Occupation of Iraq -- Where Is Europe?

[Dinner]

Don't you think Europe should have the ability to act independently of the US?

[DanS]

As Spiffor said, Europeans were able to bring their troops to Afghanistan.

That's 10,000 troops at most, right?

[BeBMan]

Oerdin: Like in Congo?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DanS
As Spiffor said, Europeans were able to bring their troops to Afghanistan.

That's 10,000 troops at most, right?

How much do you expect we send to Iraq, esp. those nations who opposed the war?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by BeBro
Oerdin: Like in Congo?

1,000 unmounted French infantry does not a Army make. In fact it doesn't even make a division more like a reinforced battalion. If Vivodian were to erupt into seporatist violience tomorrow could Europe handle it without large scale US help? There are dozens of boundry disputes going back 100 years still contested in the Balkans and much of eastern Europe is a filled with local populations who'd just love to redraw the borders. Shouldn't the EU have the forces and equipment to deal with these situations before it becomes another scene of ethnic mass murder?

[DanS]

How much do you expect we send to Iraq, esp. those nations who opposed the war?

In the neocon's wet dream--the one off of which they were making occupation plans--ROW (including Iraq itself) was to have 60,000 troops on the ground by this Fall. This is using the back of DanS's envelope, assuming that we were to have only 100,000 troops on the ground by the beginning of Fall, and that we are fairly successfully occupying the country with 160,000 troops right now.

[BeBMan]

Oerdin: I think we are absolutely able to handle the Balkan now. The vast majority of peacekeeping forces there are European not US anymore. IIRC in 1999 the UK had the biggest contigent there (ca. 13000 men), followed by Germany (ca. 8500 men), the US came together with France and Italy as third (ca. 7000 troops for each nation).

Makes more than 35000 European troops just from four European countries....And yes, they have heavy equipment there too.

[JCG]

If they don't want/need to do it, then it's their choice. Let's see if, like the European posters are saying, they are indeed ready to act if something else happens in their area of influence, so to speak.

[Drake Tungsten]

Further, the US should develop better capabilities to occupy/peacekeep. Europe isn't going to do it, contrary to what some policy makers here believe. We should get real, and not fall into the trap of trying to have others be the benign face of an occupation/peacekeeping force after we have done the asskicking.

I agree wholeheartedly. The Euros (with some exceptions) are too unreliable as allies for the whole US breaks it/Europe fixes it thing to ever work. The US badly needs to create some units specifically trained for peacekeeping and nation-building duties. Having these types of units in the future would alleviate some of the problems that have cropped up in Iraq.

[GePap]

BUt there is 0 political will in the US congress, the White House or anywhere else for the creation of peacekeeping units.

Why should Europe participate along with the uS if the US acts (or says it is acting) purely out of it's interests. By what stretch of logic are Europe's interests the same as te US? And if so, are Europe's interest those of the US as well?

[DanS]

GePap: Those are precisely the questions. Lately, we've assumed that Europe would take over of the occupation/peacekeeping. It's just a lot of wishful thinking that we've indulged ourselves in for the last 8 or 9 years.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why should Europe participate along with the uS if the US acts (or says it is acting) purely out of it's interests. By what stretch of logic are Europe's interests the same as te US? And if so, are Europe's interest those of the US as well?

You're completely missing the point of this thread, GePap. DanS doesn't believe that the Euros are the reliable, peacekeeping side of the Western alliance that Robert Kagan and others have made them out to be. As such, the US needs to be prepared to take care of peacekeeping and nation-building operations on its own. I tend to agree with this analysis.

You're right that Europe's interests are not the same as America's; that's why they aren't reliable partners. However, while the diverging interests in the trans-Atlantic alliance is an interesting topic in its own right, it has little to do with the topic of this thread.

[DanS]

that Robert Kagan and others have made them out to be

They've assumed incorrectly. I doubt it was more conscious than that. They aren't taking all of the costs of their policies into account, among other things.

You're right that Europe's interests are not the same as America's; that's why they aren't reliable partners.

Well, I would merely state that they don't have the capability nor the political will to be reliable partners. This moots everything else, such as inclination in an immediate sense.

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, I would merely state that they don't have the capability nor the political will to be reliable partners. This moots everything else.

Very true.

[GePap]

What are the threats to Europe? The fact is that overall the Europeans see far less threats of a violent kind needing military force to them. It is as hard to sell to someone in Hamburg what pressing interests germany has in Iraq as it is to seel either someone in Hamburg or Dallas what pressing interest either has in the Congo.

I think the main problem is the unresolved issue of the relation to the EU as an organization to the use of force, and I think the inlfeunce of the smaller players is most likely going to weight them down. That and the issue of the Germans and their pacifism.