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.
