American Power

[Pearsall]

Lastly, as for the US vs Soviets comparison, no I don't think they are equivalent, I'd much rather live in the States the Soviet Russia. However, I do think that neither of them are all that great in their influence on the world.

The point is that, even if you dislike America's influence on the world, from any objective standpoint it should be impossible to argue that the Soviet influence wasn't far worse. You were edging towards saying that but at the last minute caved back to moral equivalence.

 

[Pearsall]

The problem with US interventions is not just their hypocrisy. It's also the fact that these interventions almost always, without fail, go horribly wrong. The result is either that the aims of the intervention are not reached, while the target countries are left in a state far worse than prior to the intervention; or that the narrow aims of the intervention are technically achieved, while the country falls into chaos. (See, for example, Balkans in the early 90s, Kosovo in the late 90s, Iraq right now, Somalia, Afghanistan...)

No one seems to be talking very concretely about actual examples of US intervention here. I think a closer inspection would reveal that they are generally, to use a non-technical term, giant cock-ups.

Hmm. So, American interventions are giant cock-ups? Ok, well, why don't we look at the Korean peninsula? When the Korean war ended South Korea was poorer than Egypt (which was about to embark on Nasser's great socialist dream). Look at the difference between the two today. If America had not intervened then the entire peninsula would look like the north does today, wouldn't it?

I don't need to say much about American intervention in Western Europe beyond two words: Marshall Plan.

More recently,in Bosnia the US were the ones who finally fixed things. For a couple years the US said to the EU "ok, it's your back yard, you deal with it." They didn't, and so then Clinton had to deal with it. Are the results perfect? No, but you aren't going to turn Bosnia into Ohio (or Victoria) over night. What should they have done? Allowed the war to continue until it burned itself out? Same with Kosovo, let the ethnic cleansing continue until the Albanians were all banished? I guess the European approach was really bearing fruit, huh, what with the 300,000 corpses.

In regards to Somalia, it was about the most altruistic intervention in modern political history. America had no economic or geopolitical interests in Somalia, and the ultimate failure of the mission was due to the peculiar factors of the situation there, where the state had ceased to exist and the UN mission was trying to negotiate the Byzantine politics of an anarchic clan war.

Iraq and Afghanistan are separate issues from intervention. Afghanistan was a necessary action from a US security standpoint and it has had the nice side effect of working out reasonably well. Consider the fact that millions of refugees have returned in the last couple years. Or the recent elections, which the international observers said passed with reasonably few irregularities. Is Afghanistan perfect? No, of course not. But are things moving in the right direction? It seems that way. You have to remember that this is a country that has been deep in conflict for over thirty years (most people forget that the reason the Red Army rolled in was because the ruling Marxist government was failing to best the insurgency that had been going on since the early 1970's). Nothing gets fixed over night.

Iraq is a preemptive war and was not an 'intervention' in the sense of Bosnia or Kosovo or Somalia. I'm not going to defend it, because it's been a disaster. Although I do find it interesting/bizarre at how many orthodox Leftists are so eager for America to fail and for the most wildly reactionary fundamentalist elements to triumph.

People seem to have lost their sense of historical perspective; if things are not magically transformed over night that doesn't mean it is wise to declare the whole process is automatically a disaster. All wars take a long time to recover from. Britain didn't end rationing until the middle of the 1950's.

So, American interventions:
Bosnia: Worked out reasonably well. Could have been better, but could have been a lot worse.
Kosovo: Worked out reasonably well. Could have been better, but could have been a lot worse.
Somalia: A pretty much unavoidable failure.
Afghanistan: Moving in the right direction, could be a lot worse.
Iraq: A total mess, hard to divine the future. Could get better, could stay the same, could get worse, could go really Hieronymous Bosch.

Barring Iraq I am finding it hard to see in which of these countries American intervention made things worse than before, as you state.

 

[...]

And there's also this thing from 1947 called the Genocide Convention which is the founding legal document of post war intervention. It's a beautiful document. It's one of the most important things we have. It says that nations are morally and legally responsible for their actions and the crimes of others. When a country, or an ethnic group, or a militia, or whoever, commit genocide, the free world is bound, by international law, to act to stop it, and punish those responsible. The problem comes when nations or great powers ignore or defer responsibility. See Rwanda: the Clinton administration did everything to blur the definition of "genocide" in a desperate and criminal arrempt to avoid having to intervene. If you ditch intervention on the basis of its difficulties and flaws, its seems to me you throw the Genocide Convention out of the window too. Because if you say that no nation or powerbloc should intervene, then you say that the Genocide Convention is impossible to enact. And it's not.

