Thread: The Hour of Europe

With a name Like Attila you would expect him to be on the right side of Ghengis khan

Originally Posted by Texpat

left it up to the pros at every opportunity.

Like, Iraq?

Note for future Presidents- leave soldiery to soldiers.
There are bound to be some decent generals in the US, they are not in the whitehouse however.

Originally Posted by Bugs

But by the same token, he may prove inadequate in meeting very real threats to peace and stability in Europe.

And by the same token, Europe may prove quite capable of keeping Europe stable and peaceful without much help from the US.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Yeah... ran away at first chance... demurred at every turn, left it up to the pros at every opportunity.

Medals forthcoming. At one point in my life I thought the UK an ally.

Currently I don't have that opinion.

Ran away from what exactly? Troops still in Iraq? check, Troops still in Afghanistan? check.

Originally Posted by Bugs

Like they took care of the situation in Bosnia all by themselves?

Bosnia wasn't part of 'Europe'. But, the EU learnt a big lesson with that one; namely that bureaucracy gets in the fekkin' way of doing the right thing sometimes, which ultimately is still Europe's biggest problem. What they need is a US style federal government, but one run by intelligent people, unlike the US.

Two bits from me:
Europe has hung around in the shadow of American foreign intervention since the end of WWII – Pax-Americana. Happy and content to allow (sometimes with public support and sometimes without it, but rarely with public dissent) the US to act in many ways as the policemen of the world. Now during the Bush years with the lack of another world power to temper the actions of a hawkish American president the Europeans have started to get their feathers tussled by the rather excessive amount of unilateral actions of the US.

For years the EU was content to move along under the protective umbrella of NATO (who are we kidding NATO really stands for US troops in Europe - and the expansion of NATO is really just an expansion of places were US troops can hang out) during the cold war and the years after leading up to the Bush years.

For years the US was content to provide said umbrella as long as the no one in the EU (and certainly not in a collective fashion) complained too much about what the US was doing elsewhere.

And for much of the time since the end of WWII we have been in the cold war. In which case most of the time US interests and EU interests were nearly one and the same – keep down the boogy man on the other side of the iron curtain.

Segway into the Bush years and the world dynamics have changed. The cold war is old news, the US and the EU have seen their positions on the world stage diminish (economically, politically, and militarily). This has parties on all sides wondering how to position themselves for the future. As well as wondering what the new world order will eventually become.

Lets face it the non-interventionist policies of the EU have not worked in all cases, and the use of military force by the US has not worked in all cases, and the UN is near useless in it’s current form. When things like the situation in Bosnia were allowed to develop for so long before action was taken, the horrific situations in much of Africa are barely addressed, and the situation in the Middle East going generally from bad to worse to bad to worse (in peace time or in war, intervention or no intervention) no one has been truly successful in finding a way to positively address the major issues.

Many like to point to the US military action as being the worst of the lot because it generally entails the loss of life. But the do nothing nature of much of the EU positions has also led to a significant loss of life (Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, Bosnia, etc). Yea lets all pat the EU on the back for being non-interventionists in Rwanda and Darfur, and lets all bash Bush for using guns as a form of diplomacy. All the backslapping and bashing doesn’t change the fact that neither have provided sound solutions to the worlds problems. Rather than pointing fingers at each other we would be better served to work together find real solutions to real world problems.

Is that likely to happen? I doubt it.

Whos fault is it? Everyone's collectively.

^

Pretty solid observations

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Bosnia wasn't part of 'Europe'.

Really? Bosnis wasn't part of 'Europe'? Did they move it recently to make it part of Europe? Or maybe the maps we used in the US were wrong in that they placed Bonsia in Southern Europe?

Not part of the EU, and not part of the Europe that the powers of Europe really gave a shit about maybe (kind of like the Mexico of Europe), but still a part of Europe.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

But, the EU learnt a big lesson with that one; namely that bureaucracy gets in the fekkin' way of doing the right thing sometimes, which ultimately is still Europe's biggest problem.

So did they really learn a lesson with that one? Seems to me, be it the EU or the UN (even in the US for that matter) the bureaucracy still gets in the way and little to nothing of substance really takes place.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

...a US style federal government, but one run by intelligent people, unlike the US.

Yea, not a single intelligent person in any position of power what so ever in the US government.

Like it or not the US government is run by more then one person and more than one party. The situation the US finds itself in today is not the result of the actions of a single person or a single party. Bills have to be passed and votes have to be taken, Republican and Democrates alike supported the actions that the US has taken. Folks can blame Bush all they want (and he certainly desves blame), but there is plenty of blame to go around and unless that aspect of things is acknowledged little will be gained in any discussions on the matter.

Originally Posted by Bugs

Like it or not the US government is run by more then one person and more than one party.

Of course, but the US federal government is exactly what Europe wants to avoid, which is why we are so reluctant to go the whole hog.

Originally Posted by Bugs

So did they really learn a lesson with that one?

Yes, we did, but we haven't yet worked out how to get around that problem.

I like Bugs' writing contribution style, a nice refreshment from the flag-waving xenophobic superiority filled rah-rahs.

Of course Europe was beholden to the US after the war - without the Marshal Plan
many Europeans would have suffered miserable lives for at last a decade of re-building the ruins, socially to accept history and economically after the destruction of industry.

Before the Brits go on about not receiving aid, here is a nice graph that may surprise:
(Red columns denote the amount of aid per person)



Militarily only the UK has a professional army, meaning its deployment is not subject to the same legal and political constraints.
Add to this the fact that European countries are much, much smaller in size and population than the US, a comparison is just so out of synch with reality - there is no way any one country could have even 1/10th the impact that a Superpower has.

Europe's reluctance to head full bore into armed conflict is actually quite easy to understand . . . read some history - I'm sure if the US had had the same destruction wreaked upon it on ITS soil and ITS civilians the feeling would be similar.

I doubt anyone would argue that the Soviet Union and her satellite states had a positive impact on proceedings in the world, but it did have one major function:

Checks and Balances

Now, with that gone the US, under Bush, has pretty much trampled on and overridden any sense of consensus - - - the old 'if you're not for us, you're against us' McCarthy-ist fear of being labeled an enemy of the state has been pounded into people's head with the Patriot Act (nice name)

I digress . . . having body-bags come home filled with conscripts is a different issue to professional soldiers, who had signed up to fight.


And, before we get too bogged down in silly Euro-arguments . . . The European Union is primarily an economic union and a fledging political one. Military, Foreign Affairs etc . . . are all separate and autonomous . . . and long may it stay that way.

Originally Posted by panama hat

I like Bugs' writing contribution style, a nice refreshment from the flag-waving xenophobic superiority filled rah-rahs.

Since you've brought it up, so do I. Not entirely in agreement with some of his conclusions but it has to be said I can't fault his ability to articulate good arguments.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by panama hat

I like Bugs' writing contribution style, a nice refreshment from the flag-waving xenophobic superiority filled rah-rahs.

Since you've brought it up, so do I. Not entirely in agreement with some of his conclusions but it has to be said I can't fault his ability to articulate good arguments.

Unfortunately with your advocacy he will now be banished from the rah-rah side and labeled un-American . . .

Geez, Ant, have some sense . . .

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by panama hat

I like Bugs' writing contribution style, a nice refreshment from the flag-waving xenophobic superiority filled rah-rahs.

Since you've brought it up, so do I. Not entirely in agreement with some of his conclusions but it has to be said I can't fault his ability to articulate good arguments.

Unfortunately with your advocacy he will now be banished from the rah-rah side and labeled un-American . . .

Geez, Ant, have some sense . . .

Focks sake, you're right! Sorry about that Bugs!

In many ways it is the hour of Europe- as a region, it currently delivers an unparrallelled prosperity, standard of living and security to it's very disparate populace. If you look at the standard of living enjoyed by it's 'common people' in particular, it now comfortably exceeds that of the USA- and this was absolutely not the case until the late 20th century.

No reason for complacency though- it faces it's own internal challenges with respect to illegal immigration, a growing Moslem population, the future direction of the EU, and it's terms of 'engagement' with the world outside the EU- no small matter because economically the EU is larger than the USA- it has it's own substantial financial investments and trade flows with the rest of the world, and it's own huge requirement for resources and commodities in competition with the emerging behemoths of China and India, and indeed the USA.

It's funny how often the most fundamental questions are not even asked. For example, NATO has virtually been a world defining international alliance, a diplomatic and miltary united front between the two great bastions of democracy, Western Europe and the USA. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet system and the EU expanding eastward into the very countries that NATO was countering- what does Nato mean? Certainly, the only meaningful thing it is currently doing in a military sense is in Afghanistan- and thats a long way from the North Atlantic!

It surprises me that the American public is not asking why so many US servicemen are still stationed in scattered bases all over western Europe- thats a lot of taxpayers money being spent, and it's a long way from any world trouble spot. It's not like the Soviets are crouching with their arnaments in Eastern Europe anymore. What purpose are they serving being there? This is really more an issue for 'the other side of the Pond'- the Euro's are quite happy (outside of the usual xenophobic minority) having them there, spending money and employing locals. And, no doubt, it provides them good excuse to keep their own standing armies smaller, and the money saved can be put to good use to benefit the people.

About the only voice I have heard raising these questions is the author Chalmers Johnson, and he is asking some serious questions about the meaning and sustainability of it all.

Originally Posted by Bugs

Many like to point to the US military action as being the worst of the lot because it generally entails the loss of life. But the do nothing nature of much of the EU positions has also led to a significant loss of life (Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, Bosnia, etc). Yea lets all pat the EU on the back for being non-interventionists in Rwanda and Darfur, and lets all bash Bush for using guns as a form of diplomacy. All the backslapping and bashing doesn’t change the fact that neither have provided sound solutions to the worlds problems. Rather than pointing fingers at each other we would be better served to work together find real solutions to real world problems.

I think you are trying to place Bush in some kind of noble role, but that's not what happened. The rest of the analysis is correct and I agree mostly with it. Yes NATO is basically Europe Defense strategy, even the EU defense strategy. That could change, and it will change but it will take decades to come.

Let's go back to what you said. Yes non-interventionism is not an option, and Kosovo was shameful and an old ghost we didn't want to see again. Yes, Clinton was there and saved the day (despite claims by that ridiculous article you referenced before).

But silly Bush changed the game, it took the dividends of the European Defense policy and said to the allies "fuck off", he broke the seal, he broke the covenant. It was maybe legitimate in American eyes, but completely inappropriate for the allies. What would become of the US personnel if EU had a spine and would have acted unilaterally against the US for breaking the seal ? let's face it, it's a marriage of convenience. NATO is there to protect Europe as much as it is there to protect the US.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I think you are trying to place Bush in some kind of noble role, but that's not what happened. The rest of the analysis is correct and I agree mostly with it. Yes NATO is basically Europe Defense strategy, even the EU defense strategy. That could change, and it will change but it will take decades to come.

Let's go back to what you said. Yes non-interventionism is not an option, and Kosovo was shameful and an old ghost we didn't want to see again. Yes, Clinton was there and saved the day (despite claims by that ridiculous article you referenced before).

But silly Bush changed the game, it took the dividends of the European Defense policy and said to the allies "fuck off", he broke the seal, he broke the covenant. It was maybe legitimate in American eyes, but completely inappropriate for the allies. What would become of the US personnel if EU had a spine and would have acted unilaterally against the US for breaking the seal ? let's face it, it's a marriage of convenience. NATO is there to protect Europe as much as it is there to protect the US.

I don’t beleive I've painted Bush into some kind of noble role, and I don't think Bush changed the game at all. The US is not the only NATO nation that sent troops to Iraq (UK, Denmark, Poland). I would say the US, the UK, France, and Germany are the four main players in NATO and two of the four were involved. Hardly a unilateral break from NATO. Just because Bush did not do what France and Germany wanted him to do does not mean he was telling them to “Fuck off”. Bush is not the first of the NATO folks to go against the wishes the whole. Maybe you don't know that de Gaulle basically told NATO to “fuck off” way back in ’66. And I would say the timing of that move was much more threatening to the stability of NATO than any move that Bush has done.

Not sure what you are suggesting by having the EU to act unilaterally against the US for what you think was breaking the seal. First off if they all did it, it would not really be a unilateral move. Secondly I don’t know what kind of action you would like them to take? Attack the US troops? Hardly and appropriate response, it’s not like the US attacked any other member of NATO. Expel them? Fine with me. Or did you have some other kind of action in mind?

Certainly NATO is a marriage of convenience and it has served a valuable role in the past. The question becomes what rule does it serve now and in the future?