Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > And where exactly is all that money supposed to come > > from? > > There are several answers to your points. The first > is that, obviously, Britain _has_ created a force > capable of power projection, so clearly it is within > the capacity of at least some European countries.
I guess that is because Britain already had a big military tradition due to it's colonization politics, right up untill the last century. As for the Dutch well, in any conflict The Netherlands always have tried to stay neutral. They didn't always succeed but it is a hardwon tradition. Buildup of any significant army has only started after WWII. The Germans haven't had much of a military ever since the WWs because of the conditions placed upon them. They are only just starting to recover. Their first armed army tasks outside Germany are as recent as decade ago. The French do have a military but are just as the US very solitary in where to deploy them and on what ground(s). The Italians have so much internal political problems they don't have a coherent policy on almost anything. As for the rest of the countries there are almost always financial or traditional reasons as to why the military isn't up to US standards. So a unified EU army is at current somewhat utopical. > Nowhere did I say that Europe should create a military > equal to that of the US. Clearly that's impossible - > and undesirable, too, in my opinion (for reasons, read > my senior thesis :-) But it is well within the > capacity of several European countries to create a > force capable of useful contributions beyond the > borders of Western Europe, and this is something that > all (except Britain, of course) have singularly failed > to do. > > All of Europe could certainly spend more on the > military. It is saying something that the > Netherlands, faced with such an unstable global > strategic environment, has chosen to cut its defense > budget. But no European country spends anything close > to the US proportion of its GDP on defense (not a very > high proportion, btw - it's something like 4%). If > we, at far lower levels of taxation, can find the > money, Europe certainly can do so as well. Since EU is more into social goals, it is hard to imagine they'd spent more on the military unless they were under direct attack. I admit, that it would be too late to change anything in that eventuallity but that's the way it is. > To not spend it is a _choice_. It might be a choice that you > agree with, but it is still very much a choice on the > part of Europe. Choices have consequences. One > consequence of Europe's choice is that the US views it > as fundamentally unserious about foreign policy. LOL.... Well even you have to admit that there is more to foreign politics then waving a big gun under the nose of countries you don't agree with. So I feel this is somewhat overstating your point. > _Even with current levels of spending_, however, it is > certainly possible for European countries to create > forces capable of playing a useful role in the > international arena. And so they do. But you do have to understand that we are not in the habit of sending overwheling force, just because we don't like the head of state, don't agree with the politics of a country, or want more resources. We used to do that, were very good at it, had many colonies, and made big profits from it, but those times are gone for good. Currently (and this is typical of the Netherlands) they establish the task then they send just enough men and material to accomplish that particular task. The term shoestring budgets and such do somewhat spring to mind..... :o) I might add that that is one of the things that went horribly wrong in Srebrenica. Dutchbat was sent to police the area. Not to fight an all out war. It was the idea to get in air support from the other UN corps in the eventuallity of an attack. Politics muddled that one up thoroughly and when the idea failed the only thing the lightly armed military could do was retreat. Just *if* they knew what they know now remaines to be seen.... But (since I still believe in the good nature of men) I'm sure the commander in charge didn't take that decision lightly. > European countries have chosen not to have useful militaries. Well they are usefull as to what the EU countries intent them to do. But as with respect to the US point of view you are correct. > That is the choice of countries that are fundamentally unserious. > Thus European countries opinions on foreign policy are > not, _and should not_, be taken seriously by the > United States. IMO that is a stupid as well as an ignorant viewpoint. Not everybody needs a 'big gun' to be usefull to society. The EU does contribute a whole lot to foreign politics. Only it is less obvious since there isn't great weaponspower behind it and there isn't much prime time news coverage. I am very certain that if the EU hadn't done it's politicking behind the scenes and would be as unserious as you claim it to be the US would have fought a lot more wars then it did. Sonja _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
