|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
Contributors
J.F. Kelly, Jr. - Contributor
J.F.
Kelly, Jr. is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who
writes on current events and military subjects. He is a resident
of Coronado, California. [go to Kelly index]
 Paying
Respects to Europe
Maybe the European leaders ought to be mending the fences…
[J. F. Kelly, Jr.] 3/7/05
It was all
to the good that President Bush and his newly appointed secretary
of state, Condoleeza Rice, started Bush’s second
term in office by making their manners in Europe in what were
described by the media as fence-mending tours. The visits, marked
by diplomatic embraces and gooey expressions of eternal friendship,
fulfilled a campaign pledge to reach out more to our traditional
allies in Europe, some of whom opposed the war in Iraq.
In emphasizing our preference for diplomacy rather than military
action in resolving problems such as the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, Bush sought to dispel the impression, unfortunately
prevalent among Europeans, that America is a nation of trigger-happy
gunslingers, prone to acting unilaterally without paying heed
to the wishes of their wiser European elders.
It’s not clear to me that any fences required mending
at all or why we had be the ones to mend them, but it doesn’t
hurt to be magnanimous, I guess. Still, we shouldn’t read
too much into the diplomatic show of unity that the visits produced.
Bush may be able, as he once said, to look into the soul of Vladamir
Putin (“This is a man I can work with.”), but their
warm relationship didn’t stop Mr. Putin from subsequently
signing a nuclear assistance agreement with the Islamic rulers
of Iran against strong U.S. objections. This was hardly an act
of friendship and if Mr. Bush could actually see into the soul
of the ex-KGB leader he probably wouldn’t like what he
saw there. Nor did the visits dissuade European leaders from
their plans to resume selling weapons to China; weapons which
could one day be used against us or our allies.
Leaders in France and Germany even admitted to being pleased
over the successful elections in Iraq and actually conceded that
some of the credit for them belongs to America. How could they
feel otherwise? France even agreed to provide limited assistance
in training Iraqi security forces. Limited, however, is something
of an understatement. Apparently, a single French officer has
been assigned to this task
This last example
of European cooperation serves, perhaps, to illustrate a major
problem involving consultation with our “traditional” allies
in Europe, excluding the United Kingdom. To put it bluntly, they
are long on advice but short on capability. Individually, the
nations of continental Europe have little to offer in the fight
against terrorism except advice. Advice and friendship are attributes
to be cherished, of course, but when it comes time for something
harsher than diplomatic prattle, they simply do have sufficient
military resources to make much of a difference. Under-funding
their military forces is only partly a matter of choice. Their
welfare state, entitlement-rich budgets leave little money left
for defense. Still, they wish to act like the great powers they
once were and demand to be treated as major players, needing
to be deferred to and consulted on all matters.
Yale’s Professor Paul Kennedy, in his brilliant work, “The
Rise and Fall of the Great Powers” (New York: Vintage Books,
1989), traced the ascent and decline of each of the great powers
and the economic factors that contributed to both. He made the
case that each of them became overextended in terms of military
commitments, principally in defense of empire and trade routes,
and that their economies, overburdened by social spending, could
not continue to grow at a sufficient rate to support large enough
military organizations. As he points out, this may well happen
to the United States while China, meanwhile, rises to superpower
status and the other populous nations of Asia, especially India,
grow in power and influence as well.
Our traditional allies in Europe have had their days of glory.
Despite small nuclear arsenals, their armed forces are under-funded,
undersized and somewhat outdated. Their military contributions,
with the qualified exception of Briton, are largely ceremonial.
This is not so much a criticism as an obvious fact acknowledged
privately by their own officers. Nor is this intended to belittle
the much-appreciated contributions of our true European allies,
including, in addition to the U.K., Italy, Poland, Denmark, Norway
and others who participated in the coalition of the willing.
Collectively, the nations of Europe contain resources and population
sufficient to equal or exceed the United States as a great power.
Individually, they represent second and third rank powers in
the overall global scheme of things. In short, the European Union
represents the last best hope for Europe to regain past glory
in terms of world power. But there are formidable nationalistic,
cultural, language and economic obstacles to overcome before
the European Union can achieve anything approaching world power
status.
It may, indeed, never happen but unless it does, the former
great powers of Europe will have to learn to be content with
less than a major role in world affairs. Rather than berating
the Bush administration for not reaching out enough, perhaps
they should try reaching out to the United States a little more
while we reach out increasingly to Asia. tOR
copyright
2005 J. F. Kelly, Jr.
§
|
|
|
