International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Poland would like a permanent U.S. military base
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05 ... e-permanent-u-s-military-base/
Published: May 28, 2018
Author: Jazz Shaw
Post Date: 2018-05-28 19:02:28 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 10155
Comments: 100
The Polish offer reflects a long-standing desire in Warsaw to build closer security relations with the U.S. and put American boots on the ground. The push dates back to Poland’s entry into NATO in 1999, but has taken on added urgency in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region four years ago and aggressive posture toward the alliance. Coming just over a month before NATO leaders gather in Brussels for a summit, the Polish initiative is bound to anger Russia, and will be looked at with skepticism by European allies that want to improve relations with Moscow, such as Italy and at times Germany. The first, and strangest thing about this proposal is that it was already sent to Washington, but it came directly from the Polish Defense Ministry. That may not sound all that unusual since their Defense Department would obviously be involved in such planning, but Defense never even told their Foreign Ministry about it, nor did they consult with President Andrzej Duda. Much the same as with the United States government, Duda is Poland’s Commander in Chief. You’d think someone would mention it to him before they committed to spending $2B constructing a foreign military base on their own soil. Duda has had a fairly good relationship with President Trump thus far and, as a NATO ally, has taken a bit more of an adversarial approach toward Russia. But that complicates the picture even further. Poland is justifiably worried about the situation with Putin ever since the hostilities in Ukraine began. Poland shares a border with Ukraine and only has Belarus as a buffer between themselves and the Russian border. But given that things are a bit “tense” between us and the Russians at the moment, it makes entering into such an agreement even more complicated. And, of course, the Russians jumped on the story almost immediately expressing their disapproval. (Reuters) “When we see the gradual expansion of NATO military structures towards our borders…, this of course in no way creates security and stability on the continent,” Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call on Monday. Do we really even need another base over there right now? We’re supposedly focusing on closing and consolidating bases in that region to tighten up the Defense budget. Even with the Poles kicking in a couple of billion, this is still going to cost us some cash and we already have a rotating military presence in their country anyway. We’ve supposedly been on track to close 15 more bases in Europe, including some in Germany, since 2015. Assuming we’re still moving forward with that plan, how do we justify a new base in Poland unless we want to officially ramp up the cold war yet again? We have a solid ally in Poland and cooperation with them probably isn’t a bad idea. But a permanent military base? The benefit to Poland on any number angles is obvious, but I’m not sure what it really does for us. Perhaps we should hold off until Duda has had a chance to make his official position known and set up a call with Trump to discuss this. Poster Comment: The Poles are begging Trump to Make Poland Great Again. I can't recall any of our allies offering to pay billions to build a new base for us to flock to. Maybe the Qataris did for our navy base but I don't recall that they paid either. I think the Poles are hoping to woo us out of Germany where Merkel has gotten more unfriendly and has an embarrassing military. Poland's military is scrappy with good equipment for the most part. Poland would like to be our new military hub in Europe instead of Germany.
Word has leaked out that Poland has delivered a proposal requesting a permanent American military base in their country and they’re willing to put up a couple of billion dollars to help make it happen. What should have been a fairly normal diplomatic request, however, has turned into a complicated mess before it could even be officially announced. Questions were immediately raised as to not only how or if this should happen, but even who came up with the proposal in the first place. (Politico) Poland wants a permanent U.S. military presence — and is willing to pony up as much as $2 billion to get it, according to a defense ministry proposal obtained by Polish news portal Onet. The Kremlin said on Monday that gradual NATO military expansion towards its borders did not improve security or stability in Europe as it commented on media reports Poland is seeking to secure a permanent U.S. military presence on its territory.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-36) not displayed.
.
.
.
#37. To: sneakypete (#34)
You know, I agree with you on that.
My writings often resemble Machiavelli in their political realism. They are not popular here among the moralists.
Nothing but the Party Line is ever popular with moralists. That way they can avoid having to do all that hard thinking stuff.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You're agreeing with Vic who only a few posts back on this thread was suggesting the way to solve the Pashtun problem in Af/Pak is by using bacteriological weapons to poison their water supplies and create a genocide, confining the intended victims within their geographical area until they all die, then resettling the land. If that isn't a Final Solution, I don't know what is. I suppose that makes me a hopeless moralist to some people who have no problem with the idea of America applying Nazi extermination policies to entire populations.
