Aren't France and Germany still part of NATO?
What the hell are you (or the guy you're quoting)
talking about? The reason why France and Germany
aren't involved in Iraq is that they are pandering to
increasingly more powerful socialist (=anti-American)
political currents in those two countries.
Despite all the external events since 9/11, the threat to
NATO is primarily from the inside.
"The NATO Citizen" <esla****te@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6LZ5d.4269$Ki1.1155@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It's a fine day here in the North Atlantic security community!
> By ESLa****te
> Sun, Sep 26 2004
> http://www.pronato.com/commentary/index.htm
> It was for good and gracious reasons that our Alliance is expanding its
> mission in Afghanistan and helping train Iraqi soldiers. Extending the
ideal
> of security community to other nations is a chore that is best given to
our
> North Atlantic nations and NATO Alliance.
>
> The elections in Afghanistan this October will probably not be without
> incident, but once those oppressed Afghanis, I have a feeling, get a
whiff
> of free elections, as in Eastern Europe; there will be no turning back.
Free
> elections will have Afghans addicted to freedom, as it has in Eastern
> Europe. It is now unthinkable to Eastern Europeans to be without free
> elections.
>
> Our NATO Alliance is humming along despite the doomsayers. Or course,
this
> Author said it will be alright for our Alliance during the bad times
before
> the Iraq War. As it has been in past months, years and decades, the
North
> Atlantic security community pulls our NATO Alliance back from the
perceived
> near death experience. As stated, there never was any "near death
> experience." Yes Ambassador Burns was wrong - and should really know
better.
> America's ambassador to NATO actually plays into the hands of the
doomsayers
> in the global media. The notion of a "near death experience for NATO"
has
> been replayed over and over again in the global media for the past
five-plus
> decades.
>
> The North Atlantic security community, which includes NATO, is and
always
> will be strong and will survive. As security community scholars Emanuel
> Adler and Michael Barnett (1998)* define "security community," the
> defination has nothing to do with arms and armies. A security community
is
> defined as chiefly a group of people, nations that have become so
integrated
> to the point that disputes will be settled in a peaceful way. The
concept
of
> security community also includes the common understanding of common
values
> between members of the community. This also includes the expectation of
> peaceful change and that disputes are a part of "transactions," or
> interactions, among the members.
>
> The truth is that we all in the North Atlantic security community know
that
> dispute among its members are to be expected. Adler and Barnett also
state
> that in security communities disputes, disagreements and conflicts are
part
> of the dynamics and these should be expected. The difference is that
these
> disputes are not only expected, but that the prospect of war is never
one
of
> the ways to settle the dispute and the community will continue on after
the
> dispute has ended.
>
> It has been this Author's observation over the past year and a half that
> this is the case with the North Atlantic security community, which has
the
> majority of its transactions through the NATO HQ in Brussels, that the
> Alliance is stronger and more vibrant. In fact, it has been noted by
this
> Author that our alliance grows stronger with every "crisis."
>
> No matter how many disputes, disagreements and conflicts go one between
> especially France and the United States, past and present history has
> demonstrated that the North Atlantic security community will continue
(or
> even grow stronger) and that NATO will survive, it always has. The
> doomsayers in the global media really must stop making fools of
themselves!
>
> What is for certain is that our Alliance will be moving toward a future
that
> is more political and less raw military alliance. Currently our Alliance
is
> charged with missions that are out-of -area and training Iraqi police
and
> military. What else our NATO Alliance will be charged with in the future
is
> unknown, but it will probably be in counterterrorism/anti-terrorism and
> democratization. Also, expect disputes, disagreements and conflicts to
occur
> in the North Atlantic security community and in NATO. Along with the
> "crisis" look for our Alliance and North Atlantic security community to
> rise up and become stronger!
>
> *The book cited: Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (1998), Security
> Communities. Cambridge University Studies: New York, NY.
>
>
>
|