I'll be back later. I took the weekend off.

 

[hombre]

Alrighty then, good to see things pick up a bit.

So yeah, absolutes aren't very useful, and the political world is definitely a lot more complex than people tend to think. Of course I don't think US foreign policy has not been in constant flux for as along as there has been a US foreign policy. But that's kind of my point, that despite the fact that "every big man's got his own doctrine or lobby to adhere to or service," the end result of US foreign policy has been strickingly similar accross all sorts of different Administrations. In a sense it didn't really matter whether there was a Democrat or a Republican in the White House during Vietnam, the war was fought pretty much the same either way.

What I think this points to is that: a) US foreign policy is driven by a lot of factors completely outside of who is running the government (the economy being the real big one there). And b) though there are variations in policy, they tend to all come from within a similar and rather limited perspective--of priviledge, absolute faith in the capitilast system, and belief in America's right and duty to police the world (or something like that...I'm sure ppl will disagree on this). So essentially what I'm saying is that these larger factors have not changed. The swerve into Idealism is just one extreme within this spectrum.

The thing to remember is that, Bush might have said some nice things about freedom and such, and you know, that's great. But we're not actually going to start judging politicians by what they say now are we? You have to look at what Bush & Co have actually done. They have continued to support many despotic regimes. They have invaded a country, killed a lot of civilians, and installed a government which its people do not support. It remains to be seen if a trully independant Iraqi gov't is created, which would be great. But I have my doubts.

Anyway, you support Bush's rhetoric? Fine. I think it sounds kinda nice too. But I object to what he's actually done.


Phew....so on to Pearsall


Of course I can't (power corrupts, remember ). But that really doesn't mean we should be singing the praises of the US, does it? "No worse than any other great power" is hardly a compliment, nor is it a reason to stop looking for something better.

Lastly, as for the US vs Soviets comparison, no I don't think they are equivalent, I'd much rather live in the States the Soviet Russia. However, I do think that neither of them are all that great in their influence on the world. Standing up to the Soviets was a good thing, but that wasn't exactly the only thing the US was doing during that time. And really, I'm not too sure how much stuff that went under the banner of "standing up to the Soviets" actually performed that roll. Most of the interventions in Central America (Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc) were framed as fighting Communism, but I think it's pretty clear that they really had fuck all to do with Russia, and all about extending American hegemony.

alright, that'll do for now, I hope.

that was the only post here that really makes sense. the rest seems a bit divorced from the reality.

And there's also this thing from 1947 called the Genocide Convention which is the founding legal document of post war intervention. It's a beautiful document. It's one of the most important things we have. It says that nations are morally and legally responsible for their actions and the crimes of others. When a country, or an ethnic group, or a militia, or whoever, commit genocide, the free world is bound, by international law, to act to stop it, and punish those responsible. The problem comes when nations or great powers ignore or defer responsibility. See Rwanda: the Clinton administration did everything to blur the definition of "genocide" in a desperate and criminal arrempt to avoid having to intervene.

the clinton administration also did their best to show that there was a genocide where there was none (kosovo), which apparently the bush administration is trying to do right now with darfur. it should be obvious that the genocide convention can be used to bully people into supporting actions motivated by less noble considerations. it's also obvious that these other considerations will always have more weight in what the "free world" really does than any obligations under international law. under these circumstances it is a bit naive to talk about the "responsibility" of great powers. even worse, it reminds me of the "white burden" argument from colonial times when european intellectuals were talking about the "responsibility" of european nations to bring civilisation and progress to less enlightened parts of the world.

 

[...]

"the clinton administration also did their best to show that there was a genocide where there was none (kosovo), which apparently the bush administration is trying to do right now with darfur"

And we're the ones (I assume you mean Pearsall and I) divorced from reality?

Hombre, man. Concentration camps. Death squads. Discriminate mass slaughter. State-propagated racism.

There're pictures. There's film. I know that most of you are left-of-liberal but I never expected to hear any of you actually say that the Balkans, you know, wasn't really as bad as all that, or belittling the slaughter in Darfur.

This is about as bad as it gets, I think.

Well at least we're plumbing some depths now.

Since when did the international left become colonised by unreconstructed isolationsists?

 

[...]

And if you don't believe in the essential validity of international law, if you don't belive in the sanctity of such things as the Genocide Convention, which I confess I do, and the better portion of the left used to too, please be more explicit about it, and then suggest a way forward, that's not a way backward, and doesn't sweep violent paroxysms - which happen in the real world - away under the carpet.

