Posted on 07/22/2002 9:43:39 AM PDT by G. Chapman
I did not say it worked, anymore than the Bombing of German cities by the RAF and USAF worked.
It was not until after the war when USAF and RAF Intelligence officers were able to judge how well there tactic did or did not work.
For every Bomb dropped on the Ploesti oil fields 10 were dropped on German cities, both the RAF and USAF command were resistent to attacking economic targets as they felt the war would be won quicker by breaking civilian moral.
Yet as Albert Speer Reich Armanments Minister stated the Geraman war machine could of ground to a halt with out the oil from Ploesti.
So both sides used Terror attacks, today we know it does not work, a lesson Osmar Bin Laden would of done well to learn.
Tony
Tony, its about clarity of thought. Muddled language indicates muddled thinking. (Please check the difference between "there" and "their". Learn to use correct language precisely.)
Europe was still recovering from the Second World War, we did not have the resources or manpower to take on the Soviet Union, only America could of.
You had the men the equipment, problem was thje Soviets could of got a few lick in on you.
Cheers Tony
With all due respect bollox. Stick to the debate, widening a debate is a womens way of arguing
Cheers Tony
But in combat I dont mind having you on my side.
Post me again to continue the debate in about three weeks time.
Yall have a nice day now you hear.
cheers Tony
Now you are going all wobbly on me. You made the original point about terroristic bombing of civilan populi. Are you reversing now?
The effect upon the European psyche of the civilian terror bombing you mention is not to be underestimated as an explanation for differences between "mainstream" European and American thought.
However, "insular" is not the word I would use.
The major complaint (I guess that's what it is) which is heard about America from "Europeans" (at least, the socialist bureaucrats who purport to speak for all Europeans) is that America doesn't Do What Europeans Want Her To Do.
France (or whoever) wants us to sign the Kyoto Treaty. We don't. Therefore, we're "unilateral" and "throwing our weight around". (Even though, let's get real, whether we sign or don't sign some treaty is up to us and nobody else to decide.)
Belgium (or whoever) wants us to sign onto the International Criminal Court. We don't. Therefore we're "going it alone" and "bullies".
The US is attacked. The US wants to fight back against the aggressors in the countries in which they hide and train. Spain (or whoever) thinks this is a mite hasty of us and we should just sit down and talk; therefore we're "bloodthirsty" and "unilateral". (Even though we're perfectly within our rights to fight back against an aggressor and there's no earthly reason why we should listen to foreigners who suggest otherwise.)
Notice: these are not examples of European "insularity". ("Insular" people don't issue commands like this.) They can not be explained by saying that Europe was shell-shocked by the horrible total wars they experienced and wants to avoid another.
What are they? They are, quite simply, Europe attempting to dictate US policy and then whining when they are not obeyed. That's not "insularity" at all, it's bossiness. Neither can it be explained by saying "Well it's so understandable because, after all, after Dresden, Coventry etc Europe wants to avoid more horror." What does American signing or not signing the Kyoto Treaty have to do with Dresden? If you can connect those dots in your head you're a more clever man than I. If Europe wants to avoid more horror why are they so willing to go the appeasement route with Hussein (remember how well that worked with another moustachioed dictator?)
So the question boils down to: If Europeans are "insular" and skittish about big wars, why are they trying to boss around the lone superpower so much, and why do they always try to prevent the US from fighting against maniac dictators? Seems to me the real answer is that "Europe" (i.e. European socialist bureaucratic elites) is plagued by an overestimation of her own importance and intelligence. Europe must be obeyed, simply put, and anyone who does not is "simplistic" or "parochial" or "anti-intellectual" and on and on.
In this light, the real commentary to make about the 20th century wars is not that they made "Europe" skittish and insular; the real comment is to note with amazement that they did not make her more humble about the vaunted infallibility of her elites' opinions. After the bloody experience of 1914-1918 / 1939-1945 you alluded to, why are European elites still convinced of their own infallible opinions? The mind boggles.
You were lucky that you were devided from the rest of us by the Atlantic and Pacific, you were never bombed from the air.
Indeed.
Uh, the other problem is that America was (and, to some extent, still is) under the influence of an elite much of which was flat-out infatuated with socialism and would have thwarted any such attempt at using power in this way from the get-go.
