Defending Bush

It's rare that I have the opportunity, but here goes -- Mark Krikorian's got an anti-Bush screed up on the Corner that doesn't even involve immigration:

Croatia and Albania are going to join NATO. So now an attack on Albania will be an act of war against the United States. Can someone explain to me how this is in our national interest? I have three sons myself, and I can't spare any of them to die defending one pissant Balkan dump against another pissant Balkan dump.

The obvious starting point of analysis here is that the odds of any American troops dying in a war for the defense of Albania are vanishingly small. And that's the point. Albania is a small and weak country that one could imagine some neighbor maybe trying to push around with military force. But nobody's going to want to take on NATO over some beef with Albania. Meanwhile, over the longer term the goal would be to bring the entire Balkans into a common security architecture that could help ensure the peace among all of them.

Recall that NATO's great achievement in the 1940s and 50s wasn't just that it helped face down the Soviets. That was important, of course, but in many ways equally important was that it allowed the various countries of Western Europe to rebuild their militaries without those militaries appearing threatening to other European countries.

Comments

"Meanwhile, over the longer term the goal would be to bring the entire Balkans into a common security architecture that could help ensure the peace among all of them."

Yeah, can we call it "Yugoslavia"? I'm with Krikorian here. Don't go promising to defend places unless you absolutely know you want to defend them when the shooting starts.

Posted by Helter | April 3, 2008 3:54 PM

This of course brings to mind Bismarck's line, "The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."

He was a quotable guy.

Posted by Kraz | April 3, 2008 3:56 PM

Originally, NATO was designed to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out. Now that all three of those missions are obsolete, its goal is to "bring the entire Balkans into a common security architecture?"

You're fucking with me, right?

The first step is to get rid of NATO.

The second step is for Europe to get their shit together and form a common foreign policy and a unified EU military command.

The third step is for humanity's successor species on both sides of the Atlantic to sign a bilateral defense agreement like the US has with other key allies like Japan.

Because the defense of Albania is not worth the bones of one American Grenadier, though it may be worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier.

Posted by calipygian | April 3, 2008 3:57 PM

But presumably Krikorian's fine with having his sons die defending an Iranian supported Maliki in Iraq, right? Right?

Posted by Ugh | April 3, 2008 4:05 PM

I am not entirely sure why somebody would invade Albania in the first place. It's filled to the rim with ethnic Albanians, with a sizable ethnic Italian population for good measure. No real grounds for the sort of shenanigans we typically see come out of the Balkans. The only industry to speak of is European tourism. It seems likely that an invasion of a foreign power into Albania would result in a strong response from Italy, and thus the EU, anyways. NATO membership for Albania is like formal adoption by a loving stepparent; nice but you'd get the benefits anyways.

Posted by roboticghost | April 3, 2008 4:06 PM

even if bush has the policy right, odds are that he will bollocks it up in some important implementation detail. Defend him at your peril.

Posted by theCoach | April 3, 2008 4:07 PM

This strikes me as equivalent to arguing we shouldn't want Cornwall in NATO because why would we want to go to war to defend just one little place like Cornwall.

In other words, I think most external military threats Albania is likely to face are highly unlikely to be limited to just Albania.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 4:11 PM

one pissant Balkan dump against another pissant Balkan dump.

Man, the imperial contempt is breathtaking. If a place isn't worth Americans fighting for, it's worthless, period. A country and its people have only so much value as the Pentagon assigns them.

With people like Krikorian as the public face of America, it's no wonder so many people hate us.

Posted by Ryan | April 3, 2008 4:21 PM

I was under the impression that NATO did the opposite, that it allowed Western Europe to rebuild their economies without having to build up a large army to deal with the threat of Soviet invasion. Rather, they knew that even though the Red Army could march right through to the Atlantic if it wanted, the US reprisal would be devestating.

Posted by freddiemac | April 3, 2008 4:22 PM

Albania has "a sizable ethnic Italian population"?

Are you sure about that? I think the ethnic Italians all got brutally ethnically cleansed from the Dalmatian coast in 1945 (and I don't think there were ever many in Albania other than colonial officers). Yet another tragedy of WWII.

