Is it time for Europe to take responsibility for its own defence?

[Galbally]

Here is an interesting article in the Economist.



We were there for America

Mar 1st 2007

From Economist.com

But how long will America be there for Europe?

“WIN some, lose some”, says a top Lithuanian politician of the looming disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. “We were there for America. America will be there for us”.

That sort of breezy Atlanticism is almost extinct in western Europe. And even among the east Europeans, it conceals a sinking feeling that they are going to suffer big collateral damage from America's misguided strategies in the ill-named “war on terror”.

For a start, the crude division of Europe into “old” (anti-American) and “new” (Atlanticist) has hardly helped the still-shaky cause of reuniting the continent.

The disproportionate presence of largely token ex-communist forces in the “coalition of the willing” has helped confirm the cynical chancelleries of old Europe in their view that the new democracies are gullible American patsies.

The implication of Romania, Poland and perhaps some other countries in the renditions scandal has blemished what should have been the new democracies’ strongest card: their commitment to human rights. How could those who had suffered in communist prisons collaborate now in the torture of other prisoners? The allegation may be outrageously unfair. But it has stuck in the minds of many.

The damage goes on. America’s role as guarantor of Europe’s security has been weakened. In western Europe, revulsion at the bloody and incompetent occupation of Iraq, coupled with a mixture of astonishing amnesia and lazy prejudice, has wiped away a shared history that stretches from the Normandy beaches to the end of the Berlin Wall.

In western Europe, revulsion at the bloody and incompetent occupation of Iraq has wiped away a shared history that stretches from the Normandy beaches to the end of the Berlin Wall

Even in the new democracies, America’s standing has fallen. The cost and hassle of getting an American visa grates maddeningly. Polish and Estonian boys who fight side-by-side with Americans in Iraq are liable to be treated as potential terrorists and illegal immigrants when they want to visit. The administration has moved shamefully slowly on this injustice, and on military assistance to its eager allies.

Yet, if the Atlantic bonds do weaken, the ex-captive nations will suffer the most. It was America that got them into NATO, and it is America that looks out for them now, much more so than nearer but less friendly countries such as Germany. Any suggestion that the east Europeans can rely on the European Union to stick up for them against Russian bullying is, on current form, laughable.

New radar gear and rocket interceptors planned for the Czech Republic and (probably) Poland will probably not do much to change this, You do not strengthen an alliance by pressing on your allies weapons that their public does not want. Helmut Schmidt, Germany's chancellor 20 years ago, thought that having cruise and Pershing missiles in western Europe would make America’s nuclear guarantee more credible. Instead, it cast America as the warmonger in the minds of the muddle-headed, and stoked peacenikery throughout Europe.

Barring an unlikely success in Afghanistan or Iraq, the strains on the Atlantic alliance will grow in the years ahead. The rivets have long been popping. Now great girders, such as Italy, are twisting and buckling. It was public anti-Americanism that brought down Romano Prodi’s government last week. Old Kremlin hands who remember how hard they once tried to destroy NATO must have trouble believing that the job is being done so well for them now by the alliance’s own leaders.



Since 1945 Western (and now Eastern) Europe's security has been guaranteed by the United States (a fact most Europeans take for granted or don't even realize). The recent war has put enormous strain on the Atlantic alliance. Isn't it about time that the EU countries (instead of complaining about US policies like sulky teenagers), actually spent more money on Europe's own military capabilities in order that the continent can guarantee its own security, thereby releasing some of the tensions that are there as the US finds Europe a sulky ally in many ways, and Europe doesn't always trust America's foreign policy instincts. This would of course involved Europeans taking responsibility for themselves in the military sphere and having to give up on the "its all America's fault" syndrome when dealing with the world. It might also make the EU countries less prone to defeatism and moral relativism when confronting difficult issues (such as the Serb actions in Kosovo in 1999, which the EU did nothing about, dithered and wrung its hands, and the U.S. (seeing another round of schrebrinca's were on the cards, stopped it overnight using some airplanes and targeted bombs). Also of course military capabilities are expensive, as the proposed new French-British large aircraft carrier class of ships prove, but defending yourself and not expecting someone else to do it for you, would seem like the responsible thing to do, any comments?

P.S. Oh BTW, we are losing Afghanistan, and whatever about Iraq, if NATO loses the war in Afghanistan we should all go home, give up, and wait for the consequences, because it will prove that NATO is now a paper tiger that relies on nuclear weapons it can't actually use for its military credibility. This will be realized by the parties involved in our current little world difficulties, and they will act accordingly.

The current strategy? There is none, and NATO is falling apart over there, the U.S. and E.U. countries seem unwilling or unable to do anything to remedy this, and all the focus remains on this unwinable, pointless war in Iraq, while the Taliban reassert their new spring offensive and make a laughing stock of NATO's policy of rebuilding and aiding Afghanistan.

[Carl44]

as far as i know dr g ,the UK is the only army in Europe that has more forward gears on its tanks than backward gears .... i dont know if the Irish army has tanks at all ???,and if so do they ever use them???... were they even in ww2 ????..i really dont know ,maybe you could clear that up for me ,thanks jimbo

[Carl44]

Scrat;565564 wrote: Dumbassed remark. :-2



For your information Jimbo the German Leopard 2 A5 has plenty of forward gears on it along with a helacious armor package and a big gun. It can dish out punishment as well as take it at high speeds moving in any direction.

The same goes for the LeClerc.

