I wonder if any country in recent history – say the last 50 years – has ever attacked an ally. I suppose I could look that up, but it would be inconvenient. I’ll just toss out that thought and wait for one of you brilliant people to inform me.
I realize that “ally” is a squishy term, and perhaps there are cases where someone attacked a neighbor who was somewhat neutral, or had a tense but otherwise non-confrontational relationship. But have there been any recent cases where, for example, a clear and unambiguous ally attacked another?
Obviously countries don’t become allies in the first place if they think there’s a healthy chance of war. So that’s part of it. But I wonder how much of it also depends on mindset.
I wonder what would happen, for example, if the United States simply declared North Korea to be an ally, and made a big fuss about it, but didn’t change much else. We could pass a law saying we’ll defend North Korea against foreign attack – knowing that no country wants to attack them anyway. We could keep our military force in the DMZ and redefine it as preventing South Korea from attacking North Korea just as much as the reverse. That would be baloney, of course, but delicious and pleasing baloney.
And we’d have to change our agreement with South Korea that says their military forces are under American command if the North attacks. (Yes, that is the current situation, amazingly.)
If North Korea wants to trade with the U.S., we could happily agree. But it won’t matter because they have virtually nothing to sell and no money to buy anything. It’s all about mindset.
As for those North Korean nukes, realistically there isn’t a thing that the United States can do about North Korea building them. But we can certainly take ourselves off the list of top ten targets. And rather than putting economic pressure on them to allow nuke inspections, treat it as a pure business decision. There’s no point in allowing U.S. businesses to work in a country that might go up in a mushroom cloud. It’s nothing personal, North Korea, we just don’t have any hard hats that are hard enough.
If the United States declared North Korea an ally, I suppose North Korea could always spurn our advances. But who attacks a country that has no common border and is trying to be its friend? And would North Korea have an incentive to let their nukes get into the hands of terrorists? I can’t imagine what benefit that would bring them.
Perhaps “ally” is a word that will never sell in the United States, much less North Korea. So how about calling it the “Lil’ Buddy Program.” The United States would declare certain rogue regimes our Lil’ Buddies and let them figure out on their own whether it’s better to sell us crap or yank our nads and get bombed.
For this topic only, let’s leave Muslims out of it.
[Update: The Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression agreement doesn’t sound much like “allies” to me.]
[Update 2: See this comment from Ned, who actually seems to know a thing or two:
Scott – you’re wrong about the Hitler/Stalin non-aggression pact – as an historian (I’ve been on History Channel on military issues 7 times recently), please allow me to explain and set you straight.
1. They WERE allies with the signing of that treaty – it set them on a joint path of military aggression that impacted several other countries.
2. It was that treaty that sent shock-waves through France and especially in the UK, and led the two countries to declare war on Hitler the following week.
3. That treaty also sent chaotic shock-waves through the American Leftist movement; in the 30s, they’d taken their marching orders from Moscow, and had been virulent anti-Hitlerites; then came the treaty, and suddenly Hitler was rehabilitated in the Leftist Press (Workers World Daily, etc.) – a quick study of this will prove fascinating, as they literally changed direction 180 degrees overnight.
4. The first real sign of alliance was when they executed a secret protocol – a few days after Hitler’s Germany invaded Poland, Stalin’s Soviet Union ALSO invaded Poland, from the other side, and ensuring the quick collapse of that poor country. The Non-Aggression Pact had specified when each would attack, and even indicated where the dividing line would be.
5. The alliance also permitted the Soviet Union to attack Finland without prejudice or interference from Hitler (though Hitler had strong interests in Scandanavian iron ore supplies, necessary for his war effort).
6. The alliance also paved the way for the war against Japan in the Khalkin Gol (which the Soviets won) – even though Japan and Hitler’s Germany were already allies.
7. Finally, the Non-Aggression Pact created a structure for massive trading between Germany and the Soviet Union, a ‘trade’ that lulled Stalin into believing that he was safe. Literally, when Hitler invaded the Soviets on June 22, 1941, the Panzers heading east passed the last of the Soviet supply trains carrying grain, oil and raw materials to Hitler in the west. This trade was huge, and vital to Hitler’s war effort – also disproving the notion that countries don’t attack their friendly trading partners.
Bottom line, Scott – the Hitler/Stalin Non-Aggression Pact was a real friendship treaty – they divided up Poland, paved the way for two other wars of aggression, and set up massive mutual trade between the two countries. Also destablized other countries – in short, it was a masterful diplomatic stroke, and a real pact of friendship.
Trust me on this.
Ned
Now you can vote …
[Fair enough. That’s why I set the 50 year limit on my question, to head off the pesky Hitler examples. But still, I can’t see the U.S. and Great Britain signing a “non-aggression” pact. I think the name threw me. It sort of sounds like “not yet.” — Scott]