GOP Failure Watch Part IV (the Majority in Congress edition)

I know I continuously get accused of isolationism (I am not) but maybe the issue is that NATO needs to be transformed into a purely European defense community. That is we and the Canadians really should drop out and let the Europeans decide how best to secure their own territory.

Russia IS a threat to her immediate neighbors. If I were a Balt or Polish I would be concerned right now. But let's get some perspective here. With the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia lost 1/3 of here population and 1/4 of her territory. Russian troops are now 800 miles east of Berlin, not a week's march from the Rhine. Europeans mostly do not take their own security seriously (how many of those nations meet the 2% GDP requirement?). And why should they? They can spend the money on health care and trains and let the Americans bankrupt themselves. after the Crimean crisis, a Pew survey found that majorities in Italy, France and Germany would NOT come to the aid of a NATO member under attack (and while unspoken, the context was a Russian attack on the Baltic states).

The conundrum is that only way to get the Europeans to take their own security seriously is for us to threaten to leave NATO. But if they meet the 2% GDP requirement, then they do not need us. But given the nature of the Russian threat, we cannot just get up and leave.

I think the answer is to do what Eisenhower suggested in the late 1940s -- tell the Europeans our troops go home in 10 years. That gives them enough time to readjust budgetary priorities and to make it a smooth transition. Maybe we even stay on as part of the Atlantic Treaty, just leave NATO general command like the French did in the 1960s.

As for Montenegro -- recent polls there show more people against NATO membership than for it, though the numbers move back and forth.

I think with respect to Italy, there was a large pro-communist movement after the war, but there was an anti-communist consensus. In 1948, the election that involved both the US and USSR spending lots of money and planting false news on the non-favored side (and which featured my grandparents writing their relatives back in Italy telling them not to vote communist) the Popular Front scored about 31% of the vote. The other parties other than the rump of the fascists, tended to support NATO and Italy facing West in one way of the other (they may have disagreed on the issue of republic against monarchy or social issues and of course economics, but they wanted an Italy in the West). You do not have that in Montenegro.

As for John McCain -- you are the only candidate I ever maxed out donations to. I was really sad the night you lost. You continue to make me happy you did.

 

You may have noticed that we have a an anti-NATO president, yet defense spending is going way up.

 

Yes I have noticed that.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877–1878)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Eastern_Crisis_(1875–78)

All of the estuary between Islam and Orthodox Christianity has fallen into this sphere. Were still fighting WW I in this respect. Russia has had eyes for Istanbul for ever. They still dont have secure access to the Atlantic. Stuffing NATO up to their borders is walling them in and exactly what Yeltsin was promised wouldnt happen. Retracting NATO is equally dangerous. Its why the next great European war will result from some damn fool thing in the Baltics.

Same thing with the Middle East. Borders and Nationalities dont overlay well enough. Demographics is always at odds with administration.

 

Yeah, how does that work? Wasn't Trump campaigning by suggesting that the U.S. spends too much on defense (because others don't spend enough)?

 

You're assuming Trump is operating on some level of rationality.

That's a bad assumption.

 

He likes shiny things. Gold plated aircraft carriers good. HC for citizens...mehh

 

He's clearly balancing out the budget by cutting other wasteful programs.... duhhhh....

 

Yeah, I was about to say....

This was the other thing I was about to say.

That's what I'm worried about. Trump is a complete ********ing public policy moron. Will the GOPs in Congress at least try to be rational and internally consistent? The trendlines aren't good.

 

No, of course not.

On the other hand, since when was that important to the polity (or even superdave)?

 

I just posted this on the cartoon thread, but I think it perfectly conveys the mood of the Trump administration:

 

Why do you believe this?

 

For a lot of reasons. Here are a few

First, I do not think we can continue to spend the money we do on defense. And to reduce defense spending we need to reduce our defense commitments around the world. And that requires Europe to increase their defense spending, which they won't do if we continue to defend them

Second, I believe that NATO was formed for a specific purpose and was wildly successful. And when something succeeds to the point that its reason for existence is drummed out of existence, it is time to declare victory and go home

Third, at this point US and the Europeans have different concerns and this divergence will continue over the next 20 years as American and European demographics change. America is becoming less European and more Latin American and Asian. Hence American interests will turn south and towards Asia. European interests will be more about addressing the Russian issue as well as managing the influx of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East.I think that had the EU taken the lead on the Maidan crisis, and not the US through NATO, maybe it would have come out a bit better though Crimea probably still ends up in Russia.

 

Well you have to start somewhere, I am ok with Paul standing his ground.

 

So are you ready to give Trump credit here

 

I appreciate your being willing to talk on this. I do not believe there is a "right" answer here. So what I offer are only my unvarnished opinions.

I agree that we need to cut defense spending. Reducing our presence in Europe may help. I think reducing our presence in MENA and Central Asia would do a great deal more.

My understanding of NATO is that it is a mission with an unending purpose: keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. Every time in modern history that the Germans have militarized, there have been problems.

I think that the transfer of American perspective from Europe to Asia/Latin America is a bit overblown. Asian-Americans are less than 5% of the country, and Latin Americans are less than 15%. Moreover, most Latin American people see Europe as their ancestral homelands, same as us. Plus Europe is still the world's second-largest economy. I don't think things are going to shift any time soon.

Just my two thoughts. While I disagree, I do so amicably.

 

For many reasons - tradition, dickwaving, Super Bowl flyovers, JOBS! - the military industrial complex will not go softly into that good nite. You know it & I know it.

 

One of my issues with America today is that we automatically attribute malevolence to disagreements. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. We can be vehement in our beliefs. We do not have to think the other is evil for it.

Look -- something we agree on! Having bases in the middle east was important at one time to protect our oil supply Reagan had the best idea I think -- build the bases, but essentially not use them unless an enemy threatens the region. But frankly, thanks to franking and the Canadians, middle eastern oil is not as important for us anymore. And hopefully as we move towards other energy sources middle eastern oil will be less and less expensive.

Actually until 1870, it was the other way around, Germany was usually the one getting beat up by her neighbors, especially France. Anyway, Russia is down WAAAYYY down these days. And having spent a lot of time in Germany, I really am not concerned about them coming back. Times change and policies must change with them.

But how many Americans have parents or grandparents still alive from the old country? Few white Americans do. Lots of Asians and Latinos do. But is is more of an issue about where our economy is going.

 

ok, Wall Street will not go softly into the night, it does not mean you have to support everything they do.

 

Anthony is not wrong, we Liberals always bitch and complain that we spend too much on the military (and we do), cutting that back to a more "reasonable" level would mean closing down a shit lot of military bases and cutting back on the support we give our allies.

The European Union as the 2nd biggest economy (or 3rd?) in the world should be able to fund their own defense, in this particular area IMO, Trump is more right than wrong, you can disagree with the way he goes about it, but he is not totally bunkers here (unless he is in the pocket of Putin).

 

What the ******** are you trying to do, destroy the internet?

 

Brummie started it.

 

Hey I'm on board with a military re-set both at home & abroad. Seems that there's no will among our elected officials, however. And now Trump thinks it's 1982 all over again.

Maybe during my kids' lifetimes?

 

Well, most liberals. I might be the only libertarian in existence who thinks we need to keep US troops in Germany and Japan throughout the 21st century. I think that being the world's only superpower is a shitty, shitty job, and nobody does it well, but we're already doing it so we might as well do it better than we currently are. And I'd much rather we do it better, than nobody do it at all.

I feel this way about Germans most of the time. Then I watch Bayern and Dortmund games and see the fans chanting. Then I get uneasy again.

I dunno. Honestly. I dunno. We've seen too many waves of immigrants over the past two hundred years get assimilated, and the "end of the Industrial Revolution" declared far too frequently, for me to have any concrete opinion on the subject of where our economy will pivot based on migrant backgrounds.

 

He's not the only one who thinks that.