You're agreeing with Vic who only a few posts back on this thread was suggesting the way to solve the Pashtun problem in Af/Pak is by using bacteriological weapons to poison their water supplies and create a genocide, confining the intended victims within their geographical area until they all die, then resettling the land. I agree with him as often as not,but I will never agree with him or anyone else on mass murder.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The Nazis were neither as smart nor as technologically advanced as we are. Nor were their enemies as deserving of death as ours are.
I assume you know that I don't REALLY want to unleash a descolada on Afghanistan to wipe the place clean and start over.
So we could kill them all off as long as we were subtle about it and maintained a veneer of plausible deniability. An arbitrary distinction that doesn't mask the actual policy of appropriation of private property, genocide, and illegal population transfers.
An arbitrary distinction that doesn't mask the actual policy of appropriation of private property, genocide, and illegal population transfers. You've gotta break some eggs to make an omelet. They started a war by attacking me. They are the enemies. I want my enemies dead. They inflicted loss on me and mine. Taking their stuff after they are dead compensates somewhat for the costs they inflicted on me. None of it had to happen at all if they had not attacked me and tried to kill me. But they did. And they failed. Now I have the right to kill them, and anybody who picks up a weapon to fight alongside of them. They started it. I'll finish it. We both could have lived. You leave me alone, I'll certainly leave you alone. But if you attack me and mine, you are going to die. And anybody who takes your side is going to die with you. That's the way it is. If God doesn't like it, he can intervene to stop it. The Muslims are relying on him to do so. Now, of course, I can't actually unleash a descolada on them. If I could, I would have already. Since I cannot permanently solve the problem, I'll just continue to politically support a forever war on them, and whatever sort of internal surveillance and intelligence is necessary to stop the Muslims from ever doing it again - their human rights are superseded by my right to protect myself, to the extent necessary. I'll support the party that keeps the army in the field over there, and the pay the taxes to do so, and support the military and intelligence that does so. I'll do so until I get war weary and am ready to give up. I'm nowhere near war weary there. Nope. War in Afghanistan is not really all that expensive. And it's hands on combat training for the troops. I will that it should continue for as long as it takes. That could very well be forever, just like the war on organized crime. There will always be more criminals, so we will always be at war with them. We will never be able to disarm the police and close the prisons. Likewise, we will have to keep an armed paramilitary in the field forever, for all ages, and pay for it by taxes, because the alternative - letting the criminals win - is unacceptable. In Afghanistan it's the military versus the domestic paramilitary. Other than that, I see no distinction. If we have to be there forever, then we're there forever. We have the money for it. It's very much like Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians claim they will fight forever. Ok. Then they'll have to be fought forever. Budget for it, and do it. Some enemies are a chronic disease that has to be managed on an ongoing basis by force. Force costs money. So you raise the taxes and spend the money in perpetuity. So be it. So what?
I barely know what I mean anymore,so I mostly assume that others mean what they write.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
They tolerated a rich Saudi who had inherited about $300M that he spent on clinics/schools. Especially fundamentalist schools. Bin Laden attacked us from his Afghan compounds where he was comparable to a minor warlord. There is no evidence that the Taliban government knew or approved of his 9/11 attack. Our invasion of Afghanistan was to eliminate him and his gang of terrorists. We are exhausting our special forces across the Mideast. It's a serious problem for the Pentagon who have issued repeated warnings that we are overstretched. Fine. You admit what your moral standard actually is. And it sounds a lot like being a Nazi to me. I'm not sure why you're using an obscure term from an old sci-fi novel to disguise your real intent.
Hire more. The country is full of young poor people who want a way out. So create the job, fund it, train them. If you create the force structure, the people will come to fill it.
Nazi-schmatzi.
75% of America's young people are physically unfit for military service. We've been told this repeatedly. And the ones who are fit enough have a lot of other choices. Were it not for family loyalties to serve in the military, I think we'd already be in deep trouble with staffing special forces.
Being a subtle Nazi is still being a Nazi.
No we haven't. We're told that 71% of youth are not fit for military service, for all reasons, including lack of a high school diploma, criminal records, ear adornments. A great number of the requirements are simply the prejudices of the guys who run the military enacted into requirements. Change the requirements, and you can fill the ranks. The other big reason is obesity, but that's not a reason at all. You can extend basic training to include a fitness period, and within a year any young person can be fit for military service. Sure, as with all other things, if the pinheads who currently set the standards are allowed to continue to enforce their own prejudices, we can make it such that nobody can qualify, but if we need to qualify huge numbers of people, we can, by opening up the standards. Physical fitness is something that can simply be imposed upon young people, no matter how fat they are, by controlling their food supply and making them exercise. Yeah, you won't get combat ready in six weeks. It may take a year, but you certainly can get there, if you need to. But if we don't change the standards and have insufficient special forces, we can buy a lot more drones and fly them all over those valleys, day and night, and zap whoever moves. We're in Afghanistan to stay.