 

[hombre]

there was no such thing as genocide in kosovo. even according to nato estimates in the year prior to the bombing the number of people killed was ca. 2000 on all sides. when the bombing started the attrocities escalated (not surprisingly) and there were claims of hundreds of thousands of albanian men killed. after the war was over it was clear that this was just propaganda. ethnic cleansing was the main form of attrocity not only in kosovo, but also elsewhere in the balkans (and was perpetrated by all sides). that's not nice, but it can't be compared to what happened in rwanda.

what is happening in darfur is also horrible, but again it's not genocide as far as i can see.

there is no doubt that something should be done about conflicts like these, but i don't think it's irrelevant what. i certainly do believe in the essential validity of the international law and think all countries of the world should respect it. the problem is, neither the united states nor european countries care much about the international law if it gets in their way and they use it quite often to blackmail anyone who for whatever reason defies them. if international law favours the rich and the powerful we can't talk about justice.

this has nothing to do with isolationism. i fully support international cooperation. there are even cases where i would support a military intervention even if the motivation of the participants is dubious. but i don't think the great powers ("free world") should be allowed to abuse international law for their own purposes.

it should also be noted that quite a lot of current conflicts stem from past actions of big powers.

 

[rewch]

what is international law? consensus worked out over centuries by govns with big armies to oppress those with lesser armies, the balance of which tradition we are attempting to navigate...& not very well...effectively there is very little international law & even less that is codified...

whatever the term for what occurred in rwanda or what is currently occurring in sudan is irrelevant...half the time of the un is spent arguing this sort of semantic gibberish...

 

[hombre]

what is international law? consensus worked out over centuries by govns with big armies to oppress those with lesser armies, the balance of which tradition we are attempting to navigate...& not very well...effectively there is very little international law & even less that is codified...

whatever the term for what occurred in rwanda or what is currently occurring in sudan is irrelevant...half the time of the un is spent arguing this sort of semantic gibberish...

that's a bit harsh. there are numerous international treaties that are essentially progressive, even if they are abused. i also wouldn't say it's irrelevant what term is used to describe what is currently going on in darfur - for the reasons given on this thread by oliver craner (except if you think international law is irrelevant, of course).

 

[...]

The Americans were edgy about Milosevic anyway. Wes Clarke had a pretty disturbing on-the-record conversation with him. Serbs know how to handle Albanian nationalists, said Milosevic. They'd had some experience, after all. When? "Drenica, in 1946." How do you do it, asked Clark. "We kill all of them. It took several years, but we kill them all."

He wasn't even a madman. like Mladic; he was more cold, more rational.

Then there was Racak, wasn't there? The Albanian village put to the sword by a Serb armed unit? That's what spurred military action.

It was ethnic cleansing, the bud of what happened in Bosnia - what had been allowed to happen. I don't even know if action against Kosovo was based on the Genocide Covention - I cannot see why it would not have been. Ethnic cleansing - that counts as genocide, as far as I'm aware. Regardless of Genocidal intent, the massacres were starting again.

I am not aware, however, of a numerical threshold in the Genocide Convention. I'm certainly not aware of one that could be justified. It's not a question of, 500 are dead so let's get stuck in boys. It's not quantitative.

The context of Kosovo was Bosnia. It is impossible to divorce the two. Kosovo was a late intervention in the Balkan Wars; it was haunted by what had previously happened when Milosevic unleashed Serb Nationalist forces in a crooked pact with Tudjman the fascist Croat. If you want to look at Kosova divorced from Bosnia, which I think is rather futile and conveniant (for you), then yes, in terms of bodycount, the genocidal attack on Racak hardly compares. But that's because we intervened!

I agree with most of what you said in your response to me, hombre, it made more sense than the way you broke into this argument anyway, which rather took my breathe away. The biggest contention I have with you, it seems, is the idea that intervention in the Balkans or, if you want to see it so, Kosovo, was an abuse of power. How so? Who was being bullied? Milosevic? The KLA? Either way, the tyrants and terrorists were being bullied. Good.

As for Darfur, read the Darfur thread. I also think it's important to look closely at who is fighting, killing, and being killed, as well as for what reason. I don't think genocide is the wrong word here, either. And there are plenty of cases in which it has been.

The deathtoll in Iraq, for example, has nothing to do with genocide.

Genocide: the deliberate extermination of a people or a nation. On the basis of who they are.

