Posted on 09/02/2004 7:13:35 AM PDT by Pokey78
America’s decision to pull troops out of Europe and the Far East should not be seen as a retreat into isolationism. On the contrary: it is classic ‘Rumsfeld-lite’ — the downsizing of old-fashioned Cold War units (principally in Germany) and a new emphasis on flexible, mobile, hi-tech forces to be located around the rim of the Eurasian heartland. By redeploying and streamlining its military the Pentagon believes it will be better placed to respond to threats anywhere in the world.
Maybe the Pentagon is right, for the time being. In spite of the streamlining, however, the Bush–Rumsfeld doctrine of ‘full spectrum dominance’ looks a lot less convincing now than it did two years ago. The ‘hegemonic’ superpower is now mired in a medium-sized Arab country whose military strength just before the invasion ranked about 50th in the world. And US forces are now so stretched that National Guardsmen and Reservists make up 40 per cent of US troops in Iraq — and a long-term occupation can only be sustained by bringing back the dreaded, and politically suicidal, draft. With the debt and deficits of the US economy rising to dangerous levels, Washington is facing a classic case of overextension.
American power remains unrivalled, of course, and it was greatly to our benefit that the United States maintained fearsomely strong forward bases in Europe during the Cold War. The Soviet Union had real weapons of mass destruction, and they were aimed at us. But the much-touted idea of a future world dominated by the US and run out of Washington and Wall Street — a Fukuyama-ised globe — now borders on the absurd. Classic American conservative realists (those around Bush the father, but not the son) understand this, and even if Bush holds on to the White House may yet persuade him to employ less braggadocio and more real understanding of power.
The new world ushered in by America’s limits will be a world of great powers. And, already, as the dust settles on the Middle East imbroglio, we can see the contours of this new great power politics. According to population and economic growth projections, by mid-century the US will be one power among equals, perhaps ‘primus inter pares’, perhaps not. It will need to adjust to a world of blocs and to multiple superpowers of which the most prominent will be China, India, South Asia and Europe (and maybe even a revitalised Japan).
But what of the short-run? The next ten years? The stark truth here — and it is as unpalatable to the neoconservatives in Washington as it is to those in Whitehall — is that the only new power able to come close to rivalling and balancing the US in the world is Europe. Even now Europe has the dimensions to rival the US. With a population of over 450 million (100 million or so more than the US), the world’s largest single market and economy (now, since the fall of the dollar, almost 20 per cent larger), and with the euro firmly established, Europe has already become a civilian superpower. And it also possesses that intangible virtue of economic stability (the obverse side of its alleged ‘sclerosis’) compared to a US prone to stock market gyrations, debt, deficits and dependence on febrile Asian money.
Washington’s hawks are of course right to mock Europe’s superpower pretensions while the Continent’s military spending remains so low — at about a half of the Pentagon’s budget, and falling. Europe will need to spend more, particularly on intelligence. Much more. Although Europe can get a much bigger ‘bang’ for its existing ‘buck’ by pooling its resources and finally developing a proper procurement strategy, its politicians need to start a serious campaign to secure public support for defence. The war on terror may help here. And as long as European military operations are placed in a European context, the pacifist tendencies in Germany can be held in check. Europe needs a militarily strong Germany. And — let’s not be bashful about it — Europe needs the Bomb. Talks between the EU’s two nuclear powers are still shrouded in mystery, but both Paris and London need to work out a nuclear strategy.
But does Europe have the will not just to spend more on defence but to become a superpower — to take on the grime and the glory of global responsibility? Are Europe’s leaders willing to play, rather than posture, on the world stage? Do they have the bottle to stand up to Washington? And should Washington falter or retrench, to fill the power vacuum?
In the past two years what Donald Rumsfeld sneeringly dismisses as ‘Old Europe’ has shown remarkable strength and independence. When the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said ‘No’ to Washington in the late spring of 2002 — calling the proposed war in Iraq an ‘adventure’ — he could not have known how fateful his decision was likely to prove. When Jacques Chirac decided to back Germany, and Vladimir Putin joined in too, it looked as though a new global alliance (potentially as powerful as the US) was about to be born.
For the first time since 1947, and the era of global American leadership, two major ‘allies’ were defying the leader of the West — and getting clean away with it. Not only were they refusing to ‘come on board’ but they were actually campaigning against the US around the globe. Europe’s most powerful leaders — minus Tony Blair — were asserting what should be an obvious truth: that the Continent has its own interests to protect, and that these interests will not always coincide with Washington’s. In other words, what’s good for America is not always good for Europe. The US may have sound reasons for bashing up Iraq, for refusing to push a Middle East peace process, even for inflaming anti-Western sentiment throughout the Arab and Islamic world. But these are American reasons, not European reasons, and they serve America’s interests, not Europe’s.
Franco-German ‘Core Europe’ — ‘Charlemagna’ — is back in business. Germany now sides with France (not Washington) on security issues. Although Franco-Germany virtually amounts to a superpower itself, the idea is for this ‘core’ to act as a magnet for others. Spain has slipped out of the American orbit and joined already, and Italy will too when the Berlusconi era ends. The even bigger idea — the one that truly creates the European superpower — is to turn this Franco-German duo into a troika — with Paris and Berlin being joined by London in running the new Europe’s diplomacy (as in the three powers’ Iran initiative) and, ultimately, its defence.
To Washington’s chagrin, Tony Blair appears to have signed on for this troika. It is, of course, too early to be sure which way the Prime Minister will spin, but if he clings on to Washington’s skirts, Britain really will become a province of the American empire. There are far worse fates, to be sure, but there is also a better future. Who would not like our Mr Blair to end his dog-like dependence on a President more than 3,000 miles away?
Stephen Haseler’s new book Super-State: The New Europe and its Challenge to America is published by I.B. Tauris.
They might also want to try having, I don't know, a sizable and capable military. We are tired of floating their defense.
SOMEBODY SET UP US THE BOMB!
I seriously doubt that.
It is my hope that building their own defenses will improve relations between the US and Europe. Why? Because the end of their dependence on the US "should" wake up the Europeans to the realities of the world. They may not have all the same interests as us, but they will find they have the same enemies (Islam and China).
They've already got the bomb. Where's this guy been? Doen't he study history?
My prediction is the Socialist European Superstate will collapse under its own weight, ala the Soviet Union, if they get around to paying for their own defense.
Oh man, The Spectator is really going downhill. This man has confused thinking. Don't hold your breath waiting for an uptick in European defence spending, it's been dropping for decades and is continuing to do so.
I actually think it's part of the socialists' plan to "abolish war" - bloat up the welfare budget so high that states can't afford armies, then there will be no war.
There just this little thing called the Middle East screwing up their plan....
"My prediction is the Socialist European Superstate will collapse under its own weight,"
Exactly - the smart ones are keeping their own money...
In the past two years what Donald Rumsfeld sneeringly dismisses as ‘Old Europe’ has shown remarkable strength and independence.
Right.......
The even bigger idea — the one that truly creates the European superpower — is to turn this Franco-German duo into a troika — with Paris and Berlin being joined by London in running the new Europe’s diplomacy (as in the three powers’ Iran initiative) and, ultimately, its defence[sic].
Okay, so that's what the author wants. But there is the problem that the rest of the EU, including the newcomers, don't seem to like being slapped around by French and German leaders. Power has been slipping out of their fingers and into those of the Italians, Dutch, Danes, etc. And there is a rising chorus in Britain that opposes many of the EU goals. Hey, the EU can't even get the French-written EU constituion accepted.
"Charlemagna" - LOL!! I'll believe that when they run all the Muslims out of western Europe - *without* the help of the U.S.
I'm not holding my breath while waiting for the Second Battle of Tours.
But the EU does not take security matters seriously. The left in Europe is pacifist. It is anti-American because it opposes US realism about security affairs. It prefers lack of realism, a fantasy world in which security issues aren't real and can be made to go away by ardent wishful thinking and some street theater.
The result is, any EU that would fund a real military would not oppose the US. Any EU that would oppose the US will not fund a real military. Or act with any realism on the world stage. All they are going to do is whine. If they stopped whining, they would also stop opposing US influence in the world.
There is thus no political prospect of a powerful EU as a rival to the US. Pacifism makes them willing to oppose us politically, but unwilling to actually act on the world stage. It makes them utterly irrelevant in world politics. They aren't a vote against US positions, they are a vote against reality. And that does not shape reality. It just leaves the shaping of reality to others who chose to face it.
I was just in Italy and they hate the euro. Prices are up and wages are stagnant. More importantly, they despise the idea of the French dictating policy.
Defence against whom? Soviet Union or Milosevic?
Very, very well put.
When you merge three failing firms you don't get one successful firm. You get one big failing firm.
The hard truth is that the European man in the street has not the least intention of making the sacrifices that would be necessary to give Europe any real military power. And why should he ? Are American Gestapo prying his fingernails out ? Are pretty European girls in American army brothels ? Are Europeans being enslaved to work in American arms factories and farms ? Are we looting European resources ? He intends to keep his 35 hour workweek, retire at 50, six week vacation way of life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.