At 09:58 PM 9/28/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>The leaders of the EU countries have also said that they believe the war
>against terrorism should be headed by the United Nations, not the United
>States.
Well, it is worth pointing out that the United Nations has already
authorized the United States to engage in military retaliation. I would
hope that that would be good enough - at least for our NATO allies.
>I wholeheartedly agree with them. It it is UN-lead, more countries might be
>willing to cooperate, and it would prevent the operation from turning from
>"war against terrorism" to "America getting revenge".
I would think that America's restraint so far would start putting these
fears to rest. I think that it is very clear that America is acting very
thoughtfullly and deliberately. Indeed, ABC News reported yesterday that
the first military air campaign in Afghanistan will be to strike the
Taliban's air defences, so as to permit food drops to areas where people
are starving.
>European countries will be more inclined to provide troops to the UN than
>to the US. Supplying troops to the UN would mean supporting an
>international action; supplying troops for a US action might mean we end up
>doing America's dirty work.
First of all, the EU will never end up doing America's dirty work *for us*.
The EU could barely make a meaningful contribution to the Kosovo effort
in their own backyard. The idea that they could somehow be more than a
footnote to an operation in Afghanistan borders borders on the laughable.
Secondly, supplying troops to the US would mean something very important -
actually living up to the obligations of the North Atlantic Treaty that
they have signed up to. And, given that it is a Treaty among 19
nations, I think that it would definitely qualify as a "multinational action."
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Freedom itself was attacked today, and Freedom will be Defended."
-U.S. President George W. Bush, 09/11/01