 

[turtles]

Genocide: the deliberate extermination of a people or a nation. On the basis of who they are.

Kissinger, passing on orders to the military to bomb Cambodia: "Anything that flies on anything that moves."

Hard to interpret this as anything other than an attempt at the deliberate extermination of a nation.

 

[...]

Yep, and I abhor Kissinger, his policies, his legacy, all he stands for. I look forward to the day he stands trial for his crimes.

Next.

 

[...]

I'm still open on Darfur. I don't think I know enough about that yet.

On Bosnia and Kosovo, I'm not however. I suspect any equivolance on this. This one seems simple to me.

I'm not about to play with the defintion of genocide in any way.

I think the Convention is absolutely crucial to how we move forward. How we avoid the past.

To dismiss it as a tool for bullies just seems perverse. That's a gut instinct, on my part, plus more.

Both the arguments of bipedaldave and hombre are flawed because they seem (I'm careful now, because people come out with these reprehensible statements and then, when challenged, come over all reasonable, as if to say, "ha! I'm reasonable, suddenly! Gutted! Your point was wrong!" Uh, why? You didn't answer the actual point, you just said, I can qualify, dilute, and compromise my own point...) to ignore the conext of

1. 9/11.

2. The Balkan Wars.

Let's get some context, and continue.

Both Pearsall and I are talking in context. Not preconceived ideas.

 

[turtles]

So, American interventions:
Bosnia: Worked out reasonably well. Could have been better, but could have been a lot worse.
Kosovo: Worked out reasonably well. Could have been better, but could have been a lot worse.
Somalia: A pretty much unavoidable failure.
Afghanistan: Moving in the right direction, could be a lot worse.
Iraq: A total mess, hard to divine the future. Could get better, could stay the same, could get worse, could go really Hieronymous Bosch.

If we want to deal with specific examples, I think it makes sense to deal with more just a handlful of military interventions in the 90s. After all, talking about American Power here, in all its forms.

Let us not forget things like:

--the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in the mid 90s--, destroying roughly half the drugs for the population of Sudan, and something like 90% of the vetrinarian drugs, devestating the farming industry.

--support for the coup of Aristede just this year. Though Aristede was not a good leader, according to the International Coalition of Independent Observers, he was democratically elected. And I would challenge anyone to argue that the former death-squad members that have replaced him are a change for the better.

--and while we're talking Haiti, let's not forget US support of good ole Pappa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier

--and then there's support for pretty much every despicable dictator in central america (except castro) for the last 50-60 years at least, not to mention Pinochet in Chile

--support for Turkey in their persecution and oppresion of the Kurds

--massive one-sided support for Isreal (this is a BIG one folks, though I'm not sure if I really want to start a full on discussion of it)

--and economic policies implemented through the WTO and World Bank that have caused places like Argentina to default.

--and Iraq, which, let's not mince words here, was the first war of aggression by a major power since the Russians invaded Afghanistan

--Wars against Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos

well yeah, I could go on for a quite a while, the list is REALLY LONG. and I think almost all of these could be considered "giant cock-ups"

Though I should mention the case of Indonesia, where soon after as the US stopped supported Suharto and his genocides in East Timor, he was overthrown by an internally created rebellion, and soon after there was Democracy. This is precisely the reverse case of how US intervention is supposed to go.

Oliver, I hope you don't just blame all these on a few "bad apples," eventually you have to start generalizing from this rather abysmal list. I see that I haven't managed to convince you that not everything has changed since 9/11, will have to try harder...


So...I'm actually kind of at a lost of how to stop this from turning into a list-making exercise/in-depth analysis of a billion and one American historical events (which I've just more or less done). Each one of the events that have come up so far could easily have their own thread, if enough people were knowledgable about them. But, if we're really trying to have a debate about whether American Power in general is a good or bad thing...we'll we could get lost forever on the details of individual events. Maybe that's really the only way to get to the bigger picutre, but I think giving an argument more along structural lines (as Catherine was alluding to) would be a useful different tack.

So then, what structural factors either ensure that American Power is not abused or will inevitably be abused? Is it entirely dependant on who is in office? Hopefully some of the more philosophical bent (or those knowlegeable in economics) might be able to give opinions on this. I'll try to give my shot at it soon, but I'm sure others could do it better.

