2011-03-23
non-NATO triumvirate
America, humble and honorable as ever, has made its intentions clear that it wishes to reduce its role in the freeing of Libya. The obvious candidate to be taking the lead is France, after its own honorable and brave response to the Libyan revolution.
However, Turkey has vetoed NATO's ability to operate, so we need a way to manage ad-hoc coalitions of liberators. Note that my own country, Australia, currently has the immoral left-wing in power, thanks to the bribing of some right-wing independents (it's as bad as the fucking curry-munchers come to think of it), so my country is not contributing anything except excuses for non-participation. NATO is an interesting beast. Every country has the power of veto, which severely limits its ability to take aggressive action, which is in some ways an advantage for a defensive alliance.
However, medium-term for NATO command - in an environment with no real threat - and also medium-term for adhoc coalitions, I think it would be good to have a triumvirate of the following actors:
1. Serbia - this is a liberal democracy, which means it should be welcome into the western security fold, and at the same time is comprised of Slavs, which are the only race that the Russian Slavs trust. Note that it is human nature to be racist, and acknowledging Russians as natural animals that need to be carefully integrated into the free world, on terms that they understand, is not a bad thing. Nearly surrounded by NATO members already.
2. Iraq - another liberal democracy, and provides some Arab muscle. Note that Arabs are, and have previously been, part of adhoc coalitions. Iraq may not be fully trained to NATO standards, but at least an attempt has been made. Regardless, American troops under Iraqi command is a fitting state of affairs. If Russian troops can be under American command in the past, then so too can Americans come under the Iraqis. Borders a founding NATO member currently.
3. Australia - formerly known as "defender of the free world", currently known as an "also ran". A country that fortunately escaped the anti-UK/anti-US attacks, and tends to be everyone's friend (deservedly or not). Australian Aborigines have deep cultural and spiritual ties to the North Atlantic, and I note that their self-annointed revolutionary socialist "representatives" have so far graciously declined to exercise their right to exclusive maritime rights over the North Atlantic. If such magnamity doesn't get control of NATO, nothing will.
Note that I personally have contacts in each of those 3 categories, so if you need a triumvirate in a hurry, I'm your man!
|
However, Turkey has vetoed NATO's ability to operate, so we need a way to manage ad-hoc coalitions of liberators. Note that my own country, Australia, currently has the immoral left-wing in power, thanks to the bribing of some right-wing independents (it's as bad as the fucking curry-munchers come to think of it), so my country is not contributing anything except excuses for non-participation. NATO is an interesting beast. Every country has the power of veto, which severely limits its ability to take aggressive action, which is in some ways an advantage for a defensive alliance.
However, medium-term for NATO command - in an environment with no real threat - and also medium-term for adhoc coalitions, I think it would be good to have a triumvirate of the following actors:
1. Serbia - this is a liberal democracy, which means it should be welcome into the western security fold, and at the same time is comprised of Slavs, which are the only race that the Russian Slavs trust. Note that it is human nature to be racist, and acknowledging Russians as natural animals that need to be carefully integrated into the free world, on terms that they understand, is not a bad thing. Nearly surrounded by NATO members already.
2. Iraq - another liberal democracy, and provides some Arab muscle. Note that Arabs are, and have previously been, part of adhoc coalitions. Iraq may not be fully trained to NATO standards, but at least an attempt has been made. Regardless, American troops under Iraqi command is a fitting state of affairs. If Russian troops can be under American command in the past, then so too can Americans come under the Iraqis. Borders a founding NATO member currently.
3. Australia - formerly known as "defender of the free world", currently known as an "also ran". A country that fortunately escaped the anti-UK/anti-US attacks, and tends to be everyone's friend (deservedly or not). Australian Aborigines have deep cultural and spiritual ties to the North Atlantic, and I note that their self-annointed revolutionary socialist "representatives" have so far graciously declined to exercise their right to exclusive maritime rights over the North Atlantic. If such magnamity doesn't get control of NATO, nothing will.
Note that I personally have contacts in each of those 3 categories, so if you need a triumvirate in a hurry, I'm your man!
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 19:38 
