Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
these two nations ... have a responsibility to have ... rules of engagement which will govern any military intervention in Europe
fits the bill...

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 08:33:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I was not saying that they should have specific plans for each of the possible combinations of 27 European nations going to war on each other. The idea I was fumbling for is that they should have generic plans for the different types of combat situations in Europe, and more specific plans for likely flashpoints.

A military conflict between France and the UK being certainly among the least plausible cases; notably because of the relative symmetry of their forces (not to mention their nuclear arms [because I forbid you to mention them]).

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

by eurogreen on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 08:43:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to beat dead lasagna ingredients, but I think the point is that war within the European Union is a blind spot of the EU elites.

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 09:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you for acknowledging that clearly. I had become convinced that you were reacting vigorously against any attempt to explore such a blind spot.

Now, I'm still puzzled because you seem to think that this blind spot is a good thing; i.e. that you don't seem willing to envisage any circumstances in which it would be better for an EU nation to intervene militarily rather than see a war worsen. Perhaps the subtlety of your irony escapes me.

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

by eurogreen on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 09:21:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Look, I have this great plan. Instead of imprisoning rapists we have them move in with their victims to make sure nothing bad happens to them ever again.

Tell me why that is a bad plan while intervention by the central EU powers in a civil war they mostly caused is a good plan.

by generic on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 09:36:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So when you see someone being raped, don't call the police. Because police intervention is worse than being raped.

Well, that depends on who the police are, obviously. The majority opinion here appears to be convinced that, if there is war within the EU, it will be because the elite in the central EU powers want it, and could gain some sort of advantage from provoking, then intervening in it. That proposition merits a bit of explaining, to put it mildly. Who's up for it?

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

by eurogreen on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 09:55:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
if there is war within the EU, it will be because the elite in the central EU powers want it
No, it will be because the elite in the central EU powers are clueless fucks.

Which they are, so there will be.

when you see someone being raped, don't call the police

If you see the government starving people to death, do you call the cops?

When the starving people start raping each other, it's scant consolation that the right hand of the government will mete out punishment in the communities destroyed by the left hand.

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 10:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So when you see someone being raped, don't call the police. Because police intervention is worse than being raped.

Well, that depends on who the police are, obviously.

The right analogy is if you see someone being raped, call in drone strikes. Which seems to be sbout the direction that law enforcement is going, with rumours that US police departments are looking into using drones.

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 10:02:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The majority opinion here appears to be convinced that, if there is war within the EU, it will be because the elite in the central EU powers want it, and could gain some sort of advantage from provoking, then intervening in it.

No. What I see is the European welfare states being burned down in a conflagration of misanthropy and stupidity. That leads me to the assumption that any war run by them will be equally stupid and misanthropic if not more so.
In fact stopping them from destroying Europe's economy seems the easier task compared to keeping an humanitarian intervention humanitarian. And up till now we are failing quite hard at it.

by generic on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 10:19:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it'll be because the place is being run by short-sighted, arrogant fools who can't even contemplate that what they're doing could take us down that path. The EU has fixed war, so war and civil strife is no longer possible, therefore you don't need to think about it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 10:39:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're assuming an outside military intervention doesn't count as "worsening the war".

As a recovering liberal interventionist (and there are a number of us on the blog), I simply don't see the obvious benefits of intervention. My point is, by the time intervention becomes your best policy option, the European project is a failure. So you're no longer debating from the point of view of the European interest.

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 09:53:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually I'm not assuming anything. I'm not presuming that an interventionist doctrine would be a magic wand, and that every intervention would be quick and easy. But I am not prepared to concede that every intervention would be foredoomed to make things worse. And I think the question, distressing and painful as it is, to be an interesting one.

If we have war, then the European project is a failure. But the continent and its people continue to exist, regardless of institutional structure, so the question of the European interest is still pertinent. The EU, or its constituents, had no institutional obligation to intervene in Yugoslavia in 1991. Is that a valid excuse for not doing so? Do you think any such intervention would have made things worse?

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

by eurogreen on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 10:13:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Destroying the village in order to save it appears to be a basic tenet of European Union economic intervention.

There's one thing worse that either military intervention or no intervention: incompetent military intervention. I am confident the EU won't disappoint.

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 10:19:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If we have war, then the European project is a failure. But the continent and its people continue to exist, regardless of institutional structure, so the question of the European interest is still pertinent.

No, it's not.

In the event of a war in Europe, the entities which are able to put boots on the ground will be, at best, acting in their own national interest (and more probably in the narrow special interests of a certain slice of their oligarchy). In terms of pertinence, the European interest is located somewhere slightly below the interests of the people being intervened in. The latter can, at least, shoot back.

The EU, or its constituents, had no institutional obligation to intervene in Yugoslavia in 1991. Is that a valid excuse for not doing so? Do you think any such intervention would have made things worse?

In principle, no.

In practice, given that the same countries who were going to be intervening had been the loudest cheerleaders for starting the civil war they were intervening into in the first place, yes.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 11:49:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps the subtlety of your irony escapes me
If you're going to adopt that tone, then I guess what I'm trying to say is that your approach to this problem is a liberal interventionist macho fantasy and that yes, maybe trying to be roundabout rather than blunt about it is a rhetorical mistake.

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 10:13:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fair enough.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Mar 6th, 2013 at 10:35:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series