A View on International Politics

[BobbieDog]

I think a European armed force is still a long way off from being formed, and an even futher-off reality that it could actually be useful without NATO. And until the UK joins it's not exactly world-beating..

I disagree. This is occurring progressively: and the forces will become ever more significant; and quite quickly, within a dozen years say. The next stage is for individual nations to scale back their separate armed forces: and that will be a slog with some parts of some electorate. Nato is under fairly constant review. Europe no longer waits for the UK: and Blair has been wounded moratally in Europe, over Iraq.

Scotland doesn't really have external international alliances out of the UK anymore.

Not quite sure what you mean here. I mean that our Scottish represenatives in the Europena parlaimanets, forge myriad alliances with those from other smaller nations.

The UK is not a part of the Shengern treaty.

Granted there are technical qualifications. But they are massively outwieghed by the traffic across open borders, within Europe.

I disagree with the EU as a single country but that's another debate

I see it more as a singular kind of federalism: with more central powers than in the USA; as Europe tends to emphasise the social form sought, while America emphasises the input end that comes with individual rights. So not a single country in any concieveable future: but a social entity whose social processes intend an ever greater functional integration. Still a long way to go: and a bumpy ride, with some fears about centralisation of powers; but Europe is on its way, big time.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I disagree. This is occurring progressively: and the forces will become ever more significant; and quite quickly, within a dozen years say. The next stage is for individual nations to scale back their separate armed forces: and that will be a slog with some parts of some electorate. Nato is under fairly constant review. Europe no longer waits for the UK: and Blair has been wounded moratally in Europe, over Iraq.

Countries in Europe do not have the capability we do and they are not addressing it.

For example, there is no way France could have had the presence we did in Iraq in such a short time with as many troops, they simply lack that. We have Tomahawk, no other EU country does. We have ECHELON, no other EU country is in it. We have the biggest heavy-lift capability in Europe, so we can move more troops around the world to more troublespots than anyone in the EU. We have more state-of-the-art equipment. We have the biggest and (in some ways the most powerful by naval tonnage) navy in Europe, so we can move more ships.. etc etc etc..

Simply put: without us, they have twice the uphill battle before they even get there.

It's fairly simple at the minute: Any international incursion anywhere is either done with the tacit approval of the US or with it's support. As the US' most powerful ally, we are any EU country's first port-of-call into getting into an alliance, i.e. Poland and even Italy are operating within UK and US support.

 

[Shane Roach]

While seeking to avoid offence: the most direct expression of our difference in understanding, would come in saying that from the point of view of the European understanding I was speaking off; none of wht you here state could be accepted, as other than what we call spin.
It consists largely in what this way of thinking would have to see as inversions of the truth, departure from fact: where it is precisely this manner of American comprehension which inverts what we see as facts, for the convenience of an Americo-centrism, that is the basis of our concern with America.
Again, and please accept this, I do not mean to offend. I simply wish to explore, though no more tonight, as I must go to bed: this fundamental tension between an American manner of viewing the world, and what it America does in that world; and the view of this America and its doing, that is held to by many others in this world.
Again its not a matter of the partisan, or of giving offence. Rather, it is a matter of being very clear about fundamental differences in how we are viewing things.

I'm not offended at all. Your posts are quite polite and well put together. My only problem is thus far you haven't much fleshed out the opposite point of view for me. What exactly is the view there, if the one I posed was "spin"?

 

[Shane Roach]

On the vein of anti-Americanism, I was just watching a show on North Korea and it was interesting. An interview with a North Korean man had him saying he had all these appliances that wouldn't work because North Korea has no electricity, and he blamed America, yet South Korea, our ally, has electricity. It seems to me that the blaming of America is very much motivated by political and religious concerns that have totalitarian governments trying to deny people basic freedoms, including religious freedoms, to the exclusion even of basic needs like food and power.

You can call that "spin" if you like, but there was a satellite photo of North Korea, and they have no lights. That's not spin. Their government tries to blame their own policy failures on the US.

