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   NEXT
Wicked Chinchilla       4/22/2009 9:49:54 AM
What does this honestly accomplish?  The Danes, the Germans, the Brits, Canada, among others ARE in Afghanistan right now, this very instant.  I have seen videos or pictures of all of them in combat.  They are there, they are doing something. 
 
Complaining that they arent doing enough or straight up denying they have a significant involvement alienates and denigrates what they actually ARE doing.  If anything the constant bitching gives them incentive to pull out instead of having to put up with insults from their allies and body bags coming home.  If we are going to berate them no matter what they do why dont they just spare some lives and head completely home?  Be appreciative of what they are doing and keep in mind what it is they actually can support as well as what is in their nation's interest.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Total Joke   4/22/2009 10:22:17 AM
ISAF has roughly 32,000 non US personnel.  Canada and Holland are both on public record expressing disgust at the lack of commitment of most other nations.  The force has never been given enough support by NATO members and is chronically short combat troops and helicopters.  Most nations are unwilling to deploy to the south where much of the serious fighting is going on.  These are all long standing and easily researched facts.
 
Only Canada, Holland, the UK, and US are in the south.  Both Canada and Holland are pulling out by 2010 and that after years of complaining that the other NATO partners are doing so little.
 
Non US partners have more money and population and can't be bothered to contribute half of what the US contributes while the US also has another larger war in Iraq going on.  Article 5 states an attack on one is an attack on all.  Saying the political will is lacking to honor the commitment made after invoking Article 5 is shameful, disgusting, and indicates a total loss of the concept of national honor.  The US liberates, rebuilds, and safeguards Europe for 50 years, has to fly 90% of the bombing sorties in Kosovo to lead that effort, and the one time the US could use a little assistance most of these nations can't be bothered.  It's beyond disgusting.
 
The one thing the Europeans seemed to be willing to do was engage in UN sponsored peace making operations- at least rhetorically.  That seems to also be untrue.
 

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Somewhat in the middle   4/22/2009 11:04:02 AM
Huzzah for Britain, Canada and the Netherlands...I'm sure they ARE contributing and possibly above their "weight"...but France and Germany are consistently pulling BELOW their weight...and Germany "owes" us one...it was Germany's determination to recognize and encourage Yugoslavia's break-up that lead to the US/UN/NATO interventions in the Balkans.
 
Turnabout's fair play, we weren't too keen on Kosovo, but we went, they may not be too keen on Kandahar, but that's life.
 
And France, I don't know what the problem is....too busy making sure that French Interests in Francophone Africa are protected, I guess.
 
Finally, the War in Afghanistan highlights some real limits on European "power."  When you have to lease RUSSIAN a/c to get your stuff to the war, you're not really a world power.  The EU is far more bark than bite....now theat may be good, to me the current EU is a bureaucratic, soft-authoritarian "state" which deserves very little respect. BUT, Europeans are constantly talking about the EU's "role."  It's ACTUAL role versus its PERCEIVED role is still pretty vast...so the Europeans might want to discuss amongst themselves whether Holland or the EU want to be in Afghanistan, and then try to make either a Dutch or European effort...right now the Dutch or EU effort is limited.  In the case of the Netherlands, that's OK and understandable, but in the case of the EU, it is not.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       4/22/2009 12:04:26 PM

Huzzah for Britain, Canada and the Netherlands...I'm sure they ARE contributing and possibly above their "weight"...but France and Germany are consistently pulling BELOW their weight...and Germany "owes" us one...it was Germany's determination to recognize and encourage Yugoslavia's break-up that lead to the US/UN/NATO interventions in the Balkans.

 

Turnabout's fair play, we weren't too keen on Kosovo, but we went, they may not be too keen on Kandahar, but that's life.

 

And France, I don't know what the problem is....too busy making sure that French Interests in Francophone Africa are protected, I guess.

 

Finally, the War in Afghanistan highlights some real limits on European "power."  When you have to lease RUSSIAN a/c to get your stuff to the war, you're not really a world power.  The EU is far more bark than bite....now theat may be good, to me the current EU is a bureaucratic, soft-authoritarian "state" which deserves very little respect. BUT, Europeans are constantly talking about the EU's "role."  It's ACTUAL role versus its PERCEIVED role is still pretty vast...so the Europeans might want to discuss amongst themselves whether Holland or the EU want to be in Afghanistan, and then try to make either a Dutch or European effort...right now the Dutch or EU effort is limited.  In the case of the Netherlands, that's OK and understandable, but in the case of the EU, it is not.

 
 Not sure if Germany are pulling below their weight.. their weight isn't much in terms of the Bundeswehr's ability to fight against insurgents.  They are focussed on nation building endeavours which are generally regarded as being very successful.  Perhaps it would be best if each country were left to make the most of their specialist skills - and we know the US' record on nation building leaves a great deal to be desired.  Not that I agree with nation building generally. 
 
I agree that Germany, as any country, ought to be  fulfilling any obligation as it has committed itself to via treaty.  Having said that, Article 5 was invoked directly after Sept. 11 when it was stated that if it could be determined that the attack on the US was directed from abroad then it would mean the activation of Article 5.  The original clause referred to an attack from an outside power i.e. the Soviet Union and its allies.  The United States and allies did not invade Afghanistan within the Nato framework - but instead the chose intentionally to operate outside of Nato.  In other words the United States chose to operate outside the framework of Article 5.  All the dissatisfaction in the world does not change that.  Allies such as Germany, the UK, and France chose to assist the United States outside their obligations to Nato. 
 
Germany owes nothing to the United States for the situation surrounding the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.  The United States was instrumental in creating and supporting that abomination - and it was very much within the sovereign rights of Germany to support the self determination efforts politically and militarily of both the Slovenians and Croatians - which it managed to do so with almost no bloodshed.  Germany helped enable the peaceful separation of Slovenia and relatively peaceful separation of Croatia - and the US did not (nor could it successfully) intervene.  The British did their best to stop it but those efforts amounted to zero.  What happened later in Kosovo has nothing to do with German efforts at further self determination (which the US supported) but instead internal Serbian stupidity.  In case it isn't clear to the United States, unlike them, most Europeans aren't terribly enthused about the creation of Muslim states on their frontiers.
 
The EU has no military framework - that is slowly, and in my view detrimentally, being created as a consequence of the changing nature of global events.  To admonish the EU for not sending more men to Afghanistan makes less sense than asking the Pope to send a force there (the Pope actually has a military force).  The EU is not a member of Nato and outside of Nato obligations - such as this, EU members must resort to their parliaments before engaging in operations.  Those parliaments are well aware of the loss in credibility the United States has suffered amongst its constituents as a result of the dishon
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    Hugo   4/28/2009 3:03:18 PM

" Germany helped enable the peaceful separation of Slovenia and relatively peaceful separation of Croatia" and I guess if it just stopped there all would have been for the best in this best of all possible Arian worlds.  Unfortunately it didn't, as predicted.  As predicted you almost started (if Russia got involved on the side of the Slavs- as almost happened) a major European war and in order to prevent it you hypocritically cried your eyes out to NATO.  America had to step in and save your beautiful perfect soft power world to balance the power dynamic, as predicted.  Are you familiar with "The Guns of August", for Gods sake!  IMHO the Germans are acting very French these days. 

 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       4/28/2009 3:35:55 PM

" Germany helped enable the peaceful separation of Slovenia and relatively peaceful separation of Croatia" and I guess if it just stopped there all would have been for the best in this best of all possible Arian worlds.  Unfortunately it didn't, as predicted.  As predicted you almost started (if Russia got involved on the side of the Slavs- as almost happened) a major European war and in order to prevent it you hypocritically cried your eyes out to NATO.  America had to step in and save your beautiful perfect soft power world to balance the power dynamic, as predicted.  Are you familiar with "The Guns of August", for Gods sake!  IMHO the Germans are acting very French these days. 


 
   I think you have a serious deficiency of understanding of exactly what transpired in the early nineteen-ninenties as regards the former Yugoslavia. 
 
What's with your reference to "Arian" - what does an ancient Egyptian nontrinitarian church have to do with anything?
 