 

[hombre]

The Americans were edgy about Milosevic anyway. Wes Clarke had a pretty disturbing on-the-record conversation with him. Serbs know how to handle Albanian nationalists, said Milosevic. They'd had some experience, after all. When? "Drenica, in 1946." How do you do it, asked Clark. "We kill all of them. It took several years, but we kill them all."

even if true (which given the record of lying connected to that war i have no reason to believe), this quote proves what? that milosevic wouldn't mind killing albanian nationalists? i'm sure he wouldn't mind that. he was a criminal thug. still, the question is not what politicians say, but what they really do. in 1998/99 milosevic was politically weak and had no chance of leading his people into another war. in fact, he did his best to avoid it.

you are right though, we should put things in context. the context you talk about is flawed however, even though broadly accepted in the west. if you want to discuss anything that has happened in the balkans in the 90's you have to put it in the context of the break-up of the yugoslav federation, which was a complex matter. the role of some western states (especially germany and the us) was far from great in that conflict. it seems to me that again it is you who wants to see things divorced from their proper context, not me.

without going into details, because this is not really the topic of this thread, i will say that the united states intervened in a civil war here and helped nationalists from one side win over nationalists from the other. the "success" of the intervention is largely based on the completed processes of ethnic cleansing in kosovo, croatia and bosnia (completed under the us supervision more or less). this is hardly an intervention to prevent genocide, even if we accept that ethnic cleansing and genocide are entirely the same thing. this is especially true in the case of kosovo.

it is also worth asking that if bodycounts are really irrelevant, then why were nato officials lying about the number of albanians killed during the bombing?

i understand that this may be shocking to you, but i am simply not very fond of just talking about human rights without putting things in broader context. amnesty international and human rights watch regualry condemn the us for not intervening hard enough on behalf of the oppressed people, but that sounds to me like asking lions to be nice to anthelopes. i am convinced the us policies are motivated by entirely different considerations and all the talk about spreading democracy and defending human rights (and preventing genocide) is just a charade. i would accept that some kind of intervention is necessary in many cases, but in nearly every case there are better options than american military interventions, especially if we take into account their consequences.

 

[hombre]

perhaps i should elaborate a bit on this because i think we are drifting away from the topic. i don't think it is really that important if we agree if there was a genocide in kosovo or not. i think there wasn't, you think there was (at least if you put things in a certain context, as you say). we both agree that there was a genocide in rwanda though, and we both can agree that the clinton administration reacted differently. worse still, the number of people killed in kosovo in the year prior to the bombings equaled the number of people killed in rwanda daily within a period of several months. in both cases the clinton administration lied - diminishing the scale of killings in rwanda while exaggerating it in kosovo. can we then conclude that the motivation behind both reactions had nothing to do with humantiarian concerns?

which brings me to the next point - you apparently believe that countries of the "free world" can act as defenders of human rights and international law while i see them just as states that need to be kept in check. they are not neutral and therefore not a part of the solution, but a part of the problem. consequences of their actions are more often than not quite horrible and quite often they are politically responsible for conflicts they supposedly want to solve. they follow international law when it suits their interests, otherwise they ignore it (do you seriously think that any international treaty including the genocide convention is being strengthened that way). i think that supporting their interventions the way you apparently do is politically irresponsible.

 

[&catherine]

So then, what structural factors either ensure that American Power is not abused or will inevitably be abused? Is it entirely dependant on who is in office? Hopefully some of the more philosophical bent (or those knowlegeable in economics) might be able to give opinions on this. I'll try to give my shot at it soon, but I'm sure others could do it better.

Well, speaking from a realistic point of view, perhaps if America in its current state evaporated mysteriously one night from the face of the earth, then we might see the disappearance of the structural factors that currently lead to the rather brutal consequences of American intervention. The 'structures' are that ingrained. It's certainly not dependent on who's in office - interventions tend to 'go bad' because both 'sides' rely on technocrats with one-eyed strategies for assessing foreign policy and military planning. It is a struggle, for example, to name a recent instance of American intervention which was commenced with a realistic conception in the American government's mind of what a 'winning scenario' would look like. Regardless of whether or not interventions have been justified, they tend to be bungled because military planning and diplomacy are unable to take account of what's 'actually going on' on the ground.

Take Kosovo as an example. Faced with a situation in which there were apparently government-supported massacres taking place in an area with a history of ethnic violence from both sides (Albanians against Serbs, Serbs against Albanians), NATO intervenes by doing what? By bombing a bunch of abstractly-chosen military targets throughout the country. The result? Milosevic used this as cover to increase the killing. So how did the chief military strategist respond? By bombing these already-bombed targets once again, and when this failed (unsurprisingly), by bombing civillian targets - including Belgrade, a built-up European city, with cluster bombs.

