Ryan's points are good ones, and while he might think my pondering "what ifs" irrational because I think we would have won regardless... I'm pondering the manner in which we'd win, not the fact itself. That's all... nothing more.
My thoughts on his comments:
Reagan and Thatcher. The Dynamic Duo of the Cold War... and rightly claiming the title. Two tough old codgers, no doubt. So, no consideration of NATO hesitation or failure can be taken without weighing what these two giants of the 80s would have wanted and/or done... well, let's think about that a second.
In April of 1986, a bomb of Libyan origin exploded in a West Berlin disco and killed two US servicemen and wounding 200 other people... all because of a sparring match that the US and Libya had been playing over territorial rights in the Gulf of Sidra. Ten days after the bomb exploded... the US decided to strike back in spades.
This bombing was a direct attack on US interests and personnel, in a manner that put hundreds of innocent civilians at risk of their lives. Within hours of the attack, we knew who was responsible for the attack, and we knew how we could strike back. Reagan and the Cabinet reached out to the other leaders of NATO nations that might be effected by the strike on Libya... and NONE OF THEM cooperated... not even so much as to let the US overfly their air space. Entire US airbases were CLOSED to the strike because they exist on continental Europe, where the leadership didn't want to be associated with the US action.
The only two NATO leaders that thought the attack a good idea? Reagan and Thatcher. No other support from the leadership of the NATO member states was coming... AT ALL. THIS isn't a good example that NATO was not the "sure thing" that you (and Jambo) are suggesting it was all through the 80s?
I do not discount the reality of the leadership that Thatcher and Reagan could bring to the table... not at all... but if even a few days of preparation were delayed by in-fighting, confusion, or non-cooperation by just a few NATO member states, what does that do to a NATO time line for countering a Soviet invasion? Countering such an invasion in a unilateral manner like the US/Brits did in the Libyan bombing campaign... even if the unilateral action is only a few days long before the rest of NATO is up and running with us... is the result the same as that suggested by Jambo and Ryan? What if even ONE train is held up at a border? What if even ONE airport is closed to MAC flights? What if even ONE port is closed to US shipping for as little as 24 hours? The number disparity is nearly 2 to 1 against NATO at the outbreak of war... and I simply don't see any evidence (now or then) that NATO could do what it promised without pause or interruption.
Its curious that I'm seen as discounting the "reality" of Reagan/Thatcher... but no one sees the disparity of what was "intended" to be and what actually happened?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment