"To think of NATO as a great alliance makes about as much sense as thinking of Pittsburgh as the Steel City or of Detroit as the car capital of the world," Andrew Bacevich writes in the Los Angeles Times. "It's sheer nostalgia." The treaty founding the organization considers an attack on one member state an attack on all member states. But it hasn't worked out that way for the United States in Afghanistan. As Bacevich points out, many member states, including Germany, provide support of a "nominal" variety. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO's raison d'etre has disappeared. With its milquetoast reaction to 9/11, NATO's member states show that the collective security agreement is a one-way street, if even that. And can you much blame the Germans or the French for not rushing to our defense? If, say, Stanistan bombed France or Germany, would you be much enthused about sending Americans to die in their defense? Even the Cold War wasn't permanent. The institutions pledged to fight it are another matter.

You know, I'm not particularly worried about Eastern Europe or North Korea and although I think we should be concerned enough about Islamist terrorism (at least enough for us to allocate resources to keep an eye on it) problems specific to that mess are not directly impacting us on a daily basis. But I am concerned about a problem that affects the lives of most Americans directly and indirectly every day and that would be our porous borders.

That’s why I was mildly shocked to learn that our government, who refuses to get serious about protecting U.S. borders, is earmarking $1.4 Billion dollars for Mexico to protect its Southern border from Central American illegals and to allow them to protect their sovereignty. Read it and weep.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/11/the-white-house-wants-a-14-billion-stimulusnational-security-packagefor-mexico/

NATO countries hardly seem willing to make a concerted effort to defend their countries from home grown Islamic fanatics. It hardly seems surprising that they would be unwilling to fight Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan.

If the US is going to win the war against Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan and elsewhere it seems it will need to be done without the assistance of European allies. If the US fails in the fight against this enemy, the very survival of the US and the entire free world is placed in an even more precarious position than it already is in right now. On the one hand, the US will have to fight this war without the assistance of most Western European allies. On the other hand, it is difficult to envision a way that the US can win without the assitance without other NATO members.

Given that it seems unlikely that the assistance of European allies can be obtained, it seems likely that the US will need to implement a military draft. A military draft is unfeasible right now. The electorate would never allow it and the media elites would act to thwart this action any way even if a politician suggested it.

The much needed assistance of allies is unavailable. The political will to place the country on the necessary war footing to be successful is lacking. There is very little that can be done. Defeat in the war against Islamic fanatics seems all but inevitable. After the US defeat, the US will be finished as major power. In fact, the US may not survie at all. The Islamic fanatics can draw upon allances with Russia and China. As such, if the US loses in Afghanisatan and elsewhere, America's enemies will probably be able to finish the country off entirely.

Given that defeat seems inevitable, there are some things the US could do to help ensure its long range survial. It nees to secure its borders, place a moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries, monitor the mosques, develop all of its own oil, gas, and coal reserves, and build more refineries. The losses in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere will finish the US as a major global power, however, if the US takes the steps outlined above, the country may be able to survive. Actually we should have taken the steps mentioned above years ago.

These policies would give us more marginal utility for our national security interests than ivading Iraq or Afghanistan ever would have.

Alas, the US won't even secure its own borders and it gives money to Mexico!! It won't even develop its own natural resources or build more refineries. Its military is worn down and almost broken. The US military will be withdrawing entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2008. The worn down and almost broken military simply cannot maintain the deployment even if someone like John "hundred years war" McCain wanted it to. Also, the US national debt is massive and getting larger. The survival of the US is very problematic and no one in a position of power seems willing to do any thing to even attempt to remedy the situation. Maybe they have already cut deals with Russia, China, and Islamic fanatics for themselves that will take effect after the afore mentioned entities conquer and carve up the United States to suit their interests.

In order to develop more of our own oil and gas reserves and build more refineries, we will need to stop waging war with a phantom menace called "man made global warming."

Ain't going to happen Poster. You're being way too logical. There's more bang for the government buck in the Global Warming scan than there is in having us be energy independent and in the process keep our economy (not the World's) booming.

warming Fight civil global

fosamax medication

health insurance ohio cobra cleveland in world

health insurance ohio cobra cleveland in world