The Civilization of Dhimmitude

A review of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, by Bat Ye'or. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 384 pages, $23.95

One of the first requirements in any conflict is to know the enemy — how he thinks, what he values, what his goals are. In the current war against Islamism, we in the West have done and are doing a poor job of understanding our enemy on his terms; rather, we have reduced his behavior to our own particular prejudices and categories. Indeed, our enemy has been much better at knowing where we come from and exploiting our cultural ideals and weaknesses than we have been in understanding his.

We Westerners are a people increasingly secular, materialistic, and ignorant of the past. We see all causes as material, all behavior as the result of the physical environment or of psychological forces that also have their origins in immediate material or environmental conditions. Islamic terrorism thus is explained as a response to ignorance and poverty, or to wounded nationalist self-esteem, or to autocratic tyranny, or to post-colonial and post-imperial fallout. The proposed solutions are likewise material: increase development aid to reduce poverty and the despair it breeds; compel Israel to weaken itself in order to remove the constant irritant to Arab nationalist and ethnic esteem; promote democratic institutions to subvert tyranny; and provide rhetorical and fiscal reparations to compensate for colonial and imperial guilt.

Does Europe Actually Want to Play a Part in the World?

Silvio Berlusconi has announced that he is thinking of gradually withdrawing Italian troops from Iraq. At present there are 3,000 there and some will be withdrawn by September, some by the beginning of next year.

Or maybe not. It all depends how Berlusconi’s election campaign will be going. There is no doubt that his announcement has more to do with domestic politics than with international affairs and the American government appears to be treating as such.

The point is that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Italy with that country’s involvement in what they still perceive as America’s war. The dissatisfaction tends to be on the left and in the main stream media but that is enough for our own main stream media to perceive it as being widespread throughout the country. Other people and other opinions do not exist.

Berlusconi clearly shares the opinion that he is vulnerable and, even more clearly, he does not want to be that in his battle with Romano Prodi for the government of Italy. Hence the rather disgraceful and self-defeating payment of ransom for Italian hostages, first the two left-wing aid workers, then the communist journalist. It is still not clear which of those ransoms Berlusconi provided out of his own pocket.

This policy is completely suicidal, as Italian civilians will now be seen to be fair game by all groups in Iraq or Afghanistan that want to augment their budget. It has also led to the tragic events of last week, which ended with the killing of a brave and admirable Italian intelligence officer. And it has added fuel to the traditional “Yankee out” cry of the left, though at present it consists of “Italia out”.

Berlusconi’s semi-announcement comes after a number of other European countries that have supported and participated in the war in Iraq have made similar semi-announcements.

Poland will withdraw several hundred of its 1,700 troops in July with the rest, possibly, at the beginning of the year. The Netherlands have started withdrawing some of its troops and Ukraine is talking of it. (Whether the Ukrainian soldiers will be all that happy remains to be seen. They are unlikely to get as well paid back home as they are in Iraq.)

In Britain, there has been no official announcement and not likely to be, though Sir Menzies Campbell has been jumping up and down and demanding that a similar decision be made. What happens in Iraq itself or surrounding countries matters little to him, though he will undoubtedly jump up and down again if things do not go right.

By contrast, Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, secure in his recent electoral victory, has mooted the possibility of more Australian troops going to Iraq.

According to the ISN Security Watch:

“Australia announced last month that it would deploy an additional 450 soldiers to southern Iraq to provide protection for Japanese engineers working there and to help train Iraqi troops after the Netherlands withdrew its 1,400 troops.”

Unlike the self-regarding and complaining European politicians, the Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer stated that it would be “catastrophic for the international community, in particular the Americans, to abandon the Iraqi community in the wake of their elections”.

In itself the various decisions to withdraw troops are of little importance. Other troops from various countries have been withdrawn and replaced. Indeed, the plan has always been to review the situation as soon as there is a stable Iraqi government, which is not yet the case.

What remains disturbing is the European attitude to the whole war against terror and the most exciting developments in the world. It seems that the Middle East may well change in the next few years and the countries may well become democracies. If that happens, then the various seats of terrorism will slowly disappear, which is a far more important necessity than the European Arrest Warrant for such crimes as “sabotage” and “xenophobia”.

But Europe and the Europeans do not want to be there or to be part of it in any shape or form. Let’s get out, let’s go home, let’s huddle over our own problems and argue incessantly about rebates and subsidies, seems to be the general attitude.

A new act has been introduced in both Houses of Congress, in the Senate by the Democrat Liebermann and the Republican McCain, in the House of Representatives by the Democrat Lantos and Republican Wolf. (You can do this sort of cross-party legislation there.)

Called the Advance Democracy Act, it

“Declares that it is the policy of the United States to promote freedom and democracy as a fundamental component of U.S. foreign policy, to see an end to dictatorial and other non-democratic forms of government, and to strengthen alliances with other democratic countries to better promote and defend shared values and ideals.”

Well, that’s nice. But will the Europeans be part of this alliance to “promote and defend shared values and ideals”? Do they, in fact, share those “values and ideals” or are they so engrossed in the beauty of Europe being superior to America that they have, together and separately, forgotten important political truths?

It could be argued that all this Gladstonian, Wilsonian liberalism is a very bad idea and we must not go along with it, though, if that is so, why is the European Parliament passing endless resolutions to condemn this, that and the other in countries about which they know next to nothing?

And why is the EU straining to build battle groups that are to be sent all over the world in order to promote "European values"? Or something of the kind. At least, the Americans and their allies may well mean what they say.

In any case, if Europeans as the EU or as separate countries and peoples dislike the idea of all this Wilsonian liberalism, then they should put up some ideas of their own against it. But just to keep saying that this is wrong, this is American, we will not support it, is hardly sensible.

One cannot help thinking that Europe no longer wants to play any part in the world at all. It will sit in the corner and moodily throw its toys around, while exciting new things will happen elsewhere.

(Helen Szamuely in EU Referendum, March 17, 2005)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/03/does-europe-actually-want-to-play-part.html

Ambition Without Substance

Speaking of anniversaries, this year, Germany’s Bundeswehr celebrates its 50th birthday, an event marked by Heinz Schulte, editor of the Griephan newsletter for the defence and security industry, in the current edition of DefenseNews.

Set up in the wake of the failure of Monnet's European Defence Community (EDC) — which was rejected by the French parliament in August 1954 - the establishment of an independent German army represented a major victory for then chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Now, however, things look very different and strike at the heart of the aspirations for European "superpower" dominance.

What is particularly striking is that, immediately prior to the unification of Germany in 1991, the Bundeswehr had a force size of 495,000, including 218,000 conscripts. But no sooner had the Wall come down than planning was underway for a new army, the upshot of which has been continuous rounds of cut-backs.

By 2010, the current plan is for an army of 250,000 soldiers — of which only 55,000 will be conscripts. This transformation is supposed to produce a mix of forces, which would include 35,000 as intervention forces, 70,000 intended for stabilisation operations and 106,000 conducting support operations. Under this plan, the Army will consist of five divisions and 12 brigades. There will only be six armoured battalions left.

But where the transformation is dramatically apparent is in this “Structure 2010”, which is to be adopted as of 2007. The service is to reduce its fleet of main battle tanks from 2,528 to 350, and its infantry fighting vehicles from 2,077 to 410. Artillery pieces numbers will be slashed, from 1,055 to 120 and helicopters from 530 to 240.

And it is not only the ground forces that will be savaged. Within the Air Force, the same radical reductions are planned. The number of combat aircraft is to be reduced from 451 to 262 in 2015 — about 180 Eurofighter Typhoon and 85 Tornado aircraft. There will be three Luftwaffe divisions instead of four.

The Navy has managed, with the exception of the naval fighter-bomber, to retain all capabilities even though it has fewer platforms. In 2006, the Navy takes on a new fleet structure. The current five flotillas will be merged into two operational ones. The main platforms will include about 12 frigates, five or more K130 corvettes, six U212 submarines, fewer than 20 mine warfare units, three task force supply vessels and four tenders, 30 MH-90 helicopters and eight P-3C maritime patrol aircraft.

Heinz Schulte puts this into political perspective, writing that it is an open secret that the three-way split of the Bundeswehr into intervention, stabilization and support forces was a fig leaf for the de facto halving of the Army. Furthermore, he writes, many issues are still unsettled. For instance, the Luftwaffe’s acquisition of a third Eurofighter tranche is not yet set. The total Eurofighter fleet could fall to between 120 and 140 aircraft rather than the planned 180.

Yet, despite these transformation ambitions, Berlin is still entertaining the idea of playing in the European "Champions League" with France and Britain, both of which have aspirations for establishing fully functional Rapid Reaction Forces. But, says Shulte, if it want to join the big league, it must back these ambitions financially, or it will operate one level below its most important European partners.

In fact, with the planned force structure and the lack of financial commitment — and the lack of any strategic planning for the German defence industry - Shulte sees only marginal interest in security and defence matters among the German political élites.

And, he writes, the chosen path of transformation for the armed forces is irreversible. But he concludes that "time will tell whether Berlin can and wants to close ranks with Paris and London." In fact, though, on the fiftieth birthday of the Bunderwehr, the indications are that Germany has given up any ambitions of being anything other than a "super-soft" power, and is not seriously entertaining any plans manitain a significant military capability.

As my colleague remarked recently, one really must wonder whether Europe — and certainly Germany — actually wants to play a part in the world. Given also the UK cutbacks and the impoverished state of the French armed forces, the answer seems to be firmly in the negative.

The ambitions seem to remain but, behind them, there is nothing of substance.

(Richard North in EU Referendum, March 17, 2005)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/#111186709753644867

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.