Looking Down the Barrel of an Abrams

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jan 30, 2012 at 13:29

What are the political realities of a Europe so completely embroiled in an environment of post world war survival? Even as it is nearing seventy years after the cessation of hostilities in Europe, there are still some of us that have vestigial memories of our fathers and uncles that 'went to guns' to separate the yearning of power of an aggressor mentality that would impose a totalitarian government over the masses that would prefer to live in peace if allowed to. Today, who are they that would impose their intentions of that power and who are they that would intervene?

The Dutch have apparently decided not to be contenders. One might wonder that they have conceded to the greater powers such as Germany and the other alliances formed by the United States in NATO from a former post war ideology that is based upon the perception that America came to the rescue two times before-why not again?

But it is wondered also-who trusts America to come to the rescue if the mentality is that America exerts too much power in places not so comfortable with an American presence? And of the Russian CIS, what is their expectation if they distrust America so much that they threaten as they do when missile systems are placed in Europe and the insecurity of Russian temperament perceives a threat against them? Is not China/North Korea in the same place ideologically?

But let us come back to the central argument-that of an American presence in a global environment-who trust America to be the current strength in times of international territorial distress? And if America does posses the current power necessary to deploy in a relatively short response time, are there going to be the same challenges every cotton pickin' time America does respond that America is over extending their influences?

Iran is presenting just that very challenge in the straits. They are pushing their envelope to the extreme to see just how much they can until the seal is broken and the content of their true intent is revealed.

For the record, the main reason armor is called obsolescent is because too few can field an Abrams. While an Abrams is not totally invincible, just ask the Iraqi's how they fared when confronted with them. But Iran is not going to tempt that fate.

What fate is being tempted then? This remains to be seen. Yet while the American military is being reassessed for its future posturing, does anyone see the potential that yet again that American military resolve is being prepared for another intervention as, say, Syria being is pressured to a breaking point under the nose of the Russian and other forces gathering in the Med? Does Iran look at that as enough of a diversion to push back on their own pressure point in the Strait as a means to other ambitions?

Therein lays the conundrum. And it will not rise and fall on whether the Dutch had tanks or not.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".