3 Comments

Sorry about the late comment, and this might be misinformed, but in my mind, American-controlled overseas apparatuses like AFRICOM and JSOC seem more capable of doing unchecked damage to third world nationalist movements.

In comparison, NATO has more international accountability in their coordinations and commands, no? My primary question is, assuming privatization of foreign operations through G2S, Triply Canopy, etc. continues, wouldn't the American-only arena be of greater impact and opportunity for the left to oppose? Or is it simply so difficult to stop, that international organizations like NATO would our only avenue of change?

Expand full comment

I always had the sense, that in the spirit of "keeping the Germans down", part of NATO's subtext was to prevent the need or desire for a European army that could function as a strategic rival. In other words it was explicitly there to prevent the emergence of a potential future, if not adversary, then at least counterwight.

It's why Trump's insistence that Europe spend *more* on defence seemed antithetical to one of the pillars of NATO, especially with Brexit removing a consistent veto flavoured stumbling block to EU moves in that direction.

I'd have thought then, from that perspective, NATO is still an important tool of US hegemonic grand strategy, with a soupcon of multilateralwashed legitimacy to US military actions.

I don't know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here.

Expand full comment