BTW: Shouldn't we remove the SCOUTED bit once a thread starts? Just a thought.
> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis > > I think the key thing *is* that the US is a democracy. More importantly, > that current European policy (basically the shared foreign policy > of almost all continental, NATO, European countries) represents the > "morality gap" of the European moralists. I don't see a morality gap, at least one where Europe is in deficit. And Britain, too, is just as concerned about the way US policies seem to be heading. As the Wash Post article showed, some very pro-American Europeans are voicing strong and clear protests against US unilateralism. If it was just the European left you could claim that it is just the usual Euro anti-American bias, but these criticisms are coming pretty much across the board in Europe and elsewhere. That's the point at which your Whitehouse ought to start rethinking. Big time. > It was only a few years ago that the Europeans encouraged the development > of the "Clinton Doctrine", the principle that NATO would be used to > intervene on the behalf of human rights, even in places in which > the UN was > too paralyzed to act. Even then, however, the decay of > European military > ability meant that the US had to take the responsibility for actually > carrying out the policies advocated by the Europeans. > That is a different question. And I don't think it was so much decay of military ability so much as not being able to adapt to having to cooperate as a single European entity. European unity is still very much a growing thing. In development terms its probably in its adolescence. I've already said that the Europeans stuffed up in the Balkans. I know it, you know it and they know it. I doubt that, should the same circumstances arise that the same mistake would be made. After all, it was the first time the Europeans had tried to do something in a united way. You could look at it as the first lost battle in a new style of war. So they needed the experts to come in and fix it up. Again, for most of those involved it was the first military action since 1945; only Britain and France have had any military experience other than peacekeeping. And only the British experience is actually worth anything, as only the Brits have much of a history of being major participants in multinational force warfare. The Germans and Italians both had to recall their last involvement in that area, hardly a positive. Now, particularly because of the humiliation suffered, I'd say they are more likely to be effective next time round. And don't forget how quickly Germany etc offered on the ground forces for Afghanistan. As you've pointed out, enacting Article 5 (or whatever, too late to check) was a BIG step. And so they got knocked back. I'd be pissed off, too. > You argue, Brett, that military power is irrelevant in the 21st Century. > Not surprisingly, I argue just the opposite. For example, currently the > United States is basically the only nation upholding the UN resolutions > calling for member States to defend the Republic of Korea. Military power will probably always be relevant, regardless of century. What I'm arguing, though is the extent of that power. I'd far rather have the situation where no one power can so dominate all the others as the US currently does. The US has forces on the ground in Korea, at S Korean request, and is thus providing a very strong deterrence to N Korean invasion. But the US is NOT alone in committing itself to defending S Korea. It is that eventually, among others, that has driven Australian-US military exercises over the last few decades. Same with Taiwan. Although no Australian government has come out to say we would intervene if China-Taiwan relations heat up too much, in the past RAN ships have made a point of calling in nearby during tense occasions in the past and I doubt that anyone in Australia does NOT expect to be involved if the shooting starts. As with 1950, when Australian fighter aircraft were the second national group (after the US) to intervene within days of the invasion, if N Korea invades we WILL be there. Both nations are major trading partners and they are both basically in our back yard. > Likewise, most > European countries, especially Germany, would almost certainly be spending > more on self-defence if the United States wasn't contributing > substantially > to the defence of Europe. True. I don't say that the Europeans should stop spending on their own defence, and personally I think it would be 1) character building and 2) only now possible, for the US to remove its troops from Europe. But it really is only now, a dozen years after the fall of Soviet Russia, that the Europeans can really start to look at a truly integrated European force. Don't forget, Germany has had to spend enormous sums reintegrating East Germany. Europe is not yet the United States of Europe, but it is so much closer now than it was 12 years ago. And the old Warsaw Pact nations are all clamouring to join in too. And Germany is STILL constrained about how much it can spend on its military. Germany has really tried to become a good European neighbour, tying itself into the EU, I think in some ways to ensure that none of its neighbours should once again fear a strong Germany. Monetary union, giving up the Mark and control by Deutschebank, was an enormous step. It is as significant a move as when Britain eventually gives up Sterling because the Mark was the preeminent European currency. > Meanwhile, Europe's vital energy supplies - > namely the oil fields of the Middle East - are protected from the jaws of > tyrants by, again, the United States. The mere fact that they are equally as vital for the US has nothing to do with it? And is Saudi in that group of tyrants or not? Middle east oil supplies will NEVER be safe until Israel/Palestine is safe. That is the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the corner of all of this debate. Even Iraq would take on a whole new perspective if the Israeli-Palestinean problems can be sorted out, because until that happens any disgruntled person from Morocco to Pakistan has an obvious target for their anger. Saddam has been playing the whole thing as an expert for years. If anyone was to be invaded, it would have far, far greater effect for a multinational force to roll into both Israel and Palestine, draw up the borders, set up two interim governments, smack everyone on the wrist, establish a South African style Truth Commission and give it all 10 years to settle down. And pile in some development money for infrastructure throughout Palestine, preferably with it so interlinked into Israel that neither side can possibly contemplate destroying it without their own population complaining. > Still, even with all this > going on, > terrorists plotting massive attacks on Western Civilization in the central > Himalayas were defeated by - yes, the United States. Finally, even now > the United States is pursuing terrorists in places like > Bosnia-Herzegovina, > Somalia, and the Philippines. > And again, it doesn't have to be done ALONE. It was US decisions, not European ones, that prevented the use of European troops in Afghanistan. As Gautam has pointed out, the US decided that British and Australian special forces added to US capability, so were used. Of course it is easier for command and control if everyone on the ground is trained in exactly the same way and using exactly the same equipment, but I cannot see that the same job could not have been done with a broader range of national forces. For a small decrease in overall efficiency a demonstrably more united and multinational force would have been in operation, thus providing a much stronger political and moral position. The day of the lone gunslinger is gone. > Clearly, military power is called for now, more than even - and > indeed, the > Europeans have benefited extraordinarily from the ability to be > free riders > on US military power from the security of their energy supplies, to the > defence of their trading parters in NE Asia. > No, I very strongly disagree. I do not see that one nation acting alone is in any way better than having a broad coalition of nations working together. And those self same energy supplies and trading partners are just as important to the US as they are to Europe. So as the US goes unilateral it becomes harder and harder for anyone else to see anything but solely US interests being pursued, regardless of the morals of the case. That, as Britain found out is not always a good position to be in. > Moreover, even if Europe was somewhat reticent to be a military power, > there still could be a very valuable role for European militaries. > In the > last two major US military actions, in Kosovo and Afghanistan, a model has > begun to develop of the US conducting offensive military action to defeat > the hostiles with verbal and token practical support from the Europeans - > followed by the Europeans assuming the role of peacekeeping (an entirely > different set of skills than that needed by the US offensive forces.) > John, reread that last bit and just see how patronising it is. I'm getting a bit more than pissed off about these patronising attitudes. Why not, instead, spread the load a little. Somewhere down the track Americans are going to start asking why they are always at the pointy end. US isolationism is one of the most consistent features of American history. Not counting Central and South America, it is really only that period from 1940 (in the Whitehouse) until about 1980 that America has been committed to cooperative ventures with other nations. And it wouldn't hurt for the US to learn about how to operate as peace keepers rather than peace enforcers. > Thus, we have a partnership that is falling apart. The European partnership is really only beginning. The US-European partnership is, until the US goes it alone, one in which each group can and should be able to comment and advise. We're all grown ups you know. > Despite being > ostensibly co-equal allies in NATO, the Europeans seem to have developed a > very parochial sense of security - only caring about the forcible defence > of human rights when it is occurring to fellow Europeans in their own > backyard, and almost taking a perverse joy in fulminating against the US > military, even while enjoying the benefits of its protection. Everyone has a parochial sense of security, for godsake! And it is always easier to tackle problems in one's own backyard than anywhere else. It has been a positive that the US has taken on the internationalist role that it has in the past. I hope that the US retains an internationalist view, but what I don't want to see is for it to always go it alone regardless of what its traditional allies think The time and situation is ripe for GREATER multinational cooperation fighting terror and injustice around the world. The Europeans and other nations are all saying they are ready and willing to contribute to this fight. What noone outside the US wants, though, is for the US to arbitrarily take upon itself the role of judge, jury and executioner. > In other words, Europe needs to realize that the Trans-Atlantic > partnership > is unequally yoked. As such, the Europeans ought to show a > little bit of > deference in this partnership when it comes time to actually consider US > needs. John, reread that last bit and just see how patronising it is. Why in hell should the Europeans HAVE to defer to US needs? Why can't the US and Europe work out common needs within the overall set of needs for each entity? The US has taken the military load of the west for the last 50 years, without doubt. WW2 left the US and USSR as the undoubted superpowers of the world, with the US in the much stronger position. Thus it has been ever since. A lot of that US position was, however, bought by British Empire (in particular) and others bodies. It was British and French money that built the US aircraft industries before Pearl Harbour. It was British and European science that gave the US its tremendous technological advantage after WW2. It was only with Lend Lease that the US paid its own way. After WW2 noone in Europe, including Britain, could possibly carry the expense of confronting Russia. There was far too much rebuilding to be done. That rebuilding is basically only now being completed. In the meantime, the USSR has collapsed - as much from seeing the extent and sophistication of the European rebuilding as from trying to match US military expenditure - and China is still a third world country writ extremely large. Japan has never quite reached the same economic and cultural level of a superpower and has essentially voluntarily foregone becoming a military superpower. (I say voluntarily because they could, of course, have revoked that part of their constitution at any time since about the mid 1960s.) There is no longer any need for the US to continue the level of military involvement it has set itself. The US can now start to reap its own peace dividend - maybe rebuild its health and educational services, for example. Economically, you guys are going to be number one for a long time to come. >A couple years ago, the US agreed to supply the "Thunder and > Lightning" of NATO operations in the Balkans, because the Europeans said > that it was in their interest. Now, the security of the US (and Europe > for that matter, even if they don't recognize it) is threatened by the > development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - and it would be nice > if the Europeans could for once show a little bit of the same respect. Get the proof and you won't have any problem getting assistance. And once that assistance is offered BTW it had better be taken, too. That would be respectful. All of the Europeans are saying that same thing; at the moment there is zero evidence for Iraq being involved with Al Qaeda. At the moment there is supposition only about an Iraqi program of NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) weapons. At the moment there is only supposition regarding Iranian NBC programs, there is a past (but not necessarily current) history of support for Hamas etc but also very real domestic progress towards democracy and freedom. Some way to go, certainly, but very real progress. What people don't see is the need for the US to go in guns blazing, especially against what the rest of us see as good advice. Maybe the rest of us should be shown a bit of respect from the Whitehouse? Brett
