Poland's PiS Rewarded

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/10/11/Poland-US-celebrate-new-US-Army-division-headquarters-in-Poland/3401570811620/?sl=17

As Poland continues to stand with the United States, this is their reward... and yet the people of Poland should beware.

For some they will see the US establishment of a divisional headquarters as a surety, a guarantee of security against the threat of Moscow. Additionally it is all but a guarantee of further economic growth through the military apparatus. The Americans build bases and they spend lots of money and the infrastructure, logistics and maintenance will generate jobs and stimulate the local economy. Poland's defense sector will certainly benefit.

Additionally, this move will embolden Warsaw vis-à-vis the European Union. With the United States in country, there's less fear of 'going it alone' and while many in NATO celebrate positioning of troops and armaments in Eastern Europe and the general expansion of military presence and spending... the truth is there is a certain uneasiness. While these moves are all under the aegis of NATO, the truth is NATO and all Atlanticist institutions are under stress. The traditional long-time centers of NATO leadership have been located in Western Europe. This marks a shift. Some could say it's a shift that reflects reality akin to the 1990's drawdown in Germany and the re-positioning and expansion of bases in the Mediterranean regions. There's a logic to that argument.

But it's also a signal of European fragmentation, of the US pursuing a semi-independent policy with new allies, the New Europe of Rumsfeld. To be sure the Germans and French are all on board with the Eastern European positioning, the new military exercises in the Balkans and the like but everyone is watching and waiting.

For the Poles, this victory carries a threat. They now have status and yet Poland has been turned into a front-line state. Some might argue it already was that and given its history and geography, it was destined to be. Following such reasoning, Warsaw's cozying up to Washington is just good sense.

However, by militarising their nation, they've made themselves the focus of Russian strategic planning. If war were to break out, regardless of who started it or whether it broke out in the Black Sea or Scandinavia.... Poland will now be ground zero in a confrontation. Some know this and accept that fact. Others I fear have not fully weighed the consequences.

Militarisation promotes militarism. Some argue it promotes security but history tells a different tale... a very different tale. While some have touted the Cold War as a miracle of restraint as the two main antagonists never openly fought... to think of the era as a period of peace would be a mistake. Europe was the only place where there wasn't an open war. For Europe the period, despite the tensions was actually remarkable in that no wars were fought. But of course there were wars in Africa, Asia and Latin America and while Europe was spared war, there was no peace. The era was filled with tensions, strife, terror and an undying threat of not just war but annihilation.

Europe is actually more unstable today than it was during the Cold War. This is despite the EU and the optimism of the 1990's. And while Cold War Europe was militarised there was an inherent restraint that does not exist today. Militarising Eastern Europe could have grave consequences. For the people of that region I certainly hope peace is maintained. War breeds evil and in war the Church suffers and fellowship is broken. Let Eastern Ukraine be a warning.

I know Western media blames it all on Putin and there's plenty of blame that can be laid on him, but as is almost always the case...it's not that simple. The historians and academic partisans will wage their own propaganda wars. But in the end it doesn't matter who started it. In fact the 'starting' didn't begin with shots fired. It rarely does. The groundwork for the Ukraine conflict was laid more than a decade ago, long before the Donbass secession movement started shooting and long before Putin annexed Crimea. Regardless of the how, why and the questions over the timetable, in the end there are broken buildings and broken people. What is smashed in minutes, what societies are destroyed in weeks or months may take generations to recover. That's a tragedy.

The Poles would do well to take heed.

Finally it's also worth noting that troop counts can be deceiving and are easily manipulated. The military uses very specific terms. Perhaps some are already familiar with the distinctions between 'advisors' and ground troops or even ground troops and combat troops.

Well, there are troops that are stationed or assigned to a location. That figure will sometimes be made public but it doesn't tell the whole story. There may be thousands of troops placed there that are not acknowledged or listed. Why? Because they're officially 'temporary duty' troops, what the military refers to as TDY. They may have squadrons of fighter jets and tanks positioned someplace with thousands of support troops. But because these troops are on a six month rotation, they don't count. They're not 'stationed' there and so their numbers are part of the official figures. Now when the six months are up, do they pack up the jets or tanks and go home?

No. The troops rotate in and out but the hardware can stay for years. And if it's sent home it might be immediately replaced by another group. This way the numbers can appear to be far less than they actually are. The media knows this but they play along. After all they want access, they want the footage and the interviews so they toe the line.

Do you know who else knows the actual numbers? The Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians. They're all watching too.