Thanks a lot. Perfect illustration of how deep up their collective arse US political elites are, no matter which side of the spectrum they stand.
I kind of agree/disagree with the notion that the Afghanistan occupation is lost.
It will be if the US don't put real resources there and, for a start, stop behaving like complete morons (something they really need to do on many, many issues; they can't afford being morons any longer). But overwhelming force always win when there is a good cause to sustain it. The US neocon psychos are partially right when they try to practice revisionism for instance about the Vietnam War. The US would have won is they had gone all out. Where they demonstrate they are dangerous psychos is that they forget that there was no remotely good reason to fight in Vietnam in the first place. I think Afghanistan is different in this respect. There is a good reason to fight over there and if it's not done now, it will come back even worse.
Anyway, if Obama's approach to the issue is to dump on Europe, then, yes, it's lost. The US had their chance with Europe. NATO voted article 5 on September 12 2001 and confirmed the vote on October 4. The US walked away. Their decision. Their problem to deal with.
If Obama wants to revisit the issue, he will have three things to do: 1) apologize on all fours and forehead in the ground for the US shunning NATO and accept full responsibility for the mess, 2) restore the basic credibility of the US by holding the previous team accountable and show the allies that a Bush administration will never happen again and 3) commit serious resources to Afghanistan (not point talking if it's anything under 300,000 US combat troops) and to deal with the Saudis.
None of that is going to happen.
Rather, Europe will watch from the sidelines, a fairly uninvolved and uninterested bystander.
Angela Merkel is already doing that with a lot of talent. Gordon has a lot of problems on his hands and Sarkozy will have to follow.
Looking at the polls, not just Sarkozy's but in comparison Fillon's, the population has already told him (with very good reasons) that it really doesn't like him to have ideas. The French voted for "Sarkozy the Doer, knees deep in the muck", not "Sarkozy the Grand Strategist". Big casting mistake. If Jerome and the polls are right about ground level opinions on the US, Sarkozy won't dare fart. The French don't wait for elections to give their opinions and make them heard.
They too are bought and paid for by corporations, just as American politician are.
Having a supra-bureaucracy of leaders that rise up through party structures is not optimal democracy.
When I look at the EU project, many of its pro-corporatist laws seem pretty onerous. Laws which are designed to allow media monopolies, for instance, or let's say laws that support the dissemination of genetically modified foods. Euro defense industry dealings.
Nobody who would be better at doing their job really wants to do it as far as I see it.
"They too are bought and paid for by corporations, just as American politician are."
Some are, but in general they are not. I'm not at all sure that other people would be much less receptive to big capital offers. They are much more doing what the base wants than you seem to think.
"Having a supra-bureaucracy of leaders that rise up through party structures is not optimal democracy."
I don't know anything better.
"When I look at the EU project..."
Often people's fault. The EU parliament is much more direct responsible to the people and less easy influencable by corporations than the comisson and its bureaucracy. But many people don't want to give power to the parliament, because this would reduce national influence and would be clearly a step towards a superstate EU, which I have doubts that this is what a majority of people want. The EU project has some flaws, but it is a development in the right direction. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
The problem is, both systems are corrupted by the powerful.
Europe is not an effective counterbalance for the US.
Absolutely true. But it wasn't designed with the premise to be one. And while some parts of the system should be redesigned (but I actually don't object to a EU superstate which many people do) to make the EU more independent of the US in the future, not everything should be rebuild under the premise to counterbalance the US. It is as well not build to reduce bad Chinese influence in Africa. The EU has no single strongman position who can speak for Europeans, like the US president can for the Americans. Such a position would clearly help to counterbalance, but it would be against the general European way of doing things. The EU has made war between some of the longest enemies in history impossible, the EU helps countries devasted by the real existing communism to master their situation in a difficult world. The EU saves cultural divergence, and offers a framework for common tasks as environmental protection in an atmosphere where national thinking of 'My country first' still plays a big role (don't take ETers as the common man), with people with different historic experiences and interpretations of it, languages and economies.
I think if liberal Americans hope that the EU will help them in the sense as to influence the US to become more in accordance with their position, they will always be disappointed. Phlegmatic apathy is the best you should hope for, everything else is bonus. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Often people's fault. The EU parliament is much more direct responsible to the people and less easy influencable by corporations than the comisson and its bureaucracy. But many people don't want to give power to the parliament, because this would reduce national influence and would be clearly a step towards a superstate EU, which I have doubts that this is what a majority of people want.
I have read this many times as the stated reason why the EU parliament does not have greater power within the EU structure. However, I have not often met people who would object to such things as giving the parliament greater power over appointing the commission or giving it the right to propose legislation. The parliament tends to poll highest of the EU institutions when people are asked about their confidence in the institutions.
I am now leaning towards the conclusion that it is our national politicians who prefer the current system. It gives them ample cover to blame Brussels for unpopular policies while keeping power in their own hands. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Maybe that's because the European Parliament is the only EU institution which, to most people, is readily understandable and recognizable. It appears to resemble the workings of a national parliament, which it does to a substantial degree. The members are known to the people of the country they represent, at least somewhat, speak their language, share aspects of their national identity, are directly chosen in elections. You need to follow a year-long course to understand how the rest of the EU works. Hardly anyone understands it, even reasonably informed people. Now there's a president coming of one commission or another. It's so difficult to comprehend that the 'president' will be different from a national president. You have a parliament, you have a president. So what else does anyone need?
P.S. Obama is a national politician. I can't see him substantially diverging from the US nationalistic-imperialistic approach. Oh, the Elites. The term makes these people, whoever they are, seem like a choir of singing angels. Why don't we finally get down to Marxist earth and just call them the Ruling Class, which they are?
The worth of fighting in Afghanistan is purely a personal opinion. And I totally disagree with the way it's done right now, by the way.
I think it would have been easy to get European opinions firmly on board right after 9/11, even Germany(?). But Bush really poisoned that well with his lies and his incompetence. It would take something incredibly spectacular from the US to turn that around now.
Can Europe do this?
I'm not aware that there would be a widely agreed approach to the ME, other than talk only do nothing, which is tremendously better than the US approach of make it worse. But if a 'Yes, we can president' can be convinced to do just nothing?
On stronger efforts to reduce dependency of oil, I think any strong climate change policy will include that unintentionally. But that really is one of the points, where Europe really is trying to influence the US and the world.
Talk Obama into pressure Israel will as well not happen. I don't think Sarkozy will do it and I hope you understand that it is impossible for a German gov to ask for such a thing. To Turkey our elite tries to talk directly (neither very skilled, nor very successful; Erdogan has recently asked Turks living 3rd generation in Germany not to become Germans) and Saudi Arabia - well, if the fact that 9/11 included a number of Saudis and that doesn't do it, I don't know what Europeans shall matter. What has India done?
Anyhow, if the answer to Obama's request for troops is a non/no/nein, then I don't expect Obama to care much for any advice given to him. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
a carefully thought out and widely agreed European approach
The US neocon psychos are partially right when they try to practice revisionism for instance about the Vietnam War. The US would have won is they had gone all out.
Only if by "won" you mean "depopulate Vietnam". Wait this is important. Someone is wrong on the Internet.
They and the soviets had a reason against Germany and the the US alone against Japan. They went all out and they won.
I've clearly stated that was no reason whatsoever to do it.
