Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
 Oh no, I did sound like a neocon!  In my first comment, I should have gone on to say that while many European countries could spend more on defense, the US should be spending less.  (Maybe 3% of GDP)  And the US should put much more effort into peacekeeping and nation building.

I didn't mean to turn this into a defense forum, but my point was that a lot of the criticism that is directed towards Europe's economic policies is really motivated by other, non-economic reasons.

by corncam on Thu Aug 18th, 2005 at 07:08:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me be clear from the start: I'm in agreement with Jérôme when he says Europe needs more foreign policy coordination; I agree with you, corncam, that we should be willing to spend more on defence; I agree with DoDo and PeWi that the orientation of defence spending should be different.

Now I've covered my rear portion by smarming up to everyone, I'd just point out that, over the last few decades, I can't think of an example where the US (and I mean the power structure, obviously -- I think you're right about the perception American citizens have about Europe's defence contribution being weak) has encouraged Europe to become militarily stronger in a significant way.

"Coalition-building" is about PR, not about significant military muscle. And Washington has never wanted Europe to be independent (during or after the Cold War) in defence terms.

So I think I disagree with the view that the economic criticisms levelled at Europe only mask a defence imbalance. I think they really are economic.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 18th, 2005 at 07:54:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't think of an example where the US ... has encouraged Europe to become militarily stronger in a significant way.

Indeed. To be more exact, US encouragements for higher spending are implicite calls to buy more US arms.

Keeping Europe in vassaldom is pretty much the accepted policy on both sides of the aisle. Top National Security Democrat Zbigniew Brzezinski, onetime National Security Adviser for President Carter put it this way:

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to a more brutal age of ancient empires," he writes, "the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Aug 19th, 2005 at 06:50:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry for leaving in that "he writes" - I quoted from an earlier post of mine elsewhere...

The quote is from The Grand Chessboard, about the US's past and future policies in Eurasia from a strategic view, and this blunt and quote is from page 40 of the original edition.

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

by DoDo on Fri Aug 19th, 2005 at 07:13:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Very good quote, DoDo.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 19th, 2005 at 08:41:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series