Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts

Saturday, March 12, 2022

STALEMATE IN UKRAINE?

If the past three weeks in Ukraine have proven anything it's that the much vaunted Russian War Machine is still prone to the same old errors its historical predecessors were (in)famous for. As in the past, the Russian military top brass have again shown themselves to be slow learners and fast forgetters. The performance of the Russian army in Ukraine is eerily reminiscent of another invasion of a weaker neighbour possessing numerically far inferior forces - which nevertheless acquitted themselves well. I am talking about the Winter War of 1939-1940, when the USSR invaded tiny Finland, yet got its armies clobbered by small Finnish units almost devoid of armour.





Certainly, what is noteworthy of the conflict is the emerging role of tank busting drones. At the start of the conflict, the Ukrainian military reportedly boasted an altogether modest force of 12 Turkish-made Bayraktar drones, but in three weeks of combat these exacted a heavy toll:





Just like in World War Two, Russian commanders make the same obvious tactical errors time and again, like e.g. lining up their armor in neat rows on obvious avenues of approach. See for yourself the effect of Ukrainian artillery:





But old habits die hard, and among those is the deliberate, blind use of brutal power when things don't go according to plan:





It is hard to fathom how the war in Ukraine - Europe's biggest one since World War Two - will develop from here. The Ukrainian military has shown remarkable resilience, helped in no small part by their sky high morale. That of their adversaries may very well be vastly lower. I suppose even ardent chauvinist Russian troopers will have a hard time kidding themselves that they are fighting for a good cause. Next, while generally armor on both sides is roughly similar, the steady supply of modern, man-portable Western weaponry like the British Javelins and NLAWS, or the German Panzerfaust 3, has the potential to turn into a game changer. It can no longer be denied that these weapons are exacting a heavy toll on Russian armour.


Even so, I fear that in the end numbers will tell the tale. If you put a welter boxer against a heavyweight, the former may initially score a number of successes... but ultimately, the heavyweight will have the upper hand. At some point, Russians forces may elect to bypass Kiev and simply push south, while those at Kherson may advance north. When they join up, they will have bagged an enormous chunk of the Ukrainian military in an area that has seen a mass encirclement before.


A possible scenario thereafter is that the remaining UA forces conduct a fighting withdrawal to the West, where they either may make a brave last stand, or else perform so well that the Russians consider the cost of subduing them simply too high and allow them to keep Western Ukraine. All the while, Putins divisions may have to cope with isolated small pockets and an insurgency behind their backs.


As dreadful as these scenarios sound, I fear that for the West the sending of weaponry and supplies, and maintaining the sanctions, will remain the most it can do. Ukraine is no NATO country, and therefore Article V cannot be invoked. Active military engagement, like e.g. imposing a No Fly Zone, is totally out of the question. As hard as it may be to watch the Ukrainians fight and suffer for their country, under no pretext can a nuclear war be risked - because that's what NATO engagement would inevitably lead to.


We can and should support Ukraine where we can - sending tank busting weaponry, ammo, take in their refugees, lending financial support, fastening the economic screws on Russia, but in the end, out there in the field, I see no other sensible option than that it's the Ukrainian soldier who must bear the brunt of this foul war.



MFBB.

Friday, February 26, 2016

BALTIC AIR POLICING FROM AMARI, ESTONIA.

Four Belgian F-16s currently operate from Ämari Air Base in Estonia, as part of NATO's Enhanced Air Policing Mission (EAPM).


 photo amariAFBFeb2016_zpslo01v51v.jpg


Ämari Air Base is located in Harjumaa, a northwestern county in Estonia, at the Gulf of Finland. The base is located 7 kilometers south of Lake Klooga. During the Cold War, the Soviet Air Force operated from Ämari with 170th and 321st Naval Shturmovik Aviation Regiments, which were equipped with Su-24 Fencers (the same type is currently being used for bombing ISIS). The Estonian Government proposed NATO to use the base to conduct its Baltic Air Policing patrols. Ämari was assessed for that purpose by USAF's 48th Fighter Wing in April 2014. The facility was found suitable for the task, and before long four Danish F-16's started their patrols from there. Since then, there have been regular shifts of NATO four-plane detachments. The base even saw the arrival of F-22 Raptors last autumn.


Here's a rather flashy video made by NATO of our F-16's operating from Ämari:




And while our old F-16's are for the umpteenth time being deployed overseas, the political debate in Belgium still has not given any indication with regards to the Fighting Falcon's successor. If it were up to the military, the F-35 would be it. Despite the F-35's lengthy and costly development period and the difficulties still plaguing the programme, it still remains the obvious candidate for the F-16 replacement. Belgium's defense industry thinks so too - in September 2015 three leading defense companies, Sonaca, SABCA, and Ilias Solutions signed a protocol accord with Lockheed Martin.


MFBB.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

THE BRUSSELS JOURNAL'S THOMAS LANDEN: "THE PURPOSE OF NATO IS TO PREPARE FOR WAR".

Over at The Brussels Journal, Thomas Landen had an excellent column last week regarding NATO's future. Some exerpts:


"... The new enemy of the West is ideological Islam. If NATO wants to be a useful instrument in defending the West against this enemy it needs to accept a new member state – Israel – and stop groveling to Turkey.

Last week, Bernard Kouchner, the powerful Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, announced that he is no longer in favor of admitting Turkey to the European Union. Mr. Kouchner changed his mind, he said, at the recent NATO summit in Strasbourg on April 4th. There, Ankara threatened to veto the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, as NATO’s new Secretary-General. The Turks objected to Mr. Rasmussen because in 2005 he defended the freedom of expression of Danish cartoonists who had depicted the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

Turkey is governed by the AKP, a very popular Islamic party in Central and Eastern Anatolia. The AKP’s voters feel more strongly about the Islamic law which prohibits depicting the Muslim prophet than about basic Western values such as freedom of expression. These voters already feel “hurt” by the simple depiction of their prophet, which in Islam is blasphemy. The Turkish threats in Strasbourg jolted Mr. Kouchner into realizing what the future has in store for the European Union if Turkey becomes a member. “I was very shocked by the pressure that was brought on us,” Mr. Kouchner said. “Turkey’s evolution in, let’s say, a more religious direction, towards a less robust secularism, worries me.”


The bruhaha concerning Turkey's opposition to Mr. Rasmussen's candidacy for NATO Secretary General was "resolved" after a personal intervention by president Hussein. The president, on the photo seen during his recent visit to the Middle East, gave the Turks watertight guarantees that Mr. Rasmussen, should Turkey agree with him heading the alliance, would have a Turkish deputy. The significance of this compromise "brokered" by Hussein should not be underestimated. We have here an unwilling NATO member, shying away from its responsibilities in Afghanistan through God knows how many caveats, and which has threatened to block the alliance's functioning because.... Mr. Rasmussen refused to forbid the publication in Danish newspapers in 2005 of some stupid cartoons depicting the prophet muhammad. Hussein's demeanor was none other but appeasement in its worst form. Instead of backing up the Prime Minister of a sovereign democracy who a.) had at the time merely stated that Denmark had freedom of press, that b.) he was not in a position, even as PM, to forbid such publications, and that c.) if they wanted them removed they should take their actions to a Danish court... Hussein let Rasmussen stand in the cold and caved in to the Turks. Nor was that all. He downright advised the EU to accept Turkey as a member state, and furthermore proclaimed (Thomas Landen continues)...

"...in Istanbul that “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans,” Europeans, who have seen a massive flow of Muslim immigration to their continent in the past decades, take an entirely different view. The Pew Center’s Global Attitude Polls indicate that citizens in EU countries with high percentages of Muslim immigrants adopt negative attitudes towards Muslims. These Europeans have noticed how their neighborhoods, cities and countries are losing their traditional European identity following the erosion of European values owing to the immigration of large numbers of Muslims with entirely different views of how people should behave and what liberties they should have.

“We are not at war with Islam,” Mr. Obama said in Istanbul. He seems to have forgotten that Europe and America were never at war with the Soviet Union either. Indeed, the purpose of NATO was to ensure peace and stability in Europe by maintaining a level of deterrent which refrained the Soviet Union from attacking NATO or one of its member states. NATO ensured that we were never at war with the Soviets by preparing itself for war against the Soviets. In doing so, NATO successfully preserved the freedoms of the West."


Taking into account the severe liability that an islamist-led Turkey has become for NATO, Landen then proceeds to some interesting conclusions:


"Today, ideological Islam has replaced Marxism as the main threat to the freedoms of the West. If sixty years after its foundation NATO wants to continue serving its purpose it needs to transform itself into an organization which can ensure that we will never be at war with Islam. NATO’s successful past shows that it can only serve this goal by preparing itself for war against Islam.

If NATO wants to continue serving its goal it should stand strong against every attempt at intimidation by ideological Islam. Instead of giving in to AKP threats it should forcefully reject them. If this means that Turkey leaves the organization, so be it. NATO should have shown Turkey the door in Strasbourg instead of giving in to the whims of the AKP."



To make up for the loss of an unreliable partner, Filip Dewinter, the most visible Vlaams Belang personality, has a very sound idea imho:

"As far as a membership of NATO is concerned, I have no problem at all with that, and I think it might even be very good when Israel joins NATO, because NATO defends freedoms and democratic values, characteristic of European civilization, and I have always said so and will repeat it again, that Israel is an outpost of the free West in Islamic-occupied territory."


Can't agree more.


MFBB.

Saturday, March 01, 2008

NATO AIN'T DEAD!



Brothers in arms: a patrol consisting of a Dutch Fennek light armoured recce vehicle followed by an unrecognizable US troop carrier. The Fennek's size belies its weight, 10.4 tonnes combat-ready.


It is true that the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan is borne by the US Army. It is true that most NATO members have issued lots of caveats with regards to the deployment of their troops. It is true that some of those members who do fight - Canada, The Netherlands - face increasing pressure from leftist defeatists at home to end the deployment altogether. It is true that the Taleban are not defeated yet and that the end is not in sight yet. But...

But on the other hand, is there, after all, really reason to despair? Should not cautious optimism be the norm instead of anxious fretting? While the lackluster support among most NATO allies for Operation Enduring Freedom and the NATO/ISAF mission is worrisome, should one not be also elated that, after all, ALL NATO countries are present and contributing, be it to varying degrees? I live in a continent where right after the Wall came down, the leftist bozos who all the time had been part of the problem rather than of the solution started asking whether an organization like NATO was really necessary in the post communist era. Doubts about NATO's purpose in a time when a world-acclaimed author concluded that history had come to an end, afflicted even those sympathetic to an organization which had seen the light when Truman was president.

