America in a two pillar system, but be equals in a
>real "new NATO" that has role functions other than just Cold War,
>military-defensive.

Old Wesley has just gotten into the race and is already using the
words of a bureaucrat - `multifunctionalization'  (?). The old jackass
is still a politician first and soldier second.

>It is my fear that, given the current presidential administration's penchant
>for global bullying and unilateralism, the perceived "need" of the Europeans
>to have an independent military defense from NATO will "only get worse." One
>of the major failings of the Bush administration was the failure to harness
>the European sympathies into a cooperative force against terrorism and
>create an unbreakable transatlantic relationship based on America as an
>equal and not a task-master. We could've had our European Allies as equals
>in a NATO that has been purged of the Cold War mindset and has roles and
>missions that are more than just the military-defensive - and this could've
>been an awsome sight against our enemies.

You lapse into political rhetoric, and your real motive - an attack on
the President - are now revealed.  You damned fool, the `European
sympathies' were with the terrorists because they were the business
partners of the terrorists. Clark has never shown any military or
diplomatic ability of note. He has succeeded in playing army politics
, nothing more.  Reminds me of Haag more than anyone else - a pompous
nitwit.