The Case for Disbanding NATO

As a collective security agreement, NATO is dead.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was first organized to counter the threat (whether real or imagined) of an expansionist Soviet Union. Seventeen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union however, NATO still exists and far from providing collective security it now serves as a tool of American expansionism.

If the NATO treaty is to be interpreted as it has historically been presented whereby NATO allies are required to act in the defense of any other ally, then the foreign relations of the United States present an ever growing threat to the peace and security of European nations. While it is undeniable that NATO did serve its purpose, NATO has transformed Europe into a buffer zone for the protection of the United States.

European security experts in whole must be considering already the threat posed by American diplomatic recklessness. After all, if the United States is going to continue with a foreign policy that has it provoking war against Russia, igniting conflict in Pakistan, threatening Iran, stoking Venezuela, interfering in Bolivia, and unilaterally invading two countries, Europe must reassess its membership in this organization for its own good.

Surely it did not escape the attention of those in the know that the United States has repeatedly shown an utter disregard for the founding principles of NATO cooperative arrangement. Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most clear example which states:

"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

In just those two lines I have bolded we find Iraq and Iran respectively. If the goal is that “peace and security and justice” be preserved, the United States has made a joke of this document’s original intentions. Surely, any such action by any European nation would have immediately been visited by anger from its members, but the way in which the U.S. carries itself across sovereign lines and against United Nations resolutions has only been met by a deafening silence from the European Community.

Lets be clear, any treaty which endangers the territorial peace of Europe and binds European armed forces to an American command and American foreign interest policy, is an ill-conceived treaty.

Currently NATO Allies are playing a game of chicken against Russia. Would any one of these nations other than the United States, really believe that they would be in the same situation otherwise. Russia can be a bully, but it’s an honest bully. You know when Russia is bullying you, I’m afraid however that Europe has lost the ability to tell when the U.S. bullies them.

Take the installation of the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The U.S. claims these are meant to deter an Iranian attack against Europe, which is simply nonsense. Anti-Iranian missile facilities should be in Turkey, not Eastern Europe. The placement of these has been widely derided as an anti-Russian defense, but Europe has remained silent on the issue tacitly approving it all the while making themselves a target should US-Russian relations break down into war.

Meanwhile, the US has actively pushed for the addition of Georgia and Ukraine as full members of the NATO Alliance, a decision which will be NATO’s last. Ukraine, a nuclear power is too close for the comfort of Russia. Despite Russian protests the United States is intent on moving forward. Nevermind that the US would not tolerate a similar move by Russia in the Western Hemisphere, nevermind that the US promised not to expand NATO or that both Ukraine and Georgia are only nominal democracies. Europe remains silent as the continent bows down to America’s most aggressive foreign policy since its invasion of Mexico in 1846.

NATO as an American strategy surely served to benefit Europe when it was most needed. Now that strategy simply ensures that the only viable opposition to the US is dressed up as a threat to all European nations.

Europe must remove itself from NATO and reorganize itself as a third-party military alliance. European security and peace will only be ensured by European military independence. Let NATO die, before it kills us all.

War Against Iran: Update

Yesterday's post entitled: WAR ON IRAN: IMMINENT was a speculative piece based on little more than personal opinion. Today, however, I stand much more firmly on that idea as the former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton discusses the policy towards Iran. At about 1:22 into the video Bolton is asked about the right policy and he answers:

"...If there is any possibility of the use of force by Israel before the next President takes office..."

Here is the video:

When Bolton speaks of the the next President taking office it is not clear whether they are referring to the November election or the January inauguration. Politically the former would be more useful to the neo-conservative agenda. We will be watching.

WAR AGAINST IRAN IMMINENT

As the Republican house of card begins tumbling down, the likely "October Surprise" is an attack on Iranian soil by the United States or Israel. Granted, this is speculation, but speculation based on a number of salient truths.

1) A foreign policy incident, as bad as American foreign policy has been managed by the Bush Administration, is still the best argument for a John McCain Presidency.

2) There are only about 60 days left until the November 4th Presidential election and John McCain still has not unified his party behind him.

3) The neo-conservative agenda was once delayed for eight years by Bill Clinton's Presidency, and Obama threatens another eight year pause in those plans.

4) The Bush Administration has no qualms about starting a war without provocation.

5) The Bush Administration sees itself as beyond accountability or responsibility.

6) Iran has been played up as a national security threat for almost eight years now (remember the Axis of Evil).

7) Few will shed a tear for Iran. In fact many Americans too ignorant to know better will think its a good idea.

8) An attack on Iran places Sen. Obama in a difficult position of having to support the attack even if he disagrees with it.

9) Provides the administration with almost complete control of the subsequent news cycles leading up to the election.

10) FOX NEWS gets to run anti-muslim/pro-America specials and call all democrats traitors. Reigniting the "I'm-more-patriotic-than-you-debate" for Sen. McCain.

Counting back from November 4th, the attack would have to take place before early voting begins, or at least before early voting crests. But the attack must begin after the Republican Convention. So sometime between the second week in September and the second week in October.

If I were Karl Rove this attack on Iran would take place shortly before the first debate which is scheduled for September 26 at the University of Mississippi. That first debate is themed upon domestic policy an area where McCain has proven to be at a gross disadvantage. Doing so will force a discussion on foreign affairs by allowing McCain to refer to Iran and divert the conversation away from domestic issues.

Which means that said attack would best be scheduled for the beginning of that week probably on monday September 22 or there abouts.

Anyone who doubts the machiavellian capacity of the Bush administration to carry this out has not been around for the past eight years.

** Cartoon by Mike Keefe of the Denver Post

Army recruiters bully prospects [VIDEO]

A CBS investigation aired on July 28, uncovers the tactics being used by Army recruiters. Using threats of arrest and accusations of desertion, Army recruiters in Texas have crossed the line. Whether this is a tactic aimed at Latinos or the population in general is unknown at this time, but it points to how low these recruiters are willing to go. Watch the report here.

Pirates & Emperors

A school house rock style explanation of imperialism and American foreign policy.

War against Iran is complete certainty

A new Zogby Poll confirms that despite all, Americans believe the US should bomb Iran. Here is an Excerpt of Zogby's Report:

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

Well I guess there really are no lessons that are not worth learning again. After the invasion of Iraq, I would have expected a higher level of skepticism from the American public, but I was wrong.

The consequences of war against Iran are dire, but a poll such as this during a presidential campaign year will only lead to increase warmongering as each candidate now will attempt to out-war the other. Leading the charge will no doubt be the Republicans, but the Democrats know how to bend with the wind when its convenient, and there is nothing that would be more convenient than winning the 2008 election.

We discussed the possible consequences of war against Iran in a previous post and we stick by that analysis. Unfortunately, reason does not get you votes in American politics.

Click here for the full report from Zogby International

Appeasing America

Appeasement is one of those dirty words we learned from World War II history. Often it is used to denote cowardice, as in the cowardice of 1930's Europe in refusing to confront the expansionist campaign of Hitler and his Nazi Party as they began swallowing up countries left and right. The appeasement of Nazi Germany came to an end when the government of Great Britain decided to draw a line in the proverbial sand by announcing that they would fight to defend Poland. The rest is, well, history.

Today a similar obligation now falls upon the world as the United States pushes forward to attack, possibly invade, the country of Iran. And while folks like Dick Cheney and Norman Podhoretz confuse the issue talking of Iran's President as a Middle Eastern Hitler, it falls upon the international community to ask whether it is time to stop appeasing the United States?

Martin Luther King once described the United States as "a society gone mad with war". Today that seems prophetic under the leadership of the current American Administration. Since 2001, the United States has invaded two countries and deposed their governments, and it has engineered two coup d'etats, one against the elected government of Venezuela and another against Haiti. All the while the world governments have stood aside and allowed these actions and their accompanying crimes against humanity, to happen with little opposition.

There should be no question that if the United States is allowed to attack Iran, there will be others who will be attacked subsequently. Syria and Cuba immediate spring to mind. At some point someone must draw a new line in the sand and proclaim these actions to be criminal. Self-determination and human freedom cannot be allowed to be dictated by Washington, D.C., for their interests are not those of a peace loving nature. The Bush Administration is a leviathan that seeks to impose itself as the sole absolute sovereign over the earth, and is quickly moving to that end.

Despite the rhetoric from the Administration, there is no evidence of Iranian wrongdoing, there is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in development, there is only the willful and continuous deception of the American people; who for all their strengths easily fall frail under fear. Fear as a manipulation, fear as a tool of government, fear as a resource of war. The people of America are stuck in this muck without any respite thanks to a press and media which refuses to discuss and denounce these actions by the government and have instead become mouthpieces for official policy.

The question then lies with the international community; who will draw the line in the sand and be the first to stop the appeasement of America's belligerent policies? Make no mistake about it, history will judge this generation on this question just as harshly as it has judged Europe in the years prior to World War II.

MLKjr: There comes a time when silence is betrayal

This Martin Luther King Jr. Speech about the Vietnam War is a sober, measured, and determined call for action against war. The words seem as timely today as they were in 1967 when he delivered this speech. Listen closely.