In the 19th century, balance of power among the great powers kept a major European war from breaking out. World War I ended a relative era of peace and the 20th century saw two major eruptions. The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II since the major powers that inhabited it used the organization as an excuse not to act with any preventative measure against war. The United Nations is similar in that respect; it is an organization that allows nations excuses not to act.
When push came to shove, the United States ignored the UN when American interests were at stake. Did Clinton ask UN permission to bomb Kosovo? No. Did JFK, Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon ask the UN permission to fight the Vietnam War? No. Rarely have we asked for United Nations permission. The first Korean conflict was a fluke as the Russian UN ambassador was not present for the UN vote, so Russia could not veto U.N. participation in the war. If the UN did not support the United State, Truman would have continued to defend South Korea. The first Bush would have gone to war against Saddam in 1991 if the UN did not cooperate. The UN was merely a cover for primarily an American operation.
For those serious about American foreign policy, the UN will not be a major factor. For Europeans, the UN gives them a say in world affairs and the illusion that what works in Europe will work worldwide. This is a dangerous illusion in a dangerous world. For the serious, the UN is nothing but a distraction that allows the enemies of freedom to stall. For the idealist, the UN represents the last best hope of humanity. The realists are right and the idealist is wrong.
The future of NATO will differ markedly from its past.
The Soviet Empire is over but new threats are occurring. NATO has expanded to Central Europe but it will play a support role to the United States. During the Kosovo air war, the United States flew two-thirds of the strike missions and nearly the entire high tech precision-guided missile supply came from the United States. European air forces were limited due to a lack of computerized weapons, night vision equipment and advanced communications. NATO needs to be more flexible. We may be witnessing a two-tiered NATO with coalitions of willing nations cooperating with the United States on selected missions outside of the United States with neither NATO nor the EU having veto power when the United States chooses to act alone.
Article comments
1 - Peter Tatray
The prevailing pressure of political correctness does not allow such views to surface in mainstream Swedish media. But many people still thinks the same way. Like in France, there's a popular resistance against elitist ideas. The "non" from Paris gives some hope that Europa and America will get closer to each other again.
2 - RealCon
Yes -- "The world is changing quickly. The Middle East is undergoing a transition, whose final path is still in doubt..."
Whatever the "final path" -- it is fairly certain that the United States military is not welcome there...
3 - gonzo marx
argh...another case of building an Argument from a questionable premise..
the original Poster sez...
*During the second Gulf War, there were over 30 nations participating*
now..on the surface this seems like a harmless enough statement, and is "the truth" but far from "the Whole Truth"
the U.S. sent well over 130,000 troops there...any guess as to who has the second most personnel in "the coalition" on the ground?
Britain, you may say..knowing they are the country with the next highest level of troops..
wrong
Haliburton, with their mercenaries from KBR(a Haliburton subsidiary) as well as smaller "contractors" of mercenary forces have just under 100,000 people there
yes, gentle Readers..part of the "no-bid" contract with Haliburton was for their hired mercenarys
paid for with your tax dollars
now go and look up how many of the Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Interrogators are "civilian contractors"...then ask a veteran you know well about having mercenarys in the field , and in the interrogation room
when there is significant Contribution towards the Conflict such as what Bush sr. gathered for the first Gulf War...then we can talk about "multilateralism"...
merely dragging along token forces from countries that can't afford to say "no" to Uncle Sam and bolstering the ranks from hired mercenarys in the employ of your vice-presidents old company are not good examples of "multilaterilism"
but it does look nice on Fox News as long as you don't ask Questions
politically as well as philosophically..
gnosis > dogma
nuff said?
Excelsior!
4 - tom donelson
First a little math lesson. 30 nations make up a coalition. Math lesson over.
I find it interesting that many critics of the second Bush policies often used the First Gulf war as their model even though the vast majority of them opposed that war as well and used similar arguments against it. Americans made up the vast majority of troops in the first gulf war. I will add that in many coalition or UN operation involving US troops such as Korean conflict or the Balkan conflict in the late 90's, it was the US that provided the majority of soldiers and I will add the vast majority of killed and wounded. It was the US military power and spending that provided the difference in the cold war.
The argument still holds and you don't need Fox to report it. The difference in the second Gulf war, the coalition included many from Central Europe, who did not participate in the original coalition and as in the first, the US provided the majority of solidiers with Britain number two. Nice try though.
5 - gonzo marx
wonderful "math lesson"
now..would you care to break down the military personnel and/or the financial contributions that have been made towards this "coalition"
i'll bet you a doughnut it doesn't even equal half of what the Saudi's kicked in for the first conflict..
how many Muslim Nations are in this "coalition"..you know..the folks in the Region itself..i know the Turks have some involvement..self preservation really, they desperately do NOT want to see a "Kurdistan" emerge..
and note, gentle Readers, that this Protagonist does not seek to answer or refute the Facts of my initial Comment until his last line, which is factually inaccurate..
