Europe as a counterpoint to the US - a talk by Lord Butler

[TCO]

Dude, you all talk about peacekeeping as if it were some important thing. I just don't remember in last 9 years active and 10 reserve, anyone caring about that. It was all about ordnance on target and ASW. and different warfare communities, and mine warfare and artillery and all stuff like that. Don't remember peacekeeping being an important quantity. Must be a mindset difference.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by TCO
Dude, you all talk about peacekeeping as if it were some important thing. I just don't remember in last 9 years active and 10 reserve, anyone caring about that. It was all about ordnance on target and ASW. and different warfare communities, and mine warfare and artillery and all stuff like that. Don't remember peacekeeping being an important quantity. Must be a mindset difference.

Explains why the US is seen as bad at it.

[TCO]

I'm bad at tiddliwinks also.

[TCO]

I mean, tiddliwinks isn't even on my radar screen. Being bad or good at it, isn't even in my non-accelerating fram of reference.b

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Explains why the US is seen as bad at it.

IIRC GP served on a sub... I don't see why they'd care about peacekeeping.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I think the entire question is wrongheaded. We should cooperate with the Yanks where we agree with them and oppose them where we don't.

although of course i would say that the idea of europe being one entity is equally wrongheaded (spiffor ).

we act as one on issues like trade and intellectual property, but there are a huge number of issues where some european countries will support the US and others will oppose it, afghanistan and iraq being prime examples. this is a natural consequence of the EU being 25 nations, with 25 different national interests.

[Solly]

Re: Europe as a counterpoint to the US - a talk by Lord Butler

Originally posted by Drogue
I had dinner tonight with the master of our college - who happens to have been the most senior civil servant in the cabinet office under Thatcher, Major and Blair (and earlier PMs, IIRC) and the author of the Butler Report on the evidence for going to war in Iraq - after a talk he gave on Europe's role as a counterpoint to the US. His general opinion seemed to be that:

The demise of Russia as a major threat means the US has much less need of Europe, strategically;
the US being strong enough to go it alone results in any co-operation, like NATO or the UNSC, being somewhat lopsided, with the balance of power residing in Washinton;
this leads to the US preferring unilateral action, with the only consequences being those that affect the US (voting) public, whereas Europe tends to prefer multi-lateral action;
importantly, however, they both need each other. The main reason being that due to their collonial past, European forces are not credible peacekeepers in Africa, whereas due to recent events, US peacekeepers will be unlikely to be credible in the Middle-East.

His generally issue is with the EU being too wrapped up in its own domestic issues - immigration, subsidies, and suchlike - and Europe being stubborn and trying to throw its weight around (especially the French) when we don't really have the weight to throw. However he also points to the US being unwilling to listen to world opinion, seeming oblivious to the issues the rest of us care about. Partly, as one American in the audience observed, because US citizens are oblivious to it, as they just don't here it, with US news stations having pulled most European-based correspondents due to cost. He cited one question he asked Condolezza Rice as an example:
"Were you ever in doubt on the legality of military action in Iraq?"
"No, congress approved it"
With no consideration on anything other than US law.

How true is this, do you think? If Europe started co-operating with the US, more as a guiding partner than a counterpoint, and if the US people started to hear more about world opinion, would we have a more cohesive "western" policy, to address the common concerns of terrorism and any emerging threats? Could and should the EU be a counterpoint to the US? I can't help but think we have the same aims, and that a united front against terrorism and emerging threats would be much more effective, if only we could agree on the best way to reach those aims.

Why on earth should the US listen to the ineffectual and split EU?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


IIRC GP served on a sub... I don't see why they'd care about peacekeeping.

I don't recall that looking at other ships with a warshot in the tube and seeing the little crosshairs on them and getting the occasional slap of a wave on the scope, and some hydraulics oil and seawater on your back if the shaft seals are leaking) while you spin (just like a movie) and the other ship does not know you are there. I don't remember that having anything to do with peacekeeping. I don't even remember the word ever being mentioned good or bad, during my entire service.

[TCO]

Re: Re: Europe as a counterpoint to the US - a talk by Lord Butler

Originally posted by Doddler


Why on earth should the US listen to the ineffectual and split EU?

We don't even have to mess with it. It screws itself up. God knows we are too lazy and non-chalant to even worry about it one way or the other.

[Solly]

Re: Re: Re: Europe as a counterpoint to the US - a talk by Lord Butler

Originally posted by TCO


We don't even have to mess with it. It screws itself up. God knows we are too lazy and non-chalant to even worry about it one way or the other.

Too right - just watch us screw ourselves over with taxes on all sorts of emissions in the next 12 months. It's started already.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Drogue
True, although if the should is true and believed to be so by voters here, we could easily build a large military, and the US will have problems in the Middle-East as it's reputation is so bad. EU peacekeepers could help a lot, as they don't bring as much negative connotations as US ones, after Iraq.

EU peacekeepers tend to be useless because when peace is broken they tend to watch and sit silent. Sometimes they report it, and sometimes they don't, if they are scared of repercussions by local militias.

EU peacekeepers fled Iraq because of fear of failure, or getting into some bad fights. Are they men enough to challenge Hezbullah? Or Hamas?


And the idea prevalent amongst Europeans that the US can somehow lose its status in the middle east to Europe is laughable.

US is by far the single largest donor to and financier of middle eastern countries whether by:

1. Defence assistance funds and deals (egypt, jordan, saudi arabia)
2. Humanitarian charity and donations (billions poured on the palestinians!)
3. normal economical ties (qatar, bahrein, saudia, the emirates)

The US is also the only faciton that has ever done anything and affected the middle east.

The US had the initiative to free Kuwait and limit saddam's power - a widely popular step.
The US supported Iraq against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war - again a widely popular step.
The US has supported the afghani resistance to the soviets.
The US pressed Israel to recognize the PLO and to give up lands for peace.
The US has pushed Israel to return Sinai to Egypt.
The US has tried to stabilize lebanon in 1982, until it succumbed to Iranian and Syrian forces.
The US stopped Israel from attacking Iraq in 1991, and tried to stop it from bombing Osirak in 1982.

Europe has...
welll... erm.... uh... urr.... invaded Egypt in 1956!

So please have some respect for the US influence in the area.

It certainly didn't come from sitting on their ass and whining! The US has dedicated funds, political influence and the lives of servicemen to achieve political influence.

The EU still can't get enough balls to accept Turkey in the EU. This is likely to set Turkey down the Islamisation path in the mid-term future.

So well done US.

[TCO]

It's all about the CVBGs. And only one country really has them. I think. Maybe France has one. We have double digits.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
EU peacekeepers tend to be useless because when peace is broken they tend to watch and sit silent. Sometimes they report it, and sometimes they don't, if they are scared of repercussions by local militias.

EU peacekeepers fled Iraq because of fear of failure, or getting into some bad fights. Are they men enough to challenge Hezbullah? Or Hamas?


And the idea prevalent amongst Europeans that the US can somehow lose its status in the middle east to Europe is laughable.

US is by far the single largest donor to and financier of middle eastern countries whether by:

1. Defence assistance funds and deals (egypt, jordan, saudi arabia)
2. Humanitarian charity and donations (billions poured on the palestinians!)
3. normal economical ties (qatar, bahrein, saudia, the emirates)

The US is also the only faciton that has ever done anything and affected the middle east.

The US had the initiative to free Kuwait and limit saddam's power - a widely popular step.
The US supported Iraq against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war - again a widely popular step.
The US has supported the afghani resistance to the soviets.
The US pressed Israel to recognize the PLO and to give up lands for peace.
The US has pushed Israel to return Sinai to Egypt.
The US has tried to stabilize lebanon in 1982, until it succumbed to Iranian and Syrian forces.
The US stopped Israel from attacking Iraq in 1991, and tried to stop it from bombing Osirak in 1982.

Europe has...
welll... erm.... uh... urr.... invaded Egypt in 1956!

So please have some respect for the US influence in the area.

It certainly didn't come from sitting on their ass and whining! The US has dedicated funds, political influence and the lives of servicemen to achieve political influence.

The EU still can't get enough balls to accept Turkey in the EU. This is likely to set Turkey down the Islamisation path in the mid-term future.

So well done US.

The US is also a country where it's normal for a news anchor to ask a newly-elected Muslim representative "please convince me that you aren't working for the enemy" and for people to attack a Presidential candidate because his name sounds Muslim, both widely broadcast around the world. Many Muslims feel the US is at war with them. Hell, many Americans seem to think this. So yes, the US is an entirely unrespected peacekeeper in Muslim nations. Put US troups into a Muslim country, violence will increase, as they'll see it as provocation. Add to that the ties to Israel and it seems relatively obvious why Muslim countries don't like the US, and wouldn't appreciate US forces in their countries.

Just because the US has made some popular moves before, it is currently burning all bridges with the Muslim world. Are you arguing that the US is seen as a credible peacekeeping in Iraq? Or that if the US were to send troups to Iran to keep the peace or prevent nuclear proliferation that the Iranians would respect them as peacekeepers?

[Drogue]

Re: Re: Europe as a counterpoint to the US - a talk by Lord Butler

Originally posted by Doddler
Why on earth should the US listen to the ineffectual and split EU?

That's my point, how do we turn the EU into something the US will listen to? Or will they ever? If not, can we do something to make it that the US isn't the sole world policeman?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
within my lifetime

Iraq now? Sure, there's an insurgency, but there's no war with a country. It's peacekeeping - trying to keep the insurgents from having too much effect and building a lasting peace.

[Solly]

Re: Re: Re: Europe as a counterpoint to the US - a talk by Lord Butler

Originally posted by Drogue

That's my point, how do we turn the EU into something the US will listen to? Or will they ever? If not, can we do something to make it that the US isn't the sole world policeman?

What's wrong with it being the sole world policeman? I'd certainly prefer the US to be sole policeman than to be hampered by the weakness of our continental neighbours when it comes to tough decisions.