All errors should be reported to

Tuesday, April 05, 2016

How Kondracke is wrong about NATO

Morton Kondracke is slightly older than NATO, which may explain why he supports keeping the U.S.-led guardian of Western Europe safe from Soviet tanks long after the Soviet Union died.

Actually, NATO is a detriment to world safety because it keeps Europe from taking responsibility for its own security. Expecting the world's policeman to protect them has left Europe unable and unwilling to hold off the hordes of Muslim invaders who plan to take over Europe the way white settlers took over North America -- by sheer numbers.

Anyway, from Morton Kondracke:
For nearly 100 years, the United States has been the guardian of peace in the world. Now, Donald Trump is threatening to withdraw — almost guaranteeing that chaos will worsen around the globe.
Most irresponsibly, he has repeatedly suggested that Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia develop nuclear arsenals even though, as he told CNN, that nuclear proliferation is “maybe the biggest issue of our time.”
He’s also declared the NATO alliance “obsolete”— a relic of the Cold War and an era when the U.S. was not “a poor country” — and threatened to pull U.S. forces out of Europe, Japan and Korea.
Trump seems mindless of history. It was nearly 100 years ago — April 1, 1916, to be exact — when the U.S. entered World War I and saved Western Europe from German domination.
The United States then reverted to "Trumpian" isolationism, only to have to fight another world war to avoid domination by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
His is a liberal argument that holds others responsible for a criminal's behavior. The United States did not cause Japan to decide to build an Asian empire. The United States did not cause Germany to decide to build a European empire. Tojo and Hitler and their followers are responsible. I do not see how participation in the League of Nations would have avoided that.

We created NATO because we had the only army standing that could stop the Soviets. The terms of the original arrangement were based on a Europe reduced to rubble by a devastating war. That no longer is the case. It hasn't been the case for 50 years. Europe should be able to defend itself.

We are broke.


Our resources are exhausted.

But neocons like Kondracke want to continue to spend and spend and spend as if GM still sold half the cars is America. We no longer own our own market in steel and other basic industries. We re;y on China to build the things our politicians do not want

That $19 trillion debt we have accumulated -- $13 trillion since 9/11 -- is the major threat to national security, not the Soviet Union or even the Muslim terrorists and illegal aliens. Washington's fiscal immaturity undermined our ability to defend ourselves -- much less Europe.

But there are all the sages of Washington -- Kondracke, the National Review and the Weekly Standard in particularly -- rejecting any call to discuss NATO.

Or free trade.

Or illegal immigration.

Or social issues.

What's left to discuss? Trump's hair.

Kondracke concluded: "Trump’s approach to the Muslim world — barring most foreigners and having police monitor mosques — will make the world more dangerous, not less. All this — plus a possible global trade war triggered by threatened tariff hikes — will not make America great again. Quite the opposite."

Well, what is his approach? Turn it into World War III with the factories of China -- not the USA -- churning out the war matériel needed to win?

Having a historic high in immigration, free trade agreements that are a de facto tariff on USA-made products, and maintaining $20 billion-a-year in military bureaucracies do not make the United States orteh world any safer. In fact, it does the opposite.

But if Kodracke insists on spending $20 billion-a-year on NATO and similar organizations, what tax will he raise to pay for it? Our credit card is maxxed out. Either cut government or raise taxes. This cannot continue.

Meanwhile, Patrick Buchanan is making sense:
Trump subjects U.S. commitments to a cost-benefit analysis, as seen from the standpoint of cold national interest.
What do we get from continuing to carry the largest load of the defense of a rich Europe, against a Russia with one-fourth of Europe’s population?
How does Vladimir Putin, leader of a nation that in the last century lost its European and world empires and a third of its landmass, threaten us?
Why must we take the lead in confronting and containing Putin in Ukraine, Crimea and Georgia? No vital U.S. interest is imperiled there, and Russia’s ties there are older and deeper than ours to Puerto Rico.
Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. Pacific Fleet to defend the claims of Hanoi, Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Brunei, to rocks, reefs and islets in the South China Sea – against the claims of China?
America's self-interest must come first and foremost. Had we protected our factories, we would not have to rely on the kindness of China to save the world next time.


  1. "The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

    That mindset should pertain to our dealings overseas as well as at home, and in every aspect of every American policy. Basically, "Is it worth it?" - Elric

  2. NATO has gotten sclerotic.

    Pick your analogy - League of Nations, UN, etc.

    It hasn't got the will to do its job.

    Buchanan, always something of an isolationist, does forget the lessons of the 1930s, but his point that we need to pick our fights a bit more judiciously is well-taken.

  3. Trump will not leave NATO but he will make the Europeans less comfortable with their passive, indolent existence. Recently a French mother wanted to know why her son shouldn't abide at home until he was 32 without a job like very one else. As for Mort, if the Germans had been allowed to come to their own terms with the allies in Ww1 Hitler would have never come to power, millions of people of every ethnicity would have lived, and the chotic world we have today would be very different. And the income tax would hardly exist. Trump has the right idea.

  4. Europe and most of the rest of the world have been coasting on our dime, and we're out (waaaaaaaaaaay out) of dimes.

  5. We provided their protection while they spent money on implementing their socialist welfare states. If they want us to protect them, start paying us for it. I've been saying for years we should charge for our military.

  6. I hear you Denny. Finally others do

  7. Kondracke is no "small government" Conservative if he thinks NATO shouldn't be on the chopping block along with every federal government department, agency, domestic program, treaty, international agreement, trade partnership, policy, foreign military and humanitarian aid program, and everything else the federal government is or does. NATO has taken on a life of its own. If Trump wants to pass the hat around in Europe to fund NATO, I'd say that's the fastest way for us to find out how serious European nations are about their own security and whether they consider NATO a key to achieve it. My guess is that (1) Western Europe no longer considers NATO essential to its security and (2) as distinguished from Eastern Europe, the greatest threat today to Western Europe is the Islamic invasion, against which NATO offers no defense in the absence of European will.

  8. Are you kidding me, Mort Kondracke is still alive? I guess the joke's on me. I can forgive Buchanan for his moments where he lapses into batshit crazy, because most of the time I'm with him step by step. And yes, if the world has the money to pitch in for the UN's bullshit, and a bunch of them have money for fat social welfare programs, then they can start digging deep for the protective umbrella we provide (looking at you too, Canada, not just Japan, Europe, etc.).

  9. "For nearly 100 years, the United States has been the guardian of peace in the world." Shouldn't that be guardians of peace and justice in the Galaxy?

    98 years ago, the United States walked away from the world leaving it, and especially Europe, to its own devices. That got us World War II and 50 million dead. WW II ended with a nuclear bang. WW III will begin with a nuclear bang. What will be the Butcher's Bill for failing to prevent that? 500 million dead? 5 Billion? What price would you pay to prevent that?

    The problem with the isolationist, we're not the policeman of the World, bring 'em home to guard the borders (we have borders?) is if we have to fight at our borders, we've already lost because the entire rest of the World will already be in flames and we can't fight the whole world. A pound, a ton, a megaton, of prevention versus oblivion.

  10. Kondracke and the other neocons, so-called conservatives and libertarians all have TDS so bad they can no longer think straight. If Trump's for something they are agin' it even when they fail to understand (or purposely mis-understand) what he really said.