Two things should be pointed out here - first, that those activities were very much in the interest of the Europeans who most loudly condemned them, a relic of the Cold War days when such condemnation was guilt-free and beneficial to an independent self-image. One upshot of that was that the posture it entailed also tended to commit certain governments adopting it against domestic measures that might have been equally beneficial, especially with regard to immigration, assimilation, and the enforcement of native laws.
Second, that several of those governments (excepting Spain) have since moved to the right, as VDH points out, while the U.S. government has lurched to the left. It wouldn't be such a critical matter if the distribution of assets dedicated to collective security weren't skewed so much in one direction. That's particularly unfortunate given the rather long pipeline time inherent with military assets and the difficulties in funding related to the current economic climate. I don't see it remediated before the bulk of security efforts are likely to shift away from field operations in Afghanistan to domestic security efforts in such places as Paris, Rotterdam, London, and elsewhere.
So, it will be harder for Europeans to pull off the old two-step of quietly wanting the U.S. to deter threats while loudly deploring our Neanderthal reliance on brute force.
Perhaps not - the people with the keyboards and the microphones did NOT move to the right with their governments, and hence this is likely not to change a great deal. Moreover, the general cultural climate within academia and media has actually seemed to trend further leftward, especially with respect to Palestine. Given that that also seems to be the position of the current Obama administration, things do not portend for support of Israel from any side. That's exacerbated by the complete failure of European negotiation with regard to the Iranian nuclear weapons efforts and the trend on the part of the Obama administration away from confrontation and in favor of the same sort of negotiations that have so enabled and encouraged the radicals within Iran. It's a pretty obvious flashpoint and the insistence on papering the whole thing over with words while the cauldron comes to a boil is reminiscent of Chamberlain at Munich. If there is a war there the press will be a good deal to blame and will shirk that responsibility as it always does, being satisfied to shift the blame to...well, that's a problem, because Bush is no longer an always-available whipping boy.
The future of collective security is, unfortunately, rather grim. The fantastically silly utopian proposition that if we're less capable of defending our interests with violence we'll be less tempted to, fails every time in the face of those who have no such compunction. It's about to be tested again, and I fear the results will be the same as they always have throughout history.
The future of collective security is, unfortunately, rather grim. The fantastically silly utopian proposition that if we're less capable of defending our interests with violence we'll be less tempted to, fails every time in the face of those who have no such compunction. It's about to be tested again, and I fear the results will be the same as they always have throughout history
Because I want to remain optimistic, I'd think about the security apparatus of Europe: while the media, mostly leftist, masturbates with the usual PC crap and celebrates how brave they are by standing up to this bully American, security there quietly does its job and cooperates with us. Their rules are way more intrusive than Patriot Act, cameras everywhere, etc, etc. Eastern Europeans are not infected with PC as much neither. I can't imagine them being numerous and having too much money, but hope that those guys have their brains wired properly. Otherwise its too bad.