Europeans are going to suck Americans into another of their interminable wars.

Bluesman · 03-07-2006, 16:22 PM

But with a twist this time: they won't be participating.

Quote:

Soft Europe
Is the Continent willing to fight for anything, besides a welfare check?

BY LEON DE WINTER
Tuesday, March 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

After two years of disastrous dialogue, and more of the same in recent days, we can conclude that no diplomatic initiative can stop Iran from getting the bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency meets again this week to discuss the mullahs' nuclear ambitions, while Russia floats a plan to get Iran to enrich uranium on its soil. But before we got to this point, we had the Europeans in the starring role. The foreign ministers of the leading European Union countries--Britain, France and Germany--did try for years to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, most recently at Friday's meeting in Vienna that ended up in yet another failure. But Iran knew all along that this threesome, formally the "Troika," had no real negotiating authority and would never resort to serious measures.

And yet Britain's Jack Straw, France's Philippe Douste-Blazy (and his predecessor, Dominique de Villepin) and Germany's Joschka Fischer (and his successor, Frank-Walter Steinmeier) talked on, clinging to a postmodern European belief in a world where any conflict can be resolved with enough reason and mutual understanding. The Troika offered the mullahs economic carrots and alternative sources of nuclear power--as if energy had anything to do with it--while Iran did what any football team does when it's ahead: It played for time. This it used very well to push ahead with its clandestine nuclear program.

Did the Troika know that Iran knew that Europe was weak? Of course. Europe's posturing was empty from the start. The only weapon that the EU was willing to consider, as a last result, was an economic boycott that would harm Europe's commercial interests more than Iran's.

The mullahs also knew that the Troika couldn't back up its threat of an economic boycott with the threat of military action. If the EU couldn't muster the will to fight in its own backyard in the Balkans without America leading the way, it surely wouldn't put any lives at risk beyond the frontiers of the Continent.

By contrast, Iran, ostensibly a democracy but in reality a religious tyranny, possesses a character trait that is almost nonexistent in modern Europe: Iranians, almost exclusively Shiite, are willing to suffer. This quality is deeply rooted in their religion. Ashura, one of the central Shiite rituals that marks the death of Imam Hussain at the Battle of Karbala in 680, celebrates flagellation, blood, pain. As Steven Vincent, the remarkable American journalist who tragically was murdered last August in Iraq, observed in his book "In the Red Zone": "Eight-foot long white silk flags depicting crossed sword, the blades oozing with blood . . . pictures of severed hands, severed heads, . . a fountain in front of Meshed Ali spraying geysers of blood-red liquid. . . . bloody swords flashing over the heads of milling crowds . . . men with blood-soaked bandages wrapped around their heads to stanch the bleeding from self-inflicted wounds . . . endless posters of the slaughtered innocents. This is an orgy of death imagery, I thought."

Can Europe grasp this commitment to voluntary suffering? For casualties to be acceptable on the battlefield, people need collective ideals and values that transform their society into a sacred entity. In European eyes, Shiites have ritualized this to the point of absurdity, with most Westerners finding it bizarre.

After the horrors of World War II, Western Europe turned to new ideals of radical pacifism and post-nationalism. The Continent had been devastated by war twice in three decades. In the 1950s, the desire to avoid more war led it to a new ideology, permeating society and politics, that viewed national interests and cultural traditions as relative. As a result, people started to believe that peaceful coexistence with communist Eastern Europe was better than emphasizing the differences between East and West.
The largest demonstration ever in my own country, the Netherlands, was held in 1983 against the stationing of U.S. cruise missiles on Dutch soil. Anti-American sentiments were popular then as well, since America was a country that was prepared to oppose the Soviets with force, while the demonstrators categorically rejected any use of violence in favor of other means. What these means were remained vague for most people, but that was unimportant as long as the central issue was the growing threat of war implied by the stationing of U.S. missiles.

Little has changed in recent decades. Europe became wealthier and more convinced of its idea that world peace can be achieved by talk alone. Even the West European countries in the American-led coalition in Iraq, apart from the British, are only participating symbolically in order not to offend their main ally. In the Netherlands, the authorities speak of "peace missions" when discussing Dutch military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoiding terms like "war" and "violence."

If the threat were limited to the Middle East, the European reluctance to act now that Iran has de facto begun developing nuclear weapons might be almost understandable. But it is clear that the Iranian theocracy has set its sights far beyond its region. The rhetoric of the Iranian regime has been clear for years. As with Germany in the 1930s, anti-Semitism plays a key role in modern Iranian politics. If Iran succeeds, its nuclear weapons will be controlled by people who believe that they should bring the End of Days closer--a notion not dissimilar to Hitler's apocalyptic visions. An Iranian bomb threatens the very existence of Western civilization.

