Skip to content

Captain Dunsel Named NATO Commander

14 April 2011 @ 11:02

Actually, he’s been running the show for quite some time.

When the Soviet Union fell, I was one of those folks who thought NATO should be kept around because it had worked so well during The Cold War at keeping the nations of The West working together to combat totalitarian dangers and because it would promote stability in the European Theater. I began to sour on it during the Clinton years, but my belief in it as a useful organization was revived somewhat as I watched the rise of Fascist Russia.

However, I must admit I was wrong. NATO was not the right apparatus – it was not adaptable to a non-Cold War world – most especially once The United States began to lose it’s will to enforce the Pax Americana during the 1990’s through now [George W. Bush deserves blame for not understanding what the Pax meant and what it, therefore, required].

NATO is The United States. Like the alliances The Roman Republic and Empire used to make with other nations and tribes were dominated by Rome, it can exist as a powerful and useful force only when one nation dominates it, and when it is feared by the forces of tyranny. Without the enthusiastic leadership of America, NATO is just another meddlesome, incompetent, bureaucrat-dominated nightmare. The word ‘feckless’ only begins to describe the organization. NATO is nothing but an embarrassment to the nations of The West, a sign of it’s exhaustion and decline.

If there was any doubt that NATO should be dissolved, it’s campaign in Libya should erase it once and for all.

In his Daily Libya Update for today, Stacy McCain quotes from and links to a CBS News Opinion piece by Robert Burns that accurately highlights one of the main problems with the situation:

President Barack Obama’s insistence that NATO, not the U.S., take the lead in attacking Moammar Gadhafi’s military is exposing a hard truth about an alliance that never before fought an air campaign with the U.S. in a back seat. Even against an enemy as weak as Libya, NATO needs the backbone of U.S. might to fight effectively.

It’s not a matter of NATO’s 27 non-U.S. member countries having too few combat aircraft, pilots or bombs. The problem instead is that while some, such as France and Britain, are willing to participate fully, others have limited their roles to noncombat action, and still others have decided not to participate militarily at all.

All have grown accustomed to a far different alignment — one in which the U.S. leads the way and bears the bulk of the combat burden. That’s not a surprise, given that NATO was created in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against the threat of an invasion of western Europe by the former Soviet Union.

Libya was supposed to be different.

Sure…in the fantasies of the NATO members, most especially in the ones of Barack The Unready, this would be the successful launch of the New Internationalist Order. Instead, as the Editors at The Wall Street Journal write [subscription may be required to view the full piece]:

…If the U.S., France and Britain can’t topple a tinhorn despot like Gadhafi who is loathed by most of his own people, the damage to Western credibility will be severe and long-lasting.

The West is already seen by the rest of the world as a dying and dessicated giant. Failure, and it will come, will pound another nail into the coffin of the greatest civilization the world has ever known and is ever likely to know.

The Libyan/NATO situation reminds me of the one in the novel The Camp Of The Saints, where the leaders of The West refuse to see the Last Chance Armada for what it is and devise plans that don’t have a basis in Reality. Readers of the book know how that scenario played out – Western Civilization was overrun by the Third World and died with a whimper.

Could This Be One Explanation?

  1. Adobe Walls permalink
    14 April 2011 @ 13:19 13:19

    An objective appraisal of the EU’s Social policies particularly regarding immigration it’s tolerance of Islam’s stealth jihad and multiculturalism the decline of Europe’s appreciation of it’s own culture tells the whole sad tale. Contrasting what the EU is and stands for with the purpose of NATO really say’s it all.
    Followed the link in your comment over at RSM to here. As the risk of being dense I don’t get Wombat’s reference regarding the Supremes opening ugly doors.

  2. Adobe Walls permalink
    14 April 2011 @ 14:17 14:17

    Off topic suggestion for potential quote of the day From Mark Steyn:

    “And yes, yes, I’ve heard all the insiders wearily explaining the fascinating differences between “spending,” “spending authority,” “spending authority rescission,” “spending authority rescission re-appropriation,” etc., but I wonder if Republicans are aware that the more they talk like that the more they sound like Nancy Pelosi for post-moderns: We have to pass the gargantuan bill so you can find out how little’s in it.”

  3. bobbelvedere permalink*
    15 April 2011 @ 16:31 16:31

    Adobe: Steyn is just so damn good, ain’t he?

    I think Wombat failed to see that I was being sarcastic in my reworking of the Holmes quote [I was disappointed that no one got the ‘Mike Holmes’ reference – as a homeowner, I love the guy].

  4. Adobe Walls permalink
    15 April 2011 @ 19:02 19:02

    So he was thinking Oliver Wendel?

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      15 April 2011 @ 23:25 23:25

      Adobe: He thought I wanted to apply the OWH logic to all Muslims.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: