Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why Europe Won't Fight
The Lizard King    4/18/2009 2:08:17 PM
*ttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31425 04/10/2009 "No one will say this publicly, but the true fact is we are all talking about our exit strategy from Afghanistan. We are getting out. It may take a couple of years, but we are all looking to get out." Thus did a "senior European diplomat" confide to The New York Times during Obama's trip to Strasbourg. Europe is bailing out on us. Afghanistan is to be America's war. During what the Times called a "fractious meeting," NATO agreed to send 3,000 troops to provide security during the elections and 2,000 to train Afghan police. Thin gruel beside Obama's commitment to double U.S. troop levels to 68,000. Why won't Europe fight? Because Europe sees no threat from Afghanistan and no vital interest in a faraway country where NATO Europeans have not fought since the British Empire folded its tent long ago. Al-Qaida did not attack Europe out of Afghanistan. America was attacked. Because, said Osama bin Laden in his "declaration of war," America was occupying the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, choking Muslim Iraq to death and providing Israel with the weapons to repress the Palestinians. As Europe has no troops in Saudi Arabia, is exiting Iraq and backs a Palestinian state, Europeans figure they are less likely to be attacked than if they are fighting and killing Muslims in Afghanistan. Madrid and London were targeted for terror attacks, they believe, because Spain and Britain were George W. Bush's strongest allies in Iraq. Britain, with a large Pakistani population, must be especially sensitive to U.S. Predator strikes in Pakistan. Moreover, Europeans have had their fill of war. In World War I alone, France, Germany and Russia each lost far more men killed than we have lost in all our wars put together. British losses in World War I were greater than America's losses, North and South, in the Civil War. Her losses in World War II, from a nation with but a third of our population, were equal to ours. Where America ended that war as a superpower and leader of the Free World, Britain ended it bankrupt, broken, bereft of empire, sinking into socialism. All of Europe's empires are gone. All her great navies are gone. All her million-man armies are history. Her populations are all aging, shrinking and dying, as millions pour in from former colonies in the Third World to repopulate and Islamize the mother countries. Because of Europe's new "diversity," any war fought in a Muslim land will inflame a large segment of Europe's urban population. Finally, NATO Europe knows there is no price to pay for malingering in NATO's war in Afghanistan. Europeans know America will take up the slack and do nothing about their refusal to send combat brigades. For Europeans had us figured out a long time ago. They sense that we need them more than they need us. While NATO provides Europe with a security blanket, it provides America with what she cannot live without: a mission, a cause, a meaning to life. Were the United States, in exasperation, to tell Europe, "We are pulling out of NATO, shutting down our bases and bringing our troops home because we are weary of doing all the heavy lifting, all the fighting and dying for freedom," what would we do after we had departed and come home? What would our foreign policy be? What would be the need for our vaunted military-industrial complex, all those carriers, subs, tanks, and thousands of fighter planes and scores of bombers? What would happen to all the transatlantic conferences on NATO, all the think tanks here and in Europe devoted to allied security issues? After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the withdrawal of the Red Army from Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union, NATO's mission was accomplished. As Sen. Richard Lugar said, NATO must "go out of area or out of business." NATO desperately did not want to go out of business. So, NATO went out of area, into Afghanistan. Now, with victory nowhere in sight, NATO is heading home. Will it go out of business? Not likely. Too many rice bowls depend on keeping NATO alive. You don't give up the March of Dimes headquarters and fund-raising machinery just because Drs. Salk and Sabin found a cure for polio. Again, one recalls, in those old World War II movies, the invariable scene where two G.I.s are smoking and talking. "What are you gonna do, Joe, when this is all over?" one would ask. Years ago, we had the answer. Joe stayed in the Army. He couldn't give it up. Soldiering is all he knew. Just like Uncle Sam. We can't give up NATO because, if we do, we would no longer be the "indispensable nation," the leader of the Free World. And, if we're not that, then who are we? And what would we do?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
JFKY    Hugo   5/8/2009 7:32:47 PM
For a guy that claims erudition and castigates me for failing to read, your sure seem awfully unable to actually read and comprehend what I have written...
 
What portion of phrases like Ottoman invasion/occupation...Greater Serbian Nationalism...Muslim compradors...Serbian resistance...Chetniks can you not grasp?  These are things that have occurred over the last 400 years  I have NEVER said or implied that the Balkans would be or were placid until 1990.  IN FACT, my point has been that for the last 400 years the Balkans has been the scene of nasty ethnic fighting!  And hence to place the blame on Woodrow Wilson and the US for creating Yugoslavia is absolutely foolish!  The problems extend far PAST THAT!
 