Posted by vanya | April 3, 2008 4:25 PM

Wait-a-minute. What "other European countries" are you referring to? Do you mean western Eurpoean countries, i.e. the NATO members, or the Warsaw Pact countries? Post WW2 Europe was arguably a bi-polar world. Of course (post WW2 and somewhat pacifist) Germany and France rebuilding their militaries did not threaten the U.K., Belgium, etc. b/c those militaries in conjuction w/ the U.S. was a guard against (and a positive) the bigger threat of communist USSR.

Posted by Poncedeleon | April 3, 2008 4:27 PM

But presumably Krikorian's fine with having his sons die defending an Iranian supported Maliki in Iraq, right? Right?

He's probably not fine with that either, but would have no problem whatsoever with everyone else giving up a few sons for the cause.

Posted by JH | April 3, 2008 4:28 PM

The most likely war involving those countries is between fellow NATO members Albania and Macedonia over heavily Albanian western Macedonia, with perhaps fellow NATO member Greece joining in as revenge for Macedonia stealing the sacred name of Alexander the Greek's homeland.

But, it wouldn't happen as a tank invasion, it would happen as aide to rebels (who are more like gangsters).

It's all incredibly stupid, but now Article Five says, kind of sort of, that we would go to war over this.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 3, 2008 4:30 PM

Sung to the tune of "And the Saints Go Marching In"

Albania. Albania. You border on the Adriatic! Your land is mostly mountainous, and your chief export is chrome.

Posted by Coach Pantuso | April 3, 2008 4:36 PM

"The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."

That would be one well trained dog.

Posted by daveNYC | April 3, 2008 4:37 PM

Oh, I noticed that Matt's post leaves out the fact that Macedonia is also being added to NATO, which makes the whole thing look even stupider.

Look, most of the fighting in this part of the world involves gang wars organized around extended family ties. NATO, in contrast, exists to fight the Big One in the Fulda Gap.

This is just makework for NATO bureaucrats whose jobs no longer have a reason to exist and their close personal friends, the defense contractors.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 3, 2008 4:40 PM

Why on Earth would the US want NATO broken up? It gives "us" a significant say in European affairs, and therefore some ability to steer them away from directions that would seriously fuck our shit up.

Much the same goes for the UN. For just about anything that really mattered, the UN carried the US' water, while giving other nations a place to piss and moan. Jesse Helms had a cultural impediment to recognizing the benefits of subsidizing a place where pissant countries could feel good blowing off steam, coming from a step-n-fetch-it background. He could clothe his disability with fine words in Foreign Affairs, but the end result of his actions hurt more than they helped... in that they didn't help at all.

Posted by cmholm | April 3, 2008 4:41 PM

RE:Defending Bush

I love you, Matthew, but you're wrong on this one.

Reflexively justifying military obligations in obscure, distant, unimportant countries---which just happen to lie close to another large world power---is asking for trouble without any commensurate gain. Put the shoe on the other foot and you'll see what I mean. Suppose Russia signed a mutual defense treaty with Mexico and other Central American countries. It would stir up a firestorm here in the U.S. and become a huge obstacle to peaceful relations. It would be a stupid provocation. We wouldn't trust the Russians, and, frankly, based on our recent actions, why should they trust us?

Posted by dean rindy | April 3, 2008 4:46 PM

"Suppose Russia signed a mutual defense treaty with Mexico and other Central American countries."

Or suppose Russia did that with Canada, by joining NATO. In my view as an American, that would be a good thing, in part because that would also mean Russia would be doing that with the United States.

That, of course, suggests the hidden premise of all these "X can't join NATO because it would make the Russians mad" arguments: the premise is apparently that the United States and Russia are necessarily rivals, so if a country allies itself with one, it cannot be allied with the other. But if you drop that premise and imagine a world in which the United States and Russia are allies, then you can have other countries being allies of both.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 5:00 PM

I'm sure that Krikorian has even more amusing things to say about the Turks being in NATO.

The long-view history of the calamitous Bush years is going to have a lot to say about the fucking-over of NATO in 2001-3. (As would George Robertson, a very good person to talk to on this subject.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 3, 2008 5:02 PM

Steve, Macedonia is not in. Yet.

Posted by Damir | April 3, 2008 5:05 PM

This is just the U.S. and Western Europe buying a little goodwill in some of the dumpier places in Eastern and Southern Europe. On balance, it's a net benefit to have that goodwill and the cost is pretty minimal.

Posted by blah | April 3, 2008 5:07 PM

Incidentally, the idea that the most likely military action involving Albania is a war with Macedonia is a bit like saying the most likely military action involving Canada is a war with the United States. I mean, who else would Canada invade if not the United States?

In other words, once again I think some people are failing to grasp that there are collective security threats that go beyond local conflicts even in a post-Cold War world, and coordinating the activities of member states to help deal with those collective threats is NATO's new primary mission.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 5:20 PM

If you wanted to bring the rest of the Balkans into a security pact, the last countries you would invite would be Croatia and Albania. Croatia, of course, was the first region to break from the Serbs (there are historical reasons for that) and Albania is the only Balkan country that is Muslim.

But hey, what's not to like- you have your black priests with daggers in the form of a crucifix, you have your Albanian mobsters smuggling Afghani opium and brokering illegal arms deals with our surrogates in Iraq- it's only natural these countries should join NATO. Our CIA has always worked hand-in-hand with Croatian priests and mobsters.

Posted by serial catowner | April 3, 2008 5:39 PM

So now an attack on Albania will be an act of war against the United States. Can someone explain to me how this is in our national interest? I have three sons myself, and I can't spare any of them to die defending one pissant Balkan dump against another pissant Balkan dump.

Since it's Albania we're talking about, the 'war' will only happen on a movie set.

Best kind of war, btw. Far better than the one we're engaged in right now.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | April 3, 2008 5:49 PM

Incidentally, the idea that the most likely military action involving Albania is a war with Macedonia is a bit like saying the most likely military action involving Canada is a war with the United States. I mean, who else would Canada invade if not the United States?
This is exactly my point. Who would profit from invading Albania? Not anybody I can think of in the area. There's not much there. It was sort of a natural resource ATM for the Soviets for a while, but other than some potential to develop light industry in some places I can't see why anybody would want it. The majority of the population are atheists so there's no axe to grind there. Its pretty ethnically homogeneous. For my part, I'm boldly standing up for Iceland against invasion by Brazil.

The usual much ado from our friends at The Corner.

Posted by RoboticGhost | April 3, 2008 5:52 PM

Does Krikorian's anger have anything to do with the religion or tint of the people in the region? If the Albanians looked and prayed like the Swedes, would he have the same sort of unreasonable outrage?

Posted by ben | April 3, 2008 6:02 PM

Hmm - in order to keep peace in the Balkans would you want all the states in a common security architecture like NATO or would you want some of them and some of them out? If one NATO state attacks another then does Article V still apply?

I actually should do the responsible thing and just look this up..

Posted by reader | April 3, 2008 6:26 PM

Be careful. Albania could easily serve, in future, as a Trojan horse for Jihadist ambitions in the Balkans. At a time when Europe is facing the looming threat of the Muslim demographic rise, it would be very ill advised to welcome another Muslim state into NATO.

Europe, by definition, needs to remain a Christian continent.

Posted by Hector | April 3, 2008 6:28 PM

Europe, by definition, needs to remain a Christian continent.

Yeah. Maybe a country in the middle of Europe will take it upon itself to make that sentiment a reality. We can call it Bermany and it can be led by a Kazi guy named Gaydolf Bitler.

Posted by calipygian | April 3, 2008 6:54 PM

The worst thing is that this jackass has no clue about history. Between 1914 and 1918, almost 10 million soldiers, including more than 100,000 Americans (not to mention about 5% of the population of France), died as a direct result of "one pissant Balkan dump" attacking "another pissant Balkan dump."

Remember after 9/11, when they said that irony was dead?

Posted by Andrew | April 3, 2008 7:17 PM

NATO in the 1940s? What are you talking about? It didn't start until April. 1949. Yikes, you gotta get your facts straight.

