 |
| Source: Wikipedia |
The deployment is ostensibly to insulate Turkey, a NATO ally, from the violence in Syria (which did briefly spill over into Turkey last fall).
The deployment raises questions about the value of the NATO alliance. Without a Soviet threat, NATO must find other threats to respond to or fade into irrelevance. But is it good for the US to be entangled in an alliance that could draw the nation into yet another conflict in the Middle East?
Read the article, and share your carefully considered and factually supported opinion for participation points.
This activity is not at all surprising by the United States. The U.S. has consistently maintained and established itself as a "global police force" and this defensive activity (not offensive) is a means to prevent incidental or purposeful attacks on Turkish soil by Syria. From a liberalism standpoint; Yes the U.S. should defend democracy and the safety of those who seek assistance, even if the U.S. is to be "entangled in an alliance that could draw the nation into yet another conflict."
ReplyDelete-Jordan Holt
NATO will find more threats in the future to legitimize or justify its alliance.From a neorealism defensive perspective there will always be war and conflict meaning that their NATO alliance will always be relevant and beneficial to the US and their goals for stability, security, and democracy. Its better for the US to be pessimistic and trust that there will always be conflict and threats to their security and power.
ReplyDeleteJessica Johnson
I see no problem deploying Patriot anti-missile technology. Because Turkey is an ally of NATO, they are an ally of the US as well. Should the violence in Syria begin to threaten Turkish citizens, and it seems it is quite possible if the claims of chemical warfare are true (several Turkish civilians were killed last year by Syrian shells), we should be prepared to come to their rescue. This is an excellent example of a defensive act appearing to be an offensive one as we discussed in class today. Russia and Syria are not happy about this which could further tensions between the US and Russia.
ReplyDeleteThe United States has made an agreement to protect Turkey and these patriot missiles are part of that protection. As of now NATO claims that the system is "defensive only". However, this defensive standpoint will only last until an attack occurs. Regardless of whether or not we should have gotten involved in this alliance, we are in it now ad we must live up to the agreement. Backing out could portray the United States as being weak and could lower our international status.
ReplyDelete-Rachel Pewitt
The agreement of the United States protecting Turkey is justification for the United States' involvement. The use of the Patriot anti-missile technology seems necessary for a defensive strategy, especially considering the Syrian threat of chemical weapons and the shells of Syrian origin that fell on Turkish territory that killed civilians. I would say the use of Patriots as just a defense is justified in this particular case and the U.S. should get involved considering we have an agreement or it would look bad for the United States worldwide.
ReplyDelete-Dale Hutcherson
The United States deploying defensive missiles to Turkey in case of future violence spilling over from Syria justifies the value of the NATO alliance. It is true that Soviet Russia is no longer a threat, but having an allied organization in this region of the world is important. NATO was founded to contain the Soviet threat, but that doesn't mean that this organization needs to dissolve. NATO can respond to the Syrian threat, but defensively and the United States must be careful to not be dragged into any conflicts, unless provoked first. It is not unusual for the United States to act like this global police force, but considering our recent activity in the middle-east in the past decade, it would be better to let things happen and only respond defensively
ReplyDelete-Bryant Cummings
Thanks, everyone. Anybody else want to share? Anyone here think we should be scaling back NATO instead of expanding it?
ReplyDeleteI think it would be a rather counterproductive to scale back NATO. I don't think anybody would disagree with me when I say that the United States virtually runs NATO. It is important for us to have a foothold in places like Eastern Europe even we see no immediate threat. But for the sake of argument let's think fiscally. If next years budget suddenly cut back on NATO spending, what effect would that have? There would be fewer American boots on the ground in foreign countries, and it might be a good way for America to save a quick buck. But thinking in terms of immediate repercussions if NATO was scaled back, I don't think there would be any. I think NATO is more of an idea than an institution. Citizens of any country like the idea of multinational unity, because it is a sign of peace (for the most part). I don't think NATO will ever be irrelevant, but at the same time should not go looking for a fight to prove their legitimacy. After all, the last the the American economy needs is to sink more money into another Middle Eastern conflict.
ReplyDeleteIf the US gets involved in Turkey, it should be on the basis that they are in dire need of assistance. It is not beneficial for NATO to get involved, which will cause the US to become involved and focused on another entanglement. Although, the original purpose for NATO is no longer existent, it should not find other threats to assist with. To avoid seeming irrelevant NATO, should reorganize its missions and expand its efforts in a different way. Such as assisting with already established US efforts in Darfur, Iraq etc.
ReplyDelete