|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Europe Decides Not to Play America’s GamePosted on Feb 7, 2012
The annual Munich Security Conference is regularly the scene for the complaints of American official and semiofficial participants deploring Europe’s failure “to pull its weight” in defense, “free-riding” on American efforts, and failing to spend more money on trans-Atlantic arms purchases. Instead they spend money on their own-make arms and military aircraft, such as the French Rafale and EADS’ Eurofighter, which they sell to such overseas markets as India that might otherwise buy American. Courtesy restrains the European participants from asking what the threat is, against which Europe is being defended by the United States. The complaint reasonable Americans usually make in this matter is that the U.S. is massively over-armed against any existing or plausible future threat to the United States itself. Surely 11 nuclear carrier groups with accompanying support is not required to fight the remnants of al-Qaida, nor have they proven decisive against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Western Europe is modestly and inexpensively armed because its governments perceive only very modest threats to their national security, nearly all of them appropriately dealt with by police and other civilian agencies. The Europeans make combat airplanes, ships and other high-technology military equipment, because on occasion they need them—as in the Libyan intervention, the Falklands affair and Afghanistan—and to maintain their design capacity and technological and industrial means to manufacture such things in quantity should they ever be needed, and because they can be profitably exported. Stephen Hadley, a former official in ex-Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, said in Munich that Europe must spend more if it wants to be a global player. The Europeans regard the George W. Bush administration record, and now the Obama administration’s, and see the results of “global playing”: Iraq in wreckage and under Iran’s sway, Egypt and Turkey hostile to the United States, Israel claiming to live in fear for its national existence, and the NATO war in Afghanistan being lost. Advertisement The decision of France to end joint combat operations with Afghan troops in training, which followed the murder on Jan. 20 of four French soldiers, and the wounding of others, by an Afghan infiltrator at a base in northeastern Afghanistan, has jolted the American government into an apparent reappraisal of the outlook there. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced last week that U.S. forces will cease their leading role in combat operations by mid-2013 (although it wants permanent bases in that country—a face-saving ambition it also had, but was refused, in present-day Iraq). Afghan security forces, with or without foreign trainers, are supposed to number some 400,000 by late 2013. Few outside Mr. Panetta’s office—or the White House—believe that Afghan security forces will be any more capable of defeating the Taliban in 2013-14 than they are today. Indeed, why can’t they defend themselves now? There are more than 31 million people in Afghanistan. The Taliban movement is their creation, nobody else’s—whatever the maneuvers of the Pakistani ISI agency. With arms from abroad, the Taliban defeated the Soviet occupation. They are now apparently on the way to defeating the American occupation. This must be taken into account by all those who believe that the United States and other Western nations have a duty to intervene in non-Western countries to impose or defend friendly governments, or as in Afghanistan, to determine the outcome of a civil struggle (between elements of the Pashtun ethnic population and what once was the Northern Alliance, composed mainly of Tajiks and Hazaras). It is usual for Americans to say we defend “democratic governments,” but that is not usually the case. This admirable principle usually reduces to defending client governments, for motives that have to do with American national or NATO interests. There is, however, a principle of proportionality involved, and a duty of candor. The issue of proportionality requires weighing the harm being done to the people of the client-state or ally, and also to the civil population of all the states involved in a struggle, against the good that can reasonably be expected to come from the intervention. How many innocent people were killed, mutilated or their lives ruined in the course of Washington’s Iraq intervention? No one knows because the side that initiated the war does not wish to have the total known, and so deliberately ignores or minimizes civilian deaths. The other side, with their supporters and friends, does their best to maximize losses. The estimates of fatal casualties go from several hundred thousand to more than 1 million. Either is disproportionate to the result. How many are going to die or be grievously harmed in Afghanistan? Afghanistan has never done anything to harm Americans. The Taliban government in 2001 refused to deliver up Osama bin Laden; this was an issue of honor in their civilization. That did not harm Americans; it merely inconvenienced them. However, the U.S. sent in the B-52s. Even now, with bin Laden dead, the U.S.—and NATO—won’t quit taking revenge on the Taliban. That is the way of global players.
© 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.  TAGS:
|
The IRS and the Real Scandal
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By drbhelthi, February 11, 2012 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment
“The military strategy of bringing the war to them rather than waiting for them to
bring it to us is valid.” Lafayette
Your history lesson falls short of accuracy and validity. How was the Taliban to
deliver “war” to the US? Via camels?
