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
Panther       4/30/2009 5:35:07 PM
I believe Europeans will fight and do indeed fight well whenever they are allowed! This is not an issue for me. However, everything i have read points to those who would allow Europeans too defend themselves or in support of their foreign allies, i.e. the "European governing class" and "certain powerful elements within it's electorate"; Of whom it appears there is a long history of the two in being very  extremely risk averse to do anything that is required, most especially... when it comes to messing around with and to the detriment of their long established social programs, in favor of actually supporting their financially starved armed forces, even when faced with external danger to themselves?
 
Sometimes i wonder, what would make them fighting mad? An attack, or the threat of... upon their countries? Or some rare politician who wants to tinker around with or abolish a lot of the social programs ran by the individual state governments?


 
Quote    Reply

le_corsaire       5/4/2009 5:05:45 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."


Listen you little kid, why are you talking about statistics if you have never been out there. Why are you discussing on the internet anyhow if you say others are "disembodied voices on the internet" - oh yes, its just taht you know what is going on, right and everything which does not fit in your kindergarden picture of the world is not correct and must be from s.o. who is not trustable, however you are. I don't have to be an "FFL wannabee" - I am French (so I did not have to be Legionaire) and your "famous" FFL was just in the "normal" career path.
 
Yes, I have a clue about the Balkans - I was there (mainly Bosnia, however). And believe it or not, the world is not black and white and the UCK you supported in such a formidable way was also not the good vs. the evil.
 
I don't care about your "stats". And I guess many American soldier and families who lost comrades or family members do also not very much care about your "stats".  Thats what makes me really freak out - some kiddy discussing with "stats" how to "liberate" the world.
 
From whom have you "liberated" Kosovo ? Was it in your opinion a good idea to support UCK (who was deemed to be a a "terror organization" on many western countries) and basically was also  resonsible for atrocities against civil population? So you deny ground operations ... then tell me what do you know about e.g. Kosare ? But I forgot - you don't have to - everything you need to know is from the stats ... what a big experience 
 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

le_corsaire       5/4/2009 5:09:47 AM


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."

Oh sorry, I just saw it now - are you the President ?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    A Response   5/4/2009 11:42:17 AM
Hugo...sorry you've lost your mind...the Balkans was NOT an "American" problem, nor caused by America.  Now it might soothe you to think so, but sadly you're wrong on ALL counts
1) Yugoslavia was a problem because the Cold War ended...
   a) Yugoslavia was held together by the centripetal forces of the WTO and NATO, once the pressure was "off" Yugoslavia could devolve
   b) Yugoslavia's problems were exacerbated
by...GERMANY!  Yes, Germany recognized the Slovenia and Croatian break-aways and encouraged the EU nations to do likewise.  Once it was "OK" for Yugoslav provinces to breakaway, they did, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and then Montenegro...but this was NOT a US-sponsored problem.
2) The US was NOT looking to get Muslim "street cred"...if it were it's defense of Saudi Arabia and Liberation of Kuwayt would have sufficed, or the intervention in Somalia, mostly Muslim....  But thank you for trying Hugo
 
Prometheus
Not a bad argument EXCEPT...the US forces in Kosovo, came from Germany, too...they didn't have to wage an expeditionary war, they simply had to take the highways and railroads from their Kasernes.  Just as the Bundeswehr or Belgian units would have had to.  Not my problem if the Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Austrians, Italians couldn't be bothered to bestir themselves to hop on Europe's extensive transport net and send combat power south.
 
Le Corsaire
 More spittle than argumentation.  Again, CLAIMING to have "been there" doesn't an argument make.  How about this, my best friend lost his leg in a Bosnian mine field...now it's not true, but it DOES sound nice, doesn't it?  Does it give my arguments more "moral authority?"  When you've got an argument to make, rather than ranting about "school boys" and how I should be thankful I'm not meeting you in person, then get back to me...
 
And your last comment was inexplicable...You're right I'm NOT the President, of either France or the US.  But were I either, IF my forces had been involved in a platoon-sized ambush I wouldn't have felt the need to hop on a Presidential Transport and fly to Afghanistan to hold their hands, because that is way below a President's pay grade...The President SHOULD learn about it from L'Humanite or the New York Times (you know Communist propaganda outlets) because what happens to 30-50 person-sized units is a little small for the CEO of a large nation.
 
