even the notion that the EU could be a rival superpower is pathetically inane.

they have locked themselves in to a quasi socialist cradle to grave welfare state system.

they have no money or social popular will, to spend on a superpower size millitary.

nor do they have the cohesion to be a work together towards that goal, not really.

lotsa talk

It's easier to be popular when you follow events rather than lead. George Bush and his team are playing the role the Winston Churchill played in the mid-1930s as he constantly warned about the threat of Hitler and after WWII of Stalin. The US took the cautious (popular) approach in the 1930s, and WWII resulted. The US took the cautious (popular) approach after WWII and Korea, the Iron Curtain, the Cold War, the Cultural Revolution, Vietnam all resulted. Bush I took the cautious (popular) approach after Iraq I and the world got 12 more years of Baathist terror. Clinton took the cautious (popular) approach toward Al Qaeda and 9/11 results. Through all of this, the US remained relatively "popular".

My take on the 20th century is that the effective exercise of soft power leads to a rather unfortunate world situation.

rumcrook,

I agree it's unlikely the EU will ever come to rival the US in any area, but even if they do it doesn't take anything away from us. I agree with everything you said regarding Europe.

thanks robert.

and robert your dead on.

any attempt to take a stand that involves truly inforcing consequences (action) on the beligerent "bad guy's" of the world, is like the barrel of crabs pulling the one crab back down into the barrel when it takes action to save itself and proactively climb out of the barrel.

the barrel is terrorism the europeans have been in it for 30 years and dont even know it anymore, we found ourselves in it after 911 and we want to climb out.

But there are two ways to make Europe strong: objectively and relatively.

If Europe's goal is simply to be objectively stronger, strong enough to match the US, that's great. That's why we had the Marshall plan: a strong Europe helps the US, and does not hurt it. I believe that the only way the EU can become strong is to follow the same path of the US, towards liberal markets and liberal democracy. If they recognize this and choose that path, then the level of conflict we have with Europe will likely decrease—we would share the same outlook and values.

But if Europe's goal is just to be *relatively* stronger, then it can get there--perhaps more easily--by hamstringing the US at every turn. Pulling down the US is easier than building up the EU, especially when entrenched leftist and communist (literally communist) forces on the continent make the necessary economic liberalization nearly impossible (eg. the French labor riots).

There is sufficient evidence that Europe is choosing this sordid path, in the economic, political, judicial, and military spheres.

Economic: During the Kyoto debates a few European politicians actually came right out and said that the main objective of the treaty was not Kyoto's minimal effects on global climate, but instead the chance to tie up the US economy in some of the same regulatory knots that the European economy is in. The distaste of genetically modified foods, at least at the governmental level, has a great deal to do with the fact that the US dominates this industry. By eliminating the EU and much of the Third World as a market for GM foods and seeds, this US industry gets stuck in economic molasses. These two issues are just the tip of the iceberg.

Militarily: French-leaning Europeans have been attempting to turn NATO from a mutual-support treaty organization into a veto organization--one whose prime task is to tell the US when it can and can not use its military. Simultaneously, some have been attempting to kill Nato, both through the refusal to defend Turkey against possible Iraqi attack and through the development of a European, non-Nato (anti-Nato) army.

Judicial: Despite cries that the ICC was not going to be prosecuting American's for the use of our power, and the cries that the US was irresponsible for not signing on, who do you think will be among the first defendants? If not an American, it will probably be an American-by-proxy, such as Tony Blair.

Political: Europe has shown over the last fifty years or so that it doesn't trust democracy. Read the proposed EU constitution if you doubt that--where in the new structure can the people voice their opinions and change the laws they don't like? On the international stage, this distaste for democracy has been demonstrated in the United Nations. The majority of the UN is made up with undemocratic or semi-democratic countries. It has been said that many UN countries only like to hold votes in New York, not in their own countries. Yet this sham of a democratic system is supposed to hold more legitimacy than the democratic political system of the US. Europeans increasingly want the world to believe that the people of the United States--and other countries--have no sovereign right to act in their own defense. Only the ultimately un-democratic UN can give approval for any action. This is an attempt to bring anti-democracy and post-nationalism home to the US; to make the US a mirror of what they have created in Europe.

All of these choices will probably do more to harm Europe in the long run—by delaying the day they embrace the market and democracy—but their aim is to harm us in the short term. Only if Europe chooses liberal, free-market democracy will they become strong enough to match us. Until then they will have to satisfy themselves with trying to pull us down.

But there are two ways to make Europe strong: objectively and relatively.

If Europe's goal is simply to be objectively stronger, strong enough to match the US, that's great. That's why we had the Marshall plan: a strong Europe helps the US, and does not hurt it. I believe that the only way the EU can become strong is to follow the same path of the US, towards liberal markets and liberal democracy. If they recognize this and choose that path, then the level of conflict we have with Europe will likely decrease—we would share the same outlook and values.

But if Europe's goal is just to be *relatively* stronger, then it can get there--perhaps more easily--by hamstringing the US at every turn. Pulling down the US is easier than building up the EU, especially when entrenched leftist and communist (literally communist) forces on the continent make the necessary economic liberalization nearly impossible (eg. the French labor riots).

There is sufficient evidence that Europe is choosing this sordid path, in the economic, political, judicial, and military spheres.

Economic: During the Kyoto debates a few European politicians actually came right out and said that the main objective of the treaty was not Kyoto's minimal effects on global climate, but instead the chance to tie up the US economy in some of the same regulatory knots that the European economy is in. The distaste of genetically modified foods, at least at the governmental level, has a great deal to do with the fact that the US dominates this industry. By eliminating the EU and much of the Third World as a market for GM foods and seeds, this US industry gets stuck in economic molasses. These two issues are just the tip of the iceberg.

Militarily: French-leaning Europeans have been attempting to turn NATO from a mutual-support treaty organization into a veto organization--one whose prime task is to tell the US when it can and can not use its military. Simultaneously, some have been attempting to kill Nato, both through the refusal to defend Turkey against possible Iraqi attack and through the development of a European, non-Nato (anti-Nato) army.

Judicial: Despite cries that the ICC was not going to be prosecuting American's for the use of our power, and the cries that the US was irresponsible for not signing on, who do you think will be among the first defendants? If not an American, it will probably be an American-by-proxy, such as Tony Blair.

Political: Europe has shown over the last fifty years or so that it doesn't trust democracy. Read the proposed EU constitution if you doubt that--where in the new structure can the people voice their opinions and change the laws they don't like? On the international stage, this distaste for democracy has been demonstrated in the United Nations. The majority of the UN is made up with undemocratic or semi-democratic countries. It has been said that many UN countries only like to hold votes in New York, not in their own countries. Yet this sham of a democratic system is supposed to hold more legitimacy than the democratic political system of the US. Europeans increasingly want the world to believe that the people of the United States--and other countries--have no sovereign right to act in their own defense. Only the ultimately un-democratic UN can give approval for any action. This is an attempt to bring anti-democracy and post-nationalism home to the US; to make the US a mirror of what they have created in Europe.

All of these choices will probably do more to harm Europe in the long run—by delaying the day they embrace the market and democracy—but their aim is to harm us in the short term. Only if Europe chooses liberal, free-market democracy will they become strong enough to match us. Until then they will have to satisfy themselves with trying to pull us down.

Anno,

Every word you wrote is correct, except the relative vs. objective thing. If they become objectively stronger they will also become relatively stronger, and as you put it, there will be little confilct because our values will mesh.

There are two ways for them to become relatively stronger: by becoming objectively stronger or by making us weaker, as you pointed out. They've chosen the low road, again as you pointed out, and it speaks ill for their future because we are not bound by either NATO or the UN, as we have proven.

Great comment.

Bravo, Anno.

