NATO on Mars

NATO is discussing an expansion and transformation.

* * *

Background

America is asking for NATO enlargement because the Chinese and Russians were more effective at developing economic alliances. The US, believing it could bully nations into supporting war crimes, threatened countries with economic sanctions if they did immunize Americans for Geneva violations.

These countries ignored the American threats, and worked with the Russians and Chinese, expanding economic trade. The Americans are playing catch-up, but cannot economically compete, and must rely on the NATO umbrella to do what the Americans first refused to do peacefully: Create export markets in Africa.

* * *

European Budget Impacts

The Americans, stretched thinly around the globe, hope to find new partners to share the American financial burden of defending Japan and Korea. Real objective: Share US burden in Asia, complicated by required increase for Europeans to support.

Europeans already enjoy large subsidies, and have targeted budget deficits. It remains to be explained how the Europeans will be in any position to provide funds or resources to assist.

EU subsidies: US provides coverage

___ What is the impact to EU budget deficit targets

Europeans are not supportive of NATO expansion. It would increase budget obligations, and risk their social programs.

___ What is the benefit to EU to have a worldwide trip wire?

None. The American argument that the Europeans benefit from the trade is speculative, and not supported by the lessons of Iraq: Costly wars, and spurious benefits. Americans underestimate the downside risk, and focus on the economic benefits, with little consideration for cost.

___ Is the US creating an excuse to broaden its commitments without the balanced resources to support that obligation?

Yes. The US, when it is no longer burdened by some commitments in Asia, will find new excuses to deploy troops elsewhere. NATO expansion is about US options to create problems outside the newly-expanded NATO alliance.

NATO Credibility Problem

NATO's credibility problem has surfaced already in Afghanistan. Before credibly expanding, NATO would have to remedy the defects which have jeopardized its combat operations in Afghanistan. It remains to be understood whether the NATO organization, had it been called into action in Europe, would have fared any better than against the Taliban.

Where NATO fails to prevail in one theater, it remains to be explained why, if different outcomes should be expected, why the implicitly-NATO commitment to Europe was not similarly applied to Afghanistan in defense of America.

Demonstrate Competence in Afghanistan: NATO is not handling issue adequately.

__ Is NATO bored looking for an excuse for existence.

Yes. Resource constraints remain the same regardless whether call it NATO or the UN. US doesn’t have enough troops, equipment situation is bleak. Expanding coverage will complicate the dilemma.

___ Why not create a UN Army; why should NATO do this?

Good question. The same problems with Rwanda are not solved by relabeling the UN helmets, “NATO.”

___ Costs: Who Pays?

The cost are underestimated. Remember the lesson of Iraq. It’s worse.

* * *

Legal

The legal issues covering the expansion are intertwined with American illegal combat operations.

It’s interesting to discuss expanding a treaty obligation. If the US is willing to comply with Geneva requirement worldwide, the expansion is a recipe for more abuses, and no prospect the US will voluntarily cooperate with war crimes prosecutors. Larger zones of lawlessness isn’t stabilizing, but as with Iraq precipitates the very instability one might hope to thwart with the expansion.

___ What are the criteria to intervene

These criteria have been asserted without serious consideration to the legal conflicts that might arise between NATO allies. Members are going to feel constrained to comply with warfare they are increasingly not comfortable supporting.

It is a false argument that NATO and Iraq are equivalent. A US-led, illegal invasion is not the same as a lawful use of NATO forces. The Afghanistan operation, linked with NATO is a disaster; the American occupation in Iraq, outside NATO, is a bigger disaster. Small disasters and big disasters are not the same. Congress will take responsibility, and the President will be immune for stupidity.

___ What will ensure the NATO expansion is lawful; and NATO responses to foreign threats in Asia are lawful?

NATO doesn’t care about the law. It cares about power and money.

___ What if Senate illegally agrees to unlawful intervention.

America has yet to wage lawful war in a small arena. The Senate could easily support unlawful warfare. The US government is not interested in protecting the Constitution, only abusing power.

___ How will the US prevent illegal war?

There is no plan.

___ Is there a system in place which will prevent one nation from inducing the NATO alliance to wage illegal war?

No.

___ How will one country’s reservations, as we’ve seen with German reluctance to broaden its commitment in Iraq, to not blossom into US pressure on other NATO allies to remain complicity with war crimes?

The conflicts will increase tensions within NATO which the Russians and Chinese will exploit by providing favorable trading terms to Africa.

___ Country Reactions: What will keep the expanded NATO alliance together?

Germany has legal constraints and reluctant to expose troops to combat situation. This is a slippery slope: US resource constraints are driving other nations to get called into illegal activities in the sake of “emergency.” Iraq was not an emergency, but an artificially-driven timeline. US mismanagement is not a credible emergency when the war is a war of choice.

___ War Crimes Jurisdiction: Is the US hoping to expand the zone of jurisdiction without credible war crimes liability?:

Yes.

___ ICC: If the US is expanding, but still refuses to recognize the ICC Jurisdiction, the zones of lawless and abuse expand.

Indeed, the ICC is ignored under this NATO expansion policy. If they change the name to “Intergalactic Criminal Court,” maybe NATO will stop laughing. Maybe not.

___ Who will provide legal counsel to NATO?

Not smart ones. There is no effective American oversight of staff counsel working for DoD. Having NATO and US troops under a US commander is not a credible barrier to war crimes. DoD Staff counsel have been implicated with war crimes.

___ How will NATO resolve a disaster and US not to wage an illegal war.

There is no plan.

___ What are the impacts to other nations if they refuse to cooperate, decline, not interested: WTO UN. trade, espionage.

Those are foreseeable. NATO may do more of what is driving some leadership to the Russian and Chinese economic trade zone.

___ Are the members of NATO going to be subject to increased pressure for trade retaliation

Yes, and the Russians and Chinese are prepared to offer valuable economic trading terms which the Americans cannot match, unless there is widespread fraud. The SEC has been told to not look into the fabricated funding issues to underbid the Russians and Chinese.

___ If member nations refuse to support illegal American warfare, what trading objectives will the US undermine?

Not many. The US is running out of allies to abuse, as opposed to friendly enemies to wage a war for commercial interest, disconnected from any lawful use of power.

* * *

UN vs. NATO

The real issue appears to be the illusory timelines which the UN through Bolton are raising with respect to Syria. Without any evidence, Bolton has implied that (paraphrasing) “past (unproven) actions of Syria implicate the Syrians today in other assassinations.” The problem with illusory timelines continues.

___ Why is NATO raising this issue now, as opposed to focusing its long-term planners on the immediate problem: A collapse of NATO credibility in Afghanistan?

NATO is bored. The Pentagon planners realize that the Iraq disaster is winding down. They need something in the 10-15 year timeframe to act as placeholders in the Spring Budget reviews starting with the FY08 PD, to be submitted in February 2007.

___ If the US and NATO hope to replace the UN as a stabilizing force, what will compel member nations to contribute forces n situations where they are otherwise not required or unwilling to participate.

Americans will make more threats to block American entertainers from visiting European sporting events.

Real objective: NATO – the Intergalactic UN police force.

__ If NATO will intervene worldwide, why need the UN; or are there regions where NATO will not expand in Central and South America and Africa?

No, NATO is thinking long-term: The Moon and Mars.

* * *

__ How will NATO overcome resource limitation facing US worldwide in Africa: Something prohibited/dissuaded action in Rwanda: Why will this be replaced or resolved with the new NATO umbrella.

There is no plan.

___ Which regions does NATO not envision entering.

Jupiter, the gravity is overwhelming, and the weather is horrible. The NAVY is interested, but the F-18s will have to be remodified: Better parachutes for the flight crews.

___ Will a regional intervention require an attachment or relationship with a Member of NATO; or will NATO, even if it has no member nations in Africa, still assert a NATO interest in intervening.

Indeed, NATO will find an excuse, create one, or pretend there is one. The basis for intervention appears to be unrelated to a direct threat to NATO, but an implied imbalance with order: Mental disorder.

__ Will NATO have a position on internal battles and struggles

There is no plan to publicly admit to anything negative. New enemies will be found to justify diversions.

__ What is the position of NATO on Russian intervention in former Soviet States?

NATO is not serious about defending anyone. NATO is more effective at smuggling opium than defeating poorly trained, organized insurgents.

NATO expansion is about markets, not actually doing anything which will protect anyone. NATO will find an “exception” permitting it to remain silent and do nothing as Russians protect their oil interests.

___ How will new structure have a better response in Rwanda

There is no plan. The Pentagon staffers can’t find the plan because we’re about to start a war: One of the bored, lazy SES (oxymoron) wants Congolese Coffee at the POAC. [Do they make that stuff in Congo?]

* * *

___ NATO: The Alliance that cannot defeat a group of poorly organized insurgents in Afghanistan. Was there any hope of NATO defeating the Russian Army in Europe?

The Russian Army lost against the same insurgents on Afghanistan. It might have been a tie: NATO and Russia both losing to each other.