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
Hugo       4/29/2009 4:00:43 PM

Let me know when proportionally you reach the US level of casualties...I would never wish the ABSOLUTE level, just let me know when your loss rate per 100,000 equals the US'....

 

 


  I'm going to be facaetious here and suggest thought that what you ask is unfair because it would be a historical first.  : )
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Hugo   4/29/2009 4:07:57 PM
Please explain....
 
NGI,
The US delivered more than 70%  of many critical missions...70% of the reconnaissance flights, 87% of the tanker missions, 87% of SEAD missions, 80% of ordnance delivered, so thanks to the Luftwaffe for helping, BUT if NATO had stayed home, Kosovo would still be liberated...no thanks to NATO, thanks to the US, less thanks to Britain, France, and Italy...
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    NGI   4/29/2009 4:14:23 PM

Anybody here able to dig up the footage of Slobodan Milosevic brabbering and crying about the evil Germans splitting up his beloved Yugoslavia in front of the International Court of Den-Haag ? 
 
Karadzic also claimed during the war that the Germans had achieved everything since 1945 that the Third Reich hoped to achieve.  Serbs can be a delusional people as regards their own history and importance.
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       4/30/2009 6:41:53 AM

Please explain....

 

NGI,

The US delivered more than 70%  of many critical missions...70% of the reconnaissance flights, 87% of the tanker missions, 87% of SEAD missions, 80% of ordnance delivered, so thanks to the Luftwaffe for helping, BUT if NATO had stayed home, Kosovo would still be liberated...no thanks to NATO, thanks to the US, less thanks to Britain, France, and Italy...



I feel you are mistaking intent for ability. That the USAF and USN should dominate proceedings is hardly surprising, the US armed forces are intrinsically an expeditionary force, as is the UK (on a smaller more austere scale). It was not a lack of will to fight that characterised european involvement in Kosovo, but rather the difficulty in deploying siginificant forces outside of the defence of their own nations in order to do so.
In 1999 german forces were still primarily a force for stopping the soviet hordes in the fulda gap, the lack of tankers and wide bodied transport being easily explained by this, German fighter bombers would be unlikely to be attempting to hit anything at considerable distance while german troops were never expected to deploy anywhere except the next town 20 miles up the autobahn. Is it any surprise then that their Kosovo deployment was problematic.
 
this goes for much of the European NATO alliance at the time.The British and French did somewhat better since they are more used to deploying out of area. In each case though they were hamstrung, for the British, it was volume, the ability to send in a naval task force built around Invincible is fine, but produces no where near the volume of firepower of a USN carrier group, for the French, similar but also not so integrated into the NATO structure.
 
In the end, european difficulties in Kosovo were primarily logistic, the Germans, british and italians between thema tthe time had 700 odd Tornadoes, but alcked the logistic tail to deploy big enough numbers to take the weight off US shoulders.
 
It was not a lack of will power in this case. Ten years later and while some NATO forces are willing to get involved, others are not. It should be noted that the european forces that ahve deployed have learned valuable lessons based on the Kosovo experience and are better at deploying forces over long distances. I just think it's important to see the difference between lacking the will to fight and lacking the tools to fight.
 
Quote    Reply

le_corsaire       4/30/2009 8:24:47 AM

Why would that be relevant...the European allies didn't fight in Kosovo...they may have MiGCAP'd or BARCAP'd but most of the ordnance was delivered by and almost all of the SEAD work was performed by US forces.  I belive the French, for example, delivered fewer than 500 LGB's in the war, far fewer....

Were you in the Balkans at that time schoolboy ? I was ... so don't tell such nonsense. And we did not "deliver" anything - we were on the ground and lost people !! . I have every respect for U.S. troops and our other comrades, but I get absolutely upset when such kiddies who have never been in action discuss about "who delivered" more or "which nation had more casualties". If you are out in the shit you are very happy to see one of your allies, no matter whether they guys are U.S., Canadian, german, French, Norwegian, whatsoever ... Keep all your fancy abbreviations and acronyms for yourself and shut up discussing about things you obviously don't have a clue about as if you were talking about which baseball team "delivered" more homeruns !
 