 

[Cjwinnit]

You can call that "spin" if you like, but there was a satellite photo of North Korea, and they have no lights.

I have a pic of that..

 

[Cjwinnit]

Article worth reading: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2775579.stm

 

[BobbieDog]

The military forces we require in the emerging world are rapid reaction policing forces.
How can you insert and support the required number of armed personnel: generally to deal with opposition that is far from as well armed as we; rapid response is the key.
The other track in this is diplomacy and overarching consensus: where this is what distinguishes policing from simple military; the degree of grounding consensus, and the degree to which resolution compatible with social continuance is pursued.
This is a European cultural choice: we are not a SWAT society, we do not go in for SWAT policing; we invest in consensual policing.
So, much of what you list below, which might well be appropriate to battlefield militarism, is simply not needed: as both the UK and the GWB adminsitration have openly recognised; although GWB stills intend a SWAT posture, even when the changes are done.
This is a specifically European initiative: one America seems dissmissive of; hence the EU/UN is irrelevant/does nothing rhetoric.

Countries in Europe do not have the capability we do and they are not addressing it.

For example, there is no way France could have had the presence we did in Iraq in such a short time with as many troops, they simply lack that. We have Tomahawk, no other EU country does. We have ECHELON, no other EU country is in it. We have the biggest heavy-lift capability in Europe, so we can move more troops around the world to more troublespots than anyone in the EU. We have more state-of-the-art equipment. We have the biggest and (in some ways the most powerful by naval tonnage) navy in Europe, so we can move more ships.. etc etc etc..

Simply put: without us, they have twice the uphill battle before they even get there.

It's fairly simple at the minute: Any international incursion anywhere is either done with the tacit approval of the US or with it's support. As the US' most powerful ally, we are any EU country's first port-of-call into getting into an alliance, i.e. Poland and even Italy are operating within UK and US support.

 

[BobbieDog]

I'm not offended at all. Your posts are quite polite and well put together. My only problem is thus far you haven't much fleshed out the opposite point of view for me. What exactly is the view there, if the one I posed was "spin"?

My presented perspectives have all to do with a rejection of hegemony: and an embrace of equalitarian inclusion, of international democracy; where consensus seeking is absolutely paramount, and all our arrangements are bent to that purpose, before all else.
I believe that no other approach can deliver justice: nor indeed be sustainable in the modern world; we simply cannot afford injustice, on political and ecenomic grounds, apart from all other frames of reference that might be applied.
I would run on the platform that we must reject and dismantle the whole of the GWB war on terror: its just wrong, and going nowhere but badly; the problems it nominally addresses, we must deal with in some other manner, in some other perspective.

The matter and question of spin is complex: and we are all open to partaking of it.
It has something to do with our becoming driven to interpret emerging events and circumstances: as a continuation of our agenda and predisposing posture; where the degree of "interpretation" entails passes some tipping point, where projection overwhelms perception.
This paste below expresses some of what I'm thinking of here:

PARATAXIC DISTORTIONS
​

"The expression 'parataxic distortions' was introduced by Harry Stack Sullivan (1892-1949) to describe our tendency to distort the perceptions we have of others. These distortions amount to cognitive errors which occur whenever we relate to another person not on the basis of the real attributes of the other, but wholly or chiefly on the basis of the person we see in our fantasy. The personification in our head is partly transferred from the past and partly unconsciously manufactured by us under the pressure of our needs."

Molnos, A. (1998): A psychotherapist's harvest
​

 

[Cjwinnit]

The military forces we require in the emerging world are rapid reaction policing forces.
How can you insert and support the required number of armed personnel: generally to deal with opposition that is far from as well armed as we; rapid response is the key.

Exactly, and we have it in abundance. I could point out numerous examples but I think what I have said before is fine for now.

Our military edge has problems though. We are America's closest ally. We are going to get all the technology from the JSF programme, no other country is as tied into the project. In fact, for example, Rolls-Royce are doing the engine lift-fans and GKN will do the canopies. France will not be given the offer to buy the JSF. If we ally with France and "isolate" the US, say goodbye to our stealth fighters and say goodbye to international action.

Remember why we were not invited by France to be a member of the European HQ, because we would dominate it. It's one of the reasons that France is not in NATO.

This is a European cultural choice:

Cultural choice? We do not hold referenda to go to war.....

we are not a SWAT society, we do not go in for SWAT policing; we invest in consensual policing.

No, we have diplomatic politics backed up by the veiled threat of SWAT policing. There is no such thing as consentual policing, theives do not consent to being arrested, terrorists do not consent to being shot at. I wonder if we live in the same Europe....

So, much of what you list below, which might well be appropriate to battlefield militarism, is simply not needed

Hopefully it is never needed. But when it does, make damned sure you have all your hands untied and all your allies right by your side.

 

[Shane Roach]

I can only echo Cjwinnit in that, whenever you need the military, almost by definition consent and the building of peaceful insitutions has already failed.

The explanation regarding spin was, well... not informative? What I want to know is what exactly about the war on terror and the problems of the Middle East that the US has promulgated is, to you, spin? I have no doubt that I have a one sided view on the subject. I am American. I get American news. I am asking you what your view is and what the spin is over there, if you can tell me, BobbieDog.

(What a silly name!)

 

[BobbieDog]

The war on terror is an exercise in spin.
It takes what were origonally local problems, with local factors, and amenable to local resolution: and strives to place them in one unified frame of reference; whose architecture is defined by American interest.
The major problem in the ME, is the American perception of it, and what foreign policy action stems from that perception. This perception both partakes of twentieth century, "traditional" American spin, and a spin that is very much specifically tied to the GWB administration.
My view is, that some relief in the ME circumstance will arise, as the full spectrum of Arab view and opinion, achieves strong voice. I believe that the people of the region can best resolve their own problems. I accept that the position of Israel is particularly problematic.

I thank you for reminding us that debate often does not properly proceed, without recourse to name calling, or silly-name calling.
I have no skill in such, so must leave you to retain the lead in this.

The minor contribution that I would make, to somehow, and in some small way match the contribution you make in name calling: is to suggest that progress in debate can aslo come from clearly and respectfully laying out what differences of perspective exist; then tolerantly looking at what sustains and justifies each.

 

[Shane Roach]

The war on terror is an exercise in spin.
It takes what were origonally local problems, with local factors, and amenable to local resolution: and strives to place them in one unified frame of reference; whose architecture is defined by American interest.
The major problem in the ME, is the American perception of it, and what foreign policy action stems from that perception. This perception both partakes of twentieth century, "traditional" American spin, and a spin that is very much specifically tied to the GWB administration.
My view is, that some relief in the ME circumstance will arise, as the full spectrum of Arab view and opinion, achieves strong voice. I believe that the people of the region can best resolve their own problems. I accept that the position of Israel is particularly problematic.

I thank you for reminding us that debate often does not properly proceed, without recourse to name calling, or silly-name calling.
I have no skill in such, so must leave you to retain the lead in this.

The minor contribution that I would make, to somehow, and in some small way match the contribution you make in name calling: is to suggest that progress in debate can aslo come from clearly and respectfully laying out what differences of perspective exist; then tolerantly looking at what sustains and justifies each.

I uh.... I just meant I thought "BobbieDog" was funny. I didn't intend any offense....

 

[Shane Roach]

The war on terror is an exercise in spin.
It takes what were origonally local problems, with local factors, and amenable to local resolution: and strives to place them in one unified frame of reference; whose architecture is defined by American interest.
The major problem in the ME, is the American perception of it, and what foreign policy action stems from that perception. This perception both partakes of twentieth century, "traditional" American spin, and a spin that is very much specifically tied to the GWB administration.
My view is, that some relief in the ME circumstance will arise, as the full spectrum of Arab view and opinion, achieves strong voice. I believe that the people of the region can best resolve their own problems. I accept that the position of Israel is particularly problematic.

On the subjet of politics and such though, do you believe honestly that anything was going to change or get better in the Middle East without intervantion? I don't see how. I don't really see how Middle East peace is specifically good for the US either. We actually get most of our oil from other places at this point. It just so happens that the economic debacle of the Middle East going up in flames would have worldwide effects as well.

The root of the Middle Easter problem is pretty simple. They isolate themselves from the world due to religious intolerance. Standing by and watching them slaughter each other might have been pragmatic, even if it was cold hearted, for all these years, but we're past that point now. Now they are reaching out and causing damage elsewhere.

Your solution seems to be, "sit and do nothing." Or am I missing something?

As an aside,there was quite a bit of noise about lifting the sanctions on Iraq during the 90's. It had gotten to be quite a humanitarian nightmare there. In order to truly fix that, though, we would have had to have been able to go in there and trust that the government would deal properly with the aid, which it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that Hussein would not have handled it well at all, but would have been looking for ways to make even more money himself off of it. Ultimately, you cannot police someplace unless it is first bereft of its military, otherwise the military just muscles out your policing actions. Anyhow, the region needs help and Europe certainly wasn't getting it done. Not to say that the US runs around the world for purely humanitarian reasons, but there is nothing about the war on terror that seems to me to have the dark and sinister nature you seem to be suggesting.

And, just to be clear, I appologize for the silly-name thing. I just thought it was a cute name. I didn't know it would be taken seriously.

 

[xXLurkerXx]

I think old and new europe will not exist as a firm composition of states. I think it is pointless to define these blocks in the long run. An election in one of some these countries might change its affiliation to one of these artifical blocks.

What will not change is probably the following:
-The UK will be staunch ally for america.
-France will have its own very independent foreign policy, probably very america critical.
-Many east european countries will try to avoid to exacerbate the americans, because they will need them later, just in case something strange happens in russia.

But for countries like Spain, Germany or Italy (and probably many other western, southern, northern or middle european countries) their attitude to america might change significantly with every new government.
(Remember we are also democracies and the differences between socialists and conservatives in some countries are big).
And even governments that are more america critical will try to conserve such important institutions like NATO.
(If there is a person who is frivoulously scrapping international treaties then it is probably GWB).

We have already seen how Spain has changed sides.
When the Iraq war started, the conservative opposition here in germany was bashing the government that it was irressponsible how they were damaging the relationship to america.
So if they will take over the government in the next elctions, germany imho will switch sides.

"Old Europe" is also opposed to alliances with the US on military matters. France in particular is not a NATO member. Recently the "old Europe" club got together and made a "european HQ" for defence against NATO wishes. Fortunately it was a joke. France (well you know all the jokes about France,), Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg do not really constitute much of an expeditionary army. Colin Powell referred to it as "a bunch of chocolate makers".

That is just plain wrong. There are troops from old Europe in Aghanisten or former Yugoslavia.
Just because we said one time no (Iraq), does not mean we do not form alliances with america. No serious political party in Germany is considering to leave NATO.

Also I have to write something to the adress of a proud brit here .
Take a look at at the military budgets and you will realize that the military power of france and the UK are comparable.

CIA World Factbook:
Military expanditures-percent of GDP (2003):
UK 2,4%; France 2,6%
GDP:
UK 1,664 Trillion; France 1,654 Trillion (2003)

If my memory serves my right the french have more airplanes or nuclear warheads then you.
Your navy is great by european standards. Yes, you have great carriers for ski jumping. But how much real fighting power do they have? Is it the equivalent of one or two american carrier groups?

Face it, you are an as mediocre power as the french. The british empire has ended...

Excuse my bad english...

 

[Shane Roach]

I think old and new europe will not exist as a firm composition of states. I think it is pointless to define these blocks in the long run. An election in one of some these countries might change its affiliation to one of these artifical blocks.

What will not change is probably the following:
-The UK will be staunch ally for america.
-France will have its own very independent foreign policy, probably very america critical.
-Many east european countries will try to avoid to exacerbate the americans, because they will need them later, just in case something strange happens in russia.

But for countries like Spain, Germany or Italy (and probably many other western, southern, northern or middle european countries) their attitude to america might change significantly with every new government.
(Remember we are also democracies and the differences between socialists and conservatives in some countries are big).
And even governments that are more america critical will try to conserve such important institutions like NATO.
(If there is a person who is frivoulously scrapping international treaties then it is probably GWB).

We have already seen how Spain has changed sides.
When the Iraq war started, the conservative opposition here in germany was bashing the government that it was irressponsible how they were damaging the relationship to america.
So if they will take over the government in the next elctions, germany imho will switch sides.

That is just plain wrong. There are troops from old Europe in Aghanisten or former Yugoslavia.
Just because we said one time no (Iraq), does not mean we do not form alliances with america. No serious political party in Germany is considering to leave NATO.

Also I have to write something to the adress of a proud brit here .
Take a look at at the military budgets and you will realize that the military power of france and the UK are comparable.

CIA World Factbook:
Military expanditures-percent of GDP (2003):
UK 2,4%; France 2,6%
GDP:
UK 1,664 Trillion; France 1,654 Trillion (2003)

If my memory serves my right the french have more airplanes or nuclear warheads then you.
Your navy is great by european standards. Yes, you have great carriers for ski jumping. But how much real fighting power do they have? Is it the equivalent of one or two american carrier groups?

Face it, you are an as mediocre power as the french. The british empire has ended...

Excuse my bad english...

From what we've been discussing, I think what he's talking about is in the use of military power outside of Europe Brittain is superior. Bad as things seem to have gotten, I don't think anyone is contemplating attacking France.

I don't find much else in your post to take issue with. It all seems quite plausible. Still, no telling how things will turn out. Your view seems to reinforce what I've been saying about what would be to the US's interests though.

 

[xXLurkerXx]

From what we've been discussing, I think what he's talking about is in the use of military power outside of Europe Brittain is superior. Bad as things seem to have gotten, I don't think anyone is contemplating attacking France.

I understod that, but perhaps my post was not clear enough. I was refering ONLY to his first posting. That was the one I was quoting. I excuse myself if this was not clear, sorry, sorry, sorry.
He claims that the british military is the most powerfull IN Europe.
I think he just forgot about Russia which I would say is in Europe (he is refering to Europe, not the EU). So lets leave Russia aside.

Fortunately it was a joke. France (well you know all the jokes about France,)...

New Europe on the other hand includes such members as the UK (most powerful military in Europe),...

But I got the impression that he thinks that the french are a joke and he glorifies Great Britain too much. So I thought I should defend the french a bit, because the military power of France is imho comparable to that of the UK.
Lets have them both launch their full nuclear arsenal, no winner. And conventionally its at least close.

Ok, now I am not a military expert. Lets say Britain is really the best country in Europe when it comes to projecting power overseas (not including Russia). I don´t know.

 

[Shane Roach]

Hrm. I wasn't thinking about Russia at all either... I guess I still think of them as an Asian nation locationwise.

 

[Cjwinnit]

That is just plain wrong. There are troops from old Europe in Aghanisten or former Yugoslavia.

They are troops but they are small deployments. I wouldn't say they are expeditionary armies..

No serious political party in Germany is considering to leave NATO.

Good. Many Brits admire Germany for valuing alliance

Also I have to write something to the adress of a proud brit here .

Hehe...

Take a look at at the military budgets and you will realize that the military power of france and the UK are comparable.

CIA World Factbook:
Military expanditures-percent of GDP (2003):
UK 2,4%; France 2,6%
GDP:
UK 1,664 Trillion; France 1,654 Trillion (2003)

If my memory serves my right the french have more airplanes or nuclear warheads then you.
Your navy is great by european standards. Yes, you have great carriers for ski jumping. But how much real fighting power do they have? Is it the equivalent of one or two american carrier groups?

Face it, you are an as mediocre power as the french. The british empire has ended...

Excuse my bad english...

That isn't the issue. In defence, many countries in Europe are good, particularly the German Army. In fact I think the French and German armies are bigger than the British army. Certainly the Germans in NATO are extremely good.

The point I'm making is that they have a much harder time going overseas and operating.

Let's make an example: Let's say the French and British intelligence services got a tip-off that Osama was going to be in a certain cave in the north of Afganistan in three weeks time and we want him gone.

Britain has many options: We could send one of our 11 nuclear attack submarines, launch a tomahawk and that's the end of it. Or we could send one of our three carriers to do a bombing raid. Or we could send an RAF squadron but we would need to use an neighbour's base (Pakistan is a UK ally). Or we could maybe send an SAS squad..

France do not have tomahawks on their fewer submarines and they only have one carrier, so to do that bombing raid they would have to send their only carrier, which would mess up all of their navy's operations. They could send a squadron, but they have the same need for allies bases as we would.

About the more planes and nukes: True, but that's not the whole picture. For example, the French air force is slightly bigger but they have less AWACS planes (UK:7, France: 4) so they would find it harder to operate far from base 24/7. They also have less Air-Air Refuelling planes and less heavy-lift transport (we have dozens of hercules). They also lack Nimrod long-range anti-naval planes. All of these facts reinforce the fact that to go on a large operation in a faraway country, it's very much easier for us to do it.

Nukes? Well France have twice the number that we do. But you can still destroy a country with 200 nukes just as well with 350. Anyway ours have longer range

Firepower? We do alright considering how much we spend. I'd say the carriers could be a bit bigger but we are building two massive ones soon. I would also add, we have the fastest torpedoes in NATO and the best submarine training in the world, in fact we train quite a few US sub officers. so on that count, we certainly are up there with the US.

Britain is no longer the empire, but we have the most capability. And in the outside world, that's what matters.

 

[Cjwinnit]

But I got the impression that he thinks that the french are a joke and he glorifies Great Britain too much.

I am a bit of an idiot sometimes, sorry.

So I thought I should defend the french a bit, because the military power of France is imho comparable to that of the UK.

In fact France have a bigger army, so do germany. And both seem to be up to the job of protecting Europe from being invaded. But that doesn't help the rest of the world if they need help.

There are things we couldn't do that other Europeans could. For example, if the Balkans blew up again and we had to occupy it to stop genocide, Italy and could probably send more troops than we could. But it would take time.

 

[rahma]

The root of the Middle Easter problem is pretty simple. They isolate themselves from the world due to religious intolerance. Standing by and watching them slaughter each other might have been pragmatic, even if it was cold hearted, for all these years, but we're past that point now. Now they are reaching out and causing damage elsewhere.

Allow me to step in for a minute and disagree with you there. The decline of the Middle East is a long time in the making, and has little to do with religious intolerance. It has more to do with the decline and collapse of the Ottoman Empire then.

The recent increase in Islamist organizations comes after the failure of colonial ideals, and the failure of secular arab nationalism. People are disapointed with the western ideas brought back by the upper class that study in Europe and the US, as those ideas have not lead to a significant quality of life improvement for most ME-ers. Secular arab nationalism also failed.

The same holds true for secular arab nationalism. Lead by Nasser in the 60s, the Levant and North African countries attempted unite in pan arabism, but because the governments suppressed religious groups, as well as others, they did not last long.

The gulf states have been their sordid story, where monarchs ruled of their little dust patches until oil showed up. From there, they were busier ammasing earthly wealth then promoting Islam.

The rise of Islamism, that is, islam as a political, economic, religious and way of life identity, did not gain popular support until the 1980s in the levant and north africa, while who knows if it ever has in the gulf.

In short, the ME did not isolate itself due to religious intolerance, but rather as a reaction to the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and as a reaction to European colonialism.