A Word to the Europeans

16 Responses to A Word to the Europeans

1. Gabriel Mihalache says:

   1/26/2006 at 7:47 pm

   There’s something to be said about other things being more valuable :-) In any case, there are at least 3-4 European nations I can name off the top of my head that are in Iraq & Afghanistan right now so even in that sense the critique is not justified.

2. Pingback: tdaxp

3. Curzon says:

   1/26/2006 at 11:58 pm

   Spot on.
4. Grendel says:

   1/27/2006 at 2:03 pm

   Dr. Seuss is back…

   …feeding the right wing and their wonderous little world. It’s not like thousands of German soldiers are in Afghanistan right now, while America’s army is entangled in some other country. “Spot on”? In an alternative universe, perhaps. :-)
5. Curzon says:

   1/27/2006 at 4:17 pm

   Grendel: how many terrorists have Germany’s soldiers killed since being in Afghanistan? Not that I don’t appreciate the moral support, but while the spirit may be willing…
6. Grendel says:

   1/27/2006 at 5:05 pm

   Curzon, who’s counting, between friends? ;-)

   You might not have noticed that killing someone is not always the answer (or in this case, the whole part of the job – the United States did a great job in WWII, but it was just half of the task, the other one was the reconstruction of Germany as a nation and rebuilding democracy).
7. Chirol says:

   1/27/2006 at 6:19 pm

   Grendel: You’re correct that Germany is doing _something_, but that’s just it. It’s not doing anywhere near enough. Sure there are small token contingents of various European forces in various places, but a few hundred or one thousand isn’t doing it. Send ten thousand more to Afghanistan and 20 or 30 to Iraq. The same goes for the rest of Europe (naturally they can’t all supply that many due to the size of their militaries).

   But that’s the problems, Europeans have been and continue to be freeloaders enjoying an American security guarantee through NATO yet providing almost nothing for the United States.
8. Admiral says:

   1/28/2006 at 7:47 am

   Grendel, you seem a bit disingenuous– you failed to even address Curzon’s point. You only sidestepped it. In fact, killing is a vital part of the mission and of course it’s the Americans doing the dirty work of making the world safer. It always is.

   Further, it’s always easier to say something and toss a pittance than to make an actual difference. While it is true that Germany is making a difference, if they were real allies, if they understood that American security was in danger (and their own by proxy), then maybe they’d actually try to do something.

   Since it seems like it’s too much for a sizeable amount of Germany to even find jobs at this point, I know I can’t expect much in terms of being a good ally– the fact that the USA has protected DE, FR, and countless others for the last 50 years counts for precious little because people don’t respond to it I guess. The spineless politicians (Schroeder’s a special one) don’t help either. It’s that old “what is seen and unseen” in economics thing writ over politics.

   Merkel shows promise. Pray she’s more the Iron Lady than some would hope.
9. Elizabeth says:

   1/28/2006 at 3:21 pm

   Chirol, Admiral and Curzon: you seem to be assuming that peacekeeping without guns and improving living standards are totally ineffective in preventing terrorism, and that killing people is the only way to solve the problem.

   This is not the case. I cannot speak from studies, but I can tell you what is going on here in Afghanistan, in Kabul, in the North where the Germans are, and in Gardez, and Kandahar.

   The people here like the European forces and ISAF. They respect the German and French soldiers. The rates of crime, terrorist acts, and regular fighting are lower in the north and west than in the south and east (though they were much worse before the war- HM). People here say, “We hope ISAF will stay, because they are keeping the country stable.” When the European troops pull into town, nobody runs. They know them, and they know that these people are not after them. Likewise, the Americans are not looking for Pashtun and Taliban terrorist cells much in the Northeast, because they have been unsuccessful in starting up here. Because the people support ISAF and the government.

   In the south, it’s a different story. The Americans kill civilians and put teenage boys in prisons without trial. The Americans enter houses without warning and destroy gates and property. The Americans bomb civvies in Pakistan and justify it as “collateral damage”- the Afghans just don’t get the point. They hate the American occupiers.

   Americans aren’t killing many terrorists here. They’re mostly killing what would normally described as guerrilla forces, if it were not for the fact that some members of their ethnic group were terrorists. Generally, the Americans get the regular fighters, the guys who are attacking the military directly. As I understand, these are not normally considered “terrorists” since their aim is not to destabilize society (after all it’s their society) or hurt civilians through terror, but to kill enemy combatants (i.e. US soldiers).

   Naturally, we are talking about different groups, but let us note that majority Pashtun cities in the north which are run by the Germans are still much safer than cities in the south run by Americans- though it’s the same ethnic group and they had the same allegiance to the Taliban before the invasion.

   Or take Baghlan, where the Dutch are. It was one of the most violent provinces during the war, and most of Baghlan supported the Taliban, but things are calming down now. The incessant aid and “friendly” support provided by the Dutch is having a real effect on the province. Dutch funds disbursed through NGOs are going towards building of schools- pulling kids out of madrassas, and going towards women’s centers.

   So who’s fighting terror? Work smart, not hard, boys. Guns don’t solve all problems. The Europeans have had excellent success in many parts of Afghanistan, but it seems the US is hardly able to kill enough “terrorists” (or you might want to call them child soldiers, or guerillas, whatever).

   So the Dutch don’t want to send soldiers to clean up America’s mess. They realize that the American approach has made the situation worse, so while they did participate in some fighting in 2001, they are hesitant to participate in more when it appears to be counterproductive.

   (Also, it’s interesting that you mention Europe after the war. Though the US did have bases there, they did NOT have soldiers on the streets to root out renegade, leftover Nazis, or even communists: they let the countries deal with that themselves. How different from this experiment in “nation building”, in which the Europeans are taking the hands-off view, mainly overseeing economic growth, and being present watching society heal itself, and the Americans are taking a more Soviet approach, with means military occupation with military law.)
10. monocrat says:

    1/28/2006 at 8:58 pm

    Admiral, I have to ask: whatever does German unemployment have to do with the GWoT? Several links could certainly be made, but you fail to make any or at least to make them clear.

    Elizabeth makes a good point: perhaps the Americans have to kill so many in Iraqistan (confounding the two for stylistic effect) because they’re heavy handed. The Economist has unfavorably compared American Marines in the Sunni Triangle to British forces in Bashra (spelling?) for their approaches to occupation and peace-keeping—I suppose “pacification” earned a bad name in ‘Nam.

    Given the choices of the plow, the sword, and the grave, I hazard to say that most would choose the plow before the sword, and the sword before the grave. Regardless of the choices actually offered by the Americans, what they are seen to offer matters more.
11. Elizabeth says:

    1/29/2006 at 6:52 am

    Mono- I believe Admiral views unemployment figures and participation in imperialistic ventures as indicators of general national capacity. Hence, a nation with high unemployment would naturally shy away from wars in foreign lands, because it is inhabited by wussies. With the logic laid bare like that, it doesn’t seem like such a sharp jab after all, does it?

    Re: Iraqistan: In Afghanistan Iraq is actually called Iraqistan by some. The “stan” means “place of” (common indo-european root with “stand”). They call England “Englistan”. So as a confoundation it doesn’t make much sense.

    Likewise, while American troops are having issues in both areas, I am happy to report that (thanks very much to European troops, but also of course to the Americans’ decision to allow some old powers to remain in order to keep the peace) we are doing much better here (compared to invasion time) than they are in Iraq.

    (I’m not Afghan, by the way- when I say “we”, I mean all people living here.)
12. monocrat says:

    1/29/2006 at 3:18 pm

    Elizabeth- as I mentioned several links could be made between German unemployment and its level of participation in the GWoT, however, Admiral made none. He simply pointed out the high rate and left the bridge of his thought uncompleted.

    As for Iraqistan- that term is a coinage courtesy of The Economist early last year, one I appreciated. Seeing as how the publication is mean primarily for Anglophones who likely are unfamiliar with the proper use of “-stan” (and I am familiar with it), it strikes me a reasonable shorthand—indeed a phonetically pleasing shorthand—for the two central theatres of American operation.

    Thank you for reminding me about American co-opting of the warlords in Afghanistan. That makes de-Baathification all the more ridiculous as a policy—and what an ugly word!
13. Elizabeth says:

    1/30/2006 at 3:47 am

    Monocrat- re: your point on Germany- fair enough. I’m reading this at work, so perhaps not as carefully as I should.

    Anyway, I heart The Economist as much as anyone but let’s not take up all of their supposedly “clever” misnomers and mis-references. After all, even if you don’t speak Persian, you might confuse Iraqistan with Iraq and Kurdistan, Iraq and Tajikistan, Iraq and Uzbekistan, Iraq and Kyrghyzstan, Iraq and Bahoristan (Spring), Iraq and Tobistan (Summer), Iraq and Zimistan (Winter).

    It’s a cheap shot, and a very uneducated one at that.
14. monocrat says:

    1/30/2006 at 5:22 pm

    Given the limited context of major American military operations, I think there is little chance of the potential confusions you list. If America were to become involved significatly in another country with “stan” in its name, I would drop the term. I simply find it an aesthetically pleasing shorthand for the primary theatres of operation in the GWoT, theatres in which the locals, Americans and others face similar challenges. I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree on the matter, but if you wish to continue this discussion elsewhere, as a courtesy to the gentlemen of ComingAnarchy, here is my email address: btlotfina@yahoo.com.

    As for cheap and uninformed shots, I’ll ask you to examine your own last sentence.
15. Elizabeth says:

    1/31/2006 at 3:31 am

    Monocrat- I’m not going to sit here and debate whether or not “Iraqistan” is a ridiculous name for Afghanistan and Iraq as a single or merged front in the war on terror.

    Regarding your point on my last sentence- ah, right, uninformed, as we both know the boys at the Economist are fairly well-eduated. But it still sounds like something that a group of college sophomores would come up with.
16. Grendel says:

    1/31/2006 at 12:51 pm

    Grendel, you seem a bit disingenuous””?you failed to even address Curzon’s point. You only sidestepped it.

    There was not much to sidestep. He was talking about mere “moral support”, totally failing to see what’s really done. It’s based on a lack of information, but, and that’s deplorable, also on a lack of curiosity or motivation to take a further look and find that missing information. As in the initial Seuss’ posting, you can observe the presentation of a one sided view, one, pleasing two a certain kind of audience, but certainly not showing the whole picture.

    In fact, killing is a vital part of the mission and of course it’s the Americans doing the dirty work of making the world safer. It always is.

    Of course it’s the Americans doing the dirty work. Is it? It is the Europeans who “do the cleaning up” is another view. It is the “Americans who antagonize other peoples” is yet another. Whatever. I agree that killing terrorists (let’s keep it as generalized as it started) is a neccessary part of the proceedings. The international community let terrorist camps thrive in Afghanistan for years, there had to be some kind of aftermath. What I notice though is a horrible undervaluation of Europe’s efforts, over and over again. Especially efforts that are not directly related to the military…