Posted by General Marshall | April 3, 2008 7:20 PM

I find it highly amusing that Europe "by definition" has to remain dominated by a religion founded by some dude from the Middle East, and therefore cannot allow a country actually in Europe to participate in NATO because that particular country has too many adherents of some other religion founded by another dude from the Middle East.

Anyway, the bad news for Hector is that Europe, and NATO, has already has gotten off the Christian bandwagon. For example, proud NATO member Czech Republic is well less than 50% Christian, largely thanks to being well over 50% atheist.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 7:57 PM

Be careful. Albania could easily serve, in future, as a Trojan horse for Jihadist ambitions in the Balkans.

I totally disagree. Ethnic Albanians are incredibly pro-US, regardless of their muslim religion. Do you all not remember Kosovo? Not one person has mentioned Kosovo in this entire post, and it seems like the main reason we would want Albania in NATO. When the Serbs attacked Kosovo muslims (nearly 100% ethnic Albanian), it created a massive humanitarian crisis in Albania because everyone fled across the border. And who led the charge to support both Albania and Kosovo against the Serbs? The United States. I went to both Albania and Kosovo this year and I never met a single person who didn't outwardly praise the United States.

Now that Kosovo has declared independence our support for Albania is natural. This anti-Muslim business is absurd, by the way.

Posted by Ryan Nee | April 3, 2008 8:06 PM

Wasn't war in Albania the central plot element in Wag the Dog? Oh wait, that was a fake war.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 3, 2008 8:13 PM

This Mark Krikorian is such a stupid mofo. I wander how idiots like him get paid a lot of money for "non-profit" work. Parasites like him, incite hatred and make America so unpopular in the world. Albania is a country that is not in any danger. There has not been a war there since WWII and those people are crazy for Americans. This is the first step for Albania to join the EU. They get security guarantees, pretty much disband their army, and they join the EU. Who are Albanians going to fight a war with anyway.

Posted by Michael | April 3, 2008 8:54 PM

I'm neither in support of the EU nor of NATO. And I think it's exactly things like NATO and other organs of American imperialism that make us hated throughout the world. We have no business trying to export our 'values' to Albania, the Ukraine, Venezuela, Cuba or any other country. The US needs to let the rest of the worlds run its own show, and mind its own business. It's none of our business whether Albania is capitalist, socialist, 'democracy' or 'dictatorship.'

I don't particularly care whether Albanians are loyal supporters of America or not. Christianity is more important than America, and it's more important to be Christian than to be pro-American.

Posted by Hector | April 3, 2008 10:50 PM

"I'm neither in support of the EU nor of NATO. And I think it's exactly things like NATO and other organs of American imperialism that make us hated throughout the world. We have no business trying to export our 'values' to Albania, the Ukraine, Venezuela, Cuba or any other country. The US needs to let the rest of the worlds run its own show, and mind its own business. It's none of our business whether Albania is capitalist, socialist, 'democracy' or 'dictatorship.'"

So Chavez hates us because of NATO enlargement? You're not making much sense here. Anti-Americanism outside of Russia is based more on things like various coups we've backed, American military financial support for Israel, heavy-handedness at the IMF, etc. instead of NATO enlargement. Basically you're arguing that common security pacts in which nations agree to defend each other lead to anti-Americanism. No one is forcing Albania to join NATO.

"I don't particularly care whether Albanians are loyal supporters of America or not. Christianity is more important than America, and it's more important to be Christian than to be pro-American.

Posted by Hector | April 3, 2008 10:50 PM"

As an American non-Christian, go fuck yourself.

Posted by Reality Man | April 4, 2008 12:47 AM

A-fucking-men. The world went downhill when religious nuts hijacked morality.

Posted by Go Reality Man | April 4, 2008 1:00 AM

Albania! Kosovo!

The two biggest hotbeds of criminal Mafia groups on the planet outside of Russia, Hong Kong, and Sicily!

Brilliant, Matt!

You're an idiot.

It's not an attack on Albania that is the issue - it's that between the major criminal gangs in Turkey - the "hidden state" - and the ones in Albania and Kosovo, you've got enough major destabilizing factors that NATO will be utterly unable to deal with.