You may be one to deride cheap anti-Americanism, but I am forced to conclude that the only reason you do so is so that you may produce a more "intellectual" anti-Americanism....because that's what you are doing.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    JFKY   5/9/2009 4:30:59 PM
For a guy that claims erudition and castigates me for failing to read, your sure seem awfully unable to actually read and comprehend what I have written...
 
Attempting to make sense of your superficial nonsense is a thankless task.
 
What portion of phrases like Ottoman invasion/occupation...Greater Serbian Nationalism...Muslim compradors...Serbian resistance...Chetniks can you not grasp?  
 
You call those phrases?
 
Here's a phrase that I ought to heed with respect to you,
 
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.  - William G. McAdoo
 
As far as grasping (of straws - in your case ) I'm happy to allow the thinking members of SP to make judgement as to who better understands the issues.
 
You may be one to deride cheap anti-Americanism, but I am forced to conclude that the only reason you do so is so that you may produce a more "intellectual" anti-Americanism....because that's what you are doing.
 
Oh, how convenient for you.  Yet another of your ridiculous assumptions that conveniently allows you to avoid objective thinking, reasoned analysis and deviation from your prejudices. So after all that I have posted in terms of historical discussion this is the best you can do, give me a label that allows you to stop (or never start) thinking.  Don't bother switching on the cerebellum JFKY, you had me figured out from the get go - of course what could anyone critical of US foreign policy in the Balkans be if not a closet anti-American and a rabid one at that.
 
I consider what you term "intellectual anti-Americanism" to be an oxymoron.  I consider your cheap, anti-intellectual pro-Americanism to be simply moronic.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion       5/9/2009 5:35:49 PM
I think the time for trying to stop the madness has passed and now it's time to pick sides.
JFKY, I think we may have found the perfect T-shirt for you!
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Panther       5/11/2009 12:29:57 AM

  Hello Hugo, sorry for the delayed reply.


It is if someone is shirking their own responsibility for what is happening there and trying to pin it on others on the dubious basis of geographical proximity. It might be worth mentioning here that the only communist country to break up post 1990 and descend into brutal conflict was that in alliance, and propped up by the United States. 

 I'm not arguing either for this or that scenario. I am merely stating that in focusing in on only one thing is to ignore all the other reasons as to why this all has come about!



Yes but then the idea for Israel sprang from murmurings of discontent amongst a bunch of pyramid builders in their lunchbreak. Wilson's ideas of self-determination were what transformed Serbian aspirations to reality.


Hmmm.... Woodrow Wilson, the American Moses of Serbian domination of the Balkans? That is certainly a new way too look at it?


   He most certainly did. Professor Wilson was a founding father of Yugoslavia - it was his vision of Europe that was constructed post war and that vision included Yugoslavia. 

 
So, i respectfully ask... which is it, the fault of Wilson or the US for Yugoslavia?
 
When in the early 1990s, Yugoslavia began to break up, the United States repeatedly referred to the disintegration of its former ally as a civil war, and pushed the UK, France, Spain to do the same - contrary to the German position that it was a war of Serbian aggression against separatist Croatia and Slovenia - which the US was only later acknowledged when it was clear its earlier position was untenable. The United States repeatedly made declarations of commitment to Yugoslavia's unity where it was becoming increasingly clear that the war was one to maintain a Greater Serbia in a post communist world.

 Yugoslavia as an ally of the US, as i have always read from it's documents from during the cold war era, did not view itself as anything of the sort. It's position being defined as non-aligned within the two blocs. Communist yes, a US or USSR ally, no! They were always open to any offer from either bloc.


The Germans' response to the Balkan crisis exposed the destructive heritage of Versailles and Yalta. As one commentator had mentioned, the dissolution of Yugolsavia, a unitary multi-ethnic Federation that appealed to American ideals, was "a serious defeat for Wilson."
 
 
From what i have read, it's conception was always going to be on rather shaky ethnic grounds. Since before and after the fall of the Byzantine empire, i believe the divisions will be the norm rather than the exception! That's why i think Wilson was an idealistic naif! You would be surprised to know how much you and i can agree on this issue to a point; That is if instead of looking for one single Balkan boogeyman and recognize multiple factors outside of your beliefs that gave rise too the current crisis existing within the Balkan region? While i do acknowledge that you have indeed done that, except too a lesser extent. I am however, and to be courteous to you without going into unpleasant and most unfair detail, am left too wonder why this issue drives you so much, besides what you already breifly mentioned in the opening of your post to me?
 
