At 09:15 29-9-01 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
>The EU could barely make a meaningful contribution to the Kosovo effort >in their own backyard. Jeez, thanks man. Nice to hear that our efforts are so greatly appreciated. It is especially appreciated by the families of European soldiers who died on the Balkan. :-( FYI, at least five (probably more) of my colleagues did not come back alive. I hope you understand that I find your statement unnecessarily harsh, and insulting to thousands of Europeans who risked their lives on the Balkan. Me: His statement remains, however, factually correct - as I have written, with documentation, in posts that you did not, so far as I recall, even care to dispute at the time. I refer you to them if you care to question it. More than 90% of the combat sorties in Kosovo were conducted by American fighter aircraft. One of the major handicaps that NATO faced in Kosovo was, in fact, that European forces were more than a generation behind their American counterparts technologically and so imposed risks upon _American_ forces, as well as themselves. And, Jeroen, you are in a strikingly poor position to complain about pain inflicted upon the friends of the dead. >The idea that they could somehow be more than a >footnote to an operation in Afghanistan borders borders on the laughable. If our contribution is so small that it will be a mere footnote, and borders on the laughable, then why do you keep going on about NATO supporting the US, and The Netherlands keeping to the Treaty? You do not exactly seem to appreciate our support all that much. Since the value of our contributions apparently is almost zero, why should we bother to help the United States in the first place? Given your above statements, is it far from the truth when I assume that you believe the contributions of European forces in the Gulf War were also barely meaningful, a mere footnote, and bordering on the laughable? Jeroen To take your statements in order - the first is moral support. Although the material value of (non-British) European support in Afghanistan - or anywhere else - will approach a rounding error in the total correlation of forces, the moral and diplomatic value will be non-trivial. Note however that the value of British support will be substantial - the SAS are some of the finest soldiers in the world and they have extensive experience in operating in places like Afghanistan. For all practical purposes they invented special operations warfare and they will certainly be of significant help in Afghanistan, as they were in the Gulf. The answer to the second of your statements is that it is clear that _you_ would not. Your countrymen, however, have chosen otherwise, unsurprisingly. This is perhaps because they recognize that it is a good idea to do the right thing. Even if your own contribution towards the completion of a worthwhile goal is fairly small, it nonetheless does not relieve you of the moral obligation to do it. Were he to answer in the affirmative for your third statement - excluding British forces, which played a considerable role in the Gulf - he would, again, be factually correct. Again, I have written fairly extensively on the list on that point as well, and would call your attention to those previous posts which, again, you did not dispute at the time. Nor could you, to be blunt, as the matters in point are objective, not subjective. It's very simple, Jeroen. The United States spends more on defense than every European country put together. It also spends more efficiently because it avoids the massive duplication of defense establishments necessary when your military spending is spread across many different countries. The United States has been spending huge amounts since the Second World War, giving it a very large amount of "capital stock" that again makes its defense spending more efficient. We already have 10 fleet aircraft carriers, for example, and so need to procure no more, simply paying operating expenses. Note that every other navy in the world, _combined_, has, I think, _1_ operational fleet aircraft carrier - that would be France's, which the French Navy itself has described as a national disgrace because it was so poorly designed and built. A primary reason the United States spends so much on defense is because it must project power all over the world - the US has multi-thousand soldier forces stationed in Yugoslavia (where the American contingent is by far the largest and most powerful), Korea, and the Persian Gulf (all places where conflict is an everyday possibility) plus tens of thousands of soldiers garrisoned in Western Europe and Japan. It has military bases and allies in every corner of the planet. Again, no European country (including Britain) has anything vaguely similar. No European country has even the capacity to project power outside Europe, save Britain, and that to an extremely limited extent. Logistical support for those European forces that have operated outside Europe (during the Gulf War, for example) was provided, again, by American infrastructure. When John says that the material European contribution to any potential conflict in Afghanistan will be neglible, what he is stating is not a subjective judgment - it is an objective fact based on the lack of resources of the European defense establishment. You do your credibility no good by suggesting otherwise. Gautam
