just when you thought there might be a chance, slim as it may be, to escape the final year of chimperor l and lord cheney without becoming embroiled in an apocalyptical nuclear encounter in the ME, NATO’s five most important senior militarists have put together a “grand strategy” to institutionalize pre-emptive nuclear strikes as a cornerstone of their policies:
Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told
The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the “imminent” spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists.
Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a “grand strategy” to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world”.
.
.
.
“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”…
say what! “first use to prevent the use”…mindnumbing orwellian doublespeak; and there’s more…
they not only want to have the ability to use their quiver-full of nukes whenever they damn well feel like it, they don’t want to have to screw around with getting permission from the “obstructionists” in the UN, EU, or anybody else who’s not participating in the operation:
To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new “directorate” of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU “obstruction” of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:
· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.
· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.
· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.
· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings”.
damned euro surrender-monkeys.
and just to keep it interesting, and create further problems… or opportunities, depending on your outlook… for the next president, BushCo™ has floated the idea of promoting gen. betraeus to be the top NATO commander before the administrations’ end:
Pentagon Weighs Top Iraq General as NATO Chief
The Pentagon is considering Gen. David H. Petraeus for the top NATO command later this year, a move that would give the general, the top American commander in Iraq, a high-level post during the next administration but that has raised concerns about the practice of rotating war commanders.
.
.
.
In one approach under discussion, General Petraeus would be nominated and confirmed for the NATO post before the end of September, when Congress is expected to break for the presidential election. He might stay in Iraq for some time after that before moving to the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, but would take his post before a new president takes office.
.
.
NYT
it would be nice to believe that the democrats would not approve such a contentious appointment on the eve of a potentially historic election, but given their actions to date, l suspect the worst.
like we noted here: …he [chimpy] indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race–and any decisions the next president makes in 2009… it’s just another hearty fuck you! from the Worst. President. Ever.
tips, recs…whatever.
later
lTMF’sA
Sorry meant 4. I was wondering what happened to the tips and recs comment.
thanks for this post Dada.
the authors, as eminent as they are, Imho their collective brains aren’t equal one sparrow.
“to save the world we’ve to nuke it”
Just may give comfort and cover for Israel to stike Iran.
One silver lining, there’s a deep fissure within NATO countries. cracks visible.
Patraeus has stated
I Need Another Six Months To Determine Whether `We’ve Reached A Turning Point’
and then, after, another 6 months puts us at the Inauguration of the next president
Frankly, it baffles me that the European NATO states haven’t withdrawn from the organization and replaced it with an EU military alliance. Western Europe needed NATO when they were living under the shadow of Soviet expansionism. Today, while Russia is perfectly capable of defending itself (with nukes), it is in no position to prosecute a war of aggression in Europe, if the amount of time and effort needed to crush Chechnya is any indication. Moreover, in the absence of NATO, the EU states are in a much better position to deal with Russia diplomatically and economically.
There must be some amazing arm-twisting going on behind the scenes for Europe to tolerate US forces on their soil more than sixty years after the end of WW2 and almost twenty years after the end of the Cold War. It’s not like the trigger-happy chimp in the White House or any of his likely successors are in any way military assets to Europe.
No matter how “eminent” these fools are your Tet-offensive paraphrase sums it up. They are no better, and indeed no different, from the blathering media talking-heads.
Israel is now craving nuclear war with Strangelovian lust. Could it be their situation on the ground is so bad that only a nuclear-level military venture can serve as distraction?
May this nonsense pop NATO wide open!
.
Former Dutch Chief of Military Staff (1994-1998) recall Srebenica in July 1995. Worked with Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff in NATO. Has ties in the past with the Baan Company and Paul Baan who leads the Noaber charity foundation. Both have fundamental Christian roots and have ties with Center for Jewish-Arab Economic Development. The litigation against Baan Company in 1999 due to SEC securities violation in pending bankruptcy.
We found new dilemmas: how to cope with unceasing conflicts. The traditional concept of blue helmets of the United Nations peacekeeping forces was not sufficient and the UN had to rely more often on military power and called for green helmets. Clear became also that adding to world wide security meant a fresh approach towards development. Neither the EU nor NATO nor the United Nations was really prepared. For example peacekeeping in the UN was the prerogative of the Security Council and development belonged to the specialized agencies that had no record of close cooperation and were not able to achieve it. The same for NATO. The staff was prepared to keep the peace but military assistance to enhance peace through reconstruction or instead halting preventive strikes by assisting in diplomacy and development was a different game.
Henk van den Breemen – Chairman Advisory Board Noaber Foundation
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."as always oui, you are a veritable fount of information; thanks for that link…l was having difficulty figuring out how he fit with the others, it makes a bit of sense now.
the crazy bastads are everywhere.
lTMF’sA
These bastads are so goddamn crazy they’d all chant in unison with Corso’s Bomb utterly without irony.
Death’s finger is free-lance
Not up to man whether you boom or not Death has long since distributed its
categorical blue I sing thee Bomb Death’s extravagance Death’s jubilee
Gem of Death’s supremest blue
Thank you for your post, dada.
thank you ww. it’s quite the serendipitous occurance that you would bring/corso’s Bomb up. l’m just reading an exposition on the beat poets, and haven’t/hadn’t yet made that connection.
tho they, the authors of the /demand
in the articled cited, did remind me of Dr. Strangelove. the world works in mysterious ways.
for those unfamiliar with gregory corso, here’s the entire text of the poem, which was extremely controversial: BOMB by Gregory Corso
lTMF’sA
I don’t believe the work of the Beats could have developed or resonated as it did without the overarching shadow of the bomb. There’s a clue in their creative/cultural success as to the practical meaning of poetry; there may be no other way for an individual to comprehend/respond to the manifest unthinkable aside of in acts of creation.
Remember this one, too, from William Carlos Williams (one of Ginsberg’s primary poetic mentors):
It is difficult/to get the news from poems/yet men die miserably every day/for lack/of what is to be found there.
Thanks for posting the link. I don’t believe the Beats are currently ‘fashionable’ (probably due to the usual bad press) but the poem is definitely a worthwhile read for anyone who wishes to examine his own emotional relationship with concepts of mortality.
Actually, it seems like there’s been a minor resurgence in interest lately, judging from the number of anthologies and copious quantities of previously unpublished Ginsberg material in bookstores these days. Some of that may be due to the present day being every bit as insanely repressive as the era of the Beats’ childhoods.
Actually, iirc, the elder Beats & guiding spirits were children at a time of relative liberalism, between the wars, but came into their maturity & creative powers alongside McCarthyism.
Glad to hear about yet another resurgance, though. They’ve never gone out of style for some of us — especially if we found out about them in our own formative years.
One of my fondest memories is of greeting Allen Ginsberg & Peter Orlovsky on the street while carrying a toilet.
for a take from the other side of the pond, with a distinctive flavour, l would recommend chris floyd’s latest essay: The New New World Order: A First-Strike NATO Über Alles
highly recommended
lTMF’sA
great Dada, as always.
thanks to Oui, WW, and the others for the connections.
your right bro, this guy will stop at nothing.
I do not understand however what his final point is. If they destroy the world, what the fuck do they own?
scary thought there.
peace? what a concept 😉
What they own is not the point.
The point is that the dark hordes must not be permitted to own anything at all, ever. If that means total destruction, so be it.
It’s positively dadaesque.
lTMF’sA
dada,
Great as usual.
I commented on one of the BooMan diaries the other day about Gate`s lack of confidence in Nato allies` ability to fight an insurgency.
Allied Nato member countries, who are losing their citizens in southern Afghanistan, are not happy, with Gate`s assessment.
I think the Dutch mentioned that the great American success in Iraq, must have given Gates the foundation on which he felt qualified to make that statement.