But what does Western civilization mean in and to Europe? In the European welfare state, the system ensures that each individual can rely on maximum social security. Without doubt, the welfare state is the ultimate achievement of European civilization. But it did not come without a philosophy: the welfare state gave birth to a postmodern cultural relativism that underpins the tolerant, liberal, pacifistic and secular European societies of today.

Only the Earth is still a planet on which opposing forces collide. The welfare state, based on its provision of social services and the participation of reasonably acting civilians, is unable to respond to globalization or mass immigration. Its structures work as long as the system is closed. But because of vast changes in demographics and economics, the welfare state has become too expensive. All over Europe its fundaments are cracking.

This crisis is serious enough. The European political establishment is too preoccupied with its internal problems to even contemplate problems beyond its shores. Its philosophy holds that "soft power" alone can be brought to bear in any conflict between power blocs or ideologies or civilizations. That explains Europe's inability or unwillingness to defend the freedom of speech in one of the smallest EU member states, Denmark, during the Cartoon War. That's why there is near silence in Europe about the daily anti-Semitic provocations from Iran, which says that it'll hit Jews worldwide if Israel tries to destroy the Iranian nuclear program.

The EU does not know why it should ever sacrifice its sons in military conflict. What sacred values are worth defending at such a high cost? The EU isn't prepared to enter a conflict with Iran, with all its potentially devastating human casualties and economic hardships.

So for years the Troika continued talking, maintaining the illusion that Tehran was playing by the rules as equal partners and denying the reality that the Mullahs will gain great economic and military leverage over Europe in the very near future.
Europe could have suppressed the Iranian threat if it had convinced the mullahs two years ago that it was willing to contemplate military options. Only Europe lacks core values that it holds sacrosanct and that it's willing to defend at the highest cost. It will continue to operate on the diplomatic field and cling to soft power even though this is the path of certain defeat when confronted with power players burning with geopolitical and religious ambitions.

Thanks to European illusions about soft power, the free world has two options left on Iran: disaster or catastrophe. America and Israel will bleed for Europe's lack of conviction.

Mr. de Winter is a Dutch novelist and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.

dalem · 03-07-2006, 16:39 PM

But what other choices do we have?

-dale

dave angel · 03-07-2006, 17:14 PM

the title of the topic is rather 'interesting' - pray how can we suck you into a war that you seem to be dead set on having while we are prepared to wait until it becomes neccesary?

sorry Bluesman, but you've found yourself a real crock of shite here.

your author fails to notice one rather salient point, which is that the US supported the efforts of the EU3 (and played the big stick under the table) - because there was a possibility it might work, its a damm sight cheaper than war and given recent missadventures in the region there was f'all else you could do.

Bluesman · 03-07-2006, 17:37 PM

Nothing, dalem. And I knew it all the while we were going through this useless little Kabuki dance.

I posted extensively about this very thang here.

Bluesman · 03-07-2006, 17:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave angel

the title of the topic is rather 'interesting' - pray how can we suck you into a war that you seem to be dead set on having while we are prepared to wait until it becomes neccesary?

sorry Bluesman, but you've found yourself a real crock of shite here.

your author fails to notice one rather salient point, which is that the US supported the efforts of the EU3 (and played the big stick under the table) - because there was a possibility it might work, its a damm sight cheaper than war and given recent missadventures in the region there was f'all else you could do.

I'm sorry, too, dave. I'm sorry about something different, though.

How can we be sucked into a war? Because you're prepared to wait until it becomes necessary, that's why.

Did you read the piece? How 'bout THIS part:

Quote:

Thanks to European illusions about soft power, the free world has two options left on Iran: disaster or catastrophe. America and Israel will bleed for Europe's lack of conviction.

?

We all knew there was no hope this would work. (Okay, Swift_Sword didn't know.) And now what all of us knew was coming is almost here.

You think there's f'all we can do about it? Keep watching CNN; by and by, there will be breaking news that refutes that.

**Officer of Engineers** · 03-07-2006, 19:04 PM

Why has everyone forgotten Eastern Europe? They're more than willing to fight.

HistoricalDavid · 03-07-2006, 19:15 PM

OoE, speaking as one (in name only) myself, there's little in EE to forget.

Bluesman · 03-07-2006, 20:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Why has everyone forgotten Eastern Europe? They're more than willing to fight.

Dam' right. Out of Germany, and on to Poland. There's still some MEN there.

Amled · 03-07-2006, 20:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave angel

the title of the topic is rather 'interesting' - pray how can we suck you into a war that you seem to be dead set on having while we are prepared to wait until it becomes neccesary?

sorry Bluesman, but you've found yourself a real crock of shite here.

your author fails to notice one rather salient point, which is that the US supported the efforts of the EU3 (and played the big stick under the table) - because there was a possibility it might work, its a damm sight cheaper than war and given recent missadventures in the region there was f'all else you could do.

But when talk fails; as it appears it will (have?), would you support the use of armed force, Dave?
Given the not so veiled threats by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to wipe Isreal from the map. There's hype and there's hype, this threat sounded credible given it's source!

Horrido · 03-07-2006, 23:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave angel

the title of the topic is rather 'interesting' - pray how can we suck you into a war that you seem to be dead set on having while we are prepared to wait until it becomes neccesary?

sorry Bluesman, but you've found yourself a real crock of shite here.

your author fails to notice one rather salient point, which is that the US supported the efforts of the EU3 (and played the big stick under the table) - because there was a possibility it might work, its a damm sight cheaper than war and given recent missadventures in the region there was f'all else you could do.

We don't want this war, but we are going to have to fight it, again. What you fail to understand is, if we wait until it becomes undeniably necessary, it will be undeniably and tragically too late, as well.

Is it a crock? Yes, but a crock that Europe is brewing.

Europe would forego derailing a freight train intently bearing down on them, snootily demanding to negotiate to stop of its own accord, instead. The US supported the efforts because we needed it as another example of European diplomatic wishful thinking and failure in the face of totalitarian fundimentalist Islam.

Ray · 03-07-2006, 23:53 PM

It is one thing to want a war and it is yet another thing to be capable of fighting out that war!

There are very good reasons to put the Mullah govt of Iran out of commission, more so since they are adamant to enrich weapons grade nuclear fuel.

However, the issue is that is there enough of troops with the US to fight this war?

Afghanistan and Iraq are not going to be over in a jiffy, if indeed they are to blow over. Can the US afford yet another Islamic nation up in arms nibbling away at the ever increasing casualty figures of the US soldiers?

One cannot bite more than what one can chew. Afghanistan should have been tackled first, followed by Iraq and then Iran. One cannot fritter away the comabt punch because that makes the effort weak and not concentrated and the result is inevitable as we see in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Pakistan is peeved off with the US repeatedly drawing Pakistan's attention to the fact that they don't seem serious about tackling the AQ problem. Afghanistan has openely condemned Pakistan for aiding and abetting the AQ and that has upset Musharraf immensely so much so he has gone hammer and tongs against Karzai.
Pakistan is now talking of the China card. So, Paksitan may also peel off in the opposite direction.

Therefore, one must look at all the issues and let the head rule supreme over the heart!

What is the answer to Iran?

Given the way the troops are frittered all over the world so to say, I would not know.

All I know is that the situation is gloomy and murky.

dave angel · 03-08-2006, 05:36 AM

i trust the CIA's judgement that Iran is some distance - 5 to 10 years - from having a usable nuke. iran without a usable nuke is an annoiance, but not a threat.

it therefore is not an issue now - while Iraq teters on the edge of sectarian warfare and needs every bit of attention, funding and troop commitment to prevent a full blown civil war - what iraq doesn't need is the shia going mental because you are attacking their co-religionists while at the same time diverting resources to yet another situation that doesn't need to be tackled as yet.

if and when iran gets close to having a nuke then by all means fight, but FFS don't do it when it doesn't need doing and anything you do in Iran will make the Iraqi situation worse.

Afghanistan suffered because the US - and ourselves - took the eye off the ball and looked at Iraq. don't make the same mistake twice.

the diplomacy route can work - look at the Libyan result - soft (economic and political) power can work, when discretely backed up with hard (military) power.

or does memory not serve you that well?

dalem · 03-08-2006, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave angel

or does memory not serve you that well?

Jar Jar Jihad sees magical auras and denies the Holocaust. Our memories are not the relevant issue here.

-dale

dave angel · 03-08-2006, 07:11 AM

so what if he denies one holocaust and wants to start a new one? he's in no position to do so.

therefore his whims and fantasies are an irrelevence.

when that situation changes - or is about to change - then it becomes a matter of importance and should be tackled.

but it isn't yet, and won't be for sometime - and so certainly shouldn't be done at the expense of a project which is already on thin ice.

Amled · 03-08-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave angel

so what if he denies one holocaust and wants to start a new one? he's in no position to do so.

therefore his whims and fantasies are an irrelevence.

when that situation changes - or is about to change - then it becomes a matter of importance and should be tackled.

but it isn't yet, and won't be for sometime - and so certainly shouldn't be done at the expense of a project which is already on thin ice.

