|
|
|
Subject:
NATO a liability
sanman
6/9/2004 7:30:08 PM
|
The Cold War has ended. The War on Terror is here. NATO is obsolete and useless to the USA. Instead of helping the US to wage war on terror, NATO is likely to serve as a boondoggle weighing the US down, dissuading it from confronting the Islamist terrorists, since this diverts ressources ($$$) away from NATO's own turf.
The war on terror is not mainly being waged in the North Atlantic, so why would NATO be a primary instrument in this war? It wouldn't.
By disbanding the outdated NATO and updating its threat perceptions, the US will be better equipped to win the war on terror. If it doesn't do these things, then I fear the war won't succeed.
The very same voices what were all carping for war in the Balkans, their central focus of interest, were pooh-poohing and downplaying the terror threats emanating from Al-Qaeda. That's the only reason why Al-Qaeda was able to get as far as it did to 911.
Once 911 occurred, these same voices were forced by political necessity to quickly go with the flow and take up the mantle against Al-Qaeda. But as soon as the US began to encounter difficulties, the same voices quickly resurfaced singing their old tunes.
Those who benefitted the most from NATO's presence in Europe also similarly benefitted from the jihadist presence in CentralAsia -- both entities serving the purpose of combatting the now-defunct Soviet threat. Both hating a common enemy, their mutual affinity is natural.
So why do some voices in "the West" continue to undermine the war on terror? Easy to diagnose, since as the Romans say -- who profits?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
