February 14, 2003
WE'RE VANDALS AND WE RESENT THE COMPARISON:
Leaked memo attacks NATO trio (From correspondents in Brussels, 15feb03, Courier Mail)NATO chief George Robertson has accused three European countries of "vandalising" the alliance by blocking an agreement on defending Turkey, according to a leaked memo seen by AFP today.The memo also says NATO intelligence indicates Iraq has moved missiles close to the Kuwaiti border and could use them pre-emptively.
"Today's (NATO) intelligence reporting ... shows that Saddam has moved CBW-capable ballistic missiles close to the Kuwait border," Robertson says in the memo, originally reported by Belgian state television.
The NATO chief asks himself why the missiles would be moved to such a vulnerable position. "There can be only one reason: that Saddam is planning to use these weapons pre-emptively," he says.
There was a choice moment in Tariq Aziz's press availability at the Vatican today, when he warned Europe of the consequences of attacking Iraq. His willingness to threaten them pretty much tells you what Saddam thinks of his European allies. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 14, 2003 7:10 PM
It may be that the French and Germans have seized on this crisis to really enervate NATO, with an eye on replacing it with an EU (that is, Franco-German-dominated) military structure. I speculated on this
yesterday.
One of the first discussions I participated in here was about why we remain in NATO. It was not a particularly pressing issue at the time and, if I remember correctly, was a fun, snarky, conservative romp.
It is a more pressing issue now. If the two main purposes of NATO were to deter the USSR and ensure that Germany couldn't attack France, then what do we now get out of the alliance that is worth the expense in money, time, patience and men? Is the threat of a major war in Europe so great that forward staging is still necessary? What gain offsets the European's apparent determination to drive Turkey towards the east? Snarky comments are welcome, but I'm am serious. Can someone explain to me what political or military advantage, tactical or strategic, makes the continued existence of NATO worthwhile? Or is domestic politics the only reason we don't pull out.
As Chuck Pelto surmised, if Nato goes, who will the EU have to rely on. France. Massive power play while we're the sacrificial lambs.
Posted by: Sandy P at February 15, 2003 11:05 AMDavid:
?romp? I've been serious about it all along. Western Europe is over. Why tie ourselves to an anchor. The future lies elsewhere and we should be looking forward.
Another question.
What are the chances that destroying NATO destroys the EU itself? That is, to what extent can Europe's other member nations express their unease with France, Germany and Belgium?
If a serious Tory would seize this opportunity to convert them to a hard-core national sovereignty party--running against the Franco-German bureaucrats--it seems like you could see Britain bail out of the EU.
Posted by: oj at February 16, 2003 9:39 PM