| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| US to punish German 'treachery' |
| 2003-02-16 |
| America is to punish Germany for leading international opposition to a war against Iraq. The US will withdraw all its troops and bases from there and end military and industrial co-operation between the two countries - moves that could cost the Germans billions of euros. The plan - discussed by Pentagon officials and military chiefs last week on the orders of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - is designed 'to harm' the German economy to make an example of the country for what US hawks see as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's 'treachery'. I'd say it's just a matter of not staying where we're not wanted. We're talking about departing Korea, too... The hawks believe that making an example of Germany will force other countries heavily dependent on US trade to think twice about standing up to America in future. This follows weeks of increasingly angry exchanges between Rumsfeld and Germany, in which at one point he taunted Germany and France for being an irrelevant part of 'old Europe'. If you're anti-American, then you won't be unhappy when the Americans move on to greener — and, I might add, more affordable — pastures, will you? Suckers. |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #9 Poland's history of opposing the expansion of the Caliphate goes back to September 12th -- 1683! see http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/wl-stoye.html Also, the goals of French diplomacy haven't changed all that much in 320 years. |
| Posted by: Tresho 2003-02-17 00:22:55 |
| #8 Nice point Don - I like that. Along with the buildup at Rota - see Daily Pundit's stuff today |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-02-16 19:36:22 |
| #7 While welcoming our new friends, let's remember the Italians have been consistant and supporting during the entire period too. The islands of Sardina and Sicily would make good geographical locales for training and staging operations in all catagories of land, air and naval venues. The islands offer both access and departure which require no adjacent country to get a 'mother may I from'. Both locations could dearly use the economic boost. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-02-16 18:14:55 |
| #6 That's a part of real military training, isn't it, Steve? As opposed to handing out guns and saying "kill 'em all!" |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-02-16 17:11:34 |
| #5 Fred, it's a pretty fair idea. Not Moldova, however, too close to the Russians for comfort (politically). An NTC-style base and training program in Romania or Bulgaria would make a lot of sense. Costs could be shared amongst the alliance with subsidies (call it "reduced tuition" :-) for new, poorer alliance partners. But in addition to your condition, I'd add one more: we make sure the training includes a fair bit of indoctrination into alliance morals: democracy, personal responsibility, how to recognize and refuse illegal orders, no genocide, leave the women and children alone, etc. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-02-16 17:02:21 |
| #4 Poland has a certain amount of appeal, but from a geopolitical standpoint it's too far north. Romania, Bulgaria, maybe Moldova would seem to make more sense for a Mideast-Caspian weighted rapid reaction force. If we want to get really inventive - I'm into the daydreaming realm here, so don't take it at all seriously - I can see bases in those countries that would house a truly allied force built at the battalion level with a rapid reaction mission. Might include American SF and Rangers, Marines (Black Sea coastal area) and SAS as backbone force and trainers, along with battalions from alliance member states that would rotate through for exercises and as the resident standby force. The alliance, formal or informal, could even include Russian forces, and maybe even exotics like Afghan commandos (assuming they ever get their army really built), Jordanian forces, Kuwaiti special forces - anybody with a particular skill set and/or a different way of looking at warfare. That would also make it a great place to send military academy upper classmen. The condition would be that while they're there, they're under the control of the alliance command - no need to phone home for permission to deploy, unless the target's the home country. Training would focus on interoperability and joint ops under realistic conditions - sort of like an NTC in Europe. All exercises would be opposing force with an emphasis on pitting doctrine to doctrine, which would keep Leavenworth and Carlisle Barracks sharp. "Field trips" might include things like helping chase down the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda/Sudan, or throwing Charles Taylor out of Liberia, or helping the Yemenis clean out Hadramaut. And then the old man woke up. There's probably 10,000 reasons why it couldn't be done. Sigh. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-02-16 15:34:59 |
| #3 Poland I can say something about: The gov't would of course welcome American bases with open arms, so would the military, for the obvious reasons. But this would also send a giant slap in the face to Russia, something that Poland has been in need of for a long time: "haha try and touch us now!" In fact, moving bases to Poland would only be a short lateral move on the map. As for the people, admittedly some anti-american sentiment is there, but it has more to do with the disillusionment with capitalism and economic conditions. Once they realize an american base means jobs, their attitude will change. Oh and... in Poland it is illegal to insult the head of a foreign state (gasp!)(a leftover of Communism I believe, but a smart one) |
| Posted by: RW 2003-02-16 14:34:54 |
| #2 I am not a geopolitical grand strategist, but where should we move? Poland seems like a good place. They have got the short end of the stick for a few centuries. They should have good approaches for big airfields. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-02-16 12:56:59 |
| #1 Here in Pennsylvania the legislature is facing a resolution to ban French wines from the state (i.e., our only) liquor stores. Suits me just fine. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-02-16 12:06:16 |