Roads to war in Europe | 272 comments (272 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

I am speculating that such military doctrine exists (Colman thinks this unlikely).

I am postulating that political doctrine should exist. I am not confident

I am searching metaphysically. I want to clarify my own ideas about what is required.

My mental framework on these matters is largely determined by the Yugoslav wars. At the time, I considered myself European, a citizen of Europe (I did not yet consider myself French). The existence of war on the European continent was unconscionable for me, and a source of lasting shame as a European. My starting point is "never again"; the point of this conversation from my point of view is to examine how to achieve that.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 06:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To clarify (none / 0)

My mental framework on these matters is largely determined by the Yugoslav wars.

Well...

In 1992, the Western European Union adopted the Petersberg tasks, designed to cope with the possible destabilising of Eastern Europe.

Politically, that's all there is, and it is designed to deal with crises in the immediate outside periphery of the EU. The EU likely cannot conceive, politically, of armed conflict within its borders.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 06:39:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To clarify (4.00 / 2)

The existence of war on the European continent was unconscionable for me, and a source of lasting shame as a European. My starting point is "never again"; the point of this conversation from my point of view is to examine how to achieve that.

The moment France has to deploy overwhelming force in a different member state, the EU has failed in its never again goal.

So what you're searching for is self-contradictory. You don't achieve never again by contingency military planning, but by conducting sane policies at the EU and member state levels. Which is rather the problem right now: the EU economic policy establishment has gone insane.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 06:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To clarify (none / 0)

So you're telling me that I'm not allowed to examine the subject? That it's intellectually impossible? I'm sorry, but I'll have to contradict you.

In the event that a war should happen, it will undoubtedly be the fault of all those people and entities who should have acted to prevent it. That does not entitle us to just throw up our hands in horror and declare "game over". The idea that we should refuse to even contemplate the possibility is reminiscent of the attitude of much of the European left in the 1930s (all those who applauded the Munich agreements).

If there is an outbreak of war, that's a clear sign of failure. But things can always get worse. The aim is to smother armed conflict before the deaths number in the thousands.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 07:07:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To clarify (none / 0)

The deaths from the current depression already number in the thousands.

You will need at least one more digit to count the fatalities of even an unsuccessful attempt to start a civil war.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 07:35:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To clarify (none / 0)

If you are going to argue that war is no worse than peace, I'll leave the discussion to others. Ciao.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 07:54:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To clarify (4.00 / 2)

Looks to me like he just said that war will be at least an order of magnitude worse than peace, he's just pointing out the death-toll of war-by-other-means.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 08:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To clarify (4.00 / 6)

I suggest you keep an open mind. In my country there were, in the 20th century 4 regime changes (monarchy -> republic -> fascism -> democracy). At least 4 coup attempts (surely more). A king shot (counts only as 1).

And I am quite sure that much more people died because of austerity in the 2007-2013 cycle, then in the cases above.

In the coups/revolutions there were barely no direct deaths, probably little indirect deaths. The indirect death tool of austerity is surely greater already.

Sure, not civil war above. But serious events.

The name "war" might be ugly, but at the end of day what should count is human suffering. This "peace" has had many casualties already.

by cagatacos on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 08:27:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To clarify (4.00 / 3)

Yeah...I suggest when ever you think "intervention" (some kind of occupation, even if it's not boots on the ground but just bombardment of some targets, or support of one group against another in weapon and logistics) try to imagine YOUR country, your people, in this situation. If it's for example France in civil war , try to imagine German's and Brit's "intervention" in France. Or if it's UK then imagine Germans and French intervening in your country's affairs...and all this after so much of the history that Europe has had...
Try to imagine the end of that intervention/peace with who ever "wins" this war and how your country is going to look like when winner takes power...Try to be honest to your self...Then decide if you are pro or anti intervention...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 08:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about historical examples. (none / 0)

I don't think anyone will disagree if I say that France should have intervened in Spain in 1936. Note he date: 1936, to help the Spanish government put down a military mutiny. Couple of hundred thousand lives saved.

What about Yugoslavia, 1991? Note, 1991. i.e. when militias are terrorizing villages, the Yugoslav army is coming apart/turning into a Serbian army, and the Croatian army hardly even exists. As I have suggested, a joint Franco-German intervention would not have been easy, and there probably would have been months of mayhem before they got things locked down, but... tens of thousands of lives saved. It doesn't solve the problems that precipitated the war, but those problems were never serious enough to justify war. Instead of a decade of wars, a decade of establishing a political process for partition of territory.

Perhaps my scenarios are not realistic, but they are a lot more objective than conjectures about future civil wars.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Mar 7th, 2013 at 04:10:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Game over (none / 0)

In the event that a war should happen, it will undoubtedly be the fault of all those people and entities who should have acted to prevent it. That does not entitle us to just throw up our hands in horror and declare "game over".

Oh, yes, it entitles me to declare "game over" and hopefully make preparations for emigration in time.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 09:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Game over (none / 0)

Individually, sure. Collectively?

The idea that we should refuse to even contemplate the possibility is reminiscent of the attitude of much of the European left in the 1930s (all those who applauded the Munich agreements).

They had the excuse of the Great War. What's ours?

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 09:35:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Game over (none / 1)

This thread is evident that I'm not refusing to contemplate the possibility. I'm just saying "fuck this for a lark".

What was the better survival strategy in 1934? To emigrate to South America or to stay in Europe?

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 09:50:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To clarify (4.00 / 3)

I am speculating that such military doctrine exists (Colman thinks this unlikely).

I fear it's unlikely. I'd be happier that it exist, because then at least the political machinery would have the thought in its head, which moderate some of its other excesses.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 08:14:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Roads to war in Europe | 272 comments (272 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

The importance of being England

The cost of doing business

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

British Anglicanism, Disinformation and Harry

The Protocol and the Founding Principles of the EU

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

No Peace In Sight

Mandatory Solar

Recent Diaries

We Are All From Mars Now

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

The cost of doing business

The importance of being England

US War Powers, Regime Change and Third Option

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 2

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 1

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

War In Ukraine A Failed Process by NATO

No Peace In Sight

Another Execution

The Protocol and the Founding Principles of the EU

Judeo-Fascism Arises - Kahane

Baerbock Solidair with UA in Kharkiv

Mary Robinson and Fallacy of War and Peace

British Anglicanism, Disinformation and Harry

The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea...

Israel Campaign of Illegal Acts w Impunity

Mandatory Solar

No Peace on West's Mind or Vocabulary

Occasional Series