America is tired of being the world’s protector --- it's a misguided and failed objective.
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 8:31:42 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > America is tired of being the world’s protector. We have been warned > > Fraser Nelson, Telegraph 3 June 2016 > > The Russians normally don’t care what foreigners watch on the telly, but > the Kremlin has taken grave exception to a box set drama from Norway named > Occupied. Its premise: Arab civil wars shuts down oil exports and > Norwegians elect a Green government to close down North Sea oil as well. > Panic ensues, and Russians invade Oslo – not with tanks, but with a cell of > masked men in unmarked uniforms who make the Prime Minister an offer he > can’t refuse. He accepts “assistance” from Russia, while he pumps out the > oil they want. And the European Union? It meekly backs the Kremlin. > > It’s clear why the real-life Russians are so angry: all this is far too > close to the bone. The Scandinavians have been feeling the chill from > Moscow for a while now. Vladimir Putin has been testing their defences, > sending fighters into their airspace and watching the reaction. He annexed > Crimea by soldiers in unmarked uniforms and having a pliable politician ask > for Russian help. No wonder the Baltic states are anxious, or that > previously-neutral Swedes and Finns are suddenly talking about joining > Nato. The Russian bear is on the prowl. > > "A man who stands a terrifyingly high chance of being the next American > president is ready for the quick end of Nato" > > The Norwegian drama should have been called “a world without America”, > because that, really, is what it depicts. Who keeps peace in the Persian > Gulf? The Fifth Fleet of the US Navy, at the annual cost of some $50 > billion. But when the US achieves energy self-sufficiency, which it will at > the end of the next decade thanks to its fracking revolution, it won’t need > imports from the Gulf – or anywhere else. So why should Uncle Sam spend so > much protecting the Saudis? The main check on Russian expansionism is Nato, > a defence alliance which shields Europe under America’s nuclear umbrella. > It’s now seen by a growing number of Americans as a scam, abused by > freeloading Europeans > > Such Americans now have a hero, in the form of Donald J Trump. A few weeks > ago, he explained his foreign policy – rambling, of course, and > contradictory. But it deserves to be taken seriously, given his rising > chances of victory (about 2/1, according to the bookmakers). Trump has > exhumed a slogan used by Charles Lindbergh and the isolationists of the > Thirties: America First. It means using the military when directly > threatened, but worrying a lot less if other countries are attacked. And > leaving Europeans to fend for themselves if they won’t pay for themselves. > > The problem, Trump says, is that Nato members have started to “look at the > United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honour their > agreements with us”. So America should charge them for Nato’s protection, > and if they won’t pay, it should leave them to “defend themselves”. To be > clear: he doesn’t just want European countries to honour their Nato pledge > (spending 2 per cent of economic output on defence). He wants Washington to > be reimbursed for the cost of Pax Americana. > > All of this may be alarming, but it runs with the grain of US public > opinion. A recent poll shows that about three in five Americans think the > US should “deal with its own problems” and “let others manage as best they > can”. Just one in three thinks they have a duty to “help other countries > deal with their problems”. And whose problem is an aggressive Moscow? > Russia is not, really, a threat to world peace any more; it’s more of a > regional threat. And that region is Europe. So why, Trump asks, did America > ever end up being dragged into Ukraine to solve a problem on Europe’s > doorstep? Where were the once-fearsome Germans? Why don’t they lead? > > It’s all typical Trump: crude and obnoxious, but, probably, based on a > decent point. The US spends 3.6 per cent of its economic output on defence; > Germany spends a pitiful 1.2 per cent. And what little Germany does have > tends not to work. When Angela Merkel made the grand gesture of sending > weapons to Kurdish rebels fighting Isil, her cargo planes couldn’t get off > the ground. > > At the time, the German military confessed that just half of its Transall > transport aircraft were fit to fly. Of its 190 helicopters, just 41 were > ready to be deployed. Of its 406 Marder tanks, 280 were out of use. > > Even Barack Obama has been tiring of European uselessness. He recently > admitted that he had to threaten to end the “special relationship” with > Britain before David Cameron agreed to spend the Nato minimum on defence. > Even then, Mr Cameron used smoke and mirrors, counting military pensions > and intelligence in the total figure. So at a time when the US stumps up 72 > per cent of total Nato spending, the puzzle is not why Americans should be > growing fed up with it all. The puzzle is why their patience (and > generosity) has endured for so long. > > If Hillary Clinton is elected, she may end up presenting a friendlier > version of the same policy. When she was Secretary of State, she moved > America’s gaze from the Atlantic to the Pacific to check the rise of the > Chinese navy. Her allies were not afraid to spend on defence: Australia, > the Philippines, Thailand and South Korea have all significantly upped > their military budgets. Australia recently ordered a dozen French > submarines and six squadrons of F-35 stealth fighters from Texas. This > looks like a new, functioning alliance based on shared concerns – while > Nato is starting to look like a keepsake from another era. > > All this poses an awkward question for Britain, and Europe: do we let our > military run threadbare and hope that Russia behaves? Or do we reinvest in > defence at the expense of welfare? It’s an issue that no government wants > to address, so we all go on pretending that nothing is happening. The > second President Clinton would probably humour us and talk sweetly about > special relationships as she builds what she calls “America’s Pacific > century”. The first President Trump would be ready to dance on Nato’s grave. > > Does that all sound too crazy? Trump loves crazy. It’s not clear why, if > elected, he would not follow through on what he proposes. He has given > clear notice: that he thinks America “can’t afford to protect the world any > more” and is looking for excuses to withdraw. So a man who stands a > terrifyingly high chance of being the next American > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZGF1Z3BrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjUwMDE0OTM-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZHZyN2RrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NTAwMTQ5Mw--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
