The foreign and domestic policy of every nation in the world can change with whatever government holds power at the time. For example, some governments might now want the UN system scrapped.

One alternative being considered is that the UN should be replaced by a US alliance.

“At its heart would be a Global Organisation for Security and Trade – a bulwark against renewed protectionism and war between the great powers, an organisation which could improve counter-terrorism cooperation and create new rules for integrating failing states into the global trading system. . . Britain must abandon the hopeless plans for European defence; these involve British forces being integrated into European systems incompatible with America’s, with disastrous implications.” Link.

” … it’s brought the war now into Europe for the second time… after Madrid … and it’s brought it to a country which is not ambiguous about reacting to attacks on its territory. I believe whatever capability the terrorists have inside England will be significantly reduced as a result of this attack, and it will probably oblige the Europeans to take a more coherent approach, at least to attacks in Europe.” HK

As for European constituencies that refuse to make any sacrifice, let’s take Germany. In a July 18 interview with der Spiegel, Interior Minister Schily takes on homeland security …

SPIEGEL: “One of the CDU’s campaign promises is to deploy the Federal Armed Forces domestically.”

Schily: “I think that would be a very dangerous move. The military has been tremendously important in the past during catastrophes and in protecting the population. But it shouldn’t become an auxiliary police force. Those who plan to deploy the military domestically, like Wolfgang Schaeuble, deputy chairman of the CDU, and Guenther Beckstein, Bavaria’s Interior Minister, are making a huge mistake, because it would lead to militarization of our society. It would put us in a permanent state of emergency and it would be devastating for an open society, to our entire way of life. This risk cannot be underestimated, especially if you take a holistic view of security policy.”

Here the domestic sacrifice requested is for homeland security. Muddy waters.

Also look at the legal squabble in Germany over the release of German-Syrian Mamoun Darkazanli on 18 July. A Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the EU warrant (Spain wants him for contributing “logistics support and financing activity”) infringed on rules governing freedom from extradition for German citizens. Without a new German law incorporating the EU arrest warrant, Germans could not be handed over to other countries, the court said (actually, D. claims dual citizenship). This effectively strikes down Germany’s agreement to adopt last year’s European Union accord on extradition. A new German law incorporating the EU arrest warrant would be required before Germans could be handed over to other countries, the court said. And Darkazanli walked free.

Here the sacrifice asked would be of civil liberty. With an election looming, any politician taking sides has to weigh his options.

If the Europeans come around to actually taking sides in the GWOT, it will because radical Islamists have pushed them around. It will take a lot more pushing.

A couple of observations on this quote that gets highlighted. First, why is it assumed that the US is less nationalistic than all the other (nearly 200) nations on the planet? The US has a constitution too. Secondly, the consequences of a defeat in Iraq?

‘Defeat in Iraq’ probably means a failure of diplomacy, more than anything else. The international community still hasn’t been persuaded of the grounds for intervention set out in the interview by the former S of S of the US:

“I supported the original decision to act against Iraq for the following reasons: I did not see how we could project the war against terror and leave intact a government that had the largest army in the region, had potentially the largest oil income, and the greatest capacity to support terrorism. And through its very existence, it symbolically demonstrated that you could challenge the United States through 17 violations of a U.N.-negotiated ceasefire. And in addition, I believe, as [President Bill] Clinton did and as [President George W.] Bush did, as did every intelligence officer that I’ve ever met, that they did have weapons of mass destruction.”

I have to note how demoralized Kissinger must have felt saying this – while Asian affairs represented his area where he had his grestest achievements, Kissinger’s entire career was one based on the argument of the primacy of the Atlantic world to the U.S.