Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

My biggest concern and fear is that Trump´s views on foreign policy cannot be changed by anybody and anything save the hardest hitting reality, and only when it is way too late.

He'll be very presidential when he needs to be.

[Todd]

Article V of the Nato Charter:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

No language to assert or imply that this obligation is void with respect to nations who fail to meet their financial obligations. If Article V is not a "treaty obligation," then what is. Some might even think it is the primary purpose of the treaty altogether. No question that all members ought to meet their financial responsibilities, but unless it can be shown that financial delinquency is grounds for non-compliance with the language quoted above, then Artlcle V remains in force and is binding on all member nations including the US.

This is only one article, but very well, let us stick with this.  The very severity of the requirements highlight just how reckless the expansion of NATO has been, and how likely it is to draw the US into an unnecessary war to defend nations of no strategic or economic value.

[Todd]

Oh. You might wanna check the transcript on that.

He said he had consulted two former Republican secretaries of state, James A. Baker III and Henry Kissinger, saying he had gained "a lot of knowledge," but did not describe any new ideas about national security that they had encouraged him to explore.

[(poco) Sforzando]

This is only one article, but very well, let us stick with this.  The very severity of the requirements highlight just how reckless the expansion of NATO has been, and how likely it is to draw the US into an unnecessary war to defend nations of no strategic or economic value.

Charters are like constitutions; they do not anticipate every contingency, and what constitutes strategic or economic value is open to interpretation. Already in 2003, one can find arguments for American withdrawal:

"From a military perspective, the case for American withdrawal from NATO seems to have already been made. A number of commentators, including George Will and the British historian Paul Johnson, have pointed out that NATO is an anachronism rendered helpless by distrust and infighting. But there are also compelling economic grounds for American withdrawal. Simply, the American security guarantee perpetuates the continuation of the European welfare states and thus encourages economic sclerosis across the European continent. Thus NATO is not only useless, it's harmful."
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nato-economic-case-american-withdrawal

The Nato Charter contains provisions for reviewing its terms and for withdrawal. So far neither of these options has been implemented.

Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

[Florestan]

I disagree.  The Baltic States have literally no impact on US security, and basically none on economic interests, save, perhaps, for some minor, easily substituted imports.

The Hitler-Stalin Pact (wrongly, and for ideological reasons, dubbed Ribentropp-Molotov) relied on precisely this school of thought -- and incidentally chopped off a good part of Romania too.

(Yes, I know, Godwin´s Law and all, but ewe are talking international policy and wars --- a field where Hitler´s and Stalin´s heritage is quite alive, especually the latter´s...)

Romania is of dubious strategic value, at best.

Given the de facto defection of Turkey, you might want to reconsider your position. Now that Turkey is in unpredictable turmoil, and that Bulgaria has plainly showed their Rusophilia, Romania is left as the single most reliable and faithful NATO member at the Black Sea. Protecting it by all means, including relocating some nuclear facilities on our teritorry, is an urgent task.

In order to effectively aid and defend Romania, the US needs free and easy access to the Black Sea, which Russia can block more easily than the US can defend.  This is also one major reason why the specific leader of Turkey is less important than an on-going relationship.

If you think Erdogan is a sincere, or reliable, ally of the US you are wrong. Stay tuned for a big surprise.

It is well known that Eastern European countries have been the most reliable allies in NATO as it pertains to military action and spending this century.

All the more reason to tell them "If Russia fucks you, we´ll fuck you too!", right?

[Todd]

Romania is left as the single most reliable and faithful NATO member at the Black Sea.

My geography is a bit fuzzy.  What western ports does Romania posses, and how would US capital ships enter the Black Sea if the Russians blockaded the Bosphorus?

[Florestan]

Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

Guess what? This article makes it plainly clear that the US is not going to ever denounce the NATO treaty. Heck, it would require that the US Government give notice of denunciation to the US Government and after one year it ceases to be a NATO member. 

[mc ukrneal]

My geography is a bit fuzzy.  What western ports does Romania posses, and how would US capital ships enter the Black Sea if the Russians blockaded the Bosphorus?

We'll have bigger problems if they do that, because that will mean they have invaded Turkey...

[Todd]

Charters are like constitutions; they do not anticipate every contingency, and what constitutes strategic or economic value is open to interpretation.

These are all self-evident statements. 

So let us take the last one.  What strategic and economic value do the Baltic States offer the US?  Does this value exceed the cost of potential conflict with Russia?

I am well aware that there have not been official calls to withdraw from or shrink NATO.  In fact, the opposite has happened.  NATO has expanded to include countries the US cannot effectively defend.  Again, some people find that peaceable and defensible, others find it reckless. 

On the plus side, the language "such action as it deems necessary" is nebulous enough so that the US could simply resort to jawboning, sanctions, and small blockades were Russia to invade Estonia.

(Incidentally, the first calls for the dissolution of NATO came in the mid-90s.)

[Florestan]

My geography is a bit fuzzy. 

Not only your geography, Sir, with all due respect...

What western ports does Romania posses,

Constanta and Mangalia. Google them.

and how would US capital ships enter the Black Sea if the Russians blockaded the Bosphorus?

The Russians cannot blockade the Bosphorus without grossly violating the 1936 Montreux Convention, which is the current, enforceable, internationally binding regulation concerning the Bosphorus navigation, be it civil or military. Google it.

Now, the US is not a signatory of this Convention. Still, it might be argued that since, in their turn and at the respective time, Turkey, Greece, France, Bulgaria and Romania --- all of them cosignatories of the Convention--- joined NATO, it is ipso facto subscribed and guaranteed by the US as well.

[Todd]

We'll have bigger problems if they do that, because that will mean they have invaded Turkey...

Which is just another reason why a relationship with Turkey is so much more important than Romania, with or without NATO.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

(Incidentally, the first calls for the dissolution of NATO came in the mid-90s.)

Not sure when it started, but this article from 1997 is quite prescient. George Kennan's view at the time: "Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected . . . to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking":

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/07/local/me-10464

[Todd]

Constanta and Mangalia. Google them.

I can't tell if you purposely misread my post or not.  Romania offers no access to the Black Sea to the US.  Only Turkey does.  Romania's west borders Hungary and Serbia, yes?

[Florestan]

Which is just another reason why a relationship with Turkey is so much more important than Romania, with or without NATO.

This is a handbook sophism. The most pressing problem now is not whether Romania is a reliable ally (which we have been, are, and will be till the end), but whether Turkey is.

[Florestan]

I can't tell if you purposely misread my post or not.  Romania offers no access to the Black Sea to the US.  Only Turkey does.  Romania's west borders Hungary and Serbia, yes?

Good God, Todd, will you ever renounce deploying blatant disingenuity?

I defy any good-will reader of your relevant post to infer that you meant anything else than ports on the Western side of the Black Sea.

[Todd]

This is a handbook sophism.

No, it is an acknowledgement of geographic and strategic reality.  In order for the US to access the Black Sea, and therefore to be able to counter Russian naval power in said sea, it needs access to said sea.  There is only one nation on earth with that access.  Turkey is more important than Romania for the US. 

Good God, Todd, will you ever renounce deploying blatant disingenuity?

I defy any good-will reader of your relevant post to infer that you meant anything else than ports on the Western side of the Black Sea.

See my response to your prior post.

[Florestan]

In order for the US to access the Black Sea, and therefore to be able to counter Russian naval power in said sea, it needs access to said sea.  There is only one nation on earth with that access.  Turkey is more important than Romania for the US. 

Okay, I´ll play your game

What if Turkey´s defection is for good, and the US can kiss Turkey good bye once and for all as a reliable ally? Where are the US going to relocate --- because they will surely have to --- their military and nuclear facilities? I want an honest answer and none of your twists and turns, although I am acutely aware that I might as well want the Nile to flow southward...

[Todd]

Okay, I´ll play your game

What if Turkey´s defection is for good, and the US can kiss Turkey good bye once and for all as a reliable ally? Where are the US going to relocate --- because they will surely have to --- their military and nuclear facilities? I want an honest answer and none of your twists and turns, although I am acutely aware that I might as well want the Nile to flow southward...

First, there have been no twists and turns, just your misunderstanding of what I wrote.

Second, what "defection" are you writing about?  Turkey has not expelled the US nor has it left NATO.  The US definitely should, and probably will, recognize that US interests in the broader region (Mediterranean, Black Sea, Middle East) are such that it is much better to work with Turkey than not, even if Erdogan becomes more autocratic.  It would be best if the US could maintain its airbase in the near and medium term future (say the next five to ten years), but if need be, the US has resources to rely on some other bases and perhaps even to shift some aircraft carrier battle groups around.  Long-term, the US should strive to reduce its military presence in the region and rely more on other powers to act on its behalf, even understanding that is potentially messier and some of the partners/allies/whatever you want to call them, may not be ideally reliable.

Third, as to nuclear weapons, the US should absolutely remove all nuclear weapons currently deployed in Turkey as soon as practicable.  The US deploys B61 tactical nukes there, which are of limited use in any event.  Some type of deal could be reached to house them elsewhere to retain them as a bargaining chip with Russia, but I see no reason to keep them in Turkey.

[Florestan]

First, there have been no twists and turns, just your misunderstanding of what I wrote.

Yeah, right!

Second, what "defection" are you writing about?  Turkey has not expelled the US nor has it left NATO. 

Are you willing, and going, to tell me that the Turkish Army is as we type fully capable and willing to fulfill its NATO mission and objectives in case of a Russian blockade of Bosphorus?

It would be best if the US could maintain its airbase in the near and medium term future (say the next five to ten years),

As I said: it wouldn´t be good if things were worse and it wouldn´t be bad if things were better.

but if need be, the US has resources to rely on some other bases

Which ones? Give us three places.

Long-term, the US should strive to reduce its military presence in the region and rely more on other powers to act on its behalf

Which powers? Name three.

the US should absolutely remove all nuclear weapons currently deployed in Turkey as soon as practicable. 

Where to? Name three places.

[Karl Henning]

I cannot see why Sen. Cruz would not take advice from "Duck Dynasty," can you?