I don't mean to demean the loss of life in the ambush, but I DO question Sarkozy's hopping on an airplane to hold hands with the troops. 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    NGI   5/4/2009 1:08:35 PM
Good, would have been nice if you'd have bothered to contribute to the air campaign, too...the stat's show it was pretty much a  US show.
 
Germany started the ball rolling by recognizing the break-up of Yoguslavia, now that may have been inevitable-the break-up, but simply recognizing the Slovenia and Croatia without a long-term solution led to massive problems in the Balkans, and to a large mostly US air campaign in Kosovo....so it's a European problem, sparked by German action, SOLVED by US power....hey this is starting to sound REAL familiar...now if only the French could have been persuaded to mutiny or surrender it would have been a replay of the last 80 years of European history!
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    NGI   5/4/2009 3:35:41 PM
Now let's see, Tankers, Reconnaissance, SEAD, precision strike, night strike...overwhelmingly American...glad the Luftwaffe could show up for the photo op.
 
Quote    Reply

ker    Spare the Rod   5/4/2009 4:06:15 PM
We Americans have spoiled our EU children and now they refuse to work and hate us.
 
"With out armed force there is no state."  Keegan maybe said that.
 
They live in fantacy land precisely because we built it for them. 
 
Now, are we going to resulve the conflict by moving in with them?  Ask Obama?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    NGI   5/4/2009 4:32:35 PM
Puh-LEASE...Germany CHOOSES to spend 1.3 Trillion on re-unification, and we're supposed to THANK them?  You guys CHOSE to re-unify and you CHOSE the form of reunification, which many people knew was going to cause massive distortion, costs, and tax increases...your decision to limit your ability intervene is not really an excuse.
 
Quote    Reply

le_corsaire       5/5/2009 5:44:10 AM


Le Corsaire

 More spittle than argumentation.  Again, CLAIMING to have "been there" doesn't an argument make.  How about this, my best friend lost his leg in a Bosnian mine field...now it's not true, but it DOES sound nice, doesn't it?  Does it give my arguments more "moral authority?"  When you've got an argument to make, rather than ranting about "school boys" and how I should be thankful I'm not meeting you in person, then get back to me...

 ...

I don't mean to demean the loss of life in the ambush, but I DO question Sarkozy's hopping on an airplane to hold hands with the troops. 

  

I apologize for the "school boy" - you got me a bit enraged by the nonsense you were telling. What you are saying are not arguments, what you are promoting is your opinion which you have crafted together from second and third tier sources that paint a picture which fits into your view of how the world is. Now there is nothing wrong with this - just the fact that you obviously think that you are adequately informed, while being quite resistant against information from first tier sources, namely people who have been closer to the scene than you were.
 
Now, if it makes you happy than tell your nice stories  (your stories would not provide more or less "information" as what you have been providing in your "arguments", becasue you can't have arguments because you have never seen things your own - just read about it). The only thing I would like to ask you is whether it is possible to consider that "arguments" like this type of "you were happy(!!) if Germany or whoever had the same death toll as the US" are really not arguments but maybe offend people who are/were involved in such things.

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Le Corsaire   5/5/2009 11:15:06 AM
Sadly all we ahve are second and third hand sources...none of us "were there."  And to claim otherwise is UNVERIFIABLE...so you can CLAIM allthe first or I guess second-hand knowledge you care to, "I was there" or "My best friend was there" but all that is irrelevant, because you could be lying...As the saying goes, "On the Intenet no one knows you're a dog."
 
But I don't need to have been there or done that to point out that Sarkozy jumped on a plane and went to Afghanistan to console and buck up the troops...it was a platoon-sized operation, if you don't see the silliness of the President of France hopping on his/her airplane to go tell the troops that "He cares" after 40-50 of them had a very bad day I can't help you...or France.
 
Now I realize that Afghanistan isn't Cote D'Ivoire so the enemy shot back, unlike the crowd of civilians outside the French Embassy...and I understand that Afghanistan isn't some Francophone French African territory for which France derives some, it seems to me illusory, benefit from policing so th French elites feel more support for a mission to Cote D'Ivoire, or that in Afghanistan the Press will report what happens, unlike in France where apparently only Israeli or American "atrocities" make the news, so mayhap no one France knows about the massacre outside the French Embassy, the point being apparently the French President has to go hold French hands in Afghanistan after a hard day, because it's NOT Cote D'Ivoire, which as I say is apparently an OK deployment.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics