FAO: Pipe and other "anti" American types

[Giles]

This is from President Obama's Live Town Hall Meeting in France;

So, we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years, we've allowed our alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there is something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that isn't once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise, they do not represent the truth, They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.

So, I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems.

So, let me say this as clearly as I can, America is changing, but it cannot be America alone that changes. We are confronting the greatest economic crisis since World War II. The only way to confront this unprecedented crisis is through unprecedented coordination. Over the last few days, I believe that we have begun that effort.

[flyboy2548m]

That was just...beautiful...sob...

[rattler]

That was just...beautiful...sob...

...and necessary...

Rattler

[Pipe]

Yes Giles,

soooooo? ............... many questions:

Why do you insist?
At least from my part it was never anti-american but anti-Bush. Of course, I´ve declared a good part of Americans royal idiots when they re-elected Bush, but this seems to be adressed above. Something they have in common with many world nations: Repentance comes in hindsight.

And why do you think you need to bring this to my attention?
I do follow the news.

[AndyToop]

----------------------------------^ Fixed ^

[rattler]

----------------------------------^ Fixed ^

Huh?



Rattler

[Ancient Mariner]

So what does he want from us? Money? Military support? Cheese? Beer? Wine? Akkevitt? Something for sure.
Per

[Putt4Par]

So what does he want from us? Money? Military support? Cheese? Beer? Wine? Akkevitt? Something for sure.
Per

Military support?? That was a good one.

I think all he wants is Sickbag's head on a platter.

[Half Bottle]

Military support?? That was a good one.

You do know that's precisely one of the things the U.S. wants from Europe, right P4P? One of the chief criticisms of Obama's trip was that he didn't leave with greater commitments of troop support for the expanded Afghanistan campaign.

[Putt4Par]

Military support?? That was a good one.

You do know that's precisely one of the things the U.S. wants from Europe, right P4P? One of the chief criticisms of Obama's trip was that he didn't leave with greater commitments of troop support for the expanded Afghanistan campaign.

I know. And it is important because the support we have received in the past for the war on terror has been dismal. I think any military intervention has to be supported by most of these countries. Same as what I was discussing in regards to nuclear weapons.

What happened is that I read "military support", thought of France, and it made me laugh. But don't get mad. I like France and I love their food.

[AndyToop]

And it is important because the support we have received in the past for the war on terror has been dismal. I think any military intervention has to be supported by most of these countries.

Hmmmmm........

<- Thinks back 2002 when US had full backing and commitment of military support for a war on terror from a pretty global basis, and after a good start in Afghanistan GWB and cronies declared that part over and got all unilateral on a world where the consensus was that Iraq was for another time.

Is it possible that in those two sentances you may have truly identified why the Bush Administration (I dont actually blame the man himself - if anything Bush Sr is more at fault than his son) will go down in many peoples books as having squandered the opertunity of building a true global army to fight the war on terror!

[Putt4Par]

And it is important because the support we have received in the past for the war on terror has been dismal. I think any military intervention has to be supported by most of these countries.

Hmmmmm........

<- Thinks back 2002 when US had full backing and commitment of military support for a war on terror from a pretty global basis, and after a good start in Afghanistan GWB and cronies declared that part over and got all unilateral on a world where the consensus was that Iraq was for another time.

Is it possible that in those two sentances you may have truly identified why the Bush Administration (I dont actually blame the man himself - if anything Bush Sr is more at fault than his son) will go down in many peoples books as having squandered the opertunity of building a true global army to fight the war on terror!

Of course. Dubya had the support at the beginning and squandered it when he decided to invade Iraq in March 2003. Most of the support was gone after that. My comment was just pointing the obvious...the support has been dismal after that and when you are fighting a war against something like Terrorism, you need cooperation and support from most countries.

[Dummy Pilot]

<- Thinks back 2002 when US had full backing and commitment of military support for a war on terror from a pretty global basis

Sorry Andy, but this statement is pure BS. In 2001 this was an entirely US operation with a handfull of token Special Forces and Naval units from various countries. The initial UN ISAF coalition forces were held in relatively safe non combat areas for the first 5 years of the war...and that's how the supplying countries wanted it. In late 2001, a Gallup poll of different countries attitudes towards military action in Afghanistan showed that only populations in 3 of 37 countries surveyed favored a military response: the US, Israel, and India. Many European counties had sizable majorities against the war early on including the UK (75%) and France (67%). In 2008 a similar poll was conducted by Pew research on worldwide attitudes toward continuing military operations in Afghanistan and the results were the same...only 4 of 47 approve: the US, Israel, Ghana, and Kenya (apparently the Indians have lost faith).

From the beginning, the US has had to beg and plead for troops in this operation and those that have been supplied were often done so with the caveat that they not be used for combat purposes. It was not until the UN turned over the ISAF to NATO in 2006 that non-US troops began seeing combat in any apreciable numbers, and really not until 2007-08 that they began taking hostile casualties in large numbers. I don't want to belittle the contributions and losses of countries like the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, France and Denmark who have provided the bulk of the non-US combat forces, but even they have only really seen combat/casualties in the last two years.

To assert that the world's population was gung ho from the beginning to invade Afghanistan and provide the necessary combat troops but only soured later due to GWB's Iraq policy is just ludicrous. The general populations have been against military ops from the start and their governments have been loathe to be seen to have anything to do with the combat side. Even now, the majority of countries that are willing to participate do so only through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Obama can be beloved by the Europeans, but he went there hat in hand and came away with precious little to show for it. The world, and Europeans in particular, has simply lost it's appetite to put troops in harms way....they didn't need GWB to make them averse to military ops. They can piss and moan about places like Darfur all they want, none of them are willing to do anything about it. It would be really interesting to see what the UK response to a 'Falkland Islands' would be nowadays nearly 30 years on.

[Sickbag]

It would be really interesting to see what the UK response to a 'Falkland Islands' would be nowadays nearly 30 years on.

We would want to fight,
But by Jingo if we do,
We've not the ships,
We've not the men,
And not the money too...

[OldSowBreath]

I love Obama...he makes Neville Chamberlain look like Curtis LeMay.

[AndyToop]

<- Thinks back 2002 when US had full backing and commitment of military support for a war on terror from a pretty global basis

Sorry Andy, but this statement is pure BS. In 2001 this was an entirely US operation with a handfull of token Special Forces and Naval units from various countries. The initial UN ISAF coalition forces were held in relatively safe non combat areas for the first 5 years of the war...and that's how the supplying countries wanted it. In late 2001, a Gallup poll of different countries attitudes towards military action in Afghanistan showed that only populations in 3 of 37 countries surveyed favored a military response: the US, Israel, and India. Many European counties had sizable majorities against the war early on including the UK (75%) and France (67%). In 2008 a similar poll was conducted by Pew research on worldwide attitudes toward continuing military operations in Afghanistan and the results were the same...only 4 of 47 approve: the US, Israel, Ghana, and Kenya (apparently the Indians have lost faith).

And yet you still got unanimous UN security council backing, for an operation that was entirely under US control, which is unprecidented. The troops on the ground may have been in remf roles, but they were there and from a plethora of countries. When the initial phase of bombing and missile launching kicked off, there were various UK ships under US command flinging the missiles too (I honestly dont know about other nations). I dont care what the polls show about individual populations (and I should maybe have included the word political before support), there were heads of state falling over themselves to say that they didn't object to military intervention in Afghanistan (not the same as approving I know, but compared to the vitriol that usually accompanies any western show of force it was almost unanimous). Clearly Iran, Iraq, N Korea were never going to do anything but criticise the US and the rest of the world for that mattrer.

From the beginning, the US has had to beg and plead for troops in this operation and those that have been supplied were often done so with the caveat that they not be used for combat purposes. It was not until the UN turned over the ISAF to NATO in 2006 that non-US troops began seeing combat in any apreciable numbers, and really not until 2007-08 that they began taking hostile casualties in large numbers. I don't want to belittle the contributions and losses of countries like the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, France and Denmark who have provided the bulk of the non-US combat forces, but even they have only really seen combat/casualties in the last two years.

Yes, but thats part of my point. From the middle of 2002 the focus of the US administration had switched from Afghanistan to Iraq and the opertunity to build a united front was squandered. Thats just a few months into what has, as was widely predicted, turned into a much longer war. My biggest objection to the Iraq war has never been that it was wrong to oust Saddam, or that it was wrong to dissarm Iraq, only that to do it without serious political backing while still fighting the Afghan campaign was wrong both tactically and politically wrong. The very fact that NATO took on and continued the fight in Afghanistan in 2006 should speak volumes about the real political support that was there.

To assert that the world's population was gung ho from the beginning to invade Afghanistan and provide the necessary combat troops but only soured later due to GWB's Iraq policy is just ludicrous. The general populations have been against military ops from the start and their governments have been loathe to be seen to have anything to do with the combat side. Even now, the majority of countries that are willing to participate do so only through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Obama can be beloved by the Europeans, but he went there hat in hand and came away with precious little to show for it. The world, and Europeans in particular, has simply lost it's appetite to put troops in harms way....they didn't need GWB to make them averse to military ops. They can piss and moan about places like Darfur all they want, none of them are willing to do anything about it. It would be really interesting to see what the UK response to a 'Falkland Islands' would be nowadays nearly 30 years on.

I would never call them gung ho and the general population are always against military ops, but that never stops the govenments from undertaking them. You can say its ludicrous, I disagree, based partly on the fact that they have taken over on the front line in Afghanistan and are putting people in harms way for that. I also think you might be slightly mistaking the will to do something about it with the actual capability to do anything about it. The econmic powerhouse of (western) Europe is Germany, and for obvious reasons they have had thorugh international agreement been limited to a comparitively small military and prevented from deploying them abroad, in fact until very recently the UK had as much military presence in Germany as the Germans did. It has suited both the US and Western Europe over the last 50 years for the US to provide the serious muscle and the Europeans to provide smaller localised forces. Post the cold war, the US is really the only power that has the ability to project force across the globe. The UK used to have that ability, but it is long gone. The only way it will ever be regained is by providing a true "European" military, no country on its own has the financial power to do it. If what you mean is that there is no political or popular will to do that, then you are probably right. I dont know if would suit the US to support that or not.

As for the Falklands. If it happened again, which it might, I'm fairly sure there would be the political will to reclaim them and the underlying public support to do so. But I doubt we could do it nowadays without the help of the US (it was touch and go back then and our military capability has lessened since then). What do you reckon are the odds of the US putting a carrier wing under the command of the admiralty for 6 months? Do you think congress would back it?

Its all accademic anyway - it happened, its all what if...
I think there was an oppertunity there that was squandered, you obviously think the oppertunity was not there to start with.

[David Hilditch]

As for the Falklands. If it happened again, which it might, I'm fairly sure there would be the political will to reclaim them and the underlying public support to do so. But I doubt we could do it nowadays without the help of the US (it was touch and go back then and our military capability has lessened since then). What do you reckon are the odds of the US putting a carrier wing under the command of the admiralty for 6 months? Do you think congress would back it?

My answer to that would be No and No. It is almost inconceivable that the US would do that. If the Falklands needed to be re-taken today, I am not sure there would actually be the same political will and public support as there was in 1982. On the other hand, I suspect that - if push came to shove - the UK could just about pull it off militarily, but that would at the expense of existing commitments, eg. Afghanistan. The major constraint today, however, is lack of air refueling and airlift capacity, given the distances involved, and that would make it very finely balanced, such that the nation might not want to take the risk. The US would probably provide intelligence assistance, as it did in 1982, and there might on this occasion be more overt support from other Europeans (eg. equipment substitution, not actual fighting support). Invoking Article 5 of NATO after 9/11 did at least set a precedent.

[OldSowBreath]

To me, the Falklands are like a condo you wait too long to sell.