You know, kinda like Europe's elites today.
What an odd conclusion. The author seems to argue for much of his piece that the multilateral effort by Europe is designed precisely to contain U.S. strength, and that U.S. strength (and double standards on multilateralism) is in turn indispensable to preserving peace and stability. But he then argues that we should make a significant effort to move into multilateral constraints. Strange.
So what is to be done?
It seems to me there is one obvious step that the author doesn't consider that, if his thesis is true, would benefit the U.S. and Europe simultaneously: removal of U.S. forces from Europe.
Necessary (but always omitted) disclaimer: In this article, the word "Europeans" means European socialist elite bureaucrats. He is not talking about Europeans in general. Just the socialist elite ones that we're all (including other Europeans) supposed to obey.
American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power,
Bull. "Europe" (=European socialist elite bureaucrats) is doing no such thing. Instead, "Europe" is grasping for power, trying to coalesce and coordinate power, and trying to make silly arguments for why they should have more power, etc. In general, "Europe" is simply feeling self-conscious over her lack of power. Hence all the complaints about US "unilateralism" (meaning: the US doesn't obey "Europe").
That's "turning away from power"? Only in the same sense that a woman growing old is "turning away from" beauty. Europe didn't exactly have much choice in the matter; she is powerless. Period. The only question is how she will deal with this (her solution: centralize power in a socialist union, and then try to argue by sophisticated means that the US should obey this "EU" in all things....)
or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation
Yes, "cooperation" with Brussels. This isn't putting it a little differently, it's putting it a lot differently. "Turning away from power", it turns out, means centralizing and increasing their power. Odd.
And, of course, Americans increasingly tend toward unilateralism in international affairs.
Ah, "of course". Notice that we always hear that America is "unilateral" but there is never a peep about why "unilateralism" (whatever that is) is bad. Did I miss that explanation somewhere? Was everyone issued a memo, "Unilateralism = bad"? Unilateralism, as far as I can tell, is making decisions about things by yourself. There is nothing wrong with it at all; it's what countries do. Yes, even "enlightened" European countries; they make decisions by themselves based on whatever they feel is best for them at the moment. Any pretense that they do otherwise is simply a big fat lie.
They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the United Nations, less inclined to work cooperatively with other nations to pursue common goals, more skeptical about international law, and more willing to operate outside its strictures when they deem it necessary, or even merely useful.
Yawn. What astounding observations. The US is less inclined to "act through international institutions"? Well duh. The US doesn't have to "act through international institutions" if she doesn't want to. So why should she? Only smaller, relatively powerless nations would have to "act through international institutions"; they've got no other choice. But so what?
[Europeans] They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don’t come quickly.
True, I guess. Heck the USSR failed for 70 years and many still wanted to give it a shot.... Socialists have to be "tolerant of failure". This is not an unambiguously positive trait, however, and to complain that the US is less "tolerant of failure" is a backhanded compliment.
They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes.
Uh huh. It ain't like they have much choice; what are they gonne do, send the troops in? This is Europe.
They often emphasize process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.
Key word: "believing". Example: so-called "peace process" in the Middle East. That about says it all, I think.
It is past time to move beyond the denial and the insults and to face the problem head-on.
What "problem"? So far we have the completely boring observation that European elites and mainstream Americans do not have the same opinions about things. But the Euro elites can just be ignored, if they get on the nerves of Americans. So where is the "problem"?
these differences in strategic culture do not spring naturally from the national characters of Americans and Europeans
Agreed. We are, after all, not even talking about Europeans (in general) in the first place. Just the socialist European elites. It's worth remembering this. The "national characters" of Europeans and Americans, in general, are probably more alike than commentators like this make it sound.
After all, what Europeans now consider their more peaceful strategic culture is, historically speaking, quite new.
Appeasement is new? Wishy-washiness in the face of evil is new? Utopian idealism about abolishing war is new?
It represents an evolution away from the very different strategic culture that dominated Europe for hundreds of years and at least until World War I.
Oh ok, "new" = new since World War I. (And look how well the European elites handled that war, and the next....)
