I don't know, I think the fact that Europe isn't speaking German or Russian and that we gave trillions to rebuild it should count for something. But then again that's probably just my arrogant American-isms rearing their thuggish head.
Yeah, and all you got for that was a half-century of unchallenged hegemony. Bloody ingrates, Europeans!
IOW, it's about two generations now since WW2. You can't keep trying to guilt us out over that forever, any more than the French are trying to guilt you out over Lafayette. From where I'm at, that debt is paid -- with interest.
What war crimes, out of curiosity?
The same as Saddam's on Kuwait -- initiating a war of aggression on a sovereign United Nations member country.
What, you want us to bribe you? How about we threaten to cut off any and all NATO expenditures and leave the organization? I'm pretty sure that'd send the NATO countries into a panic.
As stated below, I think that would be the best thing you could do for Europe right about now. We're far too reliant on the American security umbrella, and with the NATO structures in place, we have no incentive to do anything about it. Yes, there probably would be panic, but that would force us to sit down and get our house in order, which would be better for us in the long run. Being weak members in an American-dominated NATO is not in the European interest.
I think the fact that Obama honestly wants to do things multilaterally is "the beef" as you put it. He's not going to buy you guys a fucking soccer stadium or an aircraft carrier. We already helped rebuild your damn countries (yes, not out of the goodness of our hearts). Why not do it as a gesture of good faith?
Once burned, twice shy. Russia, Georgia, and Iran made some pretty big gestures of good faith in your direction post-9/11. What did that net them?
Seriously, if Obama shows some movement on issues important to Europeans -- the International Criminal Court, greenhouse gases, stuff like that -- then, yes, it's likely we Europeans will be more collaborative on issues important to you. What you're asking now is a quid without a quo, and, as stated, pointing to World War 2 will net you a
these days.
The act of cooperating on this issue could, you know, help repair the bridge between the two sides and lead to increased dialogue and restoration of our friendship.
Since you screwed up that relationship, why should we be the ones to try to fix it?
Obama wants to kiss and make up, why not meet him half way? If you want him to get on his knees and beg and plead you're not going to get it, and you are all but guaranteeing the next guy will make Bush look like the best diplomat in the universe. You've bashed the US for not accepting overtures from Iran post-9/11, so why wouldn't you accept American overtures after Obama's election? Why make our relationship more difficult instead of better?
"Meeting him half way" is one thing. "Doing everything and anything he wants just because he asks" is another.
Taking on prisoners from Gitmo is politically costly for our countries as well -- more so than for the USA, since, as I've pointed out, we didn't make that mess. If you want our leaders to pay the political price for doing something like that, you're going to have to offer something more concrete than kind words.
Again, I'm all for improving trans-Atlantic relations. I'm not even opposed to taking on some Gitmo prisoners as a part of that process, but it has to go both ways -- it can't be just us unilaterally giving you what you want; you have to show that you're willing to listen to -- and act on -- our concerns as well. I wouldn't expect you to act any differently if the shoe was on the other foot.
I agree with you. I also think that would put us in a much stronger bargaining position if Europe ever went through some massive war again. We wouldn't have treaty obligations requiring us to come to the rescue (again), so we could demand some pretty harsh concessions this time around. I'd take the Eastern Europeans with us though, since they seem more likely to play ball with us.
The only reason for that is that they have a lot of residual fear of Russia. That's going to change, though, over time, as even they realize that Russia will not become the USSR again -- they don't have the demographic nor the economic underpinnings for that. In any case, Europe is the least likely theater for a massive war in any predictable future, so I'd be willing to take that risk. If that changes, we'll have time to prepare. (If we won't take that time, of course, then too bad for us.)
I don't think it would affect us much, seeing the quality of aid we've received from NATO in Afghanistan. If you want to take offense to that, feel free, but Bush, Gates, Obama (implied, at least), and Canada have all bitched about this quite openly. I've also personally talked to Afghans who have told me that they'd rather have one American set of boots on the ground than 20 NATO guys.
The NATO -- like the UN -- is a political force multiplier for the US. It's totally stacked in your favor. You're unquestionably dominant in both, and both organizations give your actions a lot more legitimacy, and in NATO's case, a good deal of practical assistance as well, despite what you say. Without these structures, you really would be going it alone -- and if there's one thing the last eight years should have taught you, it's that that greatly diminishes your power.
Second, you're omitting one crucial fact: the European NATO members are weak
because NATO was designed that way. For obvious reasons, German tanks were only equipped with reverse gear. The Brits have their navy with its glorious tradition of "rum, sodomy, and the lash," as Churchill put it. The French... are the French. The Italians are... the Italians. The rest are either small, climbing out of the hole dug by the USSR (you didn't rescue *them,* by the way), or generally ineffective. And
there's no unified foreign policy, security, or command structure on top -- because the NATO performs these functions.
One of the basic strategic ideas behind NATO is to keep Europe from developing an independent military capability of its own, to keep it safely in the American orbit. If you want a Europe that's militarily powerful enough to work with you as an equal partner, you'll get a Europe that's militarily assertive enough that it'll choose not to do that all the time. You can't have it both ways. Since 1945, you've chosen a weak but pliant Europe. I, personally, would prefer a stronger and more assertive Europe.
For example, look at it from my point of view: we Finns have some forces in Afghanistan, and we're not even a NATO country. Some of them have died. What, exactly, do we have to do with Afghanistan? All I'm getting from you is bitching about how worthless they are. It's not our fight to start with, so why should we even bother? Pure humanitarianism?
(In fact, if this was a strategy game purely based on geopolitical power, the smartest thing the US could do is apply for European Union membership -- you'd be unquestionably the dominant member of that particular bloc, which means that you would be able to marshal more than double the economic and political resources to your ends, with comparatively small losses to your own sovereignty -- although some of these losses would be highly symbolic.)
