|
You and I are basically on the same page on these issues. We differ in a couple of ways, though. I think that the primary criteria for military commitment or intervention should be strategic, but I am willing to have humanitarian considerations tip the scale if a plausible case can be made on the other grounds. Second, while I agree that we should not be unnecessarily provocative towards Russia, and that any great nation has a legitimate sphere of influence, I am not sure that we can afford to pass up this window of opportunity to strengthen security arrangements against a resurgent Russia. In the instance of the Baltic nations, I do not think that we should deploy Nato so far forward, but I am not so sure that they should be excluded from continental security arrangements just because it would offend Russia. They are sovereign states, and part of Europe, and therefore have a right to balance the naturally dominant position of Russia. In the instance of the Caspian nations, companies from the States and Western Europe are making major investments in the region for the purposes of developing its potential to rival Arabia as a source of oil and gas. There is no way that we cannot be involved in security concerns about the conduits for those yields, especially since it has a large strategic dimension, curing us of vulnerability to people like Hussein and the mullahs in Iran, and creating a fertile field for instability if we do not tend to our interests. Third, we must begin to coax Germany and Japan into taking a more natural role in regional affairs. Since the end of the War, we have served as a proxy for each, because they were too offensive to their neighbors to be trusted. The normal situation would have Germany balancing Russia on the continent, and Japan balancing China in Asia. If they can take over some of the burdens of regional leadership, then we will have less of an overstretch concern..... |