NATO had nothing to do with the assistance of Slovenia or Croatia - how could it have when many members including the UK not to mention Greek were opposed to the national aspirations of those two peoples?
 
Your nonsense about Germany pleading with Nato is exactly that - Nato had zero involvement in Croatian and Slovenian independence from Serbia/Yugoslavia.  Why would Germany ask for help when it was not needed?  Was Serbia planning to engage militarily against Bundeswehr?  Was Russia?  You're a peddler of nonsense and absurdity.
 
 "hypocritically cried your eyes out to NATO"
 
This frankly, is bullshit, so come back when you actually know something about what happened instead of making up your own fantasy history of events that suits your prejudices (incidentally I'm not German).
 
Are you familiar with "The Guns of August", for Gods sake!
 
Are you?  First off, this is an absurd comparison.  Second, in case you hadn't noticed, the Russians never got involved in Yugoslavia nor were they in any position to do so in 1990/91.  In case you were still in diapers at the time which I suspect, you may have missed the fact that the Russians weren't even capable of keeping key portions of the old Soviet Empire intact throughout the 90s.  Third, it's clear your understanding of the Great War is about as robust as your understanding of the Balkan wars.  In 1917, the Germans not only had defeated the Russians militarily, despite the lion's share of their forces being on another front entirely, the Russians got nowhere near Serbia.  Russian history in the Balkans has been nothing but bluff, bluster and incompetence.
 
  IMHO the Germans are acting very French these days.
 
Oh dear,.  Considering you have displayed not only zero competence as regards this theme all I can say is, come back when you know something Mike.  And as regards the Balkans, I expect significantly more substance and quite frankly humility (Srebrenica) if you are indeed from the Netherlands.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

strat-T21C       4/28/2009 4:04:14 PM
The Germans weren't involved in the Balkans until SFOR, along with the US and many others.
The civil war started when Slovinia broke away after Tito died, their part in the war was minimal ,a matter of mere days. Croatia then stood up it's militia and that's when it all hit the fan. B-Hertz got the shaft from being stuck in the middle. Under UNPROFOR from '92 on till '96/97 and the inception of IFOR/SFOR till this day.  
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       4/28/2009 4:08:07 PM
People here do not understand what difficult power equilibrium is at stake in Europe between declared (or...?) nuclear powers after 2 WW
Europeans want to preserve this equilibrium and avoid any destructive war
Europeans do not want foreign military adventures ( a part french and British) especially if only for US interest...
However European politicall class is not naive concerning power play but the reward brought harsh lessons in the past...
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       4/28/2009 4:37:40 PM
The line between west europe and Russia is very clear
It is NATO
Ukrain and Georgia are in Russia perimeter and the only issue is that Russia let them a formal independance and that 's all
Chinese are not an ennemy for Europe but a market as India
Only Israelis and Iranians are a problem in our south borders but not a problem Europe is willing to solve without USA ans also Russian argreement
And free access to raw materials which is granted in today situation.
Any movement to change this equilibrium is not welcome by Europeans
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    Hugo   4/28/2009 4:43:41 PM

I apologize for the typo, Arian instead of Aryan.  I just probably don't use it as much as you do.

 

Do you remember the break up of Yugoslavia? I distincly remember the Russians involved and they still had enough umph so that when the Serbs called on thier Slav big brother (just like July 28th 1914) the European NATO members said this is a job for NATO as I recall.  Yes Wesley Clark was in charge, the SACEUR.  Since Yugoslavia was neither a member of either the Warsaw Pact or NATO this was very much an out of area operation.  Just like Afghanistan only in Afghanistan a NATO member was directly attacked.  And as you said:

 

" Germany helped enable the peaceful separation of Slovenia and relatively peaceful separation of Croatia"

 

As they say close only counts in horse shoes.  The sweeping aside of the Russian traditional interest with the Serbs is one factor that has led to the resurrection to the recent unpleasantness with the Russians.  The Russians after Dayton did play ball but as I recall there were a few incidents when we almost ended up shooting at one another again; some Airport incident.

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics