To have Europeans lecture us on peace — after WWI, Munich, WWII, Chechnya, after Kosovo, is to be expected.
To listen to them is silly.
From the advent of the nation-state over 500 years ago, to 1945 there were zero periods of peace between the nation-states of Europe lasting more than several years. Under the press of the Soviet Union and NATO, Western Europe was at peace for not quite 50 years for the only time in its history.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, European nations again began fighting amongst themselves — Armenia, Yugoslavia, etc. Other European nations refused to do anything about this death and destruction, requiring the US to put a stop to the killing of men, women and children. Our military involvement in Europe for the third time in four generations again was required to stop carnage between and among Europeans.
The military arm of NATO is a mutual defense pact amongst the nations participating in the military arm of NATO, which does not include France. This pact is predicated on the promise that an attack on one is an attack on all and is to be responded to as such.
To refuse to acknowledge and act on one’s treaty and defense commitments, regardless of the reason, is to show oneself as incapable of being a reliable partner in the defense.
While fully understanding the reality of the immigrant Muslim populations of many Western European nations and the hesitancy of those governments to upset that population, the defense of a country one has pledged to defend, the liberty and freedom of the populace of that nation, MUST come before local political calculation.
A refusal to stir up those in disagreement with a policy, allowing other nations to be attacked, is EXACTLY how we have come to the place in which we find ourselves. This is the policy of Saudi Arabia — cater to their terrorists as long as the terror is elsewhere.
One does not get to pick and choose which treaties it will honor: Either the word of Germany is good — or it is not. If one doesn’t plan to live up the obligations of a treaty, one must withdraw from it.
At this point Germany has proven to Turkey, to NATO and to the world, that Germany is not to be counted on to live up to its treaty obligations.
NATO has chosen to become irrelevant, just as the UN is choosing. As NATO members have chosen to ignore their treaty obligations, there no longer is a need for the US to be a member of this non-treaty organization.
It is time to recognize the irrelevancy of NATO and withdraw.
For over 50 years the UN has worked to keep the peace. That peace exists in some regions, such as the Korean Peninsula and Kuwait, is due to the joint efforts of coalitions sanctioned by the UN to repel invaders and keep the peace in the face of hostile forces.
Peacekeeping has worked because the threat of response from member nations has been credible.
With the failure of the Security Council to act on its own resolutions, particularly 1441, the UN has become irrelevant. A watchdog organization with no dog is less than useless — it creates hope it will not be able to deliver upon.
As to its Human Rights record, electing Libya and Iraq to positions on human rights and disarmament is so silly as to defy belief.
The planning and keeping of peace is a two-way street: Those wanting to keep the peace must be willing to do so, those whose interests are inimical to peace must be willing to accept the peacekeepers — historically only under threat of violence. When the peacekeepers are too busy fighting amongst themselves to be credible, the first half of the equation fails, allowing those to whom the second half pertains to succeed in quashing human rights of their own, and other, peoples.
It is time to recognize the irrelevancy of the UN and withdraw.
There are those who believe, against all historical evidence, that “war never solves anything.” This is historically inaccurate. War liberated the US from Britain. War repelled the invasion of South Korea. War liberated Belgium and France from Germany – twice within 35 years. War rescued the remaining Jews, Gays, Communists and others Hitler was gassing. War freed the peoples of East Asia and the Pacific Islands from the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of the Japanese. Without exception, the countries liberated from the AXIS in WWII are better off than they had been.
In fact, those major international issues that have not been solved by war are far fewer than those that have.
Those who would put sanctions over war misunderstand the nature of sanctions. Many studies have demonstrated that sanctions are far harder on a country than is a war. Who and what are hurt via sanctions? Women, children, infrastructure, education, health. Who is not affected by sanction? The military and civilian leaders who created the policy against which the sanctions have been placed. War, on the other hand, in recent history (the same recent history in which serious sanctions have been tried), results in fewer lives lost among the civilian population, less economic hardship over time, and a more-rapidly-repaired infrastructure. In short, if you care about your enemy’s populace, you fight him; if you don’t care about your enemy’s populace, you sanction him.