|Back to Index|
US Presidential Contest and NATO
Bill Ratliff seems to want a bigger stick with more studs on it:
"Europe doesn't carry its weight in the Balkans even now. Dennis McNamara, the UN special envoy for humanitarian affairs, told the NYTimes several months ago, and many others have reported these facts as well, that European nations have not provided nearly the number and quality of legal aides, judges and trained policemen they promised for Kosovo. This has been a major factor in the appalling level of violence as well as enabling gangsterism and the drug trade to thrive.
Although I agree with most of what Tim Brown says, but will add a third possibility (besides restraining our international involvement or praying for no big wars). That is heaping a lot more money - lots of that projected enormous surplus, for example - into the military, ironically something Gore is going to have to do more than Bush if the former carries out his intention to "right wrongs and prosecute just causes" (as Tony Blair put the policy last year) around the world AND be prepared to fight a couple of big wars if necessary.
Finally, most of us who advocate restraint in foreign involvement are NOT isolationists. The bottom line is that we are objecting to the new level of internationalism that is added to US (or NATO or whatever) policy by the recently self-assigned new mission of righting wrongs around the world - even when "right" and "wrong" are not nearly so clear on the ground as they are to the new interventionists."
My comment: "Isolationist" and "interventionist" are both loaded terms. Philip II had the biggest stick of the period, but it failed despite his expensive calculations, and its cost was one of the causes of the decadence of Spain.
Ronald Hilton - 10/25/00