I win the thread due to Godwin's Law.
Godwin's law only applies when people aren't advocating actual Nazi policies. For instance, by definition David Duke can never win an argument by Godwin's law.
We read reports from the military in recent years that they're simply too fat, too physically limited, or in too delicate health to be soldiers. The numbers are worse than you admit. And that is for ordinary military service, not even addressing the high need for recruits with the physical and mental qualities of special forces troops.
Didn't realize that the Nazis ever advocated biological warfare in South Asia.
Fixable: you make the induction training longer. And you rely ever more heavily on drones, which don't require fitness.
The Japanese certainly had an extensive program and tested on prisoners, including American POWs.
Which is why it is ok that we put them in concentration camps, firebombed them and nuked them.
And you rely ever more heavily on drones, which don't require fitness. Drones can't do everything. And the military and public have limits to what they'll tolerate in the way of real killing robots on the ground. You still need capable and hardy soldiers, and especially soldiers with the qualities of special forces fighters. You don't replace special forces so easily from a crop of overweight gender-bending tattoo freaks who hang out on Facebook all the time.
You still need capable and hardy soldiers, and especially soldiers with the qualities of special forces fighters. You don't replace special forces so easily from a crop of overweight gender-bending tattoo freaks who hang out on Facebook all the time. Oh well. We're still not getting out of Afghanistan anytime soon. So the folks who grouse will have to keep on grousing.
There's nothing at stake there really, other than national pride. At what point do you finally admit that you have no real interests in some backward country? I also think that Pakistan will never let us have a victory there. They have their own primary geostrategic outlook and they have a stake in keeping Afghanistan as it is currently due to their overarching concern over war with India. To ever fix Afghanistan, you'd have to invade Pakistan as well and then invade/occupy Waziristan and the other border tribal areas. IOW, an operation much bigger than even Vietnam was. And one more likely to fail. Until we face that, we'll keep throwing away lives in Af-Pak for no good reason. And I don't believe you can retain quality military personnel in a fight that they know you don't intend to actually win.
Maybe. I look at it differently, but given the "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" "Napalm the ashes" approach I took above, I can't really talk seriously on this subject on this thread. My actual "if I were President" position is...I would have to see the actual intelligence, all of the secret stuff that I don't know and can't glean from the news. Afghanistan is an odd deployment, in an odd place. I have pretty good - not absolute, but pretty good - confidence in our intelligence/national security folks to have good assessments of what is going on in an essentially non- political theater like Afghanistan. (I have considerably less confidence in them on a central theater such as Ukraine, where they all have such deep- seated animus to the IDEA of making peace with Russia that I think it severely clouds their professional judgment and the intelligence they give is biased and unreliable - and that they themselves don't realize it, because they are such "true believers".) IN Afghanistan and Somalia I think they have pretty good intel. I suspect that, given Obama's campaigning to get out, then his actual escalation and entrenchment there, and given Trump's silence on the place, that there are very good, strong, rational reasons why partisans of far poles both realize we need to stay. Nor do I get the sense that there's a Vietnam-style "bamboozle the people" campaign going on with regards to Afghanistan. I suspect that by sitting there as we are that there are some very important things getting done that fit importantly into our overall security posture. Now, if I were Deckard, I'd go negative and think that it has to do with clandestine profits on the opium trade being used to fund black ops all over the place. I expect that there is SOME of that going on, but that that is not the reason why we persist under W, then Obama, and now Trump. So, my ACTUAL position is that I do not have enough real information to fully understand why we are dug in there. I don't believe it to be merely a matter of pride. I don't see Obama or Trump as being Nixonian figures, and I don't see Obama in particular doubling down there so hard MERELY over matters of national pride. So, I think that the reason we're in Afghanistan is an unknown unknown that I don't have access to, but that the President does, and that successive Presidents have taken a rational decision to remain, one they do not articulate because the reasons themselves are at least partially clandestine. Therefore, I cannot say in truth exactly what I would do about Afghanistan. I don't have the information to make a real assessment. That's an actual answer - not a glib "Kill 'em all" answer. That is what I would actually do, were I President. Were I running for President, until I see the inside data and understand what, exactly we are doing there at a clandestine level, I can't form an opinion.
