…he is capable of making an interesting argument and is not afraid of making them.
Today on Morning Joe he has teamed with Ron Paul and now Pat Buchanan and is making the argument on base cutbacks in Europe and elsewhere.
The question he and Ron Paul (and now Pat) make is an interesting one: At what point do we let Europe defend itself?
It’s a fair conversation to have. He talked about the financial costs for us and the subsidy that it , but he actually neglected one of the more important arguments in his favor.
Culturally you have a change in Europe where you have nations that have forgotten how to defend themselves. Recall the famous line from Oscar van den Boogaard quoted in this column and Mark Steyn’s America Alone:
“I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”
and to show that the attitute is not just owned by Dutch gay humanists here is a doozy:
Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”
Why would we expect a culture that doesn’t have to defend itself to do so? If we want this to change we would have to take the hand away. The question becomes are they too far gone already? Would Europe change or fold if our defensive blanket was removed? This is the true cost of American defense.
And then comes the other end of the coin. The benefits of our forward bases. Can a re-armed Europe be able to defend against a newly re-aggressive Russia? Would a re-armed Europe decide to go back to fighting among themselves? Would a Newly re-armed Europe’s military infrastructure become an Islamic military infrastructure in a generation?
Even more important are all of those problems not taking place simply because US troops are there? There were no US bases in Serbia when the war took place, is that a coincidence?
Or put another way: Will US troops and treasure in even greater quantities have to be spent to re-impose peace and re-take territory once we leave?
Or to put it another way, everything costs something. Both positions carry price and risks. Which price and which risk do we as a nation want to incur?
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 