Now tell me - does this seem a logical or sensible course of action? Of course it doesn't. But this is the best that so-called 'experts' were able to offer up. And it is just one example of the way in which Western (it's not limited to America, obviously, but with their giant military it tends to be a bit more obvious) governments are unable to get their acts together when they deem to intervene in the affairs of of other nations. Relate this to notions of the 'abuse' of American power as you will. (I suggest that the main 'abuse' is that such a superpower has not sat down and thought things through before stumbling about the world like a bull in a china shop. But then, this implies that there is a motive other than narrow-minded, short-sighted national interest by which America might act - which, given the evidence to hand, seems a highly unlikely proposition )

 

[luka]

i was just lying in bed thinking about this thread. everyone knows craner is talking out his arse (lovely bloke, very clever but ridiculous politics) but his background knowledge means we'll all too intimidated to engage him in debate. even anti-imperialist truth reality activists like sufi and rewch stayed well away.
BUT, if you actually look what he's saying, in between all the names of obscure bush administration figures and governement papers, he hasn't got an argument. I mean, what exactl;y is he saying? it's hard to tell isn't it?
should we admire american foreign poicy because of the way it ruthlessly pursues its own interests, or because its a force for good confronting evil wherever it finds it.
the truth is craner is a blairite through and through. he believes american self-interest is in our own interest and we should support whatever harebrained scheme they cook up.
'we're not europeans, we're anglo-saxons, its time we realised what side our bread is buttered on'
oliver craner

 

[polystyle]

American power

ok, however far off it may be, wouldn't a better idea (than american intervention) be a functioning European army, or more realistically some kind of revived Nato that had and was prepared to use force?

Another thread I'm coming late to , sorry .
I find it interesting to rd through though and then ask well, which is it going to be -
an America that intervenes too much or an America that intervenes not enough ?

As Jaybob asks , where's the functioning Euro Army or useful NATO when you need them ...

Of course , Re: America's 'foreign policy' , the US' self interests come first - is it any other way in any other country ?.
As a somewhat 'centerist' (seeing many sides to the many debates) citizen I'd like see those big $ spent towards universal health care for us (yeah, I'd like to have insurance !) , best possible edu ,
overhauling shoddy institutions and stripping out the crap we have built up here in our own house in the 200 plus years of existence.

Over the wkend The Times (NY Times that is) ran the editorial (sorry no link, you'd have to join their site)
headlined 'Modest Proposal : Israel joining NATO'
It's one of the quote 'new ideas' afloat in the 'surge of optimism' after Arafat's death.
To wit, closer ties with NATO - and possibly eventual membership -would embed Israel in the West and by providing security assurances , give Israel more confidence to to make a comprehensive peace .
One Uzi Arad , a former Israeli intel officer and head of the Inst. For Policy and Strategy says
it's time to drop the 'Groucho attitude' towards NATO and work on relationships w/ Europe and US .
Arad has been joined by other American and European officals who helped manage the two expansions of NATO since Soviet collapse and draft NATO's Partnership For Peace which has Georgia and Azerbaijan prettying themselves up for possible membership.
Why Georgia and not Israel ?

Of course, it's up to Israel to go for it , but with NATO reinventing itself to deal more with terrorism
it has to deal with issues that Israel has been dealing with for years ,
(I'm more then ambiv on those efforts, mind you) both sides could benefit from going through the pros and cons .
Together or alone both parties could be facing not only the Middle East issues they know now -
the Israeli - Palestine ongoing back and forth battling and a nuclear Iran ,
but possibly an Islamicized Saudi Arabia or a collaping Egypt.
For the Euopeans then , a benefit would be that they can't let Israel divide Europe from the America , possibly NATO could help Israel get out of their occupation mess.
At NATO's summit in June , the possibility of relationships with each Middle East country was opened.
Arad would like to see Israel seize the chance and start an arrangement like Sweden's (no full membership , but compatibility of forces and consultation.Membership could come later , if at all.

American power has some limit.
Others have to step up .
Watching the first Tower fall from my bedroom window on 9/11 ,
the thought ' is this the beginning of the end of America ? ' raced unbidden through my brain.
And this is from a freelance New Yorker born of German /Ukrainian parents
whose father worked in the Pentagon (in communications , worked on the early Monet, left during Viet Nam) and whose younger brother is in the Air Force .
It's a *ucked up game out there in the RW .

 

[...]

Luka, you shit-stirrer, after my Christmas indulgence, you're dead meat!