And yet here we are, eighteen long years later, and even though there is some coughing and hiccups and the occasional spasms, to state that NATO is dead couldn't be farther from the truth. ALL 26 NATO members have troops in AF. True, it's always the same who do the fighting: the US of course, Canada, the UK, The Netherlands, the Danes and Estonians. But service in the relatively quiet north and west isn't always a piece of cake either. Germany e.g., which its 3,210 troops responsible for Regional Command North and the third largest contributor, has had 29 fatalities thus far. While not comparable to the losses the US has suffered, not exactly a Club Med resort assignment either. The French, with their 1,515 personnel mainly around Kabul (currently under Opération Pamir XVII), are indeed highly constrained by caveats - but they do a prodigious job of demining dangerous areas. Less glorious perhaps, but just as necessary. They also do extensive patrols and there have been skirmishes with Taliban, check out this video. Then there is the fact that ISAF, as the very acronym implies - International Security and Assistance Force - is essentially not a fighting operation. It is an operation meant to help the democratically elected Afghan government establish its hold over the country, and support it wherever necessary with reconstruction. Combat brigades were never intended to be ISAF's spearheads - its PRT's (Provincial Reconstruction Teams, there are currently 25 of them) were. Norway's 495 troops are mainly deployed in the Meymaneh PRT in Faryab province, part of Spain's 740 personnel lead the Qala-i-Naw PRT in Badghis province. Hungary's 230 troops are responsible for the Pul-e Khumri PRT in Baghlan province. Slovenia's 70 troops of the 2nd motorised company, 20th motorised battalion (Celje) soldier on in Herat. And the Slovenian government donated 10,000 AK 47 automatic rifles to the ANA, the Afghan National Army. While all these operations miss the drama of the fierce combat in the south, they just as much contribute to the success of Enduring Freedom, America's mission in Afghanistan. So far, despite the setbacks and the caveats, it is not exaggerated to state that the US's NATO allies conducted an operation Enduring Support. At the recent Munich Conference, TIME's Michael Elliott had a conversation with retired US Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a novelist and essayist. The following is an exerpt from Elliott's article, A Call to Arms, in the February 25, TIME Europe issue:


... That is to say, there are, today, German troops in Afghanistan - 3,500 of them. They may not be in the most dangerous parts of the country or hunting down well-armed bands of Taliban guerrillas, but they are there. That, when you think about it, is astonishing. American author and columnist Ralph Peters (who is nobody's idea of a softie on defense matters) was at the Munich conference, and put things in perspective for me. When he was serving in the U.S. Army intelligence in Germany, Peters said, "We couldn't get the Germans to move 8km. Now we've got them moving 8,000 miles."

But honest is honest, some are doing more than their share. Canada has had 78 fatalities so far. The Netherlands, which is actually punching above its weight, 14 or so. The following video contains some footage of Dutch Commandos in Uruzgan province:



The shortage felt on the ground is such that this spring, an additional 3,200 US Marines from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and the 7th Marine Regiment will be dispatched to southern Afghanistan. This shouldn't have to be necessary. Are there any signs that the burden will be carried more evenly in the near future? Luckily, there are. The French will send hundreds of fresh troops to eastern Afghanistan (check out this clip of French Chasseurs Alpins in the hills around Kabul). Under the staunch leadership of its PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark stays committed. And look out for Spain, which will have parliamentary elections come 9 March. With clear signs that the Spanish economy is tilting towards a recession - Zapatero's main concerns were rather legalizing gay marriage and gay adoption, talking with ETA terrorists and a red carpet treatment for 4 million illegal immigrants - the Spanish conservatives stand a good chance to win. This may then imply a bigger Spanish commitment. And as we have seen, even my country will send some additional troops plus four fighter bombers - finally with a mandate to bomb and strafe Taliban strongholds.

NATO may become a sextagenarian in a little over a year, but this old warhorse has by no means lost its teeth - quite the contrary.



Dutch F-16 taking off from Kandahar Airfield, on its way to kick some Taliban ass.



MFBB.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

BELGIAN GOVERNMENT TO SEND F-16'S TO AFGHANISTAN. SOCIALIST OPPOSITION GOES BONKERS.



For five long years, the bulk of the Belgian ISAF contingent in Afghanistan - 300 troops drawn from various units - has been guarding KAIA, Kabul International Airport, a job I gather is considered the safest in the Hindu Kush. The photo above shows two Pandur troop carriers and two of the new Dingo MPPV's (centre) on patrol in the greater Kabul area (apparently global warming hasn't reached Afghanistan yet). In addition to the KAIA guard detachment, a staff of 60 is performing the actual management of the airport itself. Finally there is a platoon-sized unit assisting the Germans in Kunduz, primarily with demining activities. By contrast, our northern neighbour, The Netherlands, has been actively engaged in the fighting, its contingent being among the five or so NATO contributors which actually confront the Taliban on a daily basis. And the sight of body bags returning to Holland has become, unfortunately, a constant reminder of the danger the Dutch troops are facing. The bulk of the 2,000 strong force - with heavy matériel at its disposal, including mechanized howitzers, scores of tracked AIFV's and Apache attack helicopters, is engaged in the volatile Uruzgan province. They get air support from six Dutch F-16 fighter bombers.

