Other Columns by Mike Bayham
Mike Bayham Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

The Axis of Weasels
By Mike Bayham
May 5, 2003

Leaders of several Western European countries proposed the formation of a new military alliance that would be separate from the current broad based NATO network. The organization, pushed by the Continent's three most vocal western critics of the US led invasion of Iraq, plus the Duchy of Luxembourg, is aimed at creating a non-American version of the Cold War born defense organization.

Apparently the brain trusts in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, and the other country have hatched their latest Wyle E. Coyote "Acme scheme" of developing a way to kick the United States out of NATO without being so blunt. Considering France's penchant for invidiousness, it is a posture that is more amusing than belligerent and conjures up a vision of a group of grammar schoolers starting a tree house club whose main purpose is to not let a certain person in.

The former West Germany and the former provinces of western Germany, as France, et al. were collectively known as in the early forties, have eagerly thrown open the doors of membership to the rest of Europe though there has not exactly been a rush of subscribers.

This is surprising, as I really don't see how anyone can resist the temptation of being able to sleep better at night with the piece of mind of having a mutual defense treaty with Luxembourg.

And the Belgians? Well, you would have to consult Julius Caesar's War Commentaries to read the most recent work that is complimentary about their fighting prowess. It should also be mentioned that in that same volume that Rome's greatest soldier chides the early Gauls as being better gossipers than warriors, a tradition that France has maintained for two millennia.

And since Germany has more experience in playing the invader instead of the defender, a country like Poland must equate such an alliance with that of a bunch of chickens trusting a fox to guard the henhouse. Russia's "amen statement" endorsing the proposal further exposes the agreement's ridiculousness as Moscow is the object of Central and Eastern Europe's fears.

The main argument against the success of this group is their failure to recognize the reality that without the United States, NATO is nothing. Imagine a post-World War II Western Europe sans American presence with Soviet tanks rolling down the Champs Elysees and past the Arc de Triumphe as if it were a standard Red Square military parade. The Kremlin might have brought Lenin's body on a victory tour throughout Europe so the newly vanquished masses can see the embalmed inspiration behind their new slavery.

Though times have changed since the Cold War ended, a US-less NATO would be useless even in the post-Soviet era. Countries from the old Soviet bloc that experienced rule under Nazi and later Communist puppet dictatorships sought membership in NATO primarily because of its guarantee of American protection from their fellow European nations.

Seeing that a potential drive by Madagascar for world domination has not been a historical problem nor is it an immediate threat, the countries that the former satellites most fear are the ones whose hands are now being extended in friendship. Protocol and diplomacy prevents the not so powerful Euro states from reminding their larger neighbors about their previous issues with Napoleon. Hitler, and Stalin, though these unstated past issues are still at the heart of their present and future defensive worries.

Being members of an alliance does not always mean the countries involved will live up to their word. The Czechs will never forget their abandonment by their "good friends" Britain and France in 1938. Many Americans are still sore over our "ally" France's refusal to allow US war planes to fly over their country en route to attack the terrorist haven of Libya in the eighties.

The only assurance a violated country would have if a member nation got out of line is that the victimized party could potentially receive support from the others, though there is little reason why a 21st century "Little Entente" would be any more effective than its 20th century predecessor was at keeping a powerful nation's expansionist tendencies in check.

Germany alone had all of Europe on its knees and there is little doubt that Hitler or his regime would have survived World War II in some form had America not intervened, an observation not lost on the once conquered.

Critics of the "fear our neighbors" school of thought will point out that we live in a totally different world where almost every European country has a democratically elected government, and that it is rare occurrence when one republic invades another.

However, who is to say that these countries' commitment to popular government will be durable since progressive nations like France and Germany have had a few shifts between absolutism and democracy in the past 200 years. Unforeseen downward economic forces have been the death knell of more than a few democracies and the birth of as many dictators.

Previously pillaged and occupied nations have every right to be troubled by the prospect of their security being ultimately based on the stability of the countries next to them. While Portuguese support would be nice in an armed conflict, nothing quite compares to the United States military when it comes to having "invasion insurance".