All the best,
Panther

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Parmenion   5/11/2009 9:35:23 AM
I agree it's makes GREAT sense to blame the US and Woodrow Wilson for 400 years of history, some of which occurred EVEN BEFOE THERE A UNITED STATES....
 
Let's just say ole' Woodie never pushed for Yugoslavia...would Greater Serbian NAtionalism STILL exist?
 
Would the bitter legacy of a long an bloody Ottoman Turkish Occupation still exist?
 
Would the Croatians STILL hate the Serbs?
 
Why "YES, JOE THEY STILL WOULD."  And as it was THESE underlying causes that produce(d) the violence, with or WITHOUT Yugoslavia the Balkans would STILL have a history, to include recent history of violence and ethnic cleansing!
 
But if that's all too ILLOGICAL for you, please do continue...
 
Mayhap you two "Scholars" can prove how everything else that is wrong in the world is the result of Wislon and/or the US too, and therefore Europe need not take any responsibility for the world....
 
 
But the T-shirt cut'n paste was nice...and I was certainly devastated by it...it really, really proved your point about your intellectual capacity.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    And Hugo   5/11/2009 9:38:00 AM
I'm willing to take the risk that the SP community is going to side more with me, than you...you've got a cutting tongue, but you keep focussing on something that happened 80 years ago, and ignore a whole lot of the rest of the region's history...
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion    Seriously...   5/11/2009 10:50:33 AM
That T-shirt really looks pretty ugly dosen't it. I don't think you should wear it.
 
Fighting unarmed dosen't mean you can't be a Shaolin monk. Just means you might go a bit light on the "stats", but hey there a different debate styles.
 
 And I wasn't really having a go at you. I spent the last two pages trying to get Hugo to admit that Austria, Gemrany and Russia might have a teensy bit to do with the Balkans. Oh well.
 
Don't realise that I take none of this seriously?
 
(Apart from Bismarck.)
 
P.S. And if Hugo's starting to annoy you, don't worry, HERALD will be along soon enough to make Hugo his b*tch. My theory is that SP have some kind of rig where when anyone criticises any aspect of the US a version of the Batman symbol is projected on the sky outside Herald's window, and he swings into action. Wish we Brits could afford shiny lamps...
 
Have a nice day by the way http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmiled.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    Panther   5/11/2009 12:32:24 PM
 

Hello Hugo, sorry for the delayed reply.

 

No need to apologize

 I'm not arguing either for this or that scenario. I am merely stating that in focusing in on only one thing is to ignore all the other reasons as to why this all has come about!

 

There are multiple reasons yes but I am focusing on the reasons why the US is to a far greater extent responsible for resolving the Balkan conflict in the 1990s than other, European, states. This is in contradiction to those who were despairing at a lack of "European" involvement and the US having to resolve a problem that was not hers in the making. If you'd like to discuss Suleiman the Magnificent then I believe another thread ought to be opened. 

 

Yes but then the idea for Israel sprang from murmurings of discontent amongst a bunch of pyramid builders in their lunchbreak. Wilson's ideas of self-determination were what transformed Serbian aspirations to reality.

 

Hmmm.... Woodrow Wilson, the American Moses of Serbian domination of the Balkans? That is certainly a new way too look at it?

 

But then that's not how I am looking at it, which is why the paragraph I wrote above was written with tongue firmly in cheek. Humour is cultural they say though I hope that most recognized the sarcasm.

 

Wilson's mistake in the creation of Yugoslavia was his thinking that the peoples to comprise that state were one - South Slavs (partly influenced by his friend Michael Pupin - a pan-slavist). Wilson's thinking was contradictory ? the terms multi-ethnic and self determination are mutually opposing. 

   He most certainly did. Professor Wilson was a founding father of Yugoslavia - it was his vision of Europe that was constructed post war and that vision included Yugoslavia. 

 

So, i respectfully ask... which is it, the fault of Wilson or the US for Yugoslavia?

 

Huh? Was Wilson US president (and as such the constructor of her foreign policy) or not?

 

 Yugoslavia as an ally of the US, as i have always read from it's documents from during the cold war era, did not view itself as anything of the sort. It's position being defined as non-aligned within the two blocs. Communist yes, a US or USSR ally, no! They were always open to any offer from either bloc.

The term is used as the US herself often does in labeling relationships with other states (i.e. Israel where there is no formal alliance in place as per NATO). The US pledged to militarily defend the sovereignty

 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    JFKY   5/11/2009 12:36:14 PM

I'm willing to take the risk that the SP community is going to side more with me, than you...

  I said thinking SP members and that's a risk I am also quite happy to take.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics