The differences between America and Europe

[DanS]

I guess I disagree with the stress of the article, while perhaps agreeing on most of the points made. Europe is militarily weak only because it chooses to be weak. It could be every bit as strong militarily as the United States in 30 or 40 years, if it wanted to make the sacrifices that this entailed.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that military force can really only be exercised against lesser powers. The value of an American fighter or tank went up very quickly after the fall of the wall, but this value is being eroded rapidly. In order to avoid nuclear exchange, we're reduced to beating up rogue states.

So the U.S. isn't nearly as strong as made out in the article and Europe isn't nearly as weak.

[KrazyHorse]

KrazyHorse:

Do tell me why the United States would ever want to invade Europe, thus *destroying* what the article says we spent so many years helping to build and then guarantee its security

? I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not paranoid enough to think that the invasion of Europe by the US is imminent...

Furthermore, should the U.S. ever choose to remove — or have no choice in the matter — its military presence from Europe, there would be no choice except for them to have to devote more GNP to their own military, even if only for defensive purposes

I disagree with this statement. Europe can defend itself from any reasonable outside threat as it stands, with or without the current American presence.

I agree with the idea that Europe is *not* the primary target of various terrorist groups and/or more aggressive nations. But do any of us really believe that a fat, tempting target like Europe would be ignored for long by less benevolent powers should this trans-Atlantic "rift" widen to the point where we leave Europe to itself and focus more on the Pacific and in Asia? Too much of the world is still in the "modern" and "pre-modern" state — using the article's terminology — for a "post-modern" Europe to survive in its current form w/o an increase in the GNP devoted to defense. Another factor to consider is immigration ... Europe is a destination for a good number of people from the Middle East and Africa. This can disrupt a post-modern Europe in terms of creating variables that may not have been taken into account before

Fat, tempting, Europe? What threats do you envision? A full-scale military attack? If so, then the obvious question is: "from who?". Future terrorist attacks? A mostly internal matter, and something which the Europeans are coping with basically by themselves as is. Europe could probably have overthrown the government in Afghanistan by themselves if they saw it as absolutely necessary (though with much greater difficulty than the US did), but the basic fact is that their defense expenditures only have to be a fraction of what the US' is, because they'll encounter an "Afghanistan" of their own much more rarely.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You've completely misunderstood the article.

I don't really think that I have missunderstood the article, KH. I was led to the conclusion that it was the presence of American military forces on the European Continent providing security against threats from without (during the Cold War) and the simultaneous resolution of the "German Question" that solved the "Kantian paradox for the Europeans." Where did I go wrong in my interpretation?

[KrazyHorse]

That since the Soviet Union is no longer in existence, the foreign policy of Europe no longer needs to take into account a serious threat from abroad. They're not riding your coattails on defence any longer, since there's nobody to defend against...

That leaves the German question, which as I've already stated has been mostly solved, IMO. I don't think that there's a real fear of a territorial expansionist arising within their midst again.

[TCO]

I agree with DanS and Kitty that Europe has little to fear from outside.

I would not be so sanguine about German problem being solved, etc. (I don't have any specific worry...it's just that **** happens...you know? Had some really smart dude at NewsMax tell me a couple years ago that we would never go back to the Gulf...and now it's on the radar screen. **** happens. There's always a next war. You just can't tell where.)

[Gatekeeper]

KH:

I still think that Europe would have to increase the share of its GNP to defense in the unlikely case that America would have to reinvest its military presence in Europe to other parts of the globe. It's not that Europe couldn't defend itself w/o America, it's a question of how much more of their euros would have to be devoted to said defense in the absence of an American presence.

Insofar as I can tell, Europe doesn't face an enemy right now from without. I think it's most immediate problems — say, within the next 10 years or so — are likely going to come from populations that aren't (or will not) assimilating or peacefully co-existing w/i Europe. Also, Europe should be well within the reach of Iranian (and maybe Iraqi) missiles by then, which adds another variable to consider into the international equation.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

GP:

I can't foresee an aggressive Germany. I just can't.

Gatekeeper

[OzzyKP]

Good article, i've got no complaints (except for the length).

I wonder though, if a true rift were to be made between the US and EU, where would each turn?

The EU I suppose would get close with Russia, try at some point to bring them into the fold more, eliminate the last possible threat to their "perpetual peace."

As for the US, hmmm.... some have suggested Asia, but how would they fit strategically into the equation? I see strong economic ties with Asia, cultural ties to Europe and geographic ties to the Americas, but if a rift were to ever grow between us and Europe my only guess is we'd turn quasi-isolationist.

Quasi in that we would still have a big head and seek to protect American interests around the globe against any foe, but that after loosing Europe we wouldn't have any strong commitments anywhere and just do as we'd wish.

Picking between Asia and Americas would be a factor in this. If we focused on Asia then China would be a big question as they rub elbows with Taiwan and such, we'd have to focus our concerns on how to deal with them.

It seems to me however that focusing on the Americas, and thus becoming quasi-insular in this hempishere would be the more likely occurance. NAFTA may become FTAA (or whatever) and we will be big trading partners will all of the Americas. Our rapidly growing population of hispanics is changing politics greatly, they have become the new wildcard, Republicans are greatly trying to court them, Democrats holding on. Politics goes to the concerns of the important voters, so these immigrants from the Americas may decide foreign policy and we may get closer with South and Central America. Since there is little real strategic purpose in getting close to the Americas this will just be a part of our quasi-isolationist stance.

Don't mind me, I'm just rambling, its late. Ugh, very late. So if my statements don't make any sense I'll read your criticisms in the morning. If they do make sense, then golly I'll have to do more writing at 1:30 in the morning.

[DanS]

"They're not riding your coattails on defence any longer, since there's nobody to defend against... "

You are mistaken. Europe is riding our coat-tails merely because they aren't chipping in for the creation of the Ultimate Ideal Western World (TM). To my mind, Europe is on the hook for an add'l 2% of GDP for "doing the dishes", laxer immigration laws, and friendlier trade terms to other countries.

"If Americans were to decide that Europe was no more than an irritating irrelevancy, would American society gradually become unmoored from what we now call the West?"

Probably not. Christianity still moors us to Europe, even if Europe increasingly sees it as irrelevant.

Three thoughts:

(1) I am a little worried about the European world-view about protecting individual rights, like freedom of speech and association. It is a paradox related to a world government and the "German problem" that is touched on in the article.

(2) The Hobbesian world is a much bigger pond than the Atlantic. The US probably cannot sustain a preponderance of power vis-a-vis the emerging powers beyond 50 years or so. Maybe less.

(3) Turkey seems to be a test of whether or not Europe can come up with a global view in its idealism. Will Europe invite Turkey to join the party?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I can't foresee an aggressive Germany. I just can't.

That's not what the "German problem" refers to.

[Gatekeeper]

DinoDoc:

Well, what does it refer to then? An ego match between France and Germany? Trust between the two nations? That article was long and I may have zoned out on that part.

Gatekeeper

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Well, what does it refer to then? An ego match between France and Germany? Trust between the two nations? That article was long and I may have zoned out on that part.

The fear of a territorial expansionist arising within their midst again.

[Gatekeeper]

DinoDoc:

Uhm ... then I didn't really miss the point in the article. Germany did go bonkers twice in the 20th Century. Although, admittedly, France could be the one to go bonkers in the 21st Century. Or maybe the Brits.

Gatekeeper

[DanS]

Gatekeeper: More generically, Europe has needed a balance of power in order to have a stable political system. The "German problem" since about 1850 is that there hadn't been a sufficient counterweight to Germany's territorial ambitions. The US (and USSR for a time, sort of perversely) obviated that need.

[chrono353]

I would always be on the lookout for the next war. to say it wont happen or couldnt happen is idiocy. well armed Countries like belarus with madmen leaders at the helm like lushenko could right now, make short work of most of there nieghbors and drag other nations to war. A coup could happen in spain, a growing civil strife in italy where EU sends peacekeapers and gets dragged into somthing bad...im using my imagination here, but theres really alot of variables.

Right now european armed forces are in a pathetic state. critically neglecting spare parts, frequently cutting troops pay, and let there airforces rust away. I read about how german peacekeapers in Kosovo had to pool money together from the UN to buy spare parts for there leopard engines from the americans because the government refused to do so. Its a dangerous thing...