Thankfully both powers take a very judicious approach to how these beasts are employed, unlike some we know. The British Challenger 2 is IMO the best tank in the world aside from one defect, it's too heavy.



Europe can stand on its own and it's high time that it does. The only reason we are even there is money and politics.


you seem suprised.. it was english humour ..you would not get it ,i was having a playfull tickle on dr g's ribs ,depending how his walk with his dog went could be really comical in his reply or dead pan serious ,i dont mind which it kinda keeps me on my toes ... you have a nice day now :wah:

[Galbally]

jimbo;565543 wrote: as far as i know dr g ,the UK is the only army in Europe that has more forward gears on its tanks than backward gears .... i dont know if the Irish army has tanks at all ???,and if so do they ever use them???... were they even in ww2 ????..i really dont know ,maybe you could clear that up for me ,thanks jimbo


Dear Jimbo, you will be glad to know that the dog walk went well, so I will be nice Galbally today, yes the U.K. does have a professional type army alright and well trained combat soliders who can fight wars, and a good (if small) airforce, as do most major European countries whether they "won" the last European war or not. The British Navy has, sadly, seen better days though, as there is no empire to defend any more so a big navy is not needed. The British army are currently fighting hard in Afganistan, but what is not generally realized is that the German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish army etc etc etc (37 NATO nations have troops are also in Afghanistan (current fighting force 37,000 men), these troops are all combat trained, NATO troops, its their political masters who are afraid to send more forces or commit to whats happening, which is all about politics and nothing to do with military matters, and therein lies the problem, (there is no reserve force in Afghanistan, which Spot will tell you militarily is not a very good strategy).

We in Ireland, we are not part of NATO, we only have a little army really as we never were a big military style country, but we are going to part of the EU rapid reaction force, and thats how it should be. So we a little army then, but don't slag it because my uncle is an officer in it, and he has been in Lebanon, East Timor, and Africa shooting up the place, so don't make me send him round your way. :wah:

[Carl44]

Galbally;565592 wrote: Dear Jimbo, you will be glad to know that the dog walk went well, so I will be nice Galbally today, yes the U.K. does have a professional type army alright and well trained combat soliders who can fight wars, and a good (if small) airforce, as do most major European countries whether they "won" the last European war or not. The British Navy has, sadly, seen better days though, as there is no empire to defend any more so a big navy is not needed. The British army are currently fighting hard in Afganistan, but what is not generally realized is that the German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish army etc etc etc (37 NATO nations have troops are also in Afghanistan (current fighting force 37,000 men), these troops are all combat trained, NATO troops, its their political masters who are afraid to send more forces or commit to whats happening, which is all about politics and nothing to do with military matters, and therein lies the problem, (there is no reserve force in Afghanistan, which Spot will tell you militarily is not a very good strategy).





We in Ireland, we are not part of NATO, we only have a little army really as we never were a big military style country, but we are going to part of the EU rapid reaction force, and thats how it should be. So we a little army then, but don't slag it because my uncle is an officer in it, and he has been in Lebanon, East Timor, and Africa shooting up the place, so don't make me send him round your way. :wah:


thanks dr g :wah:



i take ir you guys were playing soccer

with Switzerland during ww2 :wah:

[Carl44]

Scrat;565577 wrote: Please accept my apologies Jimbo. It flew right by me.



You can take pride in the fact though that it is widely accepted that the Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world, so long as it doesn't have to cross a bridge.


no worries buddy ,thanks about the tank ,you knowledge about wars etc is vast ,you expecting an invasion soon :-3 :-3

[Galbally]

jimbo;565596 wrote: thanks dr g :wah:



i take ir you guys were playing soccer

with Switzerland during ww2 :wah:


Yeah we would have beat them as well, except the Germans wouldn't let us land at Le Harve, god damn it. :wah: :wah:

[YZGI]

Galbally;565592 wrote: Dear Jimbo, you will be glad to know that the dog walk went well, so I will be nice Galbally today, yes the U.K. does have a professional type army alright and well trained combat soliders who can fight wars, and a good (if small) airforce, as do most major European countries whether they "won" the last European war or not. The British Navy has, sadly, seen better days though, as there is no empire to defend any more so a big navy is not needed. The British army are currently fighting hard in Afganistan, but what is not generally realized is that the German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish army etc etc etc (37 NATO nations have troops are also in Afghanistan (current fighting force 37,000 men), these troops are all combat trained, NATO troops, its their political masters who are afraid to send more forces or commit to whats happening, which is all about politics and nothing to do with military matters, and therein lies the problem, (there is no reserve force in Afghanistan, which Spot will tell you militarily is not a very good strategy).



We in Ireland, we are not part of NATO, we only have a little army really as we never were a big military style country, but we are going to part of the EU rapid reaction force, and thats how it should be. So we a little army then, but don't slag it because my uncle is an officer in it, and he has been in Lebanon, East Timor, and Africa shooting up the place, so don't make me send him round your way. :wah:


Leprechauns have a tendency of bringing the size of an army down a bit.:wah:

[Galbally]

YZGI;566002 wrote: Leprechauns have a tendency of bringing the size of an army down a bit.:wah:


RIGHT, thats it, I am calling my uncle up, minor secret invasion of America just about where YZGI lives by a little army of angry little men, (you shouldn't annoy them you know). Expect strange occurences in the near future, some fierce boxing matches , and possibly you may find a crock o gold at the end, so it won't be so bad. Or maybe they will just bomb your townland from 20 miles away with field guns, you cheeky bugger! :wah: