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    and whilst we're connecting the dots   5/8/2009 6:48:20 AM
 
Contemporary piece from the New Republic 1992 Rebukes most of earlier attempts to bluff their way through this discussion and blame Germany for US failures. 
 
 

YUGOBLUNDER
By Patrick Glynn

For months after Secretary of State James Baker's fateful visit to Belgrade in June 1991, observers debated whether the American secretary had inadvertently contributed to civil war in Yugoslavia by throwing his weight behind Yugoslavian unity at the very moment when the republics of Slovenia and Croatia were preparing to secede. Since then the mischievous consequences of U.S. policy toward Yugoslavia have so multiplied that the fuss over Baker's trip seems dwarfed by other disasters. In December Germany publicly broke with the United States, announcing recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. In January the EC followed. What began as a gruesome civil war has expanded into a crisis in U.S.- European relations, with major implications for the post-cold war balance of power. At last count thirty-nine nations including Canada have recognized the republics. The United States, still resisting recognition, remains isolated, its relations with Germany damaged, its influence and prestige in Europe clearly diminished.


U.S. policy-makers were quick to blame the Germans. In early January The New York Times described State officials below the level of James A. Baker - widely assumed to be Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, the State Department's lead man on U.S. policy toward Yugoslavia - as beginning to "wince" at German assertiveness. But the effect of such self exculpating statements was only to aggravate an already bad situation, increasing rancor with Bonn , hastening the loss of American influence in Europe.


What went wrong? U.S. handling of the Yugoslav crisis is in fact a case study in how not to conduct foreign policy in the post cold-war world, combining lack of intellectual rigor and carelessness with what Senator Al Gore has termed "moral obtuseness" about the conflicts and issues at stake. It epitomizes the essential superficiality of the administration's approach to foreign affairs. Even now administration officials remain unrepentant. When I requested interviews for this story at the office of Eagleburger aide Kenneth Juster, public affairs director Joseph Snyder, to whom I was referred, told me after two days that State officials at the "highest levels," including Eagleburger's office, had determined that "nobody in the building" would talk on the subject. The reason given was the "murky" situation, in which officials' comments would be "overtaken by events." (The likelier explanation was an article critical of U.S. policy on Yugoslavia that I had written the previous week for The Washington Post.)


The main factor in the Bush administration's mis-handling of Yugoslavia was its devotion to geopolitical "stability" at the expense of democratic values and human rights. U.S. policy toward Yugoslavia paralleled and was subordinated to U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union. In both cases the administration sought to prop up a declining Communist central government at the expense of democratically minded republics. In the USSR It was Gorbachev; in Yugoslavia it was the reform-minded Prime Minister Ante Markovic. In both cases the effort failed. But while in the Soviet instance it failed peacefully, in Yugoslavia U.S. policy may have contributed to a violent civil war. The errors were reinforced by clientism on the part of State's Belgrade-orientated Yugoslav hands - and possibly, in Eagleburger's case, by a history of personal financial dealings with firms owned by Yugoslavia's Communist govern-ment. (See "Lawrence of Serbia," page 16.)

What was occurring during 1989 and 1990 in Yugoslavia was an uneven shift to democracy. In the spring of 1990 both Slovenia and Croatia elected non-Communist governments in internationally monitored free elections. Both adopted democratic constitutions. Slovenia, the most prosperous and ethnically homogeneous of the six Yugoslav republics, was also the most eager for independence. The Croatian situation was more complex, given the presence of a 12 percent Serb population and memories of brutal mass murders of Serbs and other miniorities under a fascist puppet regime during World War II. But if Croatia's human rights situation was problematic, human rights problems in Serbia were clear-cut amid acute. Since 1987 Serbia had been ruled by a hard-line Communist, Slobodan Milosevic, who increasingly based his appeal on fiercely nationalist themes. Under Milosevic, Serbia had perpetrated extreme abuses in the dominantly Albanian province of Kosovo - shooting and jailing protesters, torturing prisoners, firing ethnic Albanians from jobs and invading their homes. Moreover, in sharp contrast to elections in Slovenia and Cro
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion    Hugo...   5/8/2009 8:34:19 AM
 
Was that aimed at me? Are you including me with the others? I was only illustrating that Germany, Austria, and Russia have messed things up as well- even if you totally point blank disagree that German foreign policy from 1872-1945 had any negative effect on the region, surely we can all get behind blaming the communists! Not to mention the Russian Empire whose "belligerence" as you put it Hugo, you blame for many of the issues. Surely all of the regions problems pre 1919 were not the result of "Serbian Nationalism". And even if that ridiculou notion that I'm sure you disagre with anyway were true, it would still not be America's fault, not to mention the policies of Hitler and Stalin!
 
I have repeatdely stated that I agree with your linking of the US to the region, -but it is inarguable that other nations have had a major role as well as the United States. The balance between them is debatable and I'm not debating it- all I'm trying to establish is the axiom itself. We can finish our debate about the Bismarck thing another time, I've got alot work to do for the next week and a half, I think our real point of contention is that I have such a high opion of Bismarck that I define the First World War as his failiure whilst you feel that the 25 years or so of peace he managed to buy are enough. Secondly I feel that trying to create "spheres of influence" out of nations, brilliant though it may be still shows a disregard for the self determination of Bulgarians, Romanians etc. But you're right he did not "create" puppet states and if it seemed like I said that then that's my mistake.  I'm going to try and get that Alexander book from the library by the way.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    Parmenion   5/8/2009 9:41:28 AM
 

Was that aimed at me? Are you including me with the others? 

No it wasn't directed at you.  Your posts discuss the era prior to 1914.  I don't point blank disagree that German foreign policy post 1940 had no negative effect on the region.  The three/four years of German involvement there were nothing but negative in those years.  The post you reference refers to US involvement in the 1990s, the post before it of Wilson's complicity.

 

I was only illustrating that Germany.... has messed things up as well

 

No, you tried to illustrate it but as I mentioned, in my view, entirely unconvincingly. 

 

Surely all of the regions problems pre 1919 were not the result of "Serbian Nationalism". And even if that ridiculou notion that I'm sure you disagre with anyway were true, it would still not be America's fault, not to mention the policies of Hitler and Stalin!

 

Huh?  In 1919, Hitler was wandering the streets of Munich and Stalin was comprising his top ten list of ways to kill Trotzky.  Wilson on the other hand was, as outlined over and over again, having a lasting impact on Central Europe.

 

I have repeatdely stated that I agree with your linking of the US to the region, -but it is inarguable that other nations have had a major role as well as the United States. 

 

I agree, a distant second after the United States, the Ottoman Empire's policies in the region also contributed to havoc. 

 

We can finish our debate about the Bismarck thing another time, I've got alot work to do for the next week and a half, I think our real point of contention is that I have such a high opion of Bismarck that I define the First World War as his failiure whilst you feel that the 25 years or so of peace he managed to buy are enough.

 

I don't see this as a contest, I just thoroughly disagree with you on your theories behind the troubles in the Balkans and with Bismarck in particular. 

 

Secondly I feel that trying to create "spheres of influence" out of nations, brilliant though it may be still shows a disregard for the self determination of Bulgarians, Romanians etc.

 

But again we disagree.  I don't feel that Bismarck created spheres of influence, otherwise he would have tried creating one for Germany when the opportunity was ripe.  He was intereted in maintaining a balance of power.  Each and every time there has been an imbalance of power in Europe then war has erupted.

 

Quote    Reply


JFKY    Hugo   5/8/2009 9:56:20 AM
Seems determined to make the Balkans the US' fault...constantly returning to 1919.  It's interesting, the people who made the Balkans, what they were/are somehow innocent.
 
The Ottoman Turks don't seem to come in for near the criticism, though they ruled the area for several hundred years....the Bosnian Muslims don't seem to come in for any criticism, though they acted acted as the Turks compradors for hundreds of years...the Serbs seem to be innocent though they have fought with the Turks and the compradors for hundreds of years....It is the US in 1919 and US aid that has made the Balkans what they are.
 
Hugo, it's laughable...You are merely being the usual anti-American "It's the US" Fault" poster...
 
You assume, wrongly, that if Yugoslavia had not been formed that all would be different, why?  The Croats would still have ethnically cleansed 200,000 Serbs from their province...the Serbs and the Muslims would STILL have fought for control of Bosnia Herzegovina...Serbia would STILL have sought control of Greater Serbia...
 
The Balkans are what they are, because of centuries of infighting, occupation and collaboration...NOT because the US supported the creation of Yugoslavia.  And anything beyond some cursory examination of the area would demonstrate this.
 
Tell  yourself it's Wilson's fault all you want, if that's what makes you comfortable fine...but I daresay that if you trot this out in a University History class you'll be eviscerated.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    JFKY   5/8/2009 11:07:34 AM
You again..
 
I have a number of University degrees and have studied in four different countries (admittedly not in the US) and have taught at university (admittedly not history) and don't recall being threatened with eviction on account of my work. 
 
I presume you haven't read my posts because you again and again and again and again raise doubts about issues I have already addressed.  You now think you're being clever by sarcastically putting words in my mouth.  It's clear that you just push aside that which doesn't agree with your personal prejudices and the fact that you can't face up to the fact that the US bears an serious amount of culpability on this issue. 
 
I have even given you numerous examples of criticisms of your own government's policies at multiple historical intersections by informed citizens of the United States including those that were personal witness to events.  Criticisms written by men far more knowledgable than yourself (not difficult) and clearly more intelligent than yourself.  So read them, either refute them with something other than "oooohhhhh, and no-one else is at fault are they...?" teenage nonsense or do the quality of these boards a favour and limit yourself to those threads of which you do have a semblence of knowledge.  Until such time as you have educated yourself on this matter beyond the Hannity Radio Show, this thread isn't one of them.
 
 
Your version of history as regards this subject is founded upon ignorance, an inability to read, an inability to comprehend, a self-reflexsive dismissal of all that is at odds with your prejudices, an inability to self-reflect, an inability to divert from your America is good, rest are incompetent or evil view of the world.  You're not qualified to judge what is laughable.  Your posts are superficial nonsense riddled with errors.  Grow up man for goodness sake.
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Hugo   5/8/2009 1:46:54 PM
So the statement that the Ottoman Empire takes a distant second place to the US is your considered historical opinion?
 
And I'm the confused one...you slay me.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       5/8/2009 2:33:32 PM

So the statement that the Ottoman Empire takes a distant second place to the US is your considered historical opinion?

 

And I'm the confused one...you slay me.


  There was a degree of sarcasm that might not have been obvious.  But I do believe the US to bear the principle responsibility for what happened in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and I feel I've outlined my position clearly as to why I hold that belief.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Hugo   5/8/2009 3:05:44 PM
Yes it seems that what happened in the 1990's is a result of 1919 and some aid in the 1960's...not several hundred years of internecine war and hole-in-the-wall politics and some nasty politicians in the Balkans at the time of the break-up.
 
Your clear, in your exposition, just not very correct...I do stand in awe of your ability to blame the US for the Troubles rather than the Turks, the Serbs, the Croats, the Chetniks, Tito, Milosevic, Karadzic, the Kosovo Liberation Army, and the like.  Apparently the people who ACTUALLY did the killing, raping and cleansing are relatively blameless in this affair.  It's a stunning display, almost Hitchens-like, in its ability to whitewash others in some need to blame someone else, rather than the primary causes.  The "why" that motivates you is a fascination, but I guess ultimately unknowable and irrelevant.
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion    Here we go again...   5/8/2009 4:55:47 PM
 
Shall we invite Herald and Necromancer so this thread can lose all traces of civility? If you two really disagree so irreconcileably then talk about something else! Otherwise you'll probably end up holding grudges. This is what is killing this forum! There must be some conceivable topic where you two can be constructive!
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    JFKY   5/8/2009 5:48:48 PM

Yes it seems that what happened in the 1990's is a result of 1919 and some aid in the 1960's...not several hundred years of internecine war and hole-in-the-wall politics and some nasty politicians in the Balkans at the time of the break-up.

 

Your clear, in your exposition, just not very correct...I do stand in awe of your ability to blame the US for the Troubles rather than the Turks, the Serbs, the Croats, the Chetniks, Tito, Milosevic, Karadzic, the Kosovo Liberation Army, and the like.  Apparently the people who ACTUALLY did the killing, raping and cleansing are relatively blameless in this affair.  It's a stunning display, almost Hitchens-like, in its ability to whitewash others in some need to blame someone else, rather than the primary causes.  The "why" that motivates you is a fascination, but I guess ultimately unknowable and irrelevant.

 
   Your sarcasm is more blunt than mine.  I've said it before, I believe you confuse effect with cause.  From what you have written above it seems you subscribe to some interesting big bang theory where all was more or less swell before 1990 and then suddenly, perhaps from a peculiar alignment of the stars, sprang a host of bloodthirsty tyrants who were by no means a product of their environment and their ability to exploit ethnic division is pure coincidence. 
 
It's even more curious when one considers that of all the communist hellholes in the Balkans, the only one to erupt in vicious violence just happened to be the one United States foreign policy created, kept afloat and was unusually chummy with for four decades. 
 
I consider myself pro-American but, unlike you, am not motivated by any knee-jerk reflexive action that attacks any criticism of my nation's policies no matter how valid.  In Europe I often hear and confront the ignorant anti-American contentions that are your intellectual mirror image and my own sense of fairness compells me to challenge the prejudiced nonsense that you have peddled on this thread.  I have posted a contemporary article from the New Republic (of all the socialist rags!) that articulates many of my own views and you employ the absurdity of labelling me a left-wing whitewasher.  I have come to expect nothing more from you.  Please, do continue to speak, for all doubt has already been removed.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics