Arriving today in Poland on his four day trip to Europe, President Obama declared to the Polish people and other NATO countries:
I’m starting the visit here because our commitment to Poland’s security as well as the security of our allies in central and eastern Europe is a cornerstone of our own security and it is sacrosanct…we stand united together and forever.
President Obama’s assurances that we, the American people, are the geopolitical equivalent of BFFs with European NATO countries came with his announcement of an increased U.S. troop presence in Eastern Europe, with a starting price tag of $1 billion from the U.S. treasury. This increase of a U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe, of course, is connected to the recent events in Ukraine. Protecting your friends from democracy-loathing tyrants like Putin is what geopolitical friends are for, right?
Unfortunately, the government of France, also a NATO member, has not been such a good geopolitical friend to the United States, even less so to other NATO member states that are more vulnerable to Russia.
Recently, some members of Congress have expressed concern over France’s sale of two warships to Russia, known as Mistral Carriers. As mentioned in one congressional letter to President Obama, the “ships will provide Russia with newly-bought, advanced military power projection in Eastern Europe, the Southern Caucasus, and the Baltics. Each Mistral has the capacity to carry 16 helicopters, four landing craft, 60 armored vehicles, 13 tanks, and up to 700 soldiers.” This $1.6 billion deal between France and Russia was signed in 2011, just three years after Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia – a geopolitical heads-up that clearly did not register with the French government.
Some may ask, when did it become the profound moral obligation of Americans to go to war on behalf of foreign governments that not only put profits before people, but literally put profits before global security, namely the kind of global security that would move humankind toward peaceful forms of employment rather than building sea-based death machines for gay-bashing tyrants like Vladimir Putin? Answer: probably before you were even born.
Indeed, most Americans were not born in 1949 when Article 5 of the NATO charter, which mandates the collective military defense of NATO member states, was adopted. Nor have we had any concrete opportunities to weigh in on whether we ourselves are willing to die, or more accurately, entice other Americans with paychecks and military honors to die, so that France, for instance, can live free from the tyranny of the Putin regime – the same Putin regime for which it is building said navy ships.
As such, we should amend the U.S. Constitution to subject any provisions of treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory, and which mandate collective military defense, to continuous democratic review – namely, every three months – by both houses of Congress. That way the American people will have the chance to continually weigh in on whether we are willing to bring this nation to war on behalf of foreign nations.
In addition, before the United States gets dragged into another pointless war, it is imperative that we end the wholly immoral for-pay soldiery system in this country; a system that not only arouses the martial spirit in the tiny minority of Americans who posses that spirit – or at least pretend that they do in order to secure a paycheck in a brutal economy – but also allows not so few morally-shallow Americans to engage in the make-believe, “We support the troops!” brand of false patriotism, while they sit back and watch the wars from their living rooms.
Until we modernize the U.S. Constitution by providing ourselves the tools we need to address our modern global realities – instead of the tools for 1787 global realities – President Obama and his successors will continue to tell blatant lies about America’s political consciousness and our nation’s willingness to go to war; lies that not only slap democratic principles in the face, but only serve to provide foreign governments with the fodder they need to gin up their own war machines.
See also: http://tyrannydissolution.wordpress.com
Seems like every time the US steps back from global obligations the world goes to hell. At the moment those countries on the borders of China and Russia are not to thrilled with those 2 powers. Proving a presence i the region does not mean war. It shows support and gives pause to those with designs on their neighbors.
Dear Stan,
I don’t agree with the philosophical and strategic frames inherent in your comment, but I do respect the sincerity of your belief.
A) Philosophically, when you talk about the U.S. stepping back from global obligations, you are talking about a nation of 300 million plus people, the vast, vast majority of whom have never had the opportunity to decide whether to take on those “global obligations” or not. That’s plainly undemocratic; obligations in a democracy, and especially the life and death matter of military obligations to foreign nations, must come by way of public consent, not the decrees of our ancestors.
B) Strategically, your assertion that a U.S. military presence gives pause to would-be aggressor states is true; it gives them enough “pause” to further develop their own military prepartions for eventual war, including ratcheting up their domestic war propaganda machines. Not so sharp, in my view.
That said, under the omnibus reform amendment that I argue for here, so long as the collective military defense provisions of treaties – like Article 5 of the NATO charter and the U.S. – Japan Security Treaty, for examples – are approved by both houses of Congress on a quarterly basis, thus demonstrating that the American people are authentically behind the principle of collective military defense with these foreign nations – and Congress then authorizes troop deployments to those regions in question, you yourself would have the opportunity to physically show your support for these military operations, which you indicate you believe in, by enlisting in the U.S. Army. But you would not get paid for it, thus the Poles, Lithuanians, et al. for whom you would be showing your strong support for would know that your decision to enlist stems entirely from your inner moral convictions, not your financial situation, nor some vague notion about “serving your country,” as if people from all walks of American life who abide by peace-oriented values, and who are not enlisted in the military, are somehow “not serving their country.”
Sincerely,
Timothy Villareal
Stan,
I don’t agree with the philosophical and strategic frames inherent in your comment, but I do respect the sincerity of your belief.
A) Philosophically, when you talk about the U.S. stepping back from global obligations, you are talking about a nation of 300 million plus people, the vast, vast majority of whom have never had the opportunity to decide whether to take on those “global obligations” or not. That’s plainly undemocratic; obligations in a democracy, and especially life and death obligations to foreign nations, must come by way of consent, not the decrees of our ancestors.
B) Strategically, your assertion that a U.S. military presence gives pause to would-be aggressor states is true; it gives them enough “pause” to further develop their own military prepartions for eventual war, including ratcheting up their domestic war propaganda machines. Not so sharp, in my view.
That said, under the omnibus reform amendment I argue for here, so long as the collective military defense provisions of treaties – like Article 5 of the NATO charter and the U.S. – Japan Security Treaty, for examples – are approved by both houses of Congress on a quarterly basis, thus demonstrating that the American people are authentically behind the principle of collective military defense with these foreign nations – and Congress then authorizes troop deployments to those regions in question, you yourself would have the opportunity to physically show your support for these military operations, which you indicate you believe in, by enlisting in the U.S. Army. But you would not get paid for it, thus the Poles, Lithuanians, et al. for whom you would be showing your strong support for would know that your decision to enlist stems entirely from your inner moral convictions, not your financial situation, nor some vague notion about “serving your country,” as if people from all walks of American life who abide by peace-oriented values, and who are not enlisted in the military, are somehow “not serving their country.”
Sincerely,
Timothy Villareal
A. Voters elect representatives to to decide policy. of course there is always an opportunity for the public to weigh in and apply pressure. That is what occurred when there was talk about intervening in Syria. Public pressure forced congress to pull back, but it also made us look weak.
B. On December 7th 1941, the US was a 3rd rate military power. Japan was running roughshod over Asia. The final move was to completely cripple the US ability to challenge its control of Asia. It almost worked. China right now is bullying its neighbors. North Korea, with its unstable young leader, is testing the US resolve. Russia is making its neighbors increasingly uncomfortable. I the end, this does reach our shores and we would not be prepared for it. Maintaining a presence in the region is reassuring to US allies and in fact prevents a open conflict.
C. I am not in favor of an all volunteer army. I prefer a draft through lottery. Everyone has to be eligible for service if needed.
D. The US can not withdraw from the world as it is the most powerful nation on each,
Stan,
On your point A)
As you may recall from the vote last summer over the planned Syria strike, President Obama decided to go through Congress, probably because he knew he would get a “no” vote. U.S. presidents before him have pursued different courses, and absent reform, there will be more presidents in the future claiming executive powers in such circumstances. As to your point about the Syria strike resolution being voted down, I think only bullies would concern themselves with what “makes them look weak.” I think a moral, responsible country that is not a bully should concern itself with saving innocent human life; in this case, Syria, that means the thousands of innocent Syrian people who have been gassed, burned, tortured and butchered by the Assad regime.
On your points B and C, there is a most interesting, albeit dysfunctional, connection:
You express concern about the array of global hot spots right now, and some nations testing U.S. “resolve.” But then you go on to mention a “draft through lottery.”
With all due respect, has it ever dawned on you that a nation that would need to adopt a “daft lottery” in the very first place – thus clearly indicating that most of its adult population recoils at the thought of fighting in a war – does not possess the “resovle” to go to war in the first place?
As to your last point, point D, you write,
“The US can not withdraw from the world as it is the most powerful nation on each.”
I assume “on each” is a typo. I’ve had plenty of typos in my day, so I don’t fault you there. Yet as concerns your point about global withdrawal, there is nothing I’ve written here or in other posts to promote U.S. withdrawal from the world stage. On the contrary, I believe in a proactive, pro-peace and human rights foreign policy, including intervention to help stave off genocide in the Central African Republic, a no-fly zone over the murderer/torturer Bashar al Assad’s Syria, pursuing alternative, mutli-lateral paths to eventually dissolve the Russian army – as opposed to what NATO member France is doing by building deadly warships for Russia – along with enhancement of international law enforcement capabilities, and any number of other internationalist stances.
Thus, your typo is excusable. However, the notion that those individuals who live in a total fiction about the society they live in (the vast majority of Americans are not war-like people) are the ones who can best define what “national engagement” with the world looks like versus “national withdrawal,” is simply preposterous.
Tragically, our current constitutional framework for dealing with the wider world – which hasn’t substantively changed since 1787 – favors those who indeed choose to live in such a total fiction about the society in which they live. That’s what I think we need to change.