Britain does NOT have the number two military force there...Haliburton(via KBR and subsidiaries) does..
that leaves Britain number 3...are there any other nations with more than 500 troops in theatre involved?
has any other nation contributed over, say, a billion dollars?
much less the 9 billion plus the GAO tells us is just "lost"....pallets full of cash misplaced with no receipt..
not to mention how much Haliburton has been overcharging for some of their "services"...again, see the GAO reports
so, i will "see" you "math lesson" and raise you some socio-political "calculus"
nuff said?
Excelsior1
6 - Dave Nalle
>>that leaves Britain number 3...are there any other nations with more than 500 troops in theatre involved?<<
Yes, lots actually.
Ukraine, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Romania have each sent between 500 and 1000 troops as part of a eastern european contingent providing a total of over 9000 troops.
There are 2000 Australian troops, Italy at one time had almost 2000 troops there as did Spain before they pulled out. To replace them Canada has just increased their force to 3800 troops, and the Netherlands which was previously not in the coalition has just joined with 1100 troops.
Of the total force in Iraq right now about 45,000 troops are from coalition members other than the US, about half of those from Britain. That's over a quarter of the total force - which isn't too bad. Way better than UN sanctioned wars like Korea where 97% of the 'multinational' force was from the US.
>>has any other nation contributed over, say, a billion dollars?<<
I can't find the figures for monetary contribution to the actual war, but I'll keep looking. Based on how much we've spent and troop contingent sizes I think that any country with at least 700 troops there is likely to have spent a billion or more. I was able to find numbers on contributions to reconstruction, which include $5 billion from Japan, $1 billion from Britain, $1.5 billion from Kuwait and $1 billion from Saudi Arabia.
Dave
7 - gonzo marx
thanx for the numbers Mr.Nalle
we know the US number is well over $200 billion, and unfortunately the body count and injury tallies are too well known...
now add up all of U.S and the other forces you spoke of...toss in the KBR folks, and we are still under what, half the manpower of Gulf war 1, where the Saudi's and other nations in the region paid more than 85% of total costs
not really trying to espouse my personal Value judgement here..
just setting out the Comparison for folks to look at and think about...
you know me, Mr. Nalle...i try and see the entire Tapestry, not just squint at the Threads..
Excelsior!
8 - Tom Donelson
Once again, Mr. Nalle demonstrate why it is better to have him on your side than be on the other side. Mr. Nalle adds to the portrait that I have been painting all along and missed by others.
As he demonstrated quite clearly, there was and still is a workable coalition that is forming for the 21st century.
No need to do any more math on this score, Nalle has ended that debate. Thank you, Dave. As one would say, Enough said and that portion of the debate is over. We do indeed have a coalition.
Now it is time for those on the opposite to discuss the central theme of my piece- namely the formation of new multilateral coalitions and the refinement or in some cases, the end of old coalition or institutions.
The recent debate over the Bolton nomination is a good example. To what extent do we continue to work within a corrupt organization such as the UN in favor of developing new institutions or alliances that will be more friendly to spread of liberty? To what extent do we establish alliances with the new nations of Central Europe or India?
Do we expand the present NAFTA Trade arrangements to include all of Europe and Turkey to tie Europe to the United States?
What will be the future of our relation with France or Russia? I could go on but the point is simple- as the world chagnes, so will the coalition of the willing. So what will a future coalition of the willing look like and how do we move forward with our goals of spreading liberty, worldwide? Not an easy question but one beyond the simple dogma, Halibutron is to blame and all else doesn't count.
9 - Dave Nalle
Just to throw another bit into this debate, a lot of people in Europe are arguing that NATO is obsolete and should be replaced by a joint EU military command. That is, of course, assuming there continues to be an EU at all.
Dave
10 - gonzo marx
ok Tom...let's take a look at what you are saying...
firstly..i never argued that there was not a "working coalition" as you put it, merely that it did not compare to the one formed in the first Gulf War by Bush 1.
i then went on to show just how the "math" worked out...
let's recap just the troop numbers , since Mr Nalle was unable ot fid ANY monetary contributions towards the military effort...we do see that a total of 8.5 billion has been given so far, with 5 billion of that coming from Japan, 1.5 form Kuwait and 1 billion from the Saudi's...this compared to the over 100 billion we are putting up for just reconstruction so far
Mr Nalle's numbers for allied nations military forces are 45,000 strong
US military 135,000
Haliburton "employees" approximately 100,000....best figures available set their "armed security" (read:mercenaries)..at approximately 65%
giving us a total of approximately 245,000 armed troops, will about 1 in 5 being from a "coalition" nation, which is LESS THAN the amount of mercenarys paid for by american tax dollars to be there
notice, gentle Readers...i am not "debating" anything, merely laying out the facts in perspective as given by Mr Nalle...no "judgements" nor "dogma" spewed or skewed...
Tom sez...
*To what extent do we continue to work within a corrupt organization such as the UN in favor of developing new institutions or alliances that will be more friendly to spread of liberty?*
a decent, if semanticly loaded, Question- i'm all for growing security alliances, as long as said "treaty" is beneficial to and cost effective for, the american citizen...my only concern here is the trend of this Administration to bully and bribe weaker "partners" into toeing the line, seeking "yes men" rather than expanding strategic partnerships...definately a good Discussion to be had in the State Department among various Viewpoints ..oh wait..that's right..there are no varying "views" at the moment...Powell is gone..
Tom sez..
*To what extent do we establish alliances with the new nations of Central Europe or India? *
another good Question...see above
Tom sez...
*Do we expand the present NAFTA Trade arrangements to include all of Europe and Turkey to tie Europe to the United States?*
here i have a philosohical difference..i don't think NAFTA was/is a "good thing"...but i am all for sane trade Treaties...too bad we haven't had any since WW2
Tom sez..
* how do we move forward with our goals of spreading liberty, worldwide?*
and here we have the nut of the matter when it comes to philosophical differences...can someone point out to me where in the Constitution it says our Government is required to "spread Liberty"?? now, i am all for free, representative democracies, basic human and civil Rights, Liberty and dignity.
but where do "We the People" charge our Government to "spread" anything?...and should we be launching pre-emptive Wars to do so?
neither the Time nor the Place for me to get into that one, i am merely laying that Question out there for you, gentle Readers, to think about...it's one thing to "convince" folks of your point of view...it's quite another to show up at their house shooting, and tell those left alive to do what you say...
Tom sez..
*Not an easy question but one beyond the simple dogma,*
i agree up to this comma, these are very difficult Questions of world politics and Trade as well as our own Vision for our Nation...
Tom sez..
*Halibutron is to blame and all else doesn't count.*
nice try at a dig here , an attempt to discredit my Words...sorry, look closely..did i "blame" anyone?
or did i merely point out inconvenient Facts that your own worldview doesn't want to notice...
no attacks here, i wasn't even snarky...you raise some very good points to consider...i shared my own Thoughts....
your milage may vary...
Excelsior!
11 - tom donelson
Gonzo,
Enjoyed the debate.
Few points, the best trade treaty is no trade treaty, just open our economic borders to the world and we will all benefit but then the second best thing is any treat that encourges more goods to move freely across borders.
12 - John Conner
Christians spreading the truth about September 11th
It was an inside job, a covert CIA military operation
to get the people behind the war.
(San Diego, CA) A book titled, "The Resistance Manifesto" (ISBN: 0967346630) will soon be published from a world wide network of Christians exposing the September 11th inside job, government prior knowledge, and the Bush family’s involvement in the attacks. Bold statements, backed by declassified documents, memos, and mainstream news reports, all of which paint a dark picture about what really happened that tragic morning.
Aside from a pretext to the war on terror and the war in Iraq, the events have since been used to instill a sense of fear in the American people, and are being used to create a Police State in America, circumventing the constitution, and using RFIDs, VeriChip, and security cameras to keep track of every person.
Included are specific strategies for resistance to tyranny and oppression. Also included is a history of The Resistance, and an outline of the lifetime commitments of its members and its global goals, spanning generations. It is difficult to conclude how many members The Resistance has, due to the fact that there is no central leadership, official member roster, and many members have maintained anonymity to non members.
This official Declaration of Resistance from the Resistance for Christ includes an in depth analysis of the Satanic influences in the ideologies, and political institutions forging the one world government. Extrapolated is the covert message and origin of the Georgia Guidestones, as well as the dangers of the VeriChip and explanations of disturbing satellite photos of Satanic symbols in Washington D.C.'s street layout.
Conner and legions of others have been speaking at Churches and Bible studies for years, bringing awareness to the disturbing Satanic influences in America and the New World Order. "The threat of terrorism is being used to enslave the world. This Orwellian Police State is the result of government sponsored terrorism and the Illuminati's work to build their New World Order. Due to editorial and political censorship our voices are often stifled, but there is an enormous underground movement against the New World Order." He says.
The Resistance Manifesto is available exclusively at www.TheResistanceManifesto.com, and in the months ahead, will be available in bookstores nationwide. The Resistance Manifesto is a shocking analysis of the Satanic influences and practices in every facet of society from the main stream media, to the private practices of the American Illuminati elite. It is a blueprint of the institutions, people, and powers at work within the New World Order.
With the release of VeriChip, The Pandora's box of the Mark of the Beast, and the world rapidly advancing towards a one world governed, cashless, privacyless world, it is time to stand together, and not let tyranny and fear force us to our knees! We must resist! We will not accept this Beast system stealing our privacy and our rights, and we must save America before the blood is sucked dry from the Satanists in the Illuminati Mafia. Power to the Resistance!
13 - Victor Plenty
"The Pandora's box of the Mark of the Beast"?? Dude, you're not only mixing your metaphors, you're mixing up your mythologies.
On a slightly more serious note, I've never understood why fundamentalist Christians so fanatically oppose this whole one world government thing. After all, they believe that will happen right about the time Jesus Christ is ready to return and thereby whisk them all up into Heaven.
Seems to me, if they were really sincere in such beliefs, they'd be telling the one world government folks to hurry up and start tattooing the UPC symbols onto people's foreheads, or something.
14 - Aaman
UPC tattoos are so 20-century