Michelle Malkin » Conservatives split: was the NATO conference a big bust?

Conservatives split: was the NATO conference a big bust?

By see-dubya • April 7, 2008 06:13 PM

{A guest post by See-Dubya}

I sense a bit of a split among conservatives about the results of the recent NATO summit. I’m rather frustrated with several of our NATO partners for failing to pull their weight in Afghanistan, and I’m starting to wonder whether it’s worth the investment we have in it if they won’t stand up to the Taliban…and to Putin, which considering the original goal of the thing was to align Europe under an American security guarantee against the Soviets, grinds my gears more than a little.

Max Boot at Commentary‘s blog, Contentions, sounds pretty disillusioned with the whole thing:

The member states refused to endorse a membership action plan for Ukraine or Georgia, thus seeming to give in to hysterical Russian objections—something that will only encourage more Russian truculence in the future. They did admit Croatia and Albania to the alliance, but they did not let Macedonia through the door because of overwrought Greek objections to that state using the same name as a province of Greece.

The members did not agree to a major increase in troop strength in Afghanistan, which is badly needed. The French did come through with another battalion (1,000 troops) for eastern Afghanistan, but that was about it.

On the other hand, here’s some unequivocally good news that I tend to think outweighs the bad. From the Heritage Foundation:

At their summit in Bucharest this week, NATO leaders endorsed U.S. plans for a missile defense system to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic. This represents a major success both for American diplomacy and the transatlantic alliance.[1]

NATO support for America’s plan to install 10 long-range, ground-based missile defense interceptors in Poland and a mid-course radar in the Czech Republic–the “third site”–paves the way for a final agreement on a security deal between Washington, Warsaw, and Prague that will strengthen transatlantic security, counter the evolving Middle Eastern ballistic missile threat, and allow the United States to extend its own security umbrella to that of its European allies.

I like knowing Poland and the Czechs–and any of our strong allies–are under a missile umbrella. Missile defense is important for U.S. targets, too, as the good folks at Missilethreat.com would like to remind you, and check this out:

Following a meeting with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, President Bush noted that the missile defense systems proposed for Europe would in no way threaten the free ride Russian missiles have to the American homeland. “Russia could easily overwhelm the missile defense systems that we have envisioned,” said Bush.

Looking at the original quote, I’m pretty sure Bush was talking about the Russians being able to still nuke European targets, not the American homeland, but either way…

Anyway, NATO: still worth it? Curious about your opinions and any worthwhile links you find.

EDIT: The title of this post and the front page photo…had a little work done.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Homeland Security,War

Printer Friendly

comments (25)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

#1

On April 7th, 2008 at 6:41 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

Dude, lay off Dolly. Regardless of the “work” that’s been done, please don’t mix politics and country music. It’s just NOT right.
#2

On April 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm, see-dubya said:

Hey, all I meant was that I started out with a picture of the NATO flag and realized, damn, this is the most boring-looking post I’ve ever written.

So I changed it and went with a cheap gag from The Naked Gun.

Dolly used only for illustrative purposes.
#3

On April 7th, 2008 at 6:52 pm, zorro said:

NATO: still worth it?

Not too sure anymore. Given the restrictions the Germans have placed on engaging the Taliban and the overall lack of courage from Old Europe I’m leaning towards “not worth it”.
#4

On April 7th, 2008 at 6:54 pm, bit_boy said:

At best NATO is now very introverted and I mostly agree with that if we were to remove American troops in Europe. NATO troops in Afghanistan has always seemed strange after the fact and mostly a favor to America. The arguments against any NATO/American troops in Afghanistan apply to Iraq as well so no need to start yelling about a two front war being bungled and little chance of democracy succeeding in either country.

Given that Russia is very much on a cold war footing inviting them to the party is foolish and if it were not for the Putin/Bush affair, Putin and Russia would not have been there. I think adding Croatia and Albania with Ukraine and Georgia to soon follow is huge. Plus, Poland and Czech Republic standing up for themselves and Europe is note worthy as is Europe accepting the missile shield. NATO is head and shoulders above Bush or McSame as a Commander in Chief.
#5

On April 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm, zorro said:

Dolly used only for illustrative purposes.

