Sarko’s start has been … not so good. But France is currently holding the EU presidency and Sarko has developed a lot of hyper-activity he is well know for. France is in dire needs of reform - and his fight against the mighty French Unions is going surprisingly well.

Will we see a new and stronger France in ten years? Will Sarko get his new military and a bigger Mediterranean Alliance he dreams of? Will the French people agree to change? It’s currently a pretty trendy political word … even in Europe …

With the bold prison attack the Taliban scored big time. But I still believe that smarter NATO tactics and a LOT more support for the normal Afghan People this is still winnable.

BBC News: Trimmed French military is no retreat

There are two very odd things regarding European integration: Britain’s unwillingness to accept that it is part of Europe and France’s odd military status in NATO.

Finally the later will be fixed soon - after almost 40 years since Charles de Gaulle pulled out of NATO.

France has long been fighting side by side with their other western allies - but they were never officially part of the team. Sarko finally wants to put an end to that charade and join the team as a full member.

He also wants to shake up the military establishment and bring the troops into the 21st century - just like the Brits did several years ago.

Germany still hardly makes an effort to improve it’s military.

And all the big European ideas about a quick reaction force and all these stupid dreams never really gotten anywhere.

Europe still depends on NATO and therefore on the US and Canada.

More? Military of France @ Wikipedia

Yeah, I know it’s an American thing to do this. Yeah, I know it’s awkward for a president to do this. Yeah, I know that he still hasn’t visited a single funeral of a fallen American Soldier - but hey - at least he gave up Golf to show solidarity with the families who lost someone in the war …

No, I am not kidding.

It is amazing how much "stuff" modern soldiers carry around with them - apart from their most basic instruments and clothing.

Body Armor plus huge amounts or high tech equipment.

Sometimes when I watch videos from Afghanistan and Iraq - where heavy western soldiers "crawl" beside lightly equipped Afghan or Iraqi troops - I wonder if this just makes "our" boys bigger targets?

The title General doesn’t make you a military genius, nor does it bless you with understanding or courage.

PS: That is General Custer - who made his famous last stand at the Little Big Horn.

This is one odd picture: the Russians have resumed their long-range bomber flights - which they stopped in the 1990’s because the country and their military was broke. Here you see a Tupolew Tu-95 followed by a hypermodern American F-22 Raptor. The first TU-95 flew 1953 (!!!) and the F-22 have just entered the service (2005).

Ten years in military technology is a long time, twenty years are a generation - but fifty years …

But don’t be fooled: the first mighty B-52 bombers entered American service 1955 - and they upgraded models are still killing people today. To anyone without modern missiles or AA guns such an ‘old’ machine is still deadly.

I think this is one of the best movies about the American military industrial complex - and how it came to be.

An addiction to military power is as dangerous as the addiction to oil - the US suffers from both. Will this ever change? Will America grow up some day and feel less insecure and vulnerable? Today this country spends more money on military power and secret services than almost all other nations on this planet. This is paranoia and insecurity of a so called great nation.

documentary / 1:38 / Wikipedia entry

Highly recommended for all who want to understand how the American politics, the American dreams and politics are intertwined.

Most people think that the atomic holocaust has gone away. Quite to the contrary. The nuclear powers have still way too many big crackers - so much firepower to kill us all several times over.

Russia and the USA both are planning to update their nuclear arsenal. China, Pakistan and India are new powers and constantly building new nukes. France and Britain certainly will upgrade their arsenal sometime.

Some of the nukes in service range from modern land- and submarine-based ICBM warheads to bombs dropped from planes and smaller so called tactical nukes.

Both Russia and the US have many old nukes and delivery system, so I don’t think that all 20.000 of them are operational. And modern ICBM carry several warheads at once.

China has LESS than 500 nukes  so far.

I didn’t include North Korea, because I couldn’t find any ‘good’ numbers. But I doubt they have more than 10-20.

This may sound cynical: I would say that up to 100 warheads for smaller nuclear powers are ‘understandable’ as a deterrent. Everything over 500 is madness. The US and Russia (plus China and India) as huge countries and powers should be ‘happy’ with about 2000 each …

You also have to understand that keeping up an atomic force costs a lot of money: security, training, inspections and plus warning and delivery systems.

Just watching and controlling all these Non-Americans …

The US has over 700 military installations worldwide. In contrast to that India opened it’s FIRST foreign military base in 2006 in lovely Tajikistan (do you know where that is?). China has not a single foreign military base. And on a funny side note the even lovelier country of Kyrgyzstan has a Russian and an American military base.

Not many countries can afford to keep military bases in other nations - and not many nations are willing to have foreign soldiers in their soil. (List of military bases by country)

Many American bases go way back to WWII like those big ones in Japan, Britain and Germany, but also to the cold war like in Turkey, Korea or Spain. Russia has closed down most of it’s bases since the end of the Soviet Union - most of the remaining ones are based in former parts of the Communist Empire. Britain and France have kept some bases in some former Colonies.

But nobody spends as much money, influence and hardware as the USA. Read this excellent article Chalmers Johnson on garrisoning the planet to get some deeper insights.

Comrades: We already rule Wal-Mart and Africa! And America can’t finance any war without us. There is no need for a stinking war …

Faced with such a staggering difference in the balance of power and obsession with keeping the upper hand - is anyone surprised that the US is accused of Imperialism? During the Cold War it made sense for NATO to keep a huge network of bases around the world, but this war is over.

And neither Bin Laden nor China or Russia will be contained by military force.

For terrorists military bases are excellent advertising for American Imperialism and they also make yummy targets to blow up. China understands that going to war is stupid and is way too busy to build up it’s already huge industrial and financial muscles - that is why the US is lending money from the Communists to finance it’s war in Iraq. And finally Russia - who also no longer needs a huge military presence anyway, because it can use it’s energy reserves as much more effective weapon.

Got some change for me Dude? I need to buy some bullets … this whole war thing is pretty expensive you know.

Imperial overstretch can destroy great Nations (here are two great essays related to that: part 1 and part 2). The American infrastructure, social fabric, educational system and manufacturing base is already showing serious signs of underdevelopment. And it’s mighty military has huge recruitment and moral problems.

The military industrial complex is destroying it’s own base. But the rich and mighty can always move on to another country and new wars to fight.

More? No-Bases.org