Dangerous thinking, and a fine line to walk, Dave!
Maybe you’re willing to trust, very iffy intelligence prognosis, regarding the timetable for an Iranian nuke. But the Israelis can’t afford that luxury.
Ahmadinejad has made it quite clear what he intends, and if no one else takes a hand Israel will have to do it, regardless of the consequences, simply to safeguard its own existence.

03-07-2006, 17:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
dave angel *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-05-04 Location: Glasgow Posts: 758 Country:	the title of the topic is rather 'interesting' - pray how can we suck you into a war that you seem to be dead set on having while we are prepared to wait until it becomes neccesary? sorry Bluesman, but you've found yourself a real crock of shite here. your author fails to notice one rather salient point, which is that the US supported the efforts of the EU3 (and played the big stick under the table) - because there was a possibility it might work, its a damm sight cheaper than war and given recent missadventures in the region there was f'all else you could do. __________________ before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

03-07-2006, 19:04 PM	#6 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 17,127 Country:	Why has everyone forgotten Eastern Europe? They're more than willing to fight. __________________ Chimo

03-07-2006, 23:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,382 Country:	It is one thing to want a war and it is yet another thing to be capable of fighting out that war! There are very good reasons to put the Mullah govt of Iran out of commission, more so since they are adamant to enrich weapons grade nuclear fuel. However, the issue is that is there enough of troops with the US to fight this war? Afghanistan and Iraq are not going to be over in a jiffy, if indeed they are to blow over. Can the US afford yet another Islamic nation up in arms nibbling away at the ever increasing casualty figures of the US soldiers? One cannot bite more than what one can chew. Afghanistan should have been tackled first, followed by Iraq and then Iran. One cannot fritter away the comabt punch because that makes the effort weak and not concentrated and the result is inevitable as we see in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Pakistan is peeved off with the US repeatedly drawing Pakistan's attention to the fact that they don't seem serious about tackling the AQ problem. Afghanistan has openely condemned Pakistan for aiding and abetting the AQ and that has upset Musharraf immensely so much so he has gone hammer and tongs against Karzai. Pakistan is now talking of the China card. So, Paksitan may also peel off in the opposite direction. Therefore, one must look at all the issues and let the head rule supreme over the heart! What is the answer to Iran? Given the way the troops are frittered all over the world so to say, I would not know. All I know is that the situation is gloomy and murky. __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou	Officer of Engineers	The Field Mess	34	05-10-2007 15:44 PM
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
British India	Grundy	Political Discussions	187	07-01-2006 07:39 AM
Iran to be refered to U.N. Security Council	Dreadnought	Political Discussions	13	01-16-2006 15:14 PM

03-07-2006, 16:39 PM	#2 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,766 Country:	But what other choices do we have? -dale

03-07-2006, 17:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,520 Country:	Nothing, dalem. And I knew it all the while we were going through this useless little Kabuki dance. I posted extensively about this very thang here.

03-07-2006, 19:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 2,129 Country:	OoE, speaking as one (in name only) myself, there's little in EE to forget.

03-08-2006, 05:36 AM	#12 (permalink)
dave angel *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-05-04 Location: Glasgow Posts: 758 Country:	i trust the CIA's judgement that Iran is some distance - 5 to 10 years - from having a usable nuke. iran without a usable nuke is an annoiance, but not a threat. it therefore is not an issue now - while Iraq teters on the edge of sectarian warfare and needs every bit of attention, funding and troop commitment to prevent a full blown civil war - what iraq doesn't need is the shia going mental because you are attacking their co-religionists while at the same time diverting resources to yet another situation that doesn't need to be tackled as yet. if and when iran gets close to having a nuke then by all means fight, but FFS don't do it when it doesn't need doing and anything you do in Iran will make the Iraqi situation worse. Afghanistan suffered because the US - and ourselves - took the eye off the ball and looked at Iraq. don't make the same mistake twice. the diplomacy route can work - look at the Libyan result - soft (economic and political) power can work, when discretely backed up with hard (military) power. or does memory not serve you that well?

03-08-2006, 07:11 AM	#14 (permalink)
dave angel *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-05-04 Location: Glasgow Posts: 758 Country:	so what if he denies one holocaust and wants to start a new one? he's in no position to do so. therefore his whims and fantasies are an irrelevence. when that situation changes - or is about to change - then it becomes a matter of importance and should be tackled. but it isn't yet, and won't be for sometime - and so certainly shouldn't be done at the expense of a project which is already on thin ice.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)