Bazookas?
#6

On April 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pm, Boomer said:

I spent a lot of time flying in the NATO area during my active duty days during the bad old cold war days (SAC aircrew). Back then with the credible threat from the Soviet Union it was a very necessary alliance. With the collapse of the Iron Curtain and their pathetic showings in what was once Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan due to cutting their military capabilities until we are stuck carrying most of the load. Even Great Britain is collapsing into Dhimmitude like the rest of Europe. Except for a few strategic bases in the former NATO realm it is time to dissolve this alliance which no longer provides any mutual protection. Let the European Union defend themselves we have wasted too much treasury and blood on the region only to be hated for all the good we have done since 1945.
#7

On April 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pm, Tennessee Dave said:

NATO is going the way of the U.N. We pour in the money and get little in return.
#8

On April 7th, 2008 at 7:02 pm, ajmontana said:

Here’sssssssss Johnny!
#9

On April 7th, 2008 at 7:04 pm, letget said:

Dolly is one ‘of us’. A southern Texas western music icon. The ‘bust’ I think so. NATO and UN is not worth slug slime.
L
#10

On April 7th, 2008 at 7:08 pm, right_on said:

Dolly used only for illustrative purposes.
Bazookas?

Negative good buddy! We be talking torpedoes, :0 !!!
#11

On April 7th, 2008 at 7:58 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

#2…there are no “cheap gags” in any of the Naked Gun epics! This is pure distilled entertainment like Dolly and country music.
#12

On April 7th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, brooklyn red said:

Re: #7 Tennessee Dave said:
NATO is going the way of the U.N. We pour in the money and get little in return.

That pretty much sums it up Sir. Tell me again please why with the Euro worth more than 1.5 US that WE are buying THEM a missile shield?

The warhead that I worry about is the one that comes in on a Mexican truck.
#13

On April 7th, 2008 at 8:29 pm, BOB said:

What is the definition of Global Warming?

Dolly Parton putting on a sweater.
#14

On April 7th, 2008 at 8:30 pm, beenthere said:

This is all very depressing. The best thing we could do at this point is begin withdrawing from NATO. ASAP. We have given Europe a free ride for far too long and whatever value this cold war albatross once had, the cost of keeping NATO is just too great. Let them figure out their own defenses, or let the Islamites have them which they will very soon now. We have enough problems of our own.

As for Bush, every time he opens his mouth the sum total of human knowledge is decreased. He never gets it right. He never gets it at all.
#15

On April 7th, 2008 at 8:31 pm, josetheguerilla said:

Dolly Parton kicks ass!!!!!!!!

NATO is starting to be problematic, however a multinational force is still there. If all the other nations left we’d have to send two divisions to cover all the support roles they do. I’d like to see more countries pulling their own weight as far as combat is concerned. But at this point we have to take what we can get, without breaking up the multinational force currently there. We’re fighting the global war on terror on several fronts, it would be more difficult to go it entirely alone. The UN on the other hand, is not worth the money we throw at it. It’s gone the way of the League of Nations. The UN should go to Dafur, and kick some ass. If the UN can’t keep the peace, what can it do?
#16

On April 7th, 2008 at 9:02 pm, Schweggie said:

Dolly used only for illustrative purposes.

If Laura Ingraham comes over here, I’m getting the $#!% outta dodge!
#17

On April 7th, 2008 at 9:57 pm, Alphonse said:

NATO is relic of the Cold War and merely commits the US to defend all sorts of stinkpot countries who would never stand by our side if sacrifice were called for.

It is always possible to form ad hoc alliances when called for.

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…–G. Washington
#18

On April 7th, 2008 at 10:48 pm, alamedaman said:

NATO: NEVER worth it. Does no one remember Mr. Republican, Bob Taft’s stringent opposition to NATO as well as FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS, which is exactly what this so-called “conservative” administration has done to an even greater degree than Slick Willy
#19

On April 7th, 2008 at 10:48 pm, alamedaman said:

that should be “this so-called conservative has gotten us into to a greater degree than Slick Willie”
#20

On April 7th, 2008 at 10:52 pm, southsideironworks said:

We’ve held Europe’s hand for more than 60 years. I’m all for taking a step back and letting them fend for themselves.
#21

On April 8th, 2008 at 4:05 am, lgm said:

There was another thread today about gratuitous insults. It looks like MM can give like she gets.
#22

On April 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

See-Dubya wrote this piece, littlegirlyman. Pay attention.
#23

On April 8th, 2008 at 10:29 pm, rakkasan said:

Definately time to redefine NATO and reduce our role in the alliance.
#24

On April 23rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm, wise_man said:

“EDIT: The title of this post and the front page photo…had a little work done.”

You could say that
#25

On May 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am, JohnHolliday said:

Strangely, it’s the liberals that really don’t want to get rid of NATO. When Clinton could not get the UN to pass any resolution condemning the “ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans and Congress (at the time, Republican) refused to grant Clinton the power to use the US military, he just bypassed everyone and acted unilaterally by having NATO forces do his dirty work.

The liberals will not get rid of NATO because if they ever need to start another war against Christianity, they can’t guarantee the UN and Congress will go along with them.

Personally, I think bases at places like Rhein-Main are important due to a strategic location. We can always continue to lease the property from the Germans. Other than that, get out of NATO. And if the Germans want us out, maybe should ask the Poles to lease us property for a base.