The UN was designed to be self-protective. That was the point of the five permanent members each having a veto. It preserved the institution when there was no agreement. Having found the UN not useful in supporting Iraqi Freedom, President Bush is understandably strengthening NATO as a means of furthering US international policy. He is also using the UN now that the major military campaign is over.
A xenophobe is someone who fears other nations or nationalities. That hardly describes GWB. Self-serving foreign policy is the privilege of nations that have the guts to carry it out. But the US has traditionally caried it out with a view not only to its own interest, but to the future of the citizens of the world in terms of freedom, democracy and security. The EU has not had such a tempering of idealism in its foreign policy, unless you call Nazism or Facism or Comunism ideals for the nations they sought to conquer. The French and Germans are free today because the US made them free, in the case of the Germans, against their will. If they choose again to slide into national socialism, they will lose their liberty, and criticize us all the while. They will lose economically and retain military capability only at the expense of liberty. It is sad to see them so stupid. Yet many in this country would pursue the same path.
Thank God we have a President who sees things clearly and knows liberty must be aggressively defended, at home and abroad.

It would be awesome if we had more thinkers like Reality Check, Anno and Robert Prather in the UN instead of what's there now.
Things might work.
Where were you people when the folks there now were doing whatever skullduggery they did to get there?
Damn.

I mean this. Since I very recently started reading blogs, Command Post among the best, I've been highly impressed by a few of the posters, both their insight and their eloquence at expressing some very well thought out, logical and really practical solutions to a lot of problems, more applicable than what I read in newspaper columns and see happening in the UN and various countries.
It's amazing how so many people get into positions of global power or gain prestige in the media while seemingly not having a clue.
I thank you all!

and if the EU and Russia and or China join forces?
What's the intel say about That ?

Wolf,

Thanks. I'd rather be involved with an organization of liberal democracies with membership criteria. That way we can, over the course of decades, gently move the rest of the world toward freedom.

VF,

If the EU, China and Russia join together militarily they would be forceful. That would do nothing for them economically unless they embrace capitalism. If they do that they'll be more interested in making money than going to war.

Of course, all of this is predicated on keeping Bush types elected as President, and Republicans in control of Congress. You think President Hildebeast would keep us out of the ICC? or a Senate controlled by Daschle would stop her?

SDN,

The Hildebeast could re-sign the ICC but it would take 67 Senators voting yes to ratify the treaty. I doubt they would get half. We are safely out of the ICC, and probably for good.

SDN,

Hildebeast! Now that's entertainment. I just about fell out of my chair. Deity of your choice protect us from that evil bitch ever becoming president. I cannot imagine a worse fate for the US, short of Bubba Bill getting another wack at being prevaricator in chief.

EU, to date a bunch of wankers, but if they get their shit together, who knows?

Robert--

Your point about minimizing civilian casualties is well-taken (even if only 3240.)

By that measure, only Al-Qaeda has been more effective at keeping civilian casualties down -- roughly the same number, but over a much longer period of declared war.

Hooray for the good guys, right?

Was that a little sarcasm from Kevin? Oh dear. The difference between the good guys and the bad guys, Kev, is that the good guys are trying to minimise casualties, and despite their failings, are doing just that. The bad guys are trying to maximise civilian casualities, and are only failing because of the sharp eyes of the intelligence services worldwide.

As for the EU, you must understand that it runs on good food, expensive dinners, and thoroughly oiled wheels. Picture it as a mafia dinner party - everyone is dressed nice and on their best behaviour, but behind the scenes they are evil scheming bastards that don't believe in justice or democracy unless its on their terms. And I should know - my country (the UK) is a member of the EU.

The one sure way to split the EU is to offer the trustworthy allies such as Britain and a few other reliable EU members the chance to join a new 'club' with America. Let the rest be governed by Germany and France if they want to. Overnight the EU would become politial pygmies, and the world would be a safer place for the rest of us.

It'll never happen, but we can dream.

Kevin,

If you really believe what you just wrote you are nothing less than a moral monster. There is a difference between liberating a country of 25 million while accidentally killing 3240 and deliberatley killing 3000 civilians to achieve a political goal.

Robert--

Agreed, if the ends justify the means (and that end will occur when our occupation shifts to liberation--we're not there quite yet.) Are you really trying to claim that our invasion of Iraq had no political goal?

But for every survivor of a 9/11 victim, you can count a survivor of an Operation Iraqi Freedom victim (actually probably two, since only confirmed civilian casualties are in the 3240 count). Do they see the difference you stated?

At least we got our electricity back within a few weeks...

(And if your value of a human life varies based on the intent of the person taking it, I'll gladly take your morality on. Not all done in the name of good is good...)

This is where the moral monstrosity comes in. You make no distinction between people who intentionally target civilians and those who kill civilians unintentionally. Again, monstrous.

Thought experiment: if the US had not invaded a sovereign nation to protect itself from an "imminent threat to US security" that was neither imminent nor -- to the surprise of many including myself -- even a threat, how many civilians would be unintentionallly killed?

My morality kicked in before the troops landed. Saddam was not a threat to the US (Hell, Timothy McVeigh killed nearly as many Americans.) The real bad guys -- the ones who intentionally target civilians -- are still out there.

Thought experiment #2: If your child is struck and killed by a driver whose tire blows out instead of by a drunk driver, will your grief be less?

Kevin,

Your morality apparently doesn't allow for the people Saddam killed by running them through industrial plastic shredders, etc.

As for #2, my grief would be the same but my anger would be different because a drunk had gotten behind the wheel and killed my child. One is an act of God, the other completely avoidable. Grief is not the only emotion at play here. In fact, I would say grief is morality-neutral.

I was going to write something pithy in response to Kevins moral equivilance, but it just dawned on me it would be a waste of time and energy. People such as himself do not understand honor. The only thing these narcisitic humans understand is saving their own asses, as if there is nothing larger than themselves. His ilk is emblamatic of the Eurocentric movement afoot to completely disregard the entire history of human nature.

Nobody like war, but the alternative is to be counted amoung the innocents slaughtered. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday. While I am sorry that those Iraqi citizens met their end, to continue down the same path as pre 9/11 was pure suicide. Surely a smart guy such as yourself can see that.

I believe humans as a species are non-violent. However, as soon as 1 person becomes violent, it is necessary for all to react accordingly as a matter of survival. To make such a distinction between purposeful slaughter of innocents and the unavoidable loss of life in a combat zone is to me the height of cowardice.

Robert--

One word: Karimov. (Speaking of moral equivalency...)

jrdickens--

I'm sure I missed a page, but what does 9/11 have to do with Iraqi citizens, or Saddam? To make a third country into a combat zone is a purposeful act in and of itself.

And as for honor, why do you choose to avenge the deaths of 9/11 by proxy? Why allow OBL to go free? Why allow the Taliban to regain strength in Afghanistan? Why refuse to confront the house of Saud and the Pakistani ISI with their complicity? Why suppport an administration that would block a fair and independent investigation that would prevent 9/11 from happening again?

If you're gonna fight a war, fight the ones who hurt you. If you're gonna fight someone else because true vengeance is messy and fraught with implications... well, it turns out the easy fights are, too.

Hmm... let me see if I got your point Kevin.

Actually I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that their is no difference between us killing and them killing? I'm not sure but thats what it seems like.

Your right on one acount atleast. Killing in general is bad. Now, the justification for these deaths is entirely based on your perspective. The way I see it is: Terrorists see their killings as a means to an end. We see those deaths as the side-effects to war.

With terrorists they kill civilians to make a point. With the army it kills because people just happen to be in the way. Both are terrible, but one is an accident that really can't be avoided on a war of this scale. Especially when their are civilians AROUND military targets.

Now, I don't think you ment to dwell on terrorists, you just ended up their.

Now, as for the rest of your well founded anger. I am forced to disagree with you. As much as I love your manerisms and maturity I don't share your viewpoint (shocking eh?:).

With the GWoT, we did hit OBL. We hit him hard, sent him and his boys running. Maybe he's not dead yet, but we've cut off a lot of his capabilities. We're not just going after the man... we're going after a larger group. Once nuetralizing one group, we move onto the next. Its really a large scale thing.

As for the rest, I'm sure the reasons are mainly political. Who can say though.