And who hijacked airplanes? The CIA fall guy employee, Atta, couldn´t fly a
Cessna 172, much less a jet, twin-engine cargo aircraft. Any aircraft that flew into
the twin towers of the WTC were flown by the same people who currently fly the
drones in foreign countries where the US has no business being.
You are obviously paid by the number of articles you write.
Report thisBy Lafayette, February 10, 2012 at 12:39 am Link to this comment
I beg to differ.
The US can “control” nothing. It can influence, however. And if it does not, then it is preparing the way for more harm not only on its homeland but Americans living abroad.
Again, a history lesson is appropriate. Al Qaeda, just like the terrorist Red Brigades of the 1970/80s, must be countervailed on their own ground as much as ours. The military strategy of bringing the war to them rather than waiting for them to bring it to us is valid.
You have obviously forgot already the number of Americans who have been killed resulting from airplane hijackings.
Let’s not be neither naive nor bullies in matters of foreign policy, both peaceful and defensive. Otherwise we shall pay dearly for our naiveness.
Our problems in the Middle East stem from the fact that a swaggering PotUS (Bush2) had on old-fashioned Texan grudge against Saddam Hussein who had tried to assassinate his father (Bush 1). You will remember why Billy-boy Clinton sent cruise missiles into Iraq during his presidency.
Iraq was the wrong-war, Afghanistan - from the point-of-view of homeland security - was the right-war. And the Looney Left in America is making a mistaken amalgam of all-wars.
Which is typical of American thinking, wanting to reduce all complexity into a sound-bite propoortion so they can wrap their minds around it. Enlarge, rather, your vision of problems rather than reducing it stupidly to a size that suits you.
There’ a wholly different world out there beyond the three-mile limit.
Report thisBy Memory_Hole, February 8, 2012 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment
The Military Industrial Complex rules the US and We the People have no input whatsoever. It’s all a big con. The US govt. at this point has been taken over by international financiers/bankers/militarists/mega corporations and there is no concern for “democracy” at home or abroad. We are on the road to serfdom, all except for the elite class of oligarchs in the DC establishment who profit from every war and the continuing obscenity of $1.2 trillion “Defense” spending annually. No need to wonder why there’s more and more cuts in public pensions, education grants, and the many other safety net programs that comprise the ever diminishing portion of governmental policy having anything to do with “promoting the general welfare.” It’s all swallowed up in the ever widening maw of the MIC. It’s unaccountable, unelected, and unethical. Only massive nonviolent civil disobedience, demanding an end to Empire, has any hope of ending this cancer on our moribund nation.
Report thisBy gerard, February 8, 2012 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment
The ranking of arms exporters referred to here shows (IMO) the persistence of Cold War attitudes in spite of the passage of decades of time. Shows how regressive “diplomatic mind-sets” are. No wonder we can’t expect any improvement in international relations! It would appear ever more likely that other ways of dealing beyond the present kerfuffle-huffle-puffle-shuffle of “diplomacy” must be instituted before we are all toast. Hillary, do you still think “it takes a pillage?”
Report thisBy JDmysticDJ, February 8, 2012 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment
RE: Lafayette, February 8 at 1:56 am
Although I believe your comments regarding U.S. domestic politics and the need for progressive politicians are intelligent and somewhat well informed you reveal yourself to be less than progressive on the issues of nuclear power and national security.
You appear to be saying that the Taliban is a “Standing Army,” that Al Qaeda is responsible for the many terrorist acts, and that drone attacks are reserved for Al Qaeda targets. Suicide bombings are perceived to be terrorist acts are they not? Are you following the News? Reports of Taliban suicide bombings are frequent.
“CIA steps up drone attacks in Pakistan to thwart Taliban. Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, Updated: September 28, 2010 19:20 IST”
Report thisYou are perpetuating the myth that U.S. militarism is making the U.S. safer. The surest way to remove the U.S. as the target of terrorists is for the U.S. to end the practices that made the U.S. the target of terrorists to begin with. The damage has been done in Iraq, Afghanistan, and that entire part of the world. We will not extricate ourselves from the morass or absolve ourselves from the suffering we have inflicted by continuing the same moronic policies over and over again expecting different results. The myriad of problems that are evident in that area of the world are complex and beyond our capacity to control. Our continued interventions will only make things worse. The problems evident in that area of the world are best solved by the people of that area of the world. The problems in that area of the world will not be resolved without more blood being shed; this is a reality we must accept. Western Interventions in that area of the world are to a great extent responsible for the problems in that area of the world. It’s long past the time when Western Powers should have ceased and desisted chauvinist imperialism.
By Lafayette, February 8, 2012 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment
Good point. See the ranking of arms exporter nations here .
Report thisBy gerard, February 8, 2012 at 11:25 am Link to this comment
Chances are that Europe “understands” the U.S. better than the U.S. understands itself. That’s a help.
Report thisBy doctor doctor, February 8, 2012 at 10:20 am Link to this comment
Big B
Report thisExxon already has a key to the White House and to Congress too. Weapons of war may don’t accumulate value but they sure as hell accumulate power.
By Big B, February 8, 2012 at 8:45 am Link to this comment
doctor doctor
Would Ron Paul end the war before or after he handed the keys to the white house over to Exxon? Wake up!
You know why China doesn’t spend 1/4 of its GDP on weapons? Because its bad for business. Weapons of war don’t accumulate value.
Report thisBy doctor doctor, February 8, 2012 at 7:23 am Link to this comment
Now Pakistan is threatening the US over its relentless drone attacks. Elect Ron Paul and all these problems will be solved.
Report thisBy balkas, February 8, 2012 at 7:17 am Link to this comment
where is the threat to US? i say in every country that does not obey US. the threat is to the
Report thisinterests of US or rather to the interests of the 1% and their paid defenders such as the army and
cia agents.
so, the threat is there. and not just to US, but also world supremacists; i.e., its onepercent.
perhaps, US supremacists believe that they can break up china and destroy its law and order.
europe perhaps does not believe that china can be stopped, dismembered, etc. it would love to
see the end of equality building in china; because that damn example is just too good and is
bound to get the domestics in europe excited about it.
to be quite short, china may help bring an end to octo-millennial struggle between the
onepercent/their helpers and the 99%.
and now for first time ever since some 8 k yrs ago looms the end of history! and the onepercent
is horrified at that prospect or expectation.
so nuclear war the only solution for them?? don’t discount it!!! thanks, bozhidar balkas,
ultrasocialist
By thecrow, February 8, 2012 at 6:30 am Link to this comment
Shall we play a game?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/blue-skies-from-pain/
Report thisBy Marian Griffith, February 8, 2012 at 6:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@gerard
—-Did all the nuts emigrate back in the early days?—-
Politeness demands that I do not answer that question ...
(but take a look at the majority of the emigrants: The zealots, the ruthless opportunists and the desperately poor…)
Report thisBy Lafayette, February 8, 2012 at 4:46 am Link to this comment
Well put and simply said - but to get the American people off their duffs and into polling stations voting for progressive candidates (wannabe “socialists”, heaven forbid!) is not going to be easy.
In fact, in a country inured for more than two centuries by the belief in individualism, Social Justice (a collective notion) is going to have a damn-hard row to hoe.
There was a time, however, in the first part of the 20th century, when progressivism was an important movement. But it never took a real hold on American sympathies.
Read about progressive history in America here.
Report thisBy katsteevns, February 8, 2012 at 4:41 am Link to this comment
By Lafayette, February 8 at 1:56 am
“In fact, the main armaments competition comes from ex-Soviet arms manufacturers who sell tanks, jets and Kalashnikovs at knock-down prices - which wreak the most havoc in this world.”
——————
Yeah and the havoc they wreak stopped Hitler in his tracks while their population sacrificed upwards of 22 million to that end. How many did the US sacrifice….500,000 on all fronts east and west?
Report thisBy FRTothus, February 8, 2012 at 4:33 am Link to this comment
>>The Taliban government in 2001 refused to deliver
up Osama bin Laden; this was an issue of honor in
their civilization.<<
Pfaff, you know better! The Taliban offered to
deliver up bin Laden provided the US offer some
evidence, which the US refused to do. Honor, like
the Rule of Law, is apparently a concept unknown to
the West.
>>The Europeans make combat airplanes, ships and
other high-technology military equipment, because on
occasion they need them — as in the Libyan
intervention, the Falklands affair and
Afghanistan…<<
Tripe! The Europeans make military equipment because
war is about the most profitable enterprise there is,
and what economic warfare will not accomplish, brute
force will.
