Two Boston area immigrants who fell under the spell of a radical ideology that espoused the use of bombs against innocents were allegedly behind the violent April 15 multiple murders.
But it’s not who you think it is. The year was 1920 and the two men were Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Aside from the date and the location, there are other parallels too. And they speak more about us than they do about either Sacco and Vanzetti or the Tsarnaev Brothers.
The nineteen-teens and twenties was a period of great tumult in the United States. After the First World War, which was widely viewed as disastrous mistake for having gotten involved, Americans rejected all things associated with the outside world. The aftermath of the Great War brought upheaval to Europe. Replacing failing empires and monarchies was Russian communism, German socialism, and varying amounts of anarchy seemingly everywhere else.
Today there is the ongoing collapse of the Euro and the demise of Middle Eastern strongmen, and so we fear radical islamism and economic contagion from Cyprus and Greece.
Eight decades ago the end of the war brought economic troubles too. High unemployment, which was widely and mistakenly thought of as a normal post-war adjustment to a lack of military demand and a surplus of returning soldiers, was actually just a result of the post-war continuation of the ongoing de-agriculturalization of the world economy. Regardless of the cause, greater unemployment turned American workers against more recent immigrants who were looking for work too. In 1917 America passed its first immigration restriction laws barring the entry of “idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, alcoholics . . . ” and Asians. Just a year before, an influential eugenicist wrote The Passing of the Great Race that became widely popular. By 1924 America had its first immigration quotas that attempting to freeze in place the country’s racial composition.
Today unemployment is higher than normal as the world deals with the fallout associated with becoming a post-manufacturing economy. Pat Buchanan hawks The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. Politicians from all sides rail against “illegal” immigration but very often demagogue all immigration.
Both periods were characterized by big fights over petty tangential issues that many prudes insisted contributed to unrest and crime. The Volstead Act passed in the wake of the 18th Amendment gave us Prohibition, while today the President and many Democratic leaders want to outlaw guns. Were those laws to pass, more, not less, crime would be the result, just as more crime was the result of Prohibition too.
Certainly I could carry the parallels further, but let me just conclude with a few questions:
- Was it really necessary to quarantine an entire city to capture a couple criminals whose bombing victims numbered one-one-thousandth of those killed on 9/11?
- Does it not speak volumes about the limits of power and the power of people that the police were unsuccessful during their hours of uninhibited manhunt, but as soon as the house arrest was lifted a citizen found the suspect?
- Is it realistic to expect that among millions of immigrants there won’t be a few criminals, when we have millions of native Americans locked up here at home?
- Is not labeling violence as “terrorism” or “an act of war” just another form of “hate” crime, which attempts to characterize criminals by their thoughts instead of their acts?
- If three dead bombing victims is enough to rescind an American citizen’s constitutional rights, is two? Or one? Or none?
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled with Obamacare that the federal government is limited in what it can mandate that the states legislate, I’d like to see one or more of the states lower the drinking age back to 18 this year. If you are old enough to vote and old enough to serve in the military, you should be old enough to buy a drink.
Still on the subject of alcohol, I’d like to to see more states join Washington’s lead and remove the mandatory second tier of alcohol distributors that serve as legally required monopolies that raise prices and reduce the selection available to the wine-buying public in the other 49 states.
Not that I would like to see continued violence in the Middle East, but since it is a near certainty anyway, I’d like to see it happen in 2013 without any hint that America will get even remotely involved.
I’d like to see no calls this year for any sort of extension to American involvement in Afghanistan.
I’d like to see Congress and the White House continue to be at loggerheads throughout all of 2013. Since every meaningful compromise in recent decades has resulted in higher taxes, greater spending, bigger debt, and diminished freedom, doing nothing is Washington’s best course of action.
I’d like to see the Department of Defense deal seriously with sequestration by eliminating commands, agencies, directorates, and staffs instead of reducing either the number or effectiveness of ships, wings, and brigades.
I’d also like to see DoD kill a few hideously expensive major weapons programs this year–especially the F-35.
I’d like to continue to see the collapse of the legacy broadcast and print media. CNN, NBC, Time, and the New York Times each have brands far larger than their real contemporary influence; it only follows that the economics of that untenable situation will catch up to them–hopefully in 2013.
I’d like to see 2013 produce no viral videos that spark any more line-dancing crazes. The Chicken Dance, the Electric Slide, and the Macarena were each bad enough before Gangnam Style. Please, let’s not do this again. Ever.
And since I will have a college student in 2014, I’d like to see the higher education bubble burst in 2013.
Six months ago, I said this about Egypt:
” . . . continuing that level of American support to the military junta that has taken over the country risks an even worse outcome, as a circa-1979 Iranian Shah style backlash becomes increasingly likely. America is already culpable in the eyes of the Egyptian majority. Every passing day that we arm Egypt’s oppressors, we increase the inevitability that an anti-government revolution grows even more anti-Western.”
I’m reminded of that prediction when I see this BBC report about the Egyptian military rolling into the area of protests against the Egyptian president. Look at that video closely. The armored vehicles that you see are American made M60 tanks and American made M113 armored personnel carriers. That Egyptian military is American equipped and American trained, largely at American expense. This has the potential to be 1979 again.
As polls begin closing in the Eastern time zone, I am actually rather complacent about the outcome. Yes, I voted for Mitt Romney, and yes, I want him to win. But I guess I have a fatalistic view about what happens regardless of which man wins tonight.
Here is what I envision over the next four years:
The bond yield is going to skyrocket as inflation begins to take hold. That will push up the deficit because of the increased interest the government will have to pay to its creditors. The effects of inflation will be horrible. We’ll do something stupid to forestall this, like feed even more debt to the Fed. It won’t work. Inflation will find our door. But if I’m wrong, and inflation doesn’t come, that is almost as bad, as it means another four years of super low interest rates and a corresponding dearth of interest income and saving. Four more years of baby boomers retiring with no increase in interest rates is very bad indeed.
Regardless of who is in charge, America will still be held back by the sclerotic state of the nation’s bureaucracy. As Meghan McArdle pointed out recently, there have been plans for hardening the essential infrastructure of the NY/NJ area for years. It would have been nice to have last week. Those plans are still in review. They will still be in review a decade from now. This, in a city that saw the Empire State Building go from a hole in the ground to completion in less than 14 months. Obamacare is just the latest circle of bureaucratic hell through which America’s entrepreneuers must wade, and even if Romney is elected, much of it, I am saddened to report, will remain intact. At some point our economic engines are like Napoleon’s troops invading Russia: supply lines were so long that there was no room for anything else in the carriage but the fodder for the horses pulling the carts. There was nothing left to do then but to eat the horse. I fear that we’re nearing that point.
An even bumpier economic ride is overdue overseas. China is on the edge of a cliff; its coming catastrophe will either be economic or cultural. Probably both. Japan is nearing the end of its free money holiday. With the highest debt load in the developed world as well as the oldest population, Japan is not just an economic mess, but serves as a warning to others who are quickly tracing the same path. Even more concerning is that China and Japan are both still very closed societies; they are unlikely to search earnestly and inwardly for blame or solution. It is easier to look outside for blame. And then there’s Europe: beset by unbridgeable divides, it will collapse with rippling economic, cultural, and perhaps even military effects upon the United States.
Unfortunately our competitors and enemies will not bide their time these next four years. Our foolishness in the Middle East and in North Africa has placed America in a damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t situation. But of the two, doesn’t–disengagement–offers the least potential downsides. Regardless of who is elected, we won’t disengage. Instead we will continue to reinforce failure overseas just as we have for years. As for Russia . . . enough said.
We are an nation divided evenly between two irreconciable ideologies. On the one side is the collectivist progressive who knows that by centralizing control in the hands of leaders empowered by special powers, that America will be a fairer place. On the other side is the rugged individualist who knows that if he were freed of extraordinary restrictions that he could accomplish extraordinary things and that will make America a stronger place.
This is not a new conflict. In fact, it’s the conflict that gave birth to our nation, when we left England and an anointed elite behind. But we didn’t leave it entirely behind. And by degree, collectivism has returned. For decades we have been able to paper over the differences between the two camps through the incredible surplusses that we have amassed. But those surplusses are soon to come to an end.
We could forestall that day, perhaps even reverse time. But unfortunately, even if Mitt Romney wins tonight, he will not win with a mandate for real change. Thus we will toddle down Japan’s path to our own end. At least that beats sprinting there.
Just as I predicted at the end of last year, Egypt continues to be a mess. (See #12.) The latest news is that the military leadership that stepped in last year “temporarily” in order to stabilize the country in the wake of the violent ”Arab Spring” ouster of former President Hosni Mubarak, has now effectively voided this weekend’s democratic election of an islamist president, and seized supreme legislative power and veto authority over the new constitution. At this point there are no good outcomes possible in Egypt; only bad ones and worse ones.
A relatively smooth transition of presidential power to Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed candidate who apparently secured the majority vote on Sunday, would give control of the largest country in the Arab World to an Islamist and anti-Western government that is sympathetic to al-Qaeda and highly belligerent toward Israel. Considering that Egypt and Israel fought four wars in the 25 years between 1948 and 1973, and that the now-reviled Hosni Mubarak led Egypt for the vast majority of the last 40 years of peace, and all signs coming out of Cairo point to a deteriorating situation with Israel. Given the already uncomfortable relationship between a nuclear Israel and a nearly nuclear Iran, it is easy to imagine a newly militant Egyptian government being just a hair trigger away from initiating a much wider conflagration. It is also easy to imagine that an al-Qaeda-sympathetic government with access to Egypt’s wealth and military, not to mention control of the Suez Canal, could provide a platform for a renewed worldwide projection of terrorism and terrorist weapons.
And what I just described is probably the best that we can hope for.
Egypt is America’s second largest beneficiary of foreign aid and one of the largest recipients of foreign military sales. Its military trains at all levels with the US military and it possesses some of our best equipment. It would be preposterous if America were even to consider to provide that level of support and assistance to a Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government. On the other hand, continuing that level of American support to the military junta that has taken over the country risks an even worse outcome, as a circa-1979 Iranian Shah style backlash becomes increasingly likely. America is already culpable in the eyes of the Egyptian majority. Every passing day that we arm Egypt’s oppressors, we increase the inevitability that an anti-government revolution grows even more anti-Western. When the rebels take over the country (and they will) the US will get all of the bad outcomes listed above, and on top of that, even more of the blame. Furthermore, our support for an anti-popular regime complicates US efforts to resolve peacefully an analogous situation in nearby Syria, where Russia, Iran, and perhaps even China support a military dictatorship against a popular uprising. Hypocrisy will be the charge, and it will have merit.
My prescription will be anathema to career diplomats and also to military leaders who have bought into the idea that engagement and dialogue equate to success. It is to publicly tell Egypt’s military government that all foreign aid, military assistance, and military training will completely halt effective the end of this month. And that if after that date, Egypt wishes the resumption of any portion of American assistance, it will be contingent upon being able to demonstrate measurable results in achieving democratic rule, protection of human rights, cooperation with Israel, support of the free flow of trade through the Canal, and the suppression of terrorist activities. Failure to achieve any one of those objectives will result in no American assistance.
My recommendation is no less than to break a significant portion of the Camp David Accords, so it is not made lightly. However, the status quo is untenable and increasingly likely to blow up (hopefully only figuratively) in the face of Americans. When confronted with the choice of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t,” the best outcome is the one with the least damnation. And the only thing we have to look forward to as a result of continued engagement with Egypt, is even more damnation.
*These opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense.
I’ve spent most of the last two years in Germany, and in fact, am going back there again this weekend. So I’ve been exposed to a great deal of press and thought about the European economic situation as it relates to Germany. If you want to understand the complexity of the problem, this article by Christopher Caldwell is probably the best summary you could read.
I have come of the belief that the EU is a union of intractable problems held together for the time being by the glue of German guilt. That glue, however, is decaying with the loss of the older generation. Ultimately the EU must either subordinate centuries of different cultures, languages, and customs to itself, or it must fail.
This may be hard for Americans to understand, as our perception of regional and cultural differences is colored by our own, which are, by comparison, not that different. When Americans travel Europe they see it as akin to traveling through New England. Moving between European nations today is seemingly no different than driving through four or five very similar states on the way from Connecticut to Maine. The money is the same. The language is the same. (English is virtually every European’s second language). And so long as you confine yourself to the usual tourist haunts, even the experience is often the same: castles, old churches, and gelato.
But European nations are not the same as states. I was in a multi-national planning meeting a few months back when the discussion turned to the subject of one NATO nation training with its forces in another NATO nation. Sheepish looks overcame several faces. Finally, one foreign officer said, “We are all military professionals here, so we understand the necessity of this, but our people might have difficulty . . . “ Another officer interjected more succinctly, “This is Europe; we have history. Europe is not North America.”
History in Europe has a way of reasserting itself. As the older German generation goes away, those historical differences will again come to the fore. Germany is very different from Italy, and as Caldwell correctly points out, even Italy is very different from itself. Sicilians and the citizens of Sudtirol might as well be on different planets, and yet they’re are ostensibly both Italian. One doesn’t even have to travel far from Europe’s capital, Brussels, to see such differences in action. Belgium, itself a nation cobbled together from three cultures who quarrel with each other, is an ungovernable mess. And that’s just in one European country not much larger than Massachusetts.
Europe has all the trappings of union: a common currency, a central government, a de facto language. But its trappings are just that: traps. Europeans are confined. And confinement breeds resentment.
Last year on a transatlantic trip I watched Life As We Know It. It is the story of two incompatible people thrown together into the same house to raise the orphaned daughter of their mutual friends who died in a car wreck. The two had all the trappings of a couple: house, child, common friends. Hollywood gave the unlikely plot a happy ending. But Hollywood is half a world away from Europe. And in the real world, the European marital union of 27 incompatible countries is confronting increasing resentment. Ultimately there will be a messy divorce.
UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn for the link. While you’re here, please take a look around. Would love to get your thoughts on the constitutionality of conscientious objection.
The Chinese government has ordered its international air carriers to refuse to pay a European Union “global warming” tax. The subtext of this decision is a strong message to an EU on the verge of bankruptcy and oblivion:
“You need us more than we need you.”
Expect the EU to cave. Expect also to see more of this as China converts its economic might into geopolitical strength.
Via Glenn I learned that there is a great deal of debate over the failure of the “women and children first” rule to apply to the crash of the Costa Concordia. It would appear that the consensus opinion is that either: (a) this is evidence of the coarsening of society in the hundred years since the wreck of the Titanic, or (b) this is evidence of the “victory” of the women’s right movement to overcome not just the barriers of sexism, but also its protections.
I would like to suggest a third reason, but one that is no less troubling in its implications: the chaos came about because it was an Italian ship.
Last night I had dinner with some Canadian friends who also live here in Germany. They had just returned from a ski weekend and we shared the same observation. It is on crowded Alpine slopes where one learns first-hand of the vast differences in how various nationalities approach the concept of order.
Formed by the collision of the European and Mediterranean tectonic plates, this mountain range is a metaphoric division of two very different cultures. It is on this boundary where the residents of those two cultures meet on holiday weekends.
The British queue even if it’s a queue of one. Should an interloper attempt to cut the lift line, the English response is to politely inform the intruder that there is a queue. Germans also queue, but they aren’t polite to the interloper. They crossly inform intruders, in German, that they are in the wrong. The occasional American skiing the Alps tends to start off polite like the Brit, however, should the line-cutter not oblige, is apt to forcefully enforce the queue. All three nationalities, along with Scandinavians, Dutch, Austrians, Swiss, and the rare Canuck, share the same basic recognition that those already in the queue have higher priority, and will therefore “wait their turn.”
Italians, especially southern Italians, do not respect this concept on the slopes. Those already ahead of them when they arrive at the lift are an obstacle to be overcome, not to be waited out. Pushing, elbows, and skiing across the top of your own skis are all permitted according to Italian rules.
You see this on the roads too. On the autobahns of Germany, the right lane is where you drive unless you are passing, after which you return immediately to the right. It is this adherance to order that makes it possible for trucks travelling 100 kilometers per hour to co-exist with cars moving twice as fast. On Italy’s autostrada, two lanes is just a suggestion. Three cars abreast is not uncommon, as a faster car coming upon two slower travellers, passes his way forward, often on the right.
Spaniards are like this too. French are far more Italian than they are German. And Greeks? Well, I can’t say, because I don’t think I’ve ever seen any Greeks skiing–probably because they can’t afford to.
Gross generalizations? Sure. There are rule-breaking Germans and orderly Italians. (The latter perhaps because they hail from the northen part of Italy that until 1919 was Austria.) But the stereotypes are true enough to give you a sense of a country’s culture.