Over the past year, the pressure put on Belgium for doing more in AF has been growing steadily, and when US Secdef Robert Gates recently warned against NATO becoming a "two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those wo are not", he certainly must have had Belgium in mind - amongst others.

The Belgium interim government under Guy Verhofstadt - he is to be succeeded by the Christian-Democrat Yves Leterme on March 24, but only fools believe that - has now announced, for the first time, a truly active participation in the fight against the Taliban. Four F-16 fighter bombers and 100 ground personnel will be sent to Kandahar Airfield (KAF), where they will join the six Dutch planes in an Air Task Force. Even though the extra Belgian effort is still very modest, the Dutch are pleased with it. Like Gates, they have been asking for a long time for more support from their partners. Back in June 2007, right after the Belgian parliamentary elections, Dutch PM Jan-Peter Balkenende called Yves Leterme - at the time everyone was still convinced Leterme would quickly assume the post of Belgian PM - and asked him "Yves, do something for us in south Afghanistan!" Too bad for the Dutch June 10, 2007 marked the start of the longest coalition talks in Belgian history, which would ultimately drag on for 192 days during which Verhofstadts caretaker government was unable to answer the Dutch call. And even then no satisfactory accord was reached, since pressure from the EU, which needed an active Belgian government to sign the Lisbon Treaty, forced an interim government upon the Belgians - under Verhofstadt again! This interim government, in its second month now, is actually composed of the losers of the June 10 elections, but there is one bright spot: the disastrous Defense Minister André Flahaut (Parti Socialiste) has been succeeded by Pieter De Crem, a Christian Democrat who under Verhofstadt II had constantly lamented the demise of the Belgian military. And it is De Crem who has been the catalyst in the decision to send the fighter bombers to aid the Dutch. To be sure, this is not the first time Belgian F-16's head to Afghanistan. Four other ones were deployed from KAIA two years ago, but Flahaut did not permit combat flights, only patrols. This time will be different, and the planes will be actively engaged to pound Taliban positions - a welcome reinforcement for the Dutch, be it, unfortunately, only from September on.

Socialists would not be socialists if they did not object to even this almost negligible contribution. Barely had the decision been announced or Dirk Van Der Maelen, MP for the SP.a (Flemish socialists) asked for a parliamentary round to debate the deployment. To illustrate how extremely difficult it is in Belgium to pursue a realistic defense policy, including a responsible and fair attitude within the NATO framework, I'll now cite several top ranking SP.a officials:


a.) Caroline Gennez, Chairwoman SP.a, a cunt of the first order.

"Belgium should not blindly wage a war. This is an unwinnable war. We absolutely disagree to send combat troops at a time when the conflict escalates."

b.) Ludwig Vandenhove, Chairman of the Defense Commission in Parliament. Asshole Superdeluxe. Vandenhove on February 7, 2008, during the debate on the mission in Parliament:

"If the government decides to commit our country and our soldiers to such a dangerous, lost war, it is only logical that this decision is explained as quickly as possible in Parliament. In addition, because of this engagement, Belgium will become more than ever the target of terrorist attacks."

c.) Johan Vandelanotte, MP, former SP.a chairman. Wants to starve what remains of the Belgian Army by reducing its strength of 40,000 to 20,000 and cutting its budget in half. The money thus freed should go to development aid, even when it is crystal-clear that 50 years of extensive Belgian development aid in a.o. Africa has achieved nothing.

"Pieter De Crem is the errand boy of Balkenende."

