Re: Article 5

["Roger Stenning" <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Travis -


> The BBCamerica channel has been running excerpts from
> the NATO press conference where they invoked Article 5,
> (the mutual defense pact).

First off, it's nice to see you get some of the more informed and calm
news broadcasting over there. The BBC has a world-wide reputation for
logocal, non-sensasionalistic reporting, and this can only help you
guys get good news info. Thanks for watching!

OK, onto section 5. It's a logical, and predictable step, once you
look at the scale of the attack (I use the word deliberately) on the
USA.

> Aside from the irony of its first use being the defense of
> America, what implications does this have miltraily?

Traditionally, it has required two nations at loggerheads to require a
"war". We have now seen that previous (and current) Presidents of the
USA, and other HoS (Heads of State) around the world, describe the
attempts to halt illegal drug peddling (etc) as a "War" as well. The
analagy can therefore be taken to Terrorism as well. It wouldn't
surpeise me to see, in the short term, the US, NATO, or even EC,
declare war on O.B-L. I see this as a logocal step in politically
justifying sending troops in to wherever they may be required, in
order to stomp all over the fuckwit (pardon my luggage).

> Aside from fly overs and intell, what can we, The US,
> expect?

I'm guessing a closer integration of hard intel on terrorism in
general, a greater unity of purpose in going after such animals, and,
in the immediate short term, a hell of a lot of hot air from wet
liberals of the 'might is not right' leaning. But then I was always
described as being somewhere to the right of Ghegis Kahn anyhow, so
stuff it!

> Are we talking the formation of an offical NATO
> anti-terrorist team, something akin to Rainbow 6, or
> actual armor and grunts to go in and help dig out the
> baddies?

I doubt it, although it's an interesting idea. You're more likely to
se closer cooperation of NATO national specfor, instead, IMHO. No
nation likes to abrogate its rights over its' own troops, after all. A
'joint force', under a NATO approved commander, with a final right of
approval by nation states whose forces make up the joint specfor,
would be the most likely manner of organisation that I can see as a
possible end-result of the idea. Whether it actually comes to the
light of day is another matter entirely, of course.

Best regards,

Roger Stenning
Organiser, The Impossible Scenarios Group
www.the-isg.co.uk
ICQ: 74721632
UK Amateur Radio call sign: G1LIW
(PGP public key available on request)
________________________________________________________
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this message
may not be those of the ISG. The information in this email and
in any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, copy or
use this email for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of
its content to any other person - you should also destroy this
message, delete any copies held on your systems and notify
the sender immediately.

> Thoughts?