The gravest threat that the euros face lurks in the nearest mosque. NATO is helpless in the face of the kind of cowardice that smiles and calls itsself ‘tolerance.’
Thank you!
And those 75K troops stationed in Germany would be of better use in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Our entitlement systems are going belly up. If nothing is done, by 2060, the combination of Social Security and Medicare will account for more than 71 percent of the federal budget. And that doesn't include the current 17 cents of every federal dollar being spent on servicing the national debt. Defense is considered a "discretionary" expense.
How does one apply for a job at NATO?
WELL SAID!
You had an excellent point...it just needed a little more pizazz ;-)
Hasn’t NATO outlived it’s usefulness? What purpose does it serve except to allow the European countries to cut their own defense spending and shift responsibility for their protection to us? The U.S. could easily withdraw from NATO without weakening our defense position in the slightest.
Did you all read the comments on the Guardian? I almost registered there (I came to my senses though) to tell them that the vast majority of Americans don’t care, or even notice, what they think about us. We just defend them out of some reflexive sentimentality. If they keep whining like geriatric relatives, they’ll get our attention and we’ll just say fine, take care of yourself, see ya. What they want more than anything is to be listened to, and we just don’t oblige them. :)
I think for Europe, and maybe America, there might be a return to the “good old days”, before the 19th and 20th Century phenomenon of the gigantic “industrial armies”.
That is, for 1500 years, more or less, the Europeans relied on mercenary armies for most of the “small stuff”. The advantages are that mercenary armies are much cheaper, aren’t as stressful to a nation, and can be used for uncomfortable missions where you would rather not use your regular army.
The last major mercenary army, the French Foreign Legion, still exists and is a reasonably good model if such armies were to be built today. But even they are far more professional a force than is needed in most cases.
They need to be “offshore”, to keep them out of domestic politics, and you want them commanded by people loyal to your nation, not “free lancers” for sale to the highest bidder.
In the case of Europe, or just Britain, or even America, mercenaries would for the most part, not “fight our fights”, which is one of the big objections to their use, but instead we could use them for things such as “peacekeeping” in unpleasant places like Bosnia and Darfur, for things like drug interdictions against narco gangs, and for humanitarian missions.
It is not really a dramatic move, if you think about companies like Blackwater. They already perform much of what we would want a mercenary force to do: act as bodyguards and as a security service, and generally perform jobs that would be wasteful of our soldiers’ time.
They carry light weapons, move by ground vehicle and helicopter, and if they need more logistical support, the regular military can give it to them.
Importantly, were the US, Britain or Europe to set up such an army, it could be garrisoned in the Caribbean, away from the anti-military leftists who hate, fear and would either try to outlaw, or misuse them. If they didn’t want to do a revolting task commanded by a Moonbat, they could not be compelled to.
It could be full of non-citizens, the best foreign soldiers from around the world, and the US would have no problem lending control to NATO officers or even the UN, wearing their silly light blue berets. Something US soldiers dislike intensely.
If the George W. Bush had such a force, he might have sent it to Darfur or Somalia, or even to Bosnia to relieve some of our forces there. Our fighting men do not deserve to be put in such miserable places, with less than clear missions and surrounded by hostile people. But sometimes it is morally right to send *someone* to do so.
And mercenaries cost just a fraction of what one of our regular army units costs. So not only can we do what is right, we don’t have to waste our blood and treasure to do it.
Europe may no longer have the political will to create a standing industrial army, so they may have no other choice, though their bureaucrats would fiercely object, thinking themselves armchair generals happy to lead conscripts in their morning exercises. But once cruel reality intrudes into their fantasies, mercenaries are at least inexpensive.
The US, however, would keep its military as it is, just augmenting its abilities with mercenaries we could send to places we would prefer not to go ourselves.
As a final note, mercenaries also figure into economics, as corporations often need trained security personnel to protect themselves and their assets in unstable nations. This would keep these mercenaries employed in the “off season”.
Farewell former friends (though I doubt you will).
I sure wish we hadn't spent so much blood and fortune for your freedom!
What are they talking about? There’s 54 million muslim residents of Europe. That’s one hell of an Army.