Quote    Reply

le_corsaire       4/30/2009 8:33:54 AM

Let me know when proportionally you reach the US level of casualties...I would never wish the ABSOLUTE level, just let me know when your loss rate per 100,000 equals the US'....

 

 


And you should better not "wish" to meet me some time in person - I don't think you ever had to write a letter to the family of even one guy lost ... or yourselve being unsure about what happened to your comrades, while you have no possibility or little chance of success to intervene. You don't know what you aer saying ...

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Well there you go   4/30/2009 10:58:29 AM
Europeans had good INTENTIONS, they wanted to do good, heck they even had the "will" to do good, but they just lacked the means...Sorry doesn't wash.  They represent over 50% of the GNP and spending in NATO, they ought to have been at least 50% of the contribution to Kosovo.
 
Beyond that, it was a EUROPEAN problem...the refugees were a problem in Austria and Italy...it was ethnic cleansing, IN EUROPE, by EUROPEANS...it had NOTHING to do with the US!
 
So what I see is that the US solves a EUROPEAN problem...but we should give the Europeans credit for "wanting" to solve it?  That's laughable.
 
And it's hardly expeditionary for European forces to transit from kasernes in Central Europe to bases in Austria and Italy to undertake a military operation...launching air strike from an CVN in the Mediterranean, when the CVN is from Florida IS EXPEDITONARY.  As tot he rest of USD forces involved, hey they came from NATO didn't they?  If the USAF in Europe could bomb Serbia and Kosovo, why couldn't the Luftwaffe?  Oh that's right they didn't have the equipment for it...
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       4/30/2009 11:11:07 AM
Were you in the Balkans at that time schoolboy ? I was ... so don't tell such nonsense. And we did not "deliver" anything - we were on the ground and lost people !! . I have every respect for U.S. troops and our other comrades, but I get absolutely upset when such kiddies who have never been in action discuss about "who delivered" more or "which nation had more casualties". If you are out in the shit you are very happy to see one of your allies, no matter whether they guys are U.S., Canadian, German, French, Norwegian, whatsoever ... Keep all your fancy abbreviations and acronyms for yourself and shut up discussing about things you obviously don't have a clue about as if you were talking about which baseball team "delivered" more homeruns !
And you have a clue...some Franco-phone disembodied voice on the Internet...you're as likely to be some teenaged FFL wannabee as some experienced French soldier....Can't help if the stat's say what they say.  The French and the other Europeans did NOT contibute that much to Ksosovo!  And that's in the critical AERIAL campaign  or are you going to regale me with tales of the brutal ground campaign that "liberated" Kosovo?
 
Get off your high horse, "you lost people" in Kosovo  I'm sure you did, but I bet you lost more people in TRAINING than you did in Kosovo...If Kosovo is a cause for weeping you'd best dis-band your military.
 
My discussion was loss rate per 100,000 in AFGHANISTAN...and when the Germans rate equals the US' rate I'll say "You're pulling your load."  As to the French, thanks for your help...your loss rate per 100,000 may be approaching ours, but one nasty ambush really pushes your statistics unfairly, too.
 
I will say that when a platoon-sized element of US troops gets ambushed the President of the US doesn't have to rush to Afghaniztan to show he's "concerned."
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       4/30/2009 11:30:14 AM

Europeans had good INTENTIONS, they wanted to do good, heck they even had the "will" to do good, but they just lacked the means...Sorry doesn't wash.  They represent over 50% of the GNP and spending in NATO, they ought to have been at least 50% of the contribution to Kosovo.

 

Beyond that, it was a EUROPEAN problem...the refugees were a problem in Austria and Italy...it was ethnic cleansing, IN EUROPE, by EUROPEANS...it had NOTHING to do with the US!

 

So what I see is that the US solves a EUROPEAN problem...but we should give the Europeans credit for "wanting" to solve it?  That's laughable.

