I went along with the contrasting of the European with the American approaches by Gilligan's sources in the diary, but, in the above comment, I went beyond it, because it is a false dichotomy. That the 'American' approach of war-war was absolutely mad and contra-productive doesn't mean that the European approach of 'yaw-yaw', as implemented in Iraq, was sufficient for anything that being left alone by locals. (I don't see how THAT is legitimate, BTW.)

To be a little more specific: even if the idiot American neocons had stood back and gave full control of the occupation to European allies (including command over US occupation troops), I don't see how they could have achieved more than relative peace on the surface until a pull-out a year or two later. After which all hell would have broken loose -- and if they stayed longer, all hell would have broken loose anyway. For,

• the much-touted 'European approach' was too short on troops and money commitments to provide full-scale reconstruction and broad security;
  
• and did not attempt to weed out the seeds of conflict (e.g. the militias swarming in and arming up, partly thanks to all-Western attempts to have local auxiliary forces instead of more occupation troops);
  
• or plant seeds of more stability (say, some serious bottom-up democracy);
  
• and even if European military is less crazy, the life of a local is still cheaper for them -- also see that German general with the airstrike in Afghanistan.

Methinks Europe has some delusions about to what extent they are being the better occupiers.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}