How do we save NATO? We quit

[bemildred]

When he visits Strasbourg, France, this week to participate in festivities marking NATO's 60th anniversary, President Obama should deliver a valedictory address, announcing his intention to withdraw the United States from the alliance. The U.S. has done its job. It's time for Europe to assume full responsibility for its own security, freeing the U.S. to attend to more urgent priorities.

The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 remains a singular example of enlightened statecraft. With Europe's democracies still suffering from the ravages of World War II, and fearing the threat posed by Stalinist Russia, the U.S. abandoned its aversion to "entangling alliances" and committed itself to Europe's defense. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower came out of retirement to serve as NATO's first military chief. As U.S. forces arrived to take up their stations, the alliance soon found its footing. In its heyday, NATO possessed formidable capabilities and real (if never fully tested) cohesion. Its safety ensured, Western Europe prospered and remained at peace.

Over time, the Soviet threat diminished and eventually disappeared. Since then, however, an alliance once regarded as the most successful in all of history has lost its way.

When the end of the Cold War left Russia temporarily weakened, the United States and its allies wasted no time in exploiting that weakness. NATO pressed eastward, incorporating into its ranks nations that had previously formed part of the Soviet empire and of the Soviet Union itself. American policymakers urged the alliance to expand its reach, abandoning its defensive posture to become an instrument of intervention. According to the conventional wisdom of the 1990s, NATO needed to go "out of area" or it would surely go "out of business."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bacevich2-2009apr02,0,7272382.story

[MADem]

1. He will never do that. NATO has too many irons in the fire, and the US is at the

head of the line.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Never happen...that's too enlightening to consider.

Besides, there are military sales and intel benefits that keep us in this family.

[Taverner]

3. I'd be for it, but then again - I'm for scrapping the military

And just keeping a Nat Guard contingent. Like we had in between WWI and WWII

[Hugabear]

4. But how can we maintain America's worldwide empire without a massive military?

We have to have an active military to protect our overseas empire? How else are we going to maintain our presence in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Iceland, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and every other country around the world where we have troops? :sarcasm:

[B Whale]

5. And that led to the US not joining WW2 for

3 years, leaving Britain to fight completely alone against the Nazis.

With power comes responsibilities, millions died while the US stayed out of the (world) war.

I wouldn't class that as a positive.

[Taverner]

6. It's a mixed bag - there are no Hitlers out there today

And in the end, we don't end up helping those in need, but rather furthering our own business interests. The US has shirked its responsibilities for so long, I don't think we're up for the task.

[B Whale]

7. Hitler came from nowhere and 10s of millions

died. I'm a big critic of the US military but i'd rather they had the most powerful army rather than the chinese or russians

[LiberalFighter]

8. One of those responsible for the US not being involved was Senator Prescott Bush

grandfather of the scumbag.

[B Whale]

9. cowardice must run in the family then it seems. Thanks for

posting this. (although if he'd pushed for involvement i'd probabl have said war mongering runs in the family then :-) )

[Taverner]

10. Your cowardice is another mans insanity

I think that family is batshit insane. Everything I read about them says such.