As for the United States, there is nothing timeless about the present heavy reliance on force as a tool of international relations, nor about the tilt toward unilateralism
Argh. There is no "tilt toward unilateralism". If anything we are less "unilateral" than (for example) Harry Truman was. But more to the point, all countries are as "unilateral" as they can get away with being, all of the time. It just so happens that the US can afford to be more "unilateral" than (say) Sweden, because she's more powerful. But so what?
Two centuries later, Americans and Europeans have traded places — and perspectives. Partly this is because in those 200 years, but especially in recent decades, the power equation has shifted dramatically: When the United States was weak, it practiced the strategies of indirection, the strategies of weakness; now that the United States is powerful, it behaves as powerful nations do.
Uh, that about sums it up, yes. So why the qualifier "Partly"? The US happens to have more power. What else is there to say? It's not even a "problem", just an observation. (Unless the author's got some kind of gripe about the US having more power than other nations... but which nation would he prefer be the most powerful? One wonders.)
But this is only part of the answer. For along with these natural consequences of the transatlantic power gap, there has also opened a broad ideological gap.
Yes, an ideological gap has grown precisely because of the power differential. What other reason?
Europe, because of its unique historical experience of the past half-century — culminating in the past decade with the creation of the European Union — has developed a set of ideals and principles regarding the utility and morality of power different from the ideals and principles of Americans, who have not shared that experience
Bla, bla, bla. Europe saw her power dwindling, her security more and more dependent on the US, and would not give up her infatuation with socialism. So she developed a bunch of self-justifying rationalizations (the author's "set of ideals and principles regarding the utility and morality of power" etc) to go along with this. But let's not dress it up in fancy clothes; Europe was socialist and wanted to stay socialist without bearing all the cost. Fast forward some decades and now we have snooty European elites complaining about US "unilateralism" when she doesn't sign some stupid-ass socialist treaty (cough *Kyoto* cough). Where's the big mystery here?
If the strategic chasm between the United States and Europe appears greater than ever today, and grows still wider at a worrying pace
"Worrying"? Who's worrying? Who even gives a rat's ass (besides of course the Euro elites who feel their power and influence dwindling...).
it is because these material and ideological differences reinforce one anothe
You got that right. A powerless, socialist people seeks "principles and ideals" to justify their self centered, immature, anti-realistic stance. Consequently they become more and more powerless yet more and more utopian and bossy. Their material and ideological situations reinforce each other all right. There's really not much more to say, then, is there?
[the author says lots and lots more, along the same lines...]
But appeasement is never a dirty word to those whose genuine weakness offers few appealing alternatives. For them, it is a policy of sophistication
Good line :)
Today’s transatlantic problem, in short, is not a George Bush problem. It is a power problem.
I still haven't seen the statement of the "problem".
Europe’s military weakness has produced a perfectly understandable aversion to the exercise of military power. Indeed, it has produced a powerful European interest in inhabiting a world where strength doesn’t matter, where international law and international institutions predominate, where unilateral action by powerful nations is forbidden, where all nations regardless of their strength have equal rights and are equally protected by commonly agreed-upon international rules of behavior.
In short: Europe's weakness has made them unrealistic and naively utopian. I guess that is a problem, but mostly for them. It's up to them to snap out of it.
Europeans have a deep interest in devaluing and eventually eradicating the brutal laws of an anarchic, Hobbesian world where power is the ultimate determinant of national security and success.
Indeed. Similarly, people who want to flap their arms and fly have a deep interest in devaluing and eventually eradicating the law of gravity. But, it ain't gonna happen. They gotta deal with it.
This is no reproach. It is what weaker powers have wanted from time immemorial.
Fair enough. It's still naive utopianism and it still ain't gonna happen.
This perfectly normal human psychology is helping to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe today.
Fair enough. So be it.
But, really, why shouldn’t Europeans be idealistic about international affairs, at least as they are conducted in Europe’s “postmodern system”? Within the confines of Europe, the age-old laws of international relations have been repealed. Europeans have stepped out of the Hobbesian world of anarchy into the Kantian world of perpetual peace.
In the meantime admitting millions of new decidedly un-"European" immigrants into this "Kantian world of perpetual peace". "Perpetual" may be somewhat more fleeting than many "Europeans" think. Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.
The conflict that ravaged Europe ever since the violent birth of Germany in the nineteenth century has been put to rest.
Yeah. Now there's only all that stuff in the Balkans, IRA terrorists in UK, similar movements in Spain, etc. Kantian paradise!
and Europe’s experience of successful multilateral governance
"Successful"? Jumping the gun just a tad, aren't we? How long has the EU been "successful" at regulating banana curvatures and restaurant conversations, hmm? And how long with (non-socialist-elite) Europeans put up with it? Let's not pat each other on the backs quite yet.
Europe “has a role to play in world ‘governance,’” says Prodi, a role based on replicating the European experience on a global scale.
No thanks. Americans don't wanna play in the Europeans' Socialist Barbie Dream-House. (Let alone Muslims.)
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya — these states may be dangerous and unpleasant, even evil. But might not an “indirect approach” work again, as it did in Europe?
Amnesia. The so-called "indirect approach" to the "Germany problem" came on the heels of fighting a damn war against the Nazi bastards. Easy to forget a little thing like that, I know....
so the Europeans have a new mission born of their own discovery of perpetual peace.
"Perpetual peace"? There are neighborhoods in France so terrorized by immigrants that the police won't even go there. I know the author is trying to put forth the "European" point of view here, but must we be so intentionally obtuse?
America’s power, and its willingness to exercise that power — unilaterally if necessary — represents a threat to Europe’s new sense of mission. Perhaps the greatest threat.
True enough as far as this goes. Of course it's worth adding that "Europe's new sense of mission" is a utopian fantasy. Reality is what represents the biggest threat to it.
Americans must not lose sight of the main point: The new Europe is indeed a blessed miracle and a reason for enormous celebration — on both sides of the Atlantic.
One man's "miracle" is another man's nightmare.
For Europeans, it is the realization of a long and improbable dream: a continent free from nationalist strife and blood feuds
Which continent would that be?
War between the major European powers is almost unimaginable.
War between the US and Canada is also almost unimaginable, but I don't expect to be heaped with congratulations because of it. I guess the reason to "celebrate" here is that the Europeans stopped acting quite as stupid as, historically, they have in the past. Bravo, I guess.
What this means is that although the United States has played the critical role in bringing Europe into this Kantian paradise, and still plays a key role in making that paradise possible, it cannot enter this paradise itself.
Right, as far as this goes. The US has to deal with reality while Europe (to some extent) doesn't. That's the situation all right. But where is the "problem", and where in this is any reason whatsoever for the US to listen to the self-serving whining of European bureaucrats, already explained away by the author as a natural reaction to loss of power?
The problem is that the United States must sometimes play by the rules of a Hobbesian world, even though in doing so it violates European norms.
But this is only a problem for the "Europeans", who are denying reality. It is one for them to deal with and confront and get over. There is no role for Americans here, except to provide moral support, I suppose.
Europeans have complained about President Bush’s “unilateralism,” but they are coming to the deeper realization that the problem is not Bush or any American president. It is systemic. And it is incurable.
If "Europeans" truly realize this, then: problem solved.
The day could come, if it has not already, when Americans will no more heed the pronouncements of the eu than they do the pronouncements of asean or the Andean Pact.
Music to my ears.
If Americans were to decide that Europe was no more than an irritating irrelevancy, would American society gradually become unmoored from what we now call the West? It is not a risk to be taken lightly, on either side of the Atlantic.
A fair enough concern, I'll grant. But how about, why not let's embrace what was good about Europe without listening to her socialist whiners and their naive utopian schemes? Can't we do both at the same time?
A good start would be to stop referring to European Socialist Bureaucrats by the catch-all term "Europe", I think. Because of articles like this a lot of Americans probably get the idea that "Europeans" in general are socialist utopians who despise American "unilateralism", etc. Thus the danger of Americans ceasing to listen to the pronouncements of "Europeans" (as they are presented to us).
But not all Europeans are like that, and I wish commentators would stop pretending that they are.
Some Britons still remember empire; some Frenchmen still yearn for la gloire; some Germans still want their place in the sun. These urges are now mostly channeled into the grand European project, but they could find more traditional expression.
Oh, and they will, mark my words. Whether we want them to or not. You can't kill nationalism by sending a few suits to Brussels.
It is true that the Bush administration came into office with a chip on its shoulder.
No, it is not. To say this betrays a peculiar perspective on the part of the author.
It was hostile to the new Europe
No, it wasn't. "Not obeying their every command" (i.e. Sign the Kyoto Treaty!) is not the same as being "hostile". "Europeans" have got to grow up and move past this attitude.
The Bush administration viewed nato’s historic decision to aid the United States under Article V less as a boon than as a booby trap. An opportunity to draw Europe into common battle out in the Hobbesian world, even in a minor role, was thereby unnecessarily lost.
"Unnecessarily"? Was the Bush administration wrong to suspect a trap? The author doesn't make the case.
Americans are powerful enough that they need not fear Europeans, even when bearing gifts. Rather than viewing the United States as a Gulliver tied down by Lilliputian threads, American leaders should realize that they are hardly constrained at all, that Europe is not really capable of constraining the United States.
Perhaps, but the more tied down by international treaties etc we are, the less true this becomes. In fact, that's the entire point for Europe's elites to have the opinions that they do: to constrain US power! The author just spent pages convincing us of this, in fact. Now he denies and poo-poos this concern?
Which is it, are the Europeans advocating "international agreements" and the like in order to tie down American power, or aren't they? If they aren't, then much of the author's argument must be jettisoned. But if they are, we shouldn't listen to them. This follows from the author's own arguments.
So is he just saying we should "listen to Europe" every once in a while to throw them a bone, and massage their egos? Uh, maybe when we're dealing with an issue less serious than war, but for right now, the suggestion is frivolous, if not irresponsible.
If the United States could move past the anxiety engendered by this inaccurate sense of constraint, it could begin to show more understanding for the sensibilities of others
Even when those "sensibilities" are (as the author just got through arguing) motivated largely by naive utopianism, the denial of reality, the loss of power, and the denial of need for same? Sorry, no sale.
It could, in short, take more care to show what the founders called a “decent respect for the opinion of mankind.”
Not all of "mankind" is possessed of an opinion worth respecting. Let's keep in mind here that the "mankind" to which the author refers here is really just... European socialist elite bureaucrats. I know, I know, it's hard to remember that there are other types of Europeans, or even humans....but there are.
Their aspirations for humanity are much the same, even if their vast disparity of power has now put them in very different places. Perhaps it is not too naïvely optimistic to believe that a little common understanding could still go a long way.
When one side has to deal with reality, and the other side has opinions based on a denial of reality and naive utopian dreams, then this "common understanding" ought to be a little closer to the former than the latter, I would think. Otherwise, those "aspirations for humanity" that we both share don't stand a chance in hell of getting off the ground.
What's funny is that the author seemed to realize this through 4/5 of the article. The "Europeans" are powerless and know it, and hence they react to our power, he says. This is quite ironic, he says, since their utopianism was only made possible by our power.
But let's listen to 'em and do what they say anyway, he says.
Not exactly the most convincing argument in the world.
Touché!
Pardon, my rant, but as someone once said, "I am mad as Hell and I don't have to take it anymore"
Note to self: Bump for later study.
You are ex military you should know about what happens during and after combat.
I am not saying I had nerves of steel while in Falklands, North Ireland or Bosnia, but today loud noises make me jump.
Same thing for all the oldies, they lived through it, you have to no other choice.
But afterwards when all the bangs and flashes are over. You slowly start to remember, thats when the nightmares start.
There is still a large population in Europe who are still traumatised by the last war, and many passed that on to there children.
We in Europe are not so simple as you think, just as I know you Americans are a lot more complicated than many over here think.
Sorry if grammer cr*p, have to go catch a train. LOL cant let you Yanks fight this war by your self you would make a pigs ear of it
Cheers Tony
VRN
(whatever you do, don't mention which country always turned up late for wars!)
I couldn't help giggling a bit when I read your reply, as I'm NOT an American--I'm a Hungarian! I'm just pro-American, you know. :-)
Yes, I know the United States did not help us when we were attacked by the Soviets. But that wasn't because they were scared of the big Russian bear's might. It was because, one, there was nothing that obliged them to help us out ("each man for himself; each nation for herself"), and two, because of those nasty old pacifist impulses that had begun pervading the States. (Courtesy KGB, perhaps?)
So the U.S. did defeat the Soviet Union after all. (Maybe that's why I'm so pro-American!)
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.