 

And it's hardly expeditionary for European forces to transit from kasernes in Central Europe to bases in Austria and Italy to undertake a military operation...launching air strike from an CVN in the Mediterranean, when the CVN is from Florida IS EXPEDITONARY.  As tot he rest of USD forces involved, hey they came from NATO didn't they?  If the USAF in Europe could bomb Serbia and Kosovo, why couldn't the Luftwaffe?  Oh that's right they didn't have the equipment for it...


They represent over 50% of the GNP and spending in NATO, they ought to have been at least 50% of the contribution to Kosovo.
 
Depends on how you wish to measure the contribution.  The Europeans took over the peacekeeping after the Serbs withdrew (from their own province).
 
Beyond that, it was a EUROPEAN problem...the refugees were a problem in Austria and Italy...it was ethnic cleansing, IN EUROPE, by EUROPEANS...it had NOTHING to do with the US!
 
Yes, a "European" problem created by the US.  In the 1990s, the US was looking for a Muslim cause it could support to withdraw Islamic criticism for it's activities in the Middle East.  It chose Bosnia which contributed to disasterous consequences (see the US backing muslims in rejecting the Lisbon accord which may have led to a peaceful solution before things got really hot there).  Later that decade the US chose Kosovo as its next Islamic cause celebre to support to withdraw criticism again (what a wonderful return on your investment I must say).  This topic has been discussed earlier.  The US' friends in Kosovo were a melangerie of gangsters, drug dealers, terrorists, Al-Qaida sympathisers, people smugglers, sex-slave traffickers and various combinations of all of the above.  These aren't the sorts of people that your average European likes to have invite to a dinner party but Washington works in mysterious ways.
 
And if you think the US has no responsibility for the now defunct Communist dictatorship that was Yugoslavia then you're a little off there also.  Effect often has something to do with Cause.  If your friend is beating up his wife is that my problem because he lives next door to me?  I am aware of no "European" Monroe Doctrine or Manifest Destiny and I for one would be happy for it to remain that way.

 
Quote    Reply

prometheus    JKFY   4/30/2009 1:52:36 PM
I think you are being slightly unfair here - the cold war had only been over 8 years, many of the european partners in NATO were either strugling to reshape their forces or were at a loss with what to do with them - all on limited budgets in comparison to the US.
The european side may contribute 50% of the GDP to NATO, but this does not give an accurate idea of europes ability to produce the necessary forces,, you have to consider the european side as many seperate national budgets that obviously involves massive amounts of duplication, every nation funding it's own fighters, bombers, tanks etc - if europe did have a unified budget and one armed force then these problems would not come about.
 
It's also worth noting that it takes time to reshape a force - since the US was already configured for expeditonary warfare they had an easier time of it, the Germans on the other hand - as I intimated earlier-  never needed massive amounts of transport or logistical units, they were expected to fight a massive armoured battle on their own soil, granted they might hae been quicker to reshape their armed forces but they had a) the massive budgetery requirements of assimilating the old east Germany and b) the abiding memories of two generations previously, hell, it took Japan to 2004 to deploy troops abroad and not strictly in defence of the homeland.
 
Simply put, the Europeans did fight, they just, by and large, didn't have much to fight with. The US had never expected, indeed tactily discouraged, many of the europeans during the cold war from developing expeditionary forces, the German's job was to blunt the soviet thrust until the heavy muscle arrived from across the atlantic, thus relatively speaking, anything outside the German's immediate ability to support is expeditionary, like the Dutch, like the Belgians, they expected to defend europe to the last, not go on the offense away from their prepared positons. Also, while LGBS had their first major outing for the US in 91 these still weren't massivly available to most of europe by 99, same goes for stand off precision munitions like Tomahawk.
 
Kosovo showed up the massive problems facing NATO's european contingent, and it would be hard to deny that they have been making steps towards rectifying that problem, however, afghanistan is simply to far away still for many of them and too vague in it's objectives to risk entangling themselves in.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics