--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to reply to this message first because it sets up my second > message: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brett Coster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:03 AM > Subject: US and Europe (L3) > > > > > 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. > > Well, it appears that they feel that they still need the experts there. > When Bush suggested during the campaign that the US has done its job in the > Balkans, there was a collective gasp on the other side of the Atlantic. > Why? If Europe feels that it now has worked through the kinks, why can't it > handle the present situation by itself? Its a far simpler situation than > what existed in the early '90s. Instead, the US is told it must stay > engaged in the Balkans, even while it is fighting the war in Afghanistan. > > The very thought of the US withdrawing its troops from Europe is met with > even more opposition. I couldn't find the numbers on the net, but IIRC, the > US troop strength in Europe is over 100,000. Why do we need to be there? > I'm guessing that folks are a little nervous about stability without the US > there. If the US withdraws its troops, it will be seen as dangerous > neo-isolationalism. > > So, it appears that the US is being asked to spend a lot of money and > manpower on European security, even though the GDP of Europe is close to > that of the US. I find it interesting that governments that are nervous > about the US becoming the overwhelming military power in the world are not > doing things that would facilitate reducing the disparity between their > military strength and that of the US.
There was an article in last month's Atlantic Monthly by a couple of guys with (I think) the Cato Institute: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/schwarzlayne.htm They argue that the US chooses to be the world's overwhelming military power, in part because it doesn't want Europe, Japan, and other potential "great powers" to emerge. I don't know how true this is, but if so, then you shouldn't be surprised when other countries spend less on their militaries, or when the inevitable complaining from some in those countries occurs. Ronnie N. Carpio __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com
