Missile away!
President Bush advanced his plans this week to build a controversial missile defense system in Eastern Europe by winning the unanimous backing of NATO allies and sealing a deal with the Czech Republic to build a radar facility for the system on its soil.
NATO endorses President Bush's plan for missile defense in Europe despite Russia's objections. A nervous Europe goes along. For Moscow, this is a case of deja vu all over again. If you saw the headline, "Russia to U.S.: Drop Missile Defense," you'd be forgiven if you thought someone had left a 1986 newspaper laying around. That's what former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev said to President Ronald Reagan when they met in Reykjavik, Iceland in October 1986. Gorbachev, like Putin today, demanded we drop SDI. Reagan refused.
Bush, even hampered by a Democratic Congress, is making missile defense a reality. We shudder at the prospect of a President Obama scrapping Reagan's dream in favor of his "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Tehran and Moscow. A President Obama would have supported the nuclear freeze and lost the Cold War.
A President McCain, however, would carry on Reagan's grand strategy in dealing with America's enemies -- we win, they lose.
These programs have grown increasingly obsolete since the end of the Cold War. Why? Because there is no imminent, new ballistic missile threat.
The threat from a North Korean or Iranian long-range missile is still largely hypothetical. These missiles still garner a large share of the attention from policy makers, even though they constitute only one -- and the most difficult -- way to deliver nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
Prince Harry returns from battle.
Prince Harry has returned to Great Britain from Afghanistan, where he was deployed with fellow soldiers as part of the NATO mission to stabilize that country and defeat Taliban guerillas.
The chicken-hawk argument is nakedly partisan. During the Kosovo war waged by Bill Clinton and supported by Democrats in 1999, a cry didn’t go up from the Left that no one could support the war unless they were willing to strap themselves into B-2 bombers for the 33-hour ride from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to Belgrade and back to degrade Serbian infrastructure.
By the same token, we could say to proponents of leaving Saddam Hussein in power: “That’s an illegitimate position unless you yourself are willing to move to Tikrit to live for the duration of Saddam’s regime.” Or to supporters of “containing” Saddam: “You’re a hypocrite until you go help patrol the no-fly zone.” Or to advocates of inspections: “You can’t support them unless you don a baby-blue cap and sniff around his suspected chemical-weapons sites yourself.”
Noblesse oblige literally translates to “nobility obligates.” It implies that with wealth, power and prestige come social responsibilities; it is a moral obligation to act with honor, kindliness and generosity.
For citizens of America, true noblesse oblige has nothing to do with high birth, power or prestige. True noblesse oblige is a responsibility for all of us who have been given the benefits of living in a free land, founded on the highest principles. If we, as a country, miss the mark, it is no reflection on the founding principles. It means we have the responsibility to use our energies and intelligence to return to basics and fix it.
We do not need to be wealthy, or powerful, or president to be a hero. We merely need to act, with honor, and with a loving and ethical heart.
Lest anyone forget, Europe is fighting the terror war, too.
Donald Rumsfeld, the former U.S. Secretary of Defense, in 2003 famously referred to Germany and France as "Old" Europe. "You look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe," Rumsfeld said. "They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."
A few things have changed in five years. France and Germany have pro-U.S. leaders. Europe's economy is strengthening. And several Old European nations are fighting the good fight on the war on terror. Swedish and Norwegian authorities cracked down on terror financing on Thursday, arresting six people and seizing computer equipment from Internet cafes in coordinated raids in Stockholm and Oslo.
Was the Bush administration wrong about Old Europe? Have America's allies and interests changed? Does the U.S. have something to learn from the Continent?
Americans might be surprised to learn that “Old” Europe is actually ahead of us in tackling many of the most vexing domestic policy challenges. Without much fanfare, Sweden, Holland, and other countries known for their social-democratic welfare states have adopted innovative, market-based reforms on issues such as pensions, transportation, and education. What’s more, while U.S. politics remains paralyzed by partisanship, European parties on the left and the right have teamed up to implement free-market policy ideas that are criticized by the American left as extreme.
In the global economy, today's winners can become tomorrow's losers in a twinkling, and vice versa. Not so long ago, American pundits and economic analysts were snidely touting U.S. economic superiority to the "sick old man" of Europe. What a difference a few months can make. Today, with the stock market jittery over Iraq, the mortgage crisis, huge budget and trade deficits, and declining growth in productivity, investors are questioning the strength of the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, analysts point to the roaring economies of China and India as the only bright spots on the global horizon.
But what about Europe? You may be surprised to learn how our estranged transatlantic partner has been faring during these roller-coaster times -- and how successfully it has been knocking down the Europessimist myths about it.
Friendships are fraying on the battlefield.
U.S. commanders don't think their NATO allies are fighting smart enough in Afghanistan. The NATO countries are insulted, and wonder why they're fighting America's war. And in the meantime, Taliban forces that once seemed defeated are growing in strength.
Why is the U.S. fighting with its NATO allies? And what can be done to salvage the mission in Afghanistan?
The old NATO, built on protecting Europe from a conventional attack by Warsaw Pact forces massed in Eastern Europe, is dead. We need a new NATO that's both flexible and capable of sending troops quickly to hot spots to fight unconventional wars.
There are no easy answers, but the United States can do more to demonstrate to the world that Afghanistan is a priority and help change public opinion in Europe. U.S. officials must move away from statements such as those of Admiral Mike Mullen in his recent Congressional testimony: "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must." This only shows NATO populations in Europe and Canada that we are not serious about the mission, and makes them more dubious of the whole enterprise.
Omar, right, sits along with his brother Wakil, center, as they wait for their turn to speak to their detained father during a video teleconference Monday at the International Committee of the Red Cross Office in Kabul, Afghanistan.
One surge ends and another begins.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended sending additional troops to Afghanistan to reinforce NATO forces, officials said Monday, but a final decision has not yet been made. More than 3,000 Marines were preparing for deployment, however.
In Afghanistan, the hard-won progress of Afghan and international forces is being undermined by NATO’s inefficiency, and it’s a scandal. Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands are looking to withdraw troops by 2010. If these forces remain hindered by the restrictions already imposed upon them, their exit may very well go unnoticed. Some collaborative ingenuity could help forces secure and build upon the advances made in Afghanistan.
However, if NATO doesn’t step up, the heavy lifting may become too much to bear.
Dr. Michael Williams, head of the transatlantic programme at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, said the peacekeeping force's aims of bringing stability, and in turn prosperity, to the country were achievable, but added its "chaotic and unfocused" approach would end in "strategic loss" in Afghanistan.
He wrote: "Additional troops are necessary, but more troops alone will not fix the wayward mission to rebuild Afghanistan. Specifically, if additional troops are going to be of use, ISAF must figure of what it is supposed to be doing in Afghanistan; how it should achieve this in conjunction with other actors; increase international responsibility (not just Nato) for Afghanistan; and move to support the Afghan government, rather than supplanting it.