NATO can deal with Germans, French, Italians, whatever. They're all Europeans - despite centuries of dislike, they understand each other. Hector is an idiot, but he's partially right - culturally, there isn't that big a difference between the NATO nations - at least the ones before the Soviet Union broke up.

Muslims in Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey are not "Europeans". You have two totally different cultures.

As I said in earlier threads, economic and cultural ties come FIRST - THEN you start thinking about military and security ties. Not the reverse.

Get a fucking clue.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 4, 2008 3:51 AM

Bet he can't spare any sons to fight the Iraq War he loves so much, either.

Posted by merl allen | April 4, 2008 4:40 AM

Shorter Krikorian: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!”

Posted by ajay | April 4, 2008 4:41 AM

The real question is whether NATO is a defense or an offense organization. Neither Western Europe nor the US and Canada are seriously threatened any more. But for former Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union members, NATO membership guarantees lasting freedom from Russian domination. That means they are being defensive when they join NATO, while NATO is being offensive when it allows them to join. It's all about reducing the influence of Russia. It means allowing countries like Poland and the Czech Republic to thumb their noses at Russia, where otherwise they would be more careful. It means surrounding Russia with potential enemies.

This is what the summit was about. Bush wanted NATO to expand - nice for the countries invited to join, but offensive from a more global perspective. Most European countries don't want to push Russia against the wall. Albania, Croatia - Russia doesn't care about those, so this was a safe way to throw Bush a bone. (Similarly, the missile defense agreement: Europeans don't believe it can work, so they don't care either way.)

Ultimately countries like Ukraine need to receive security guarantees, but not in a way that will fan the flames of paranoia in Russia. Don't count on anything to happen until the US elects a competent administration.

Posted by Hans B | April 4, 2008 4:43 AM

Hector, Albania has a largely secular culture. In that it resembles the rest of Europe, and eosceially after 40 years of brutally atheist governmment its religious character is severely weak. Moreovere it is not, and enevr was universally Muslim (and Islam is Balkan Islam which is as different from Saudi Islam as the Quakers are from Southern Baptists). There are moreover more than a few Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) Albanians. The Orthodox Archbishop of Tirana is one of the most popular public figures. Mother Teresa was an Albanian.

Posted by JonF | April 4, 2008 6:24 AM

Hans B wins the thread. There is no need for Russia and the US, EU and NATO to be enemies. Competitors, yes, but we are also competitors in a similar since with the EU and (to a lesser extent) Japan. Paranoia in DC and Moscow are more likely to give NATO expansion an unnecessarily offensive bent than whether or not Albania joins. Hell, if Russia was up to the liberal standards of much of the rest of NATO, then just about the only reason to not Russia join if it so chose was fear of inflaming paranoia in Beijing, which is a separate issue. Even Mr. Conventional Wisdom himself, Fareed Zakaria, endorsed the idea of being open to Russian membership in the mid-1990's (granted, this was pre-Putin).

Posted by Reality Man | April 4, 2008 6:45 AM

Reality Man,

The government of Venezuela dislikes the United States primarily because it rejects the liberal-capitalist ethos root and branch. (I should make it eminently clear that I'm with the Venezuelans here, as I also dislike the liberal-capitalist civilization). An aggravating factor is that the United States seems to see it as its mission to spread capitalism, secular individualism and liberal 'democracy' to the rest of the world. If you think that these are bad things, as I do and as Chávez does, then the expansion of US influence through things like NATO is quite clearly a bad thing. An America which maintained liberal-capitalism within its borders but was thoroughly isolationist would be less offensive to people of conscience than an America which saw it as its historical mission to spread the dubious benefits of 'freedom' to all the nations of the world.

Russia, for its part, will _never_ be a liberal society, as American liberal-capitalist values are totally foreign to Russia. And therefore, thankfully, it will never fall under the orbit of NATO which is simply a stalking horse for the West to export its corruption over the rest of the world. I believe that the future of Russia lies in its history of peasant cooperatives and in a return to an agrarian society. Putin is the expression of Russia's natural destiny, while the liberal Yeltsin was nothing but a filthy collaborator.

You appear to be indifferent to how much the Russians have suffered at the hands of the Mongols, the Turks, the Germans, the Swedes, the Lithuanians, the Poles, the British, the French, the Japanese, not to mention all the martial tribed that have marauded across the Russian steppes for thousands of years.

And I'm not saying that America should, in terms of its foreign policy, be the protector of Christian countries. Let Russia do that. I am saying that for me personally, I'm more concerned about, say, whether Lebanon is majority Christian or Muslim than whether it is pro-Western or anti-US, 'democratic' or dictatorial, etc.

Posted by Hector | April 4, 2008 9:00 AM

Re Kraz

Bismarck had an even better line that was quite prophetic. He said that the next European war would start with some damn fool incident in the Balkans. Sarajevo, Archduke Ferdinand anyone?

Posted by SLC | April 4, 2008 9:18 AM

I believe that the future of Russia lies in its history of peasant cooperatives and in a return to an agrarian society. Putin is the expression of Russia's natural destiny, while the liberal Yeltsin was nothing but a filthy collaborator.

Hector, believe me when I say that the rest of us - by which I mean most European states, plus probably most of the rest of Russia's neighbours and the US - would dearly love to see Russia return to an agrarian society of peasant cooperatives. Mainly because I think they'd have problems invading, brutalising and occupying any of their neighbours if they had a peasant army that had to go home after three months' campaigning to get the harvest in. Enjoy your Tolstoyan pastoral squalor.

Posted by ajay | April 4, 2008 9:26 AM

Look, if Albania gets into NATO, Uncle Sucker will be upgrading Albania's military using US tax payer dollars. I guess that's good if you own stock a military-contractor, but i cannot see how it will benefit any other Americans.

NATO has served it's purpose - it has been obsolete since 1990. Get rid of it, let Europe pay for it's own defense and sort out it's own issues.

We have our own problems.

Posted by Hankest | April 4, 2008 9:48 AM

Hector,

You are such a fucking dumbass! History has proven that no matter the country's "culture", when given a chance, populations move to democratic, liberal capitalist societies.

Look at Japan, Singapore (its on its way), Ireland, Baltic Republics, Taiwan and even Italy. Russian peasants are no different than peasants anywhere else in the world. Russia has just been behind in associating with Western culture. It is as simple as that.

Look at Ireland, a mostly backwards, peasant society that changed dramatically starting in the 70s. It now has a higher Gross National Income than Germany and the US. It took the Irish many decades of freedom from the British for them to finally develop their political class that would lead them to prosperity.

Also, have you ever traveled to Dubai? You should go and see what happens to a country that embraces capitalism and has security guarantees.

But hey, you are probably just some religious nut with anger issues. You need to get yourself a woman or just masturbate until all your anger has subsided. Also, read a book afterwards. Dumbass!

Posted by Michael | April 4, 2008 10:03 AM

"History has proven that no matter the country's "culture", when given a chance, populations move to democratic, liberal capitalist societies"

Yeah? I got the Wiemar Republic on the line, they want to talk to you.

I love this whole "history on the march" stuff. As if there is some pre-ordained state to which all humanity is headed.

Poltitics as religion, whether it's based on Marx, Mao, or apparently, in this case, Thomas Friedman.

Posted by Hankest | April 4, 2008 10:26 AM

Hankest,

Get a clue. This is not about Thomas Friedman fantasies. This is about countries which, when they do not have to worry about their security, like Singapore, Ireland, Taiwan all Western Europe, over time, can build their political class to a level where corruption is diminished, freedoms flourish and markets develop. Do you have a problem with that? If you do, get on a plane and go to Zimbabwe.

Russia, at this time, wants to emulate China. They want to have less freedom but more capitalism. I think that is just fine. Eventually, probably after some economic downturn, the population will ask for the bums in power to get out and ask for more freedoms. They will get it. Russian "peasants" will join the ranks of the "degenerate" democratic people like Germans, American etc. China is going to have to do the same thing eventually.

Posted by Michael | April 4, 2008 10:54 AM

Wow, Taiwan doesn't have to worry about it's security? Interesting.

Anyway, i like freedom, democracy and the 'Merican way. It has served me well.

I have no idea what Russians want, nor do i consider that my business. I have no idea what Chinese people want and again that's none of my business. Well none of my business as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me through force or coercion. i also don't believe we should go around imposing values on other nations.

The way i see it, the world's human history is largerly a display of gross fanaticism, slaverly, violence, repression and war. Wars often fought in the name of spreading some sort of "universal value" - pick one: helenism, jesus, allah, the rights of man, racial purity, class justice, freedom, etc.

i don't see any reason to believe there is a pre-determined destiny for humankind - leave that crap to religious fanatics and Marxists (or Friedmans and NeoCOns).

By the way, history didn't start over the last 50 or 100 or 200 years, and it didn't end in 1990.

carry on.

Posted by hankest | April 4, 2008 11:25 AM

That's exactly the point of NATO. Countries do not have to fight a war in the "name of spreading some sort of "universal value" - pick one: helenism, jesus, allah, the rights of man, racial purity, class justice, freedom, etc." They choose to follow some sort of democratic system, they ask to join and, in the end, they are invited.

By the way, wars are rarely, if ever for some kind of fanaticism. That's where you are wrong. They are about power. Fanaticism might be used as a tool but, in the end, it is about power. The British, did not colonize much of the world to enlighten people. They colonized them for power and exploitation. They used language of enlightment as a tool but in the end it was all about the money and power. NATO and the EU take that out of the equation. Countries join in a defensive organization to have some insurance for their security. Then, they can spend their time doing something more useful such as build universities, roads etc rather than armies. There might not be a predetermined destiny for the human kind but non-cynical people try and make a difference so that their future is not put into jeopardy. You agree that peace and prosperity is better than war and destruction don't you?

Posted by Michael | April 4, 2008 11:58 AM

Michael,

What you don't seem to realize is that I fundamentally reject the ideas of capitalism, liberal democracy, and secular individualism. These ideas are based on false premises and in the long run can bring nothing but evil to the human race.

NATO and the EU exist largely to spread liberal-capitalist ideas and their malign influence, which is why I reject them.

Posted by Hector | April 4, 2008 12:23 PM

1) I said spread in the name of.... And i agree, the the 19th century colonists did not say they were going around stealing resources (well not that openly) they told themselves and others it was to spread christianity, or - what was it- do the white man's burden.

2) NATO is a military alliance. How the f&ck is power taken out of the equation? Do you really believe the stuff you write?

Listen, you can believe all you want that NATO is merely to let people in those nations "be free" blah, blah, blah. I take the more cynical look, it's a military alliance to annoy and contain a powerful nation we seem determined to humiliate. And to get stuff - such as a nice stable Georgia to run a gas pipeline through for example.

Do a bit of research, after the cold war, under the guise of helping we screwed up Russia. (We being Jeff Sachs and the chicago boys). Russia's quality of life took a nose dive, while the nation's resources were stolen, on the cheap, by a few oligarchs. By the late 1990s a once proud superpower was delegated to watching its daughters sold worldwide as whores and its men die drunk and poor at incredibly young ages.

Is it any wonder the much loved Gorby is loathed in Russia while Putin (and Stalin) are popular?

Now the US, the same nation who sold Russia on "open markets" as a way to peace and prosperity, wants to ensure the freedom of her old soviet republics (including Stalin's homeland!) by arming it as part of a US lead military alliance.

But, it's only to spread freedom we assure the Russians.

If you were Russian would you believe that?

Humiliating, starving and threatening a defeated world power can have some awful repurcussions.

Lastly, i see you seem shocked by Hector - i'm not shocked at all. While i disagree with him, a large part of the world feels as he does, which is fine with me.

Posted by hankest | April 4, 2008 12:46 PM

What? Russia's problem was that their political class was not mature enough to steer their country to greener pastures. It's silly to suggest it is USs fault for what happened to Russia. Everyone knows that IMF and World Bank are bullshit organizations that spread "shock therapy" crap. Russian and other Eastern European countries had a not mature enough political class to know that and they paid for it. It is simple. Russia had a stronger negotiating position with the world financial organizations than its politicians understood.

Look at the Ireland example I mentioned above. The Irish were free for a long time but their well being did not go anywhere until their political class got better.

As far as Hector goes, he is an idiot.

Posted by Michael | April 4, 2008 10:34 PM