It's a bad deployment in a completely pointless place. There can be no victory there because there is nothing to win. Not for us. There wasn't anything there worth Britain's or Russia's efforts to conquer it either. It's an annoying place but that is no reason to try to garrison that graveyard of empires.
I know you truly believe that. I have no basis on which to form such a strong judgment. I need to see the facts that drive our decision, and given that those are Top Secret, unless God starts talking to me about such things (these are not the things God and I talk about, if you're wondering), then there isn't any way I'm going to know. So I'm either going to have to form a judgment that I know is uninformed, or I'm going to just have to trust the national leadership. In this case, I do trust the national leadership. W, Obama and Trump - three vastly different men from three different poles of the political universe - all maintained the deployment. I believe there's an actual reason for that, and I also believe that I will never know the reason for sure, not for many years. For now, I give the Trump Administration the benefit of the doubt. Whatever changed Obama's mind seems to have likewise influenced Trump's. Both of those men are pretty smart, in my estimation, and I think they probably made the right call so far.
Then why can't they articulate a reason for us to be there? Churchill and FDR never had much problem telling us why we needed to fight the Nazis or the Nips. Maybe you're way too trusting.
I enjoyed serving with the Polish Army in Iraq. Unfortunately, two weeks after I left my first deployment a Major I befriended was KIA by an IED. Two of his soldiers caught up with me in Kuwait to deliver the bad news. Good guy and good officer. Took care of his troops well. We are already rotating out brigade combat teams every 9 months or so, so perhaps having a permanent base there might actually cut some costs.
Frankly we are there to stop Al Queda and the Taliban from retaking Afghanistan and using it as a base of operations against Pakistan. If you can't believe that, then by us being there, it breaks up a geopolitical monopoly Iran could exploit on the cheap. Don't think that Sunni-Shia divide is actually something Iran cannot overcome. ;) If that is unbelievable then just think how much Russia hates having US combat troops so close in their sphere of influence.
Af-Pak is only about 10-15% Shi'a, the rest are Sunni. I just saw these numbers. There were no Christian churches at all and just 1 Jew in the country. Don't hang around the Bear's den. It's a bad idea.
I am kind of amused that Poland is bold enough to try to take advantage of Merkel's bad relationship with Trump and her weak military and attempts to foist all those migrants on to the resisting eastern EUros. And they just forthrightly offer him a business deal. Poland: "You give us base, we give you $2B American. Okay?" Trump must love the offer, even if the Pentagon probably isn't so thrilled that allies might bid to get bases sited in their country. Can you imagine Trump out on the campaign trail: "Ya know, those Poles are terrific at standing up to Merkel trying to force them to take in her overflow of refugees. And Poland, a great little country, very classy military, made me an offer to pay us $2 billion to put a base in Poland. Yeah, no president ever made a deal like that before, getting paid to put our base in their country. Looking at this, you realize how our past presidents have made terrible deals on trade, on NATO, on lots of things but I intend to fix all those bad deals." It really would be astonishing if Trump actually took their deal. Or bid them up to $2.5B and then accepted the deal. LOL
EU plans to reduce subsidies to Eastern Europe by tens of billions.
Oh? And they are ready to live with the consequences? We'll see.
You mean like Protestants and Catholics? Perhaps, but Al Queda and the Taliban are rabid fundamentalists, who see Shia as fake Muslims.
What can they do?
President Trump makes Shia Wahhabis look bad. He needs to get with the program, grow a beard, and fire his tailor! Who is Pope Francis to judge?
I thought Donald was the best bacha bazi dancer in that chorus line. His sense of rhythm is...unique. That sword they gave him does look funny. Like a child's plastic sword. It wiggles way too much as Trump is swaying, looks non-metallic.
Deadly enemies. The Wahhabis don't even like other Sunnis much, they loath the Shi'a.
Comments (78 - 100) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNo,we just gave up. There is a difference.
#38. To: A Pole (#36)
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
They are not popular here among the moralists.
#40. To: sneakypete (#39)
They are not popular here among the moralists.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#40)
They are not popular here among the moralists.
#42. To: Tooconservative (#40)
(Edited)
I suppose that makes me a hopeless moralist to some people who have no problem with the idea of America applying Nazi extermination policies to entire populations.
