Replies

Attack. The Europeans are tired. They have been fighting internally since the collapse of the Roman Empire in 476. The peace since 1945 is the longest peace between major European powers since that collapse. The Europeans have no desire to get involved in another war anywhere. They were reluctant to involve themselves in the Balkans on Europe's periphery. As long as there is no unified hostile threat, they will continue to disarm and turn inward. They will not see the threat within until it is too late. Large unassimilated Muslim populations are already living in Germany, France, and Britain. The war will come from within when it comes and there will be bloody war in Europe again.

US interests will best be served by unilaterally taking action and forming coalitions with and accepting help from other nations on an ad-hoc basis. Waiting for consensus from lackadaisial partners will result in missed opportunities. This will probably mean the withdrawal of the US from all international and regional treaties. Or the US may remain a member in name only, using the organizations to its own benefit.

Schism. There is a schism between the Europeans and Americans. The schism is the result of different experiences. The US experienced WW1 and WW2 as wars of triumph. The US was a knight rushing in to rescue a damsel in distress. Ever since, the US has been the most powerful nation in the world. With the exception of Vietnam, the US has experienced successes. It is dominant in technology, economics, politics, military, and culture.

Europe had a different experience. In WW1, half of Europe required the aid of a weak outside power to survive. The other side had a humiliating defeat. In WW2, all of Europe was destroyed. Half required an outside power to intervene to survive. The other half was enslaved for half a century. Europe now finds that even united it is no match for a single country, the same one to which it is beholden. It is not a history that inspire confidence and pride.

I agree. Wardcleaver expresses his opinion from Europe but presents a false dichotomy:

”I live in Europe, and the main difference I see is that Europeans see the complexities of international politics clearer than average Americans.”

Translation: Europeans are sophisticated, Americans are dumb. Remember the old expression that was common when the USSR existed: Americans play checkers, Russians play chess? The USSR collapsed and you don’t hear that expression much any more. Maybe there is an advantage to playing checkers. The oh so sophisticated Europeans managed to destroy their continent twice in 50 years.

He then goes on to say:” It's not a black and white world, and, given the choice between sending young men to die and achieving the same results through political negotiation, they will go more readily to the bargaining table.”

To which I reply: Given that choice of course we negotiate. But that begs the question … how do you bargain with someone who wants you dead so badly he will kill himself and his children to kill you? What evidence is there that negotiation will achieve your objective? And if negotiations fail, what is your alternative? The dilemma that Europe faces is that it suddenly realizes that in a dangerous world they have disarmed. They don’t prefer negotiation; it is their only alternative. But human psychology will not allow them to admit their helplessness and to rationalize their position they dress up their impotence as sophistication.