What hat did this come out of?
To insist that all of our allies increase the percentage of their GNP devoted to the mounting of conventional forces - designed to oppose a threat that no longer exists (the Cold War is over, remember?) is not merely counterproductive, it's stupid - but not as stupid as insisting we have the right to insist.
Cold War? Conventional Warfare? When did I mention these? Or are you saying NATO should simply be scrapped, rather than built up into a viable defense force?
There is no defense in Europe against anything other than common crime without the U.S. presence. There is no QRF for trouble spots without the U.S. presence.
Now, for the U.S. to protect its people (that's us, a-way back over here), it must back off from Europe a little. Now there's a showing gap that needs to be filled. Who’s going to fill it? An ill-prepared NATO, or a well-prepared terror cell?
I am a trained instructor for guerilla tactics, Fox (c 1979 & 1981-1984). I understand the tactics required, and so do today’s U.S. militaries. We’ve been at it as a nation for decades. Cell-fighting is nothing new. Trouble is, we were all either jungle-trained, or (minimally) desert-trained, not urban-trained. What is new here is the addition of humans, humans of any size, shape, age, sex, religion, nationality, anywhere on the globe, to be used as targets, shields, and bartering tools. This is what’s different. The battleground stretches across sovereign borders and creeps through towns and cities around the globe.
Defense-spending for EU (AKA NATO) means backing the U.S. in its determination for results in the war on terrorism, and backing the U.S. when we need to deploy, thereby keeping the currently secure regions secure, and maintaining a functioning, deployable force.
If you fail to see why there must be concern, real and outspoken concern, then I’m afraid you’re just completely missing the entire concept of this latest war.
"Ain't nothin' conventional here, sir!"
Dan
Current Events » in reply to At the risk of reduncancy:
Re: Where are you going with this . . . ?
The whole thread (80 posts)
- Canadians lose their minds.
- Why does Canada even have an army?
- Inoperative chestnut
- Re: Why buy aircraft?
- Canadian scizophrenia
- Reposting part of the article you posted so maybe everyone will read it this time
- Something to consider
- That's fine
- Cdn military
- Just saying no
- Re: As a Canadian what you say kinda pisses me off
- Then don't come begging to us for airlift capacity
- Re: Americans spend more on military than any country in the world
- Not even to fight Bushs' war?
- Then don't come begging to us for airlift capacity