Sincerely,
Timothy Villareal
http://tyrannydissolution.wordpress.com
Both writers seem to have fallen prey to the notion that the US is all GOOD and Russia all BAD! It’s interesting that this country is referred to as the U.S., France is referred to as France, while Russia is referred to as Putin.
Dear Shanti,
I’ve shared my ideas for how to prevent young American men and women from becoming cannon fodder for the military industrial complex of the United States. I’ve also shared my ideas for how to prevent young Russian men from becoming cannon fodder for Vladimir Putin and his cronies.
For the sake of our planet, please share your own ideas for how to achieve that outcome, rather than playing the role of priest/priestess of political correctness.
Sincerely,
Timothy Villareal
LIES? ha that’s a laugh heres the real lies….
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html
You call for the dissilusion of the Russian army, yet make no such call for the US army. Who has invaded more countries?
(In case you fell for the propaganda of the US media, there was no “invasion of Crimea”, there was already a base there, and the legal authorities of Ukraine asked for Russian assistance after the illegal armed coup that the US sponsored there took place, and the legal authorities fled for their live after armed thugs took over the government buildings and forced the Ukrainian parliament to vote the way they wanted at gunpoint.) Keep in mind, it is Kiev that is bombing Donestk, not Russia. This makes the US-initiated coup government there every bit as bad as Assad, if not worse, as Assad was actually elected BEFORE bombing the areas controlled by armed, violent, and mainly foreign terrorists. (Can we agree that publishing videos of beheadings, dismemberments, and even cannibalism is intented to evoke terror?)
This is not to say Putin is by any means a “good guy”, but when one looks at how the US has treated Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, Jeremy Hammond, Aaron Swartz, Mumia, Peltier, Fred Hampton, MLK (as the courts have shown, the FBI was behind his assassination), Abdulrahman Al-Awaki, the Gitmo prisoners, the Berrigan Brothers, etc, I think we have a LOT of house cleaning to get our own country in order before we can, in good conscience, demonize Putin for signing into law a bill that is not all that different from lawns in various states in this country.
You continue on about how bad Assad is, yet you make no mention of the atrocities committed by those (largely made up of foreign fighters and funded by the US, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, and others) – The big “chemical weapons attack” originated from “rebel” – held territories, and as Mint Press reported, was provided to the “rebels” by Prince Bandar and triggered due to an incompetence-caused accident, at least according to those rebel fighters who claimed to have accidentally fired the missle – which did not have a long enough range to have been fired by Assad’s forces.)
I also notice the slight-of-hand when pointing out that Obama sought Congressional approval for Syria, and then commenting that other presidents had not done the same. I am guessing that this is a reference to Bush (who DID seek approval before launching his wars of aggression, we know this as the AUMF, which is what Obama is still claiming gives him the right to launch drone strikes anywhere and everywhere). Remember, it was Obama that initiated aggressions against Libya without seeking congressional approval (and, much like his predecessor, doing so based on lies, which even Human Rights Watch felt the need to recant after they had initially propogated them).
You do realize that a “no-fly zone” means bombing civilian infrastructure, right?
And the US is largely responsible for the genocides in the Central African Republic, much like we were the ones who, through Uganda, armed the Tutsis in the Rwandan Genocide. (see “Twenty Years Ago, The US was Behind the Genocide: Rwanda, Installing a US Proxy State in Central Africa” by Michel Chossudovsky for exhaustive detail on this.) M23 is funded by the US as well.
If there is going to be peace in CAR it can only happen if the US stayes out of it, as the US is a nation whose entire economy and status is based on war profiteering (and has been since WWI). The US does not create peace, as peace would destroy the basis of its economy.
Considering we spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined, have more bases around the world than anyone else, have launched multiple wars of aggression in the last half century, and are regularly bombing countries we have not even declared wars against, and have left death and destruction from Grenada to Libya to Vietnam to Pakistan to Yemen to Cambodia to Columbia to Afghanistan to El Salvador to Iran to Nicaragua to Chile to the Philipines to Korea to Somalia to Indonesia to Panama in the last half century, and indeed we are a nation built on genocide and slavery who has never even attempted to make reparations to those who our national fortunes were built on, to think that any other nation should dissolve their ability to defend against us, before we dismantle our capability and obvious inclination to invade others seems rather foolish to me…
You can use http://www.pinproxy.com It is the best online proxy found i have listed some features of it to help you. They have no ads.(this is why i like them) Supports almost every website. Best support for youtube,faceook,myspace and much more. They are on seperate private servers.not in a shared host so youget the best performance. and the best part is youcan use what ever of the subdomain and access there proxy. example: you can access the proxy from *.domain.com replace * with whatever word you like.