The familiar hue and cry

…goes up anytime the US sends its armed forces somewhere, especially univited. But once US troops get where they’re going and get settled in, no one ever wants them to leave:

The U.S. is pulling almost all of its military forces out of Iceland. This is not exactly big news, except perhaps in Iceland itself, which has no other military force. Indeed, the Iceland government has actually been trying to convince the U.S. military to stay, but the U.S. (rightly, I think) has decided that Iceland is no longer a strategically important place.

Interestingly, the U.S. still has an agreement obligating it to provide defense arrangements with Iceland (the deservedly obscure 1951 agreement can be found here). Who knew that the U.S. defense perimeter included Iceland … or that a withdrawal of military forces from there would actually be unwelcome?

On the contrary, who would have thought anyone would be happy to see them go? Besides the obligatory mish-mash of local students socialists, politicians socialists, activists socialists, pacificists socialists, and lunatic fringe, of course. If the host nation is no longer actually relying on the US for security (and saving a big chunk of their GNP in doing so), they’ve likely become accustomed to the lifestyle afforded by all the dollars circulated by servicemen and women, and dread the economic fallout of a withdrawal.

(See also, Germany, South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, - and if I recall correctly, Saudi Arabia - and all those who profit from the shipping lanes kept safe and open by the Great Satan.)

DOWN WITH AMERICA!

But not until they put a stop to the piracy just offshore, if it’s not too much trouble?

5 Comments

  1. Posted May 30, 2006 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Who knew that the U.S. defense perimeter included Iceland

    Actually, Icelandic history nerd that I am, I knew.

  2. Posted May 30, 2006 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    At the very least, their location in the North Atlantic makes NATO membership a good guess. Given NATO’s article V, though, wouldn’t you think a bi-lateral defense arrangement would be redundant?

  3. Posted May 30, 2006 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    Never mind, I see that it makes complete sense.

  4. Posted May 31, 2006 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    From the “military of Iceland” article:

    When Iceland became a founding member of NATO in 1949, it did so on the explicit understanding that Iceland, which has never had a state funded military

    You can just see the fingers of some ancap in the precise wording of that phrase!

    I note that the TJICistani Defense Force has never received state funding. :)

  5. jmd
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Oh no- who is going to defend the worlds strategic reserve of pickled fish?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*