Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | November 18, 2015
After Paris, post-NATO ‘solution’ for Syria blasts off without U.S.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Categories
- Anti-Semitism
- Blog administration
- Book reviews
- Christianity
- Civil Rights
- Climate ideology
- Cultures
- Diplomacy
- Economics
- Education
- Football
- General military
- Government
- History
- Information
- Intelligence
- Internet policy
- Islam
- Journalistic bias
- Jurisprudence
- Language
- Law
- Law enforcement
- Law of war
- Media
- National political organization
- Political commentary
- American liberty
- California politics
- Coalition operations
- Conservative politics
- Contitutionalism
- Crony politics
- Electoral politics
- Federalism
- GOP
- Government effectiveness
- Great power geopolitics
- Health care
- Illegal immigration
- Left-wing themes
- Market economics
- Naval operations
- Naval strategy
- Nuclear proliferation
- Political correctness
- Social policy
- Strategy
- Tax policy
- United Nations
- US Congress
- Political Philosophy
- Popular Culture
- Quick Takes
- Regulation
- Terrorism
- The Ineffable
- Uncategorized
- US Foreign policy
- War
Tu-95 Bear bomber, one of several types used in Russian strikes on Tuesday, 17 Nov. (Image: UK MOD, SAC Robyn Stewart via Guardian, Oct 2014)
If you’re not convinced we are now in a “post-American” (and hence post-NATO) world, consider these events of the last 72 hours.
After the Paris attacks on Friday, the G20 leaders gathering in Turkey knew that both Syria and ISIS would top their agenda in Antalya. On Sunday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron expressed the standard position of the Western allies, since late summer, that Russia should stop prosecuting what is essentially a unilateral war in Syria.
How odd that that position should seem antique a mere 48 hours later. In the wake of the most recent events, one now has the sense that Cameron was speaking in another world and time.
Obama’s watershed moment
The most important thing happened on Monday. Barack Obama made it clear that the U.S. will not change anything we’re doing in Syria. He made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t care what happens in Syria, to Syria, or to the regional nations that are affected by Syria.
This may or may not mean he has no vision at all for what should happen in the Middle East. But it does mean that he has no interest in applying a positive strategy with specific political goals – the only kind of goals that matter at this point – to the security problem created by Syria.
Europe sees no value in waiting for us any longer. France, to be specific, is not going to wait. To prosecute his war, Francois Hollande is not invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty – and that has enormous implications for the alliance. France has invoked a mutual-defense clause of the EU agreement instead. But if NATO is not for this security problem – as it was after 9/11 – then what is it for?
Continue reading →
Share this:
Like this:
Related
Posted in Air operations, Coalition operations, Diplomacy, General military, Great power geopolitics, Maritime operations, Naval operations, Political commentary, Strategic air operations, Strategy, Strike operations, Terrorism, US Foreign policy, War | Tags: Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, Barack obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, France, France attacks in Syria, France Russia work together Syria, France uses EU defense clause, Francois Hollande, Geopolitics, International security, Iran, ISIS, Islamic State, Middle East, Military, National defense, NATO, Obama administration, Obama clueless on Syria anti-ISIS strategy, Obama passive-aggressive security policy, Paris attacks November 2015, Russia, Russian military posture Southwest Asia, Russian strategic bombers attack in Syria, Syria, Terrorism, The West, Turkey