>>Afghanistan has never done anything to harm
Americans.<<
Independence anywhere threatens US hegemony, just as
Report thisthe Mafia is threatened when even the smallest shop
keeper refuses to pay his protection money. The
Taliban’s real threat was in their nearly successful
attempt to eradicate the opium and heroin coming out
of Afghanistan, which threatens massive US illegal
drug profits, and the cash that fuels Wall Street.
By ardee, February 8, 2012 at 4:09 am Link to this comment
It is not a real war, it is an extension of Capitalism, war for profit. Our interventions have made Al Qaeda and The Taliban more popular, and our callous slaughter of so many civilians, coupled with the forced installation of unpopular and corrupt puppet governments, drives the population away from “democracy”.
Report thisBy Lafayette, February 8, 2012 at 2:56 am Link to this comment
OOPPPS!
WP is bending the truth slightly here.
The Rafale was about to be shut down as a production line by Dassault when this fortuitous client, India, decided to opt to buy the fighter.
It had not won one fly-off with an American fighter-jet. Now, I am not arguing the invincibility of the M-I-C. But neither is Europe any great contender in that market.
In fact, the main armaments competition comes from ex-Soviet arms manufacturers who sell tanks, jets and Kalashnikovs at knock-down prices - which wreak the most havoc in this world.
Why did the Russians and China just vetoe the UN resolution against the Assad regime in Syria. Because Syria is their client-state.
The argument that American military might backing our foreign policy is “genocidal” is infantile nonsense. That we should never have started a war in Iraq was, yes, true. When his army was defeated, the US had done enough.
And if we had not gone into Afghanistan, bin Ladin would be unfindable in the BoraBora mountain chain there. Any anyone who thinks that al Qaeda is on its needs is looking for another 9/11.
As a standing army, the Taliban are being beaten. But as a terrorist outfit, al-Qaeda is decidedly not down and out. And what is the sole means of bringing effectively the war to terrorists holed-up in Afghanistan and the northern provinces of Pakistan? Drones.
In our disgust with the mistake of over-use of armed force in Iraq, we are capable of making yet another mistake in standing-down military might altogether.
MY POINT
The caption on the photo of this post is most pertinent. How many aircraft carriers do we indeed need? Somewhere between 0 and 11 in service, 1 in reserve and 3 being built. (See here.)
Need for what? Satisfy the M-I-C and some wannabe Navy Admirals or National Defense?
Zat iz ze kwestion.
Report thisBy Marc Schlee, February 8, 2012 at 1:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
*******
When will Americans decide not to play America’s game?
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
*******
Report thisBy prisnersdilema, February 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm Link to this comment
There will be an end to the corporate crooks who run things, from the Merchants of
death, to banking, health care, Big Oil, BIg Pharma, and their sevants, the FDA, USDA,
all of them…
They have been found out by the rest of the world as the greedy murdering bastards
that they are.
Now is the time for all those hard working people who know the truth about them to
come forward…
And the most frightening thing for them is that the American people have allies from all
Report thisover the world of people, who understand just exactly how sick our corporate
government is. And who no longer swallow the lies or are intimidated by them…
By D.R. Zing, February 7, 2012 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment
Masters Of War
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.
You that never done nothin’
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it’s your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.
You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion’
As young people’s blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.
You’ve thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain’t worth the blood
That runs in your veins.
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I’m young
You might say I’m unlearned
But there’s one thing I know
Though I’m younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.
And I hope that you die
And your death’ll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand over your grave
‘Til I’m sure that you’re dead.
—Bob Dylan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_War
Report thisBy gerard, February 7, 2012 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment
Face it: How many billions of dollars will NOT go into our “economy” from Pentagon business if the wars end? How many jobs in the MIC, the Army, the Navy and the AirForce, and Intelligence Services will be “lost” and have to be replaced through inaugurating peaceful activities instead? How many Republicans will shut up about American prowess and agree to put the money into roads, schools, hospitals, energy alternatives?
Report thisHow many in the Obama administration (or whoever follows him) will put any honest effort at all into “jobs for peace”?
The country is addicted to war for its economic survival and those in charge—the managers of the MIC—like it the way it is even though the end of the line is clearly visible. And possibly the end of “civilization as we know it.” Wake up, Dorothy! We are still in Washington.
How come Europe has all the common sense? Did all the nuts emigrate back in the early days?