USS Clueless              Voyages of a restless mind

Main: normal long no graphics Contact Log archives Best log entries Other articles Site Search

Stardate 20011128.1700 (On Screen): One of the most striking aspects of the war we are currently fighting is the lack of contribution from the European Allies of the United States. Article 5 of NATO was invoked, and yet when actual hostilities began it was the US which did it, with minor help from the UK and essentially no help at all from anyone else. This is something I've discussed here before, and I've also discussed why: it's because the US ultimately doesn't trust the Europeans. Once they contributed significant military power to the war, they'd try to grab the steering wheel, and would keep the US from prosecuting the war the way the US really needs to in order to accomplish American political goals (because the point of all war is to accomplish political goals).

NATO invoked Article 5 (which says that an attack on any member is considered an attack on all, and says that all will commit their military forces to the full). The United States thanked them for that courtesy, and then pretty much ignored it. There was handwringing in Europe -- and bombing by the US Navy and US Air Force. The French committed one warship to join our fleet (which happened to already be in the area); so now it's floating in the water of the Arabian Sea, helping to protect our carriers in case the Taliban Navy makes an attack. The Chancellor of Germany spent two months working his way up to actually providing non-combat support for the war, and just a week ago finally rammed it through the parliament by making it a vote of confidence. So now he has permission to commit a few hundred German troops, which I don't think have even deployed yet. The French just recently announced that they'd send a whole ten combat jets into the area to help bomb the Taliban, and I don't think they've deployed yet, either.

The reason the US didn't want them there was precisely because as soon as European troops got involved, the European governments would insist that nothing be done unless everyone involved agreed to it. The US was burned by that in Yugoslavia and the potential tactical benefits of European support were far outweighed by the strategic straitjacket this would have imposed on the progression of the war (if for no other reason then simply because this would have slowed the decision making process too much). So part of why European contributions have been tentative, slow and essentially meaningless has been due to European gingerness about actually getting involved, but part of it has been that the US doesn't want them there.

And now we get to see why: even with the little contribution they've made, they are already trying to grab the steering wheel. The cries are going up in Europe: we have to cooperate in this; you Americans shouldn't do anything without our permission. This has to be an allied effort, not a unilateral American one. No, you cannot go after Iraq unless we say so. Apparently if we don't, the French will take their ten jets and their frigate and go home -- and the war will collapse without that essential contribution. I find the following to be pompous and ludicrous:

But in a speech to the German parliament today, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said "all European nations would view a broadening [of the conflict] to include Iraq highly skeptically — and that is putting it diplomatically."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder reiterated his support for the U.S.-led coalition but said Germany was not "simply waiting to intervene militarily elsewhere in the world, such as Iraq or Somalia."

"We should be particularly careful about a discussion about new targets in the Middle East — more could blow up in our faces there than any of us realize," Schroeder said.

"We should try and solve the region's problems politically," Fischer added.

Who's this "we", white man? Who says we're going to discuss anything? Germany isn't intervening anywhere. It's constitutionally prevented from doing so, and even if that weren't true, Schroeder's government would fall if he tried it. But that misses the point: what has this got to do with American action? We've managed to do quite fine so far in Afghanistan without any German military assistance, so what possible difference would withdrawal of it make for future American actions? (And how can you withdraw something which hasn't even been committed yet?)

So what, exactly, is Schroeder threatening here? Economic sanctions against the US? Dissolution of NATO? Sending the US Ambassador home? Refusal to provide military support? A declaration of war? In fact, there is exactly nothing Germany can do here except bluster. This speech was made for local consumption; it's purpose was entirely to mollify the anti-war elements of the Green Party which are part of Schroeder's ruling coalition. It has nothing to do with the United States.

A spokesman and a minister of state for Jordan, Saleh Qallab, said in a statement to the official Petra news agency: "Any military action will only lead to deterioration, depression, frustration and negative consequences that are extremely dangerous and would surpass the borders of the region."

They said that about Afghanistan, too, before we started bombing, and while we bombed, and again and again while we bombed -- right up until the Taliban collapsed on the 9th of November, and then they fell strangely silent.