Contracting out defense to the U.S. and Britain
isn't strictly pacifism is it?

There's no such thing as a live strict pacifist.

Canadians?

Pacifists are parasites. They are cowards because they let someone else do their violent dirty work for them (including police work), rather than accept the consequences of their decisions.

As with the Canadians and New Zealanders, it's easy to be pacifist when you are out in the middle of nowhere with a big neighbor willing to defend you because its in their best interest to do so.

Iceland has always been a special case. It represents the perfect example of the modern zeitgeist --voluntary impotence combined with absolute self-righteousness. But where is the U.S. interest here beyond the bases. Would it matter if Iceland were threatened by Norway? Britain? France? Russia? Anyone? Should it matter?

This issue goes far beyond who did what in March, 2003. ALL western countries except the U.S. have slashed their militaries dramatically in the past twenty years, including Britain, France and Australia (the latter has a smaller military than Canada's and fewer troops overseas). All power to the Aussies, but their help has been more political than military. The problem is the corruption and breakdown of NATO ideals and the idea of collective security. Everybody is free-loading on the States to be sure, but just what and who are Americans undertaking to protect so as to justify demands that others do more? I'll bet the average American would be shocked to know his country is committed to go to war to defend France if anyone invaded her.

This is weird and very modern. Up until the 1930's, it is hard to imagine any nation sore that its neighbours weren't more heavily armed-that was a reason to feel secure. Look at the naval treaties among the great powers--everyone trying to restrict one another and maintain their own strength. Now there is this ethereal notion called "the West" or "democracy" that needs to be defended on the banks of the Euphrates or whatever other remote and savage corner of the globe. Also, while the U.S. is entitled to expect more, it isn't easy to define what or how much from either side. It is beyond reason to expect that the U.S. will reserve the right to put its self-interest first and refuse to be fettered by multilateral obligations while expecting other nations to be heavily armed and on call to assist it without question.

The assistant to Gorbachev who quipped that the fall of communism was a cruel blow that would deprive the West of what it needed most--a common, identifiable enemy--knew what he was talking about.

Australia is about 2/3 the population and about 60% the GDP of Canada. It does not benefit from being able to leech off the world's largest economy and it does not have the world's longest peaceful border to trade across. Moreover, Australia, stretched as it is, was able to take the lead in the liberation of East Timor from its genocidal Muslim imperialist oppressors, and unlike Canada, Australia has significant self-defense issues with Indonesia, a Muslim terrorist theocratic kleptocracy with 250 million half-starved people just across the Gulf, a place where Christians and Chinese are treated almost as badly as the Jews of Tsarist Russia. By contrast, Canada hasn't even taken the lead against a few jumped-up street gangs in Haiti.

You are correct about NATO having outlived much of its usefulness. However, it certainly serves as a spur to the former Warsaw Pact states, aiding them in providing political freedom and economic opportunity to their citizens. Czechoslovakia excepted, the former Warsaw Pact NATO members were all dictatorships prior to WWII. It would have been easy for them to revert under the threat of renewed Russian adventurism. NATO's idiotic and criminal decision to aid and abet Muslim terrorists and gangsters in Kosovo and Bosnia in their attempted genocide of the Serb people is the greatest argument for its dissolution. Clinton, Holbrooke and Albright belong in the dock before Milosevic and certainly before heroes like Karadzic, Mladic and Arkan ever do.

What is probably needed is a restructuring of NATO. The French, Belgians, Luxembourgeois and Scandanavians, except Denmark, out. Quebec separation encouraged, with the rest of Canada probably happy to remain NATO members. Israel, Serbia, Macedonia, Ukraine and Georgia in. Germany, Spain, and Greece put on notice. Moving American forces into Hungary, Poland and Romania where they would be welcome, where the topography is better for planes and tanks and where the weather is drier, should be done immediately.

Self-interest gets defined in many ways. If the French or Canadians don't want to cooperate on Iraq, why should they continue to have access to American markets? Why should they continue to receive American tourist dollars? America doesn't need allies to do what it wants, but most other nations do and having allies makes things easier.

With the probable exceptions of France and Belgium, there isn't a country you mention that couldn't do an abrupt shift in it's next election one way or another. (What have you got against Norway?). Surely the issue isn't who has been naughty and who has been nice, but who fits in to a strategic overview. I am sure U.S. forces might be welcomed in Hungary--for now--but what are they there for?

Allies don't make things easier if they can't even agree on who they are allied against?

Bart, let 'er rip against Canada if you wish, but "leeching off the world's largest economy"?

Given the way in which Canada avoids paying for its own defense by living off the largesse of the American taxpayer, 'leeching' is a fair description. The relationship is in no way symbiotic, not even like that of those tiny fish that clean the whales.

Norway bans kosher slaughtering, bans people from wearing a yarmulke in its parliament building, and has been a safe haven and enabler for PLO terrorism for decades. The phony 'Oslo Accords' and the actions of the Jew-hating UN Special Representative Terje-Larsen are only the most recent manifestations. When Oslo decided to commemorate Kristallnacht this year, it refused to allow Jewish groups to participate for fear of offending local Muslims. It is not worth one cent of my tax dollars.

Hungary, unlike Canada, did contribute a force in Iraq. Also, more importantly, it has a region called the Grand Puszta, which is the largest prarie on the continent of Europe, perfect as an air base and staging area for moving armored vehicles. It is a developing nation with a large cadre of talented, entrepreneurial people, historically the most mercantile culture in Europe. Finally, Hungary wants us there, and Hungarians like Americans. That counts.

Belgium slavishly follows France, and Luxembourg slavishly follows Belgium. If Vlanderen secedes, maybe it will be redeemable. Stick a fork in Wallonie. Germany, Spain and Greece need to shape up or ship out. The noises out of the CDU-CSU don't make one confident that Germany will change significantly if the 'Right' gets in. Grease will always find something to hate about America so they are far more trouble than they are worth. Spain needs to understand that it is at best a 4th rate country and should behave with due deference to its betters. It is of limited strategic value, and no military value, and has an economy meaningless to us, other than saffron and sherry.

The purpose of the alliance should be to preserve more or less free enterprise oriented systems, democratically-elected governments and nations that respect religious liberty in the region that could reasonably be called 'Greater Europe.' It could also expand to deal with trouble spots where the economy of that Greater Europe were affected or where the human misery is just so extreme. Sudan is a good example.

It should be broader than merely military, perhaps a common currency down the road, but it should allow individual nations to control matters similar to what most Americans agree are state matters rather than Federal. The general improvement that the weaker members would receive economically would not go unnoticed in non-members which are trying to move up. The mistake we made was allowing an EU separate from NATO to be created.

Latin American nations might look at a Slovenia, a Hungary or Czech Republic and wonder why that ain't them. All three have several times the per capita GDP of Argentina and far fewer resources.

Turning the North Atlantic into a large,peaceful lake where nations trade with each other under a common set of rules arrived at by the consent of the governed and who all share a common cultural, religious, economic and political heritage is a permanent interest, every bit as much as Russia's quest for an ice-free port. When those nations work together for a common goal of improving their general wealth and by logical extension, that of all mankind, isn't that a net positive? They cease seeing each other as rivals for a small pot but as instead co-creators of a larger one.

The Eastern Europeans would jump at this, as I'm sure they do not like being taxed to pay for German and French farmers to take another 6 weeks off in the Turkish Riviera. They also do not want to have their young men sacrificed on the altar of French gloire.