In German restaurants after the waitress has brought you your meal, she will return to ask, “Alles in ordnung?” Instead of asking if she can get you anything else, she wonders, “Is everything in order?” Order is everything. Certainly, Germans take it to an extreme, as I complained last week. But German order is preferable to Italian anarchy–at least in small doses.
To those who view this weekend’s catastrophe as evidence of the end of civility, I say, cheer up. Had it been a German or British ship that went down in the North Sea, I submit that the scene would have been far more reminiscent of the Titanic’s “women and children first” rule, than the chaos of the Costa Concordia.
On the other hand, the Concorida gives witness to the unbridgeable divide in Europe. The Continent is two cultures separated by a common currency. Economic chaos is the inevitable result. And women and children may end up being the first thrown overboard.
UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn and Rand for the links. While you’re here, take a look around.
Theodore Dalrymple: “Greeks aren’t Germans.” True dat. And neither are they Irish or Italian. The EU, both in population and in physical size, approximates that of the United States. Don’t let that fool you. Cultural differences (akin to that scary “stereotype” thing some label as bigoted) are real. And they are far greater than the East Coast-West Coast, North-South, urban-rural, black-white divides that you find in the United States. Don’t let the common currency fool you; Europe is a concept not a country. This is the European Disunion. The “E.D.” Make all the erectile dysfunction jokes you like.
Read the whole thing.
In their anti-endorsement of Newt Gingrich, the editors of National Review said that, “A hard-fought presidential primary campaign is obscuring the uncharacteristic degree of unity within the Republican party.” Alarmingly, when they reviewed the points along which there was so much unity, I found myself quite apart from their position. So let’s pick apart each of the points the National Review says Republicans are, and should be, united about:
“All of the leading candidates, and almost all of the lagging ones, support the right to life.” Firstly, apart from Supreme Court appointments, the President has no vote on the issue. And even there, I don’t support a litmus test on that issue or any other aside from this question: Do you believe that the Constitution is an unabridged list of explicit powers ceded by the States to the Federal government and that if it isn’t in there, it isn’t there? Secondly, while I am a strong supporter of the right to life, at this time, to list this concern first–or even in the top ten–is preposterous. How out of touch is the National Review not to recognize this?
“All of them favor the repeal of Obamacare.” Okay. But not enough. Medicare Part D, the prescription drug plan pushed by George W. Bush, should also be gone. It was unaffordable then, and doubly so now. And as for Mitt Romney, there’s a lot of justifiable skepticism that he really supports the complete repeal of a health care plan so similar to his own?
“Most of them support reforms to restrain the growth of entitlement spending.” This is what really sticks under my craw. I don’t want to restrain the growth of entitlement spending; I want to slash all government spending. I want the ponzi scheme that is Social Security to be transitioned out of government hands so that the American people themselves can control the 13.4% taken from their paychecks every month. I want Medicaid limited only to those poor who can’t work–not those who don’t. I want food stamps severely curtailed in recognition of the fact that America’s poor of today don’t face a starvation crisis, but an obesity epidemic. Just as importantly, I want a candidate who recognizes that while it is our obese entitlement system that threatens to overwhelm the national debt, it’s the rampant size and scope of government and its intrusion into every facet of our lives that threatens the nation’s overall well-being. With federal spending approximately 40 cents of every dollar spent in the nation, the government itself is is crushing the economy. It is unsustainable, and it has to stop.
“All of them favor reducing the corporate tax rate to levels that will make the U.S. a competitive location for investment.” Good. But we need to hear the undeniably correct argument that corporate taxes themselves are a sham. Corporations don’t pay taxes; their customers do. But Republican candidates aren’t sure enough of their beliefs (or perhaps they don’t believe it themselves) to even try to advance the philosophical case. It’s a case which must be made to show the public that all Americans–even the poor–pay these corporate taxes that Democrats pretend are only the provenance of the rich.
“Almost all of them seem to understand the dangers of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and of a defense policy driven by the need to protect social spending rather than the national interest.” This is a two-parter. The war in Iraq is over. It’s been that way since the end of my second tour there last spring. By then Americans had advanced Iraq as far as we could push, pull, and prod them, but the rest was up to them. While Obama was pushed out of Baghdad against his will, it is hardly a precipitate withdrawal–It is about a year too late. As for Afghanistan, we accomplished our mission there by 2004. That original mission, if you’ll recall, was to make sure that the country could not be used as a base from which to plan, coordinate, and launch large transnational terrorist attacks against the United States. It was right and proper to continue to support Afghan forces with US special forces and other assistance coordinated and led through the Department of State. However, a large scale Defense Department led mission to remake an uncivilized corner of the globe into a country even as successful as Iraq was, and is, doomed to fail, and to do so at great cost.
The second part is the “need to protect social spending” that isn’t well described by the editors or the candidates. Where is the outrage over $16 biofuel the Navy had to buy from politically favored contractors? Where is the demand that the entire F-35 program, not just its unnecessary second jet engine, be eliminated. Where is the call for consolidating America’s four-star military commands? Or the demand that wartime agencies like the three-star-led, $4 billion-a-year Joint IED Defeat Organization be dismantled now that IEDs are no longer a strategic threat? Why not the call to redeploy the last remaining troops from the Balkans? While there is no need to reduce any combat brigade or ship, aside from those Army brigades still in Europe, and there is plenty of money to keep the remainder well-trained, there is a great need to reduce their unnecessary and redundant higher headquarters and staffs. A top-heavy command structure has sclerotized the senior reaches of the Defense Department and turned them into just another bureaucracy in search of mission creep in order to justify their continuous expansion. As a result the military camel’s nose is under far too many tents, like the prevention of infectious diseases, counter narcotics, countering organized crime, counter human trafficking, and border control. Not only is this wrong from a cost point-of-view, the vast expansion of the military into domestic responsibilities is corrosive to the very fabric from which our nation was formed. Little do I hear this complaint voiced except by Ron Paul, although his position on this matter is too isolationist and too extreme even for me.
Here’s the bottom line: The National Review codifies for Republicans a platform that defines . . . well, George W. Bush. Sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it anymore. I supported him in 2004 on national security grounds, while fully acknowledging his domestic flaws. These days our own domestic flaws, far more than our enemies, are our greatest national security threats. A return to the programs of George W. Bush is simply too little, too late. If the National Review wants to reincarnate the platforms of previous Presidents, they ought to at least strive for Ronald Reagan–or better yet, Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland.
UPDATE: RedState concurs with the Bushiness of the NR editorial.
Released quietly over the weekend was the news that talks between US and Iraqi officials have broken down leading to a near-complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq by the end of the year. While there is a chance that this is part of a typical Arab negotiating ploy–threaten to walk away from the deal in order to gain a positional advantage–if in fact this is the end of US involvement, it is a good thing for both countries.
I spent two tours in Iraq: the first during the Surge and through the Charge of the Knights offensive and the second a year later during the turnover of authority to Iraqi officials. The changes I saw during both tours were immense. As a result of the Surge, US casualties dropped significantly; by May of 2008 there were days at a time without American deaths. When I returned the second time, there were weeks and months at a time without US combat casuaties. (For a contemporary take on the changing security situation in Iraq, read this.)
I left Iraq the last time on election day, March 3, 2010, with much the same attitude that I had when I left Germany on September 5, 1995. I knew both times that the US had accomplished its mission in both countries and that I would never be back in either nation in uniform again.
Of course, today I’m back with US forces in Germany. While I’m here at US European Command, a higher headquarters that has a regional planning focus, there are still three ground maneuver brigades and roughly 40,000 American forces in Germany more than twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Quite frankly, it is preposterous that US ground forcess occupy German soil long after there is any threat to Germany.
While Iraq is not nearly as stable as Germany, it is far more stable than most prognosticators would have predicted just a few short years ago. In short, just as in Germany, our work in Iraq is done. The rest is up to the Iraqis. They are as capable governmentally and militarily as they can get with our assistance. So it is a good thing if American forces depart the country sooner than later.
Now if we could just get ground forces out of Germany where our work is done (and Italy, and Japan, and South Korea) . . .
*Note, these opinions are mine alone, and do not reflect the position of DoD or of EUCOM, where thousands of American military and retired military expats love their American taxpayer-supported European lifestyle.
UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn for the link. While you’re here, please take a look around.