Dan wrote:
I've been reading the news for the last few days, and I've seen the following trends
[trends snipped]
Here's my theory on this. If NATO is broken, then the US will sign individual treaties with former NATO nations that are supportive of US actions against Iraq. It will be a smaller alliance, but it will be a much more cohesive one. Since the US currently supplies the majority of the military might of NATO anyway, not much will change militarily. Effectively, we'll end up with a smaller, tighter NewNATO. Or possibly, the new alliance won't be so geographically limited, and other US allies that were not previously in NATO might become involved.So, one could extrapolate to a world where: 1) NATO is effectively broken
The UN has been moving in this direction anyway. It was a great experiment while it lasted... It has been argued by others much more knowledgable than me onlist that many European countries have basically chosen to become irrelevant, militarily speaking at least, on the larger world stage. I believe the UN is doing something similar. It makes statements that it isn't willing to back up, with force, if necessary. (I'll only mention briefly here that the Bush administration, like many before it, are doing something similar internally in the US by mandating programs without funding them.)2) The UN is relegated to the same importance of the League of Nations
3) The EU is in turmoil. 4) The decline of the special relationship between the US and Europe (which is natural as the US has fewer people who consider their roots in Europe (or has people who consider their roots less in Europe) is accelerated.
At least with regards to those not in NewNATO (or whatever it gets named).
If there is a new alliance to replace NATO, then we may have possibility 3, in which the new alliance successfully "manages the peace," as you say above.As a result, I see two possibilities, based on whether the US is sucessful or unsucessful in managing the peace. 1) Sucessful: The US sees itself as the sole champion of liberty and listens even less to the rest of the world. "Look what would have happened if we listened to you in Iraq. Who needs sidewalk superintendants?" 2) Failure: The US sees that intervention doesn't work, it stops pushing, and sees its self interest as promoting Fortress America. When there is trouble, like an invasion of one country by another, the US refuses to intervene again. Of course, without the US to lead, nothing happens.
Just a thought.
Reggie Bautista
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
