----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:35 AM Subject: Re: The Axis of Weasel
> Erik said: > > > Just why should the EU seriously on military and foreign policy > > matters? > > Let's not forget that the EU itself is a triumph of the collective > foreign policies of the European nations. Of course, the US was vital > militarily because it helped protect Europe from the might of the > Soviet Union, but it's almost entirely as a result of the methods of > the western European nations that the end of the Cold War sees a stable > European Union and not a handful of competitive powers as has been > usual in modern history. I think the US should be thankful that its > worst foreign policy problems are the relatively trivial matters of > Iraq and North Korea rather than, say, a cold war (or hot....) between > a France and Germany both with nuclear weapons. There is a lot of validity in this argument. However, let be quibble. The US troops in Europe had a two-fold function. The US clearly has forces far superior to any country in Europe. Its projection of force in Europe is tremendous. Indeed, I'd argue that the US projection of force in Europe is stronger than the EU's projection of force in Europe. As a result, the US was able to provide guarantees that Germany, for example, would not be able to use military power to push any other country in Europe. Europeans had/have a police force for the first time: the US Army. With essential security thus guaranteed, they were able to work on unity without worrying about security. The article that Gautam quoted discusses this very well, I think. I want to be very clear here that I do not wish to minimize the accomplishment by stating it was partly dependant on the presence of the US. It is still a tremendous accomplishment. But it is a joint accomplishment of the US and Europe. And, it was win-win all around because, as you pointed out, the US doesn't have to worry about a nuclear European war. > Given the various military or diplomatic crises that plagued Europe > every few decades before WW2 (including such spasms as WW1, the > Franco-Prussian war, the Napoleonic Wars, the European wars of which > the American Revolution formed a small component, the Seven Years > War...), this is no small achievement. That the EU is about to > assimilate the various nations of eastern Europe and is likely to also > admit the Balkan nations and perhaps even some nations of North Africa > is even more remarkable. That's valid, but let me give one more example to buttress my point. Back in the early '90s, I was pleased to see that the European nations decided that they could handle the Balkans themselves. The risk posed USSR definitely required the US to defend Europe. But, Serbia didn't seem strong enough to require the US. Surely, Europe was quite capable of handling Serbia. Unfortunately, that was not true. The United States was required to intervene. So, even in its own backyard, against a very minor power, Europe is dependant on the US. Its not just a matter of believing that military power is the solution to every problem. To use chess terms, its believing that the outcome of various endgames influences play in the opening and midgames. To use go terms, one stone placed in one corner of the board can have tremendous influence on the play at the opposite corner. Europe's foreign policy is based on the assumption that the United States is always there as the ultimate force. It assumes that it need not consider force, because it can call upon the US. What would have happened in the Balkans if Clinton and Bush decided it was a European problem, and that the US needed to keep out? Does anyone question the concept that Milosovitch (sp) would still be in power, and in charge of a significant military force? How many hundreds of thousands would have died as a result? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