Dirk Van der Maelend.) Dirk Van der Maelen, MP and Fraction Leader for SP.a. A coward, a f*cking dhimmi and an outspoken enemy of corporate Belgium. Got himself huffed and puffed up two years ago in the Belgian press with a litany against Paul Wolfowitz and the pay raise the latter gave to his girlfriend. Was less concerned about the fact that a certain Sabine Steels, girlfriend of his mate Patrick Janssens, the socialist mayor of Antwerp, landed herself without exams a cushy job as Antwerps "Safety Director" via a stop between Janssens sheets. But I digress. Van der Maelen on sending just four Belgian jets to AF:


"Now that George W. Bush sees the end of his term, he realizes all the more that he will enter history as the president who lost two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). Hoping that American troop reinforcements can turn the tide in a lost cause, the US are pushing for more. But do we really want to go to Afghanistan to save the honour of Bush?

...

Therefore we plead to open the debate and, e.g., think about a bigger role for the UN. A greater UN-mandate directed at development and stabilization, reinforcement of the institutions... that is what the country needs. No poodle wagging his tail running after Bush without a thought, in the process wasting money which harms purchasing power or, worse, endangers the lives of soldiers and/or citizens."

[note from MFBB: I fail to understand how the purchasing power of Belgian citizens can be badly affected with a Defense budget amounting to 1.3% of the GNP. If Van Der Maelen was really concerned about our purchasing power, he might want to do something about our taxes, among the highest in Europe.]


Just remember, these ball-less assholes are total military ignoramuses - I doubt there is even one among them capable of distinguishing a spare track for a Leopard from an ammo canister.

But there is more.

Money and defense, sometimes they do go together for or moral betters.

Willy ClaesA "high" mark in the not so brilliant history of Belgian contributions to NATO is the appointment of Willy Claes to NATO Secretary General in September 1994 - an function he held for a mere fifteen months, when he was forced to step down. The reason? The involvement of Claes in the so-called "Agusta scandal", an affair whereby the socialist parties (both the Flemish and Walloon ones) received kickbacks for pushing the Belgian Army in 1988 to buy 48 mediocre A-109 attack helicopters from the Italian helicopter maker Agusta S.p.A.. Trials had revealed other choppers to be far better, but Agusta sealed the US$267-million contract by paying the Flemish Socialistische Partij US$1.72 million in bribes. When the purchase took place, Claes was Economic Affairs Minister. Six years later, as NATO Secretary General, he first vehemently denied any knowledge of the payments, then admitted that he had indeed been at a meeting where the kickbacks were discussed. As the investigation into Claes' involvement deepened, the affair began to stink to high heaven. Still, even as late as February 27, 1995, the Vice President of the United States, a certain Al Gore, deemed it necessary to issue a statement saying:


"The United States has full and complete confidence in Secretary General Claes."


Guy CoemeIt should be noted that Agusta was a state-owned company controlled by Bettino Craxi's PSI, the Partito Socialista Italiano. If you still have the stomach to follow that link, yes, that's a hammer and sicle in the PSI's logo. The difference between Italian socialists and Italian communists is basically that the former have a better stocked canteen. Where was I? Oh yes, Claes. Back in 1988, when the decision to buy the A-109's was taken, two ministerial signatures were absolutely needed. One was the signature of Willy Claes as Minister of Economic Affairs, as we have seen. The other one was, of course, the signature of the Defense Minister himself. AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! The Defense Minister in the late eighties was none other than Guy Coeme, a Walloon of the Parti Socialiste!!!!! By the time the scandal broke out, this illustrious predecessor of André Flahaut was being investigated not only for his involvement in the Agusta scandal - the PS also received part of the bribes - but into another scandal as well, namely the payment by French aircraft manufacturer Dassault of a 2 million US$ bribe to the Walloon Socialist Party for a contract to modernize the Belgian Air Force's F-16 and Mirage III jets in 1989. This affair became known as the case of "The Three Guys", since the main protagonists were Guy Coeme, the Parti Socialiste Defense Minister, Guy Spitaels, the Chairman of the Parti Socialiste, and Guy Mathot, a former Budget Minister from the Parti Socialiste whose most memorable quote regarding the Belgian state deficit was: "the deficit came out of the blue, it will disappear the same way."

Agusta 109 - favored over the ApacheAll three had to resign in 1994, and it seems the success of the investigation was due to the results of yet another investigation, namely the inquiry into the murder of a former Parti Socialiste Chairman, André Cools, who was shot in broad daylight in 1991 in Liège, reportedly because he had threatened to reveal nasty details about the party's finances - not that Cools himself was a saint, far from. However, you know how it goes in the Mafia. But the really interesting year with regards to the bookkeeping of both the Socialistische Partij and the Parti Socialiste was 1995, when Etienne Mange , chief of the Belgian Postal Services AND Treasurer of the Flemish Socialist Party (and a close collaborator of Willy Claes) - was arrested in connection with the Agusta kickbacks. When Belgian magistrates discovered a secret bank account in Switzerland early in 1995, Mange confessed that the Flemish SP had indeed received a gift of $160 million Belgian francs (the 1.72 million US$ from above, you will recall) from Agusta via a Swiss bank account held by Luc Wallyn, a Belgian employee of the European Commission (as a sidenote, Wallyn was also vice secretary general of the Flemish Socialist Party). It was Mangé who sealed Claes' fate. He told the police that he had discussed Agusta's offer to pay bribes to the Flemish Socialist Party with a.o., Claes. Claes finally stepped down in December 1995. While it is entirely possible that even at that stage Al Gore still had full and complete confidence in the man - Socialists-'R-Us - most if not all NATO officials had by then distanced themselves from their chief, one US official saying that the real question "was how Willy Claes could have gotten NATO Secretary General in the first place." He was right. In the early eighties, the Reagan administration installed tactical nukes in Western Europe, a.o. in Belgium. This to counter the threat of Soviet SS-20 tactical nuclear missiles already deployed. In Brussels, a giant demonstration was staged by the usual moonbats: 400,000 people, the largest in Belgian history. One of the prominent organizers was... Willy Claes.

And so we can conclude that you can always count on socialists to do the wrong thing after they have tried all the other wrong things. They were dead wrong in opposing US nukes while they were hunky dory with their Soviet counterparts - and one of the great unwritten books of that timeframe is the one dealing with the reportedly very intensive and friendly contacts which then existed between western european socialist parties and their comrades from across the Iron Curtain. They were dead wrong when Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR - I have been a keen follower of Belgian politics since I was 16, and I can assure you that our dear do-gooders never questioned the Soviet invasion - quite unlike another "invasion" in the region some five years back. They were dead wrong in the Agusta and Dassault scandals, and they were dead wrong in the first Gulf War, when the socialist Defense Minister refused to sell artillery ammo to the UK. And speaking of Iraq, they were dead wrong when they did everything to hamper the preparations for OIF, the lunatic André Flahaut at some point even threatening to deny Belgian airspace to US warplanes.

And now they are dead wrong in opposing the dispatching of a mere flight of four fighter bombers to Afghanistan to be deployed against islamic extremists of the worst possible kind - who just days ago blew up 80 marketgoers in the worst carnage since the country was liberated in 2001.

What do our moral betters from the SP.a propose then, apart from getting the UN involved? Well, as you probably know by now, Messrs. Claes, Vandenhove, Vandelanotte and Van der Maelen, to name but a few, are the co-authors of a pact between Belgium's so-called democratic parties to never talk or form coalitions with the Vlaams Belang, Flanders' only truly conservative party. This situation is called the so-called cordon sanitaire. With regards to the Taliban, however, the gentlemen propose to hold talks with the "moderate ones" among them.

I get it. For socialists, talks with the VB are haram. Talks with the Taliban however are halal. You know what talks I prefer? I can't wait till those four F-16's start pounding Dirk Van der Maelens preferred speaking partners.




MFBB.