#43. To: sneakypete (#41)
I agree with him as often as not,but I will never agree with him or anyone else on mass murder.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
The Nazis were neither as smart nor as technologically advanced as we are.
Nor were their enemies as deserving of death as ours are.
#45. To: Tooconservative (#44)
(Edited)
So we could kill them all off as long as we were subtle about it and maintained a veneer of plausible deniability.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
I assume you know that I don't REALLY want to unleash a descolada on Afghanistan to wipe the place clean and start over.
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
(Edited)
They started a war by attacking me. They are the enemies. I want my enemies dead.
In Afghanistan it's the military versus the domestic paramilitary. Other than that, I see no distinction. If we have to be there forever, then we're there forever. We have the money for it.
Now, of course, I can't actually unleash a descolada on them. If I could, I would have already.
#48. To: Tooconservative (#47)
We are exhausting our special forces across the Mideast. It's a serious problem for the Pentagon who have issued repeated warnings that we are overstretched.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#47)
Fine. You admit what your moral standard actually is. And it sounds a lot like being a Nazi to me.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
Hire more. The country is full of young poor people who want a way out. So create the job, fund it, train them. If you create the force structure, the people will come to fill it.
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Nazi-schmatzi.
#52. To: Tooconservative (#50)
75% of America's young people are physically unfit for military service. We've been told this repeatedly.
#53. To: Tooconservative (#51)
Being a subtle Nazi is still being a Nazi.
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
I win the thread due to Godwin's Law.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
No we haven't. We're told that 71% of youth are not fit for military service, for all reasons, including lack of a high school diploma, criminal records, ear adornments.
#56. To: Tooconservative (#54)
Godwin's law only applies when people aren't advocating actual Nazi policies.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#55)
they're simply too fat, too physically limited, or in too delicate health to be soldiers
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
Didn't realize that the Nazis ever advocated biological warfare in South Asia.
#59. To: Tooconservative (#58)
The Japanese certainly had an extensive program and tested on prisoners, including American POWs.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
Fixable: you make the induction training longer.
#61. To: Tooconservative (#60)
And the military and public have limits to what they'll tolerate in the way of real killing robots on the ground.
#62. To: Vicomte13 (#61)
#63. To: Tooconservative (#62)
(Edited)
There's nothing at stake there really, other than national pride.
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#63)
Afghanistan is an odd deployment, in an odd place.
#65. To: Tooconservative (#64)
It's a bad deployment in a completely pointless place.
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#65)
W, Obama and Trump - three vastly different men from three different poles of the political universe - all maintained the deployment.
#67. To: Tooconservative (#0)
The Poles are begging Trump to Make Poland Great Again. I can't recall any of our allies offering to pay billions to build a new base for us to flock to. Maybe the Qataris did for our navy base but I don't recall that they paid either. I think the Poles are hoping to woo us out of Germany where Merkel has gotten more unfriendly and has an embarrassing military. Poland's military is scrappy with good equipment for the most part. Poland would like to be our new military hub in Europe instead of Germany.
#68. To: Tooconservative (#66)
Then why can't they articulate a reason for us to be there? Churchill and FDR never had much problem telling us why we needed to fight the Nazis or the Nips. Maybe you're way too trusting.
#69. To: redleghunter (#68)
(Edited)
Frankly we are there to stop Al Queda and the Taliban from retaking Afghanistan and using it as a base of operations against Pakistan. If you can't believe that, then by us being there, it breaks up a geopolitical monopoly Iran could exploit on the cheap. Don't think that Sunni-Shia divide is actually something Iran cannot overcome. ;)
If that is unbelievable then just think how much Russia hates having US combat troops so close in their sphere of influence.
#70. To: redleghunter (#67)
(Edited)
#71. To: Tooconservative (#70)
#72. To: A Pole (#71)
EU plans to reduce subsidies to Eastern Europe by tens of billions.
#73. To: redleghunter (#68)
Don't think that Sunni-Shia divide is actually something Iran cannot overcome. ;)
#74. To: Tooconservative (#72)
"EU plans to reduce subsidies to Eastern Europe by tens of billions." And they are ready to live with the consequences?
#75. To: A Pole, Fake Muslim Donald (#73)
(Edited)
Al Queda and the Taliban are rabid fundamentalists, who see Shia as fake Muslims.
#76. To: hondo68, Liberator (#75)
(Edited)
#77. To: hondo68 (#75)
Shia Wahhabis
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]