Robert “Why Does CNAS Pay This Man” Kaplan:
Europe, having been liberated from nuclear terror at the conclusion of the Cold War, proved unable to muster the gumption to deal with Yugoslavia on its own, or, as the case of Afghanistan shows, to demonstrate much enthusiasm for any great collective effort. Which leads to the question: What does the European Union truly stand for besides a cradle-to-grave social welfare system? For without something to struggle for, there can be no civil society—only decadence.
Thus, with their patriotism dissipated, European governments can no longer ask for sacrifices from their populations when it comes to questions of peace and war. Ironically, we may have gained victory in the Cold War, but lost Europe in the process.
In reality, Europe is about to conclude a massive, historic treaty that, writes Matthew Yglesias, clears the “last major obstacle to a substantial overhaul of European Union institutions,” and paves the way for substantially more continental unity. By any conceivable definition, that is a “great collective effort.” But since it entrenches peace throughout the European continent, somehow it falls into the “decadent” category for Kaplan. It really was preferable to have European nations constantly at war with each other! That’s what great nations do.
Similarly, last month, the European defense ministers pledged themselves to Gen. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. Having visited EU embassies over the past few weeks, I can report that there are expectations of greater NATO troops, as well. Will they be as numerous as U.S. troops? Of course not. That’s a function of a) U.S. defense spending being so massively massively superior to European defense spending, b) NATO publics generally being less sympathetic to the war, and c) a global economic recession. All that context makes European commitments to Afghanistan appear more impressive, not less.
Finally, please, Mr. Kaplan: on what planet did the U.S. endeavor for 50 years to contain the Soviet Union and commit itself to European security so that European soldiers would one day become our cannon fodder? I’d really love to read the history books you read.
Update: More from Alex Massie, an actual European!



7 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Y’know, this whole “war and sacrifice are the hallmarks of a great nation” narrative is pretty easy to debunk, despite it’s shambling zombie endless repetition.
Seems obvious to me that a great nation in the 21st century might be better judged by the quality of life of it’s citizens, it’s art and literature and educational institutions, it’s cities and infrastructure, it’s science and commerce, and above all else it’s ability to live in peace and tolerance with it’s neighbors…
mikey
This is America, Mikey. That “peace love and dope” stuff doesn’t fly here. Don’t you read the Washington Post?
Giving him that middle name is a bit disrespectful. He’s written some great books (Soldiers of God and Imperial Grunts come to mind). Europe’s overall contribution (besides the Brits, Dutch, Danes, Lithuanians, Estonians, etc) to ISAF has been a bit frustrating, i.e., their troop commitments and ROEs. Their internal political problems relating to deploying troops to Afghanistan aside, the existence of the acronym ISAF (I Saw Americans Fight) is quite telling.
Also, European defense ministers “pledged themselves to Gen. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.” That’s great. I’ll wait to heap praise on the Europeans until their transport planes land in Afghanistan. And even then, my praise will be a function of how much beer they have in tow.
I say all this after being semi-snubbed/dismissed by Kaplan…
Hessians? that’s insane. We fought the Cold War so that Latin Americans could become our Janissaries.
I hear you, but we rarely describe the objective constraints the Europeans are under when we talk about Europe’s contributions to Afghanistan, and take it for granted that they would just ante up when we tell them to. I share you frustration. But in countries like Germany, Afghanistan is a pretty unpopular war, and Germany has a taboo — for very very understandable reasons — against offensive military action. Kaplan shouldn’t blithely dismiss Europe as a sybaritic monstrosity whose only value emerges from martial virtue. This is as dense and lazy as some Euro-lefty saying that all U.S. military actions are about oil.
Its also worth noticing that there isnt that much to contribute with in terms of military offensive manpower for Europe to tap. My country, Norway, has basically surrendered the notion of self-defence in exchange for creating some modules in the NATO framework at high-performance value. I suspect the amount of high-performance german formations is similarly limited, anyone know?
I wouldn’t call “Imperial Grunts” a great work. He’s a good story-teller, a good cheerleader of our military, but that hardly made the book “great.”