|
|||
"I know that a number of NATO countries don't simply want to back all of the Americans -- they want to be there on the front line with the United States in this campaign against terrorism, which is after all, an affliction that could as easily happen to them or damage them," said [NATO Secretary General George] Robertson. And why aren't they? Because the US didn't ask them, and hasn't taken them up very enthusiastically on any offers. That's what I suspect, and here's what I suspect is the reason why. From what I've read, the crisis happened because of Kosovo. (Throughout what follows, "European" means the continental European military members, i.e. everyone except the UK.) The US wanted active military involvement against Serbia to break the power of Milosevic, and the Europeans dragged their feet. There's long been tension in NATO about Yugoslavia, with the US pushing for military action and the Europeans being reticent, and it came to a head over Kosovo where the US made an ultimatum and forced the Europeans into action, kicking and screaming. And their involvement was minimal and half-hearted, and most of the attack was made by the US -- and nearly all of the rest by the UK. While Italian air bases were used for much of the attacks, actual sorties by anyone except the US and UK were negligible. And the US came out of that experience realizing that the only NATO partner it could really rely on was the UK. The Europeans were focused on their short term qualms over Kosovo and didn't realize the long term consequences of their behavior. So when the US was brutally attacked, we asked the UK for help, which they freely provided. The UK stepped up and acted like an ally should; it didn't criticize the US, rather it said "We're on your side in this. We care about this and we're going to put our asses on the line with you because that's what friends do, and we're your friends." The continental European nations, on the other hand, dithered and wrung their hands, and talked about "measured response" and tried to point out historical US foreign policy mistakes -- and basically made it clear that they were not in favor of a major military response. And the US didn't ask them to get involved in one, either. Instead, the US began to mobilize its own forces, which are formidable, and went into action anyway. It didn't ask NATO for permission or even for help. NATO passed its Article 5 declaration, and the US said "Thanks; we'll let you know." NATO offered ships, which are useless, and one French frigate joined the US fleet, so that its sailors can get a sun-tan in the Arabian Sea. The UK, on the other hand, provided a substantial naval presence and more important it actually helped in the first day's attacks. Militarily, the UK contribution was small, but politically it's been invaluable. Tony Blair has been making speeches and travelling to talk to people and helping to make deals. Has any major head of state from continental Europe done even a fifth as much? No, and I suspect they haven't even been asked to because the US doesn't trust their motives. British submarines fired some of the Tomahawks which hit Afghanistan last Sunday. For the moment, that was all that Britain was militarily capable of doing; the importance of it was that it made the UK a protagonist. The UK chose sides and stuck its ass on the line, and now it's just as much of a target for al Qaeda as the US is, and it may well eventually be the target for a terrorist attack because of that. That took guts; and it was exactly what the US expected, which is why the US trusts the UK and considers it the closest ally in Europe it has. In a crisis, a friend proves friendship by actions and not words, and the UK is the only one to act like a friend. I think what's happened is that it's beginning to dawn on the continental European NATO members just how badly they've fucked up. By not asking for help, the US showed its true attitude towards the Europeans -- and I think they're not happy with that. But they can't really blame the US for it; the US hasn't issued any recriminations or condemnations or in any way tried to embarrass them; it's just ignored them. Actually, that's the most humiliating thing the US could have done. If we'd denounced them in public, they could have denounced us back and gotten righteously indignant and saved their pride. But how do you denounce someone who ignores you? American silence is becoming exceedingly embarrassing, both internationally and at home. They've been involved in intelligence and law enforcement operations, but Kosovo proved to the US that they can't be trusted militarily or politically in a crisis, and the US isn't interested in trying again. So their newly stated willingness, even eagerness, to get involved in the actual battle is partly an attempt to redeem themselves with the US government and to atone for how acted during the Kosovo operation. It's not clear it will work; the simple fact is that the US doesn't really need them and isn't really interested in taking a chance on them. So far, their onl
| |||
