Michael Young says it's time for Old Europe to jump in with the team for the big win.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Jason Bourne | September 23, 2004, 4:04pm | #
Despite what Young states, Powell is right; we own Iraq, and the Europeans have literally no incentive to help us out substantially there. Young really ought to stop bitching about the Europeans when they in fact did not put us in this situation; the Bush administration did.joe | September 23, 2004, 4:12pm | #
Zapatero had been running on a platform of pulling out of Iraq for months.Shame on Young for denouncing a democratic leader for standing fast, and not letting terrorists change his policies.
Or, shame on Young for being so dishonest to his readers.
Or, shame on Young for being so ignorant of a subject that he presumes to lecture other people about.
Mike H. | September 23, 2004, 4:19pm | #
It's not that Young is "bitching" about the Europeans or anyone else; he's just pointing out that it may just be in the Europeans' interest to see Iraq succeed.So why, after seeing the dangerous situation erupting in their own backyard, do they fail to help fix it? Instead of actively attempting to contribute to the effort, they obstruct at every turn. If the situation is so dangerous to them, then why in God's name would they seem to encourage it's eruption?
All of this leads one to wonder about possible French-German-Spanish motives, and what exactly they think they'd get out of constantly telling the US "told ya so" and concurrently doing worse than just nothing to help. If Iraq is as horrible a situation as they claim, what on Earth could motivate them to oppose the US in Iraq?
Anyone think the Middle East, right in Europe's backyard, would get any more peaceful if the US abandoned Iraq and allowed civil war to flourish in the place of a stable democracy? What's the Weasels' motivation here?
joe | September 23, 2004, 4:25pm | #
"(European naysayers) can start by diluting their passion for legalism and openly admit that a meltdown in Iraq would pose a strategic threat to them."The anti-war countries of Europe have not only admitted this, they based their entire Iraq policy for the past two years on the certainty that this meltdown would occur if the US invaded, and would bring all of the problems Young lists. And they were right, as Young finally admits. I can't believe an intelligent person would look at the complications of occupying and running a country like Iraq, look at George Bush and his crew, and decide they had a ghost of a chance of avoiding a fiasco.
I saw this coming a mile away, as did people like Chirac, Shroeder, and Bambi. It's good to see a hawk catching up, finally, but one would think such a recognition of the rightness of one's opponents would bring about a certain intellectual humility.
Ned Flanders | September 23, 2004, 4:26pm | #
"A rude Frenchman? Well I never! . . "joe | September 23, 2004, 4:31pm | #
Mike H:First, do no harm. Avoid any action that would provide Bush with the opportunity to expand his folly, or dress it up in a cloak of borrowed legitimacy.
Someone throws a brick into a hornets' nest in my back yard, I'm going to let his ass get stung a few times. I'm not going to throw my back door open, so the little brat can learn that he can throw bricks at hornets nests without getting stung.
Ned Flanders | September 23, 2004, 4:37pm | #
Joe,You, just like "Old Europe", and just like Michael Young pointed out, are more interested in gloating over your assumed self-righteousness, rather than suggesting a real solution that is in the best interest of Europe.
"Fiasco"? No. Not yet. On it's way, possibly. Don't dance on the grave so soon.
But Joe, if those hornets posed a risk of stinging me to death, shouldn't I be more concerned about what to do about them right now than teaching the brick thrower a lesson for the future?
s.a.m. | September 23, 2004, 4:50pm | #
You, just like "Old Europe", and just like Michael Young pointed out, are more interested in gloating over your assumed self-righteousness, rather than suggesting a real solution that is in the best interest of Europe.Ned, the Bush Admin and its surrogates have led me to believe the Joe and "old europe" are anti-american and hell bent on the America's destruction. They went as far as renaming french fries and french toast for Christ's sake. So why should I listen to them now? Their motives are clearly Anti-america and they support a gay agenda to overthrow the morality of the United States! And...when they were trying to warn us and urge us to keep weapons inspectors in Iraq, they were aiding the enemy. Why o' why would I want to listen to them now, not to mention let them help us in Iraq? Obviously, they will side with the insurgents and overthrow any attempts at stability!
Jason Bourne | September 23, 2004, 4:52pm | #
Mike H.,Young is bitching and whining because his pet science project went haywire.
So why, after seeing the dangerous situation erupting in their own backyard, do they fail to help fix it? Instead of actively attempting to contribute to the effort, they obstruct at every turn. If the situation is so dangerous to them, then why in God's name would they seem to encourage it's eruption?
Because the situation isn't all that dangerous.
Mike H. | September 23, 2004, 5:21pm | #
Because the situation isn't all that dangerous.Interesting. So why then the European play to hysterics?
It's either as bad as they say and in joe's view the "spoiled brat next door" should get stung a few more times, or it's not as bad as they actually claim...
If it's as bad as the Europeans claim, then they're very foolish indeed to let the situation fester just to get a little revenge. If it's not as bad as they claim, then why would they try to derail the entire project by saying otherwise and refusing to lend an air of Euro-legitimacy?
So, which is it, boys? Is the French-German-Spain "Axis of Weasels" exaggerating and obstructing just to "punish" the US, or do they simply have an interest in seeing the US fail in making Iraq a democracy? What's the 3rd way?
Gadfly | September 23, 2004, 5:24pm | #
Iraq is kind of like my drunk sister in law. Everybody has tried to get her sober but it just hasn't worked. We've thrown money at her, taken money away, forced her to treatment, bailed her out of jail, hollered at her, given the silent treatment, reasoned with her, tested her and fought with her. But I'll be damn if she just keeps drinking.Maybe we should kill her.
Jason Bourne | September 23, 2004, 5:39pm | #
Mike H.,Interesting. So why then the European play to hysterics?
I have yet to see them play hysterics; they do of course mock the US intervention there; but that's another issue.
If it's as bad as the Europeans claim...
They state that its bad for the US, not for themselves.
If it's not as bad as they claim, then why would they try to derail the entire project by saying otherwise and refusing to lend an air of Euro-legitimacy?
They have no power to derail the project; indeed, their potential influence there - even if they threw in a great deal of support - is minimal. What Young is bitching about is so marginal as to be laughable.
What's the 3rd way?
Apathy. Honestly, they just don't care. Iraq will burn you, so the best thing to do is just leave it alone.
Gene Berkman | September 23, 2004, 5:47pm | #
Mr Young worries that Iraq might "spin out of American control (and what we are seeing today can become infinitely worse),"So does this mean that the Bush policy of invading Iraq was a success? Or does it mean that Iraq poses a greater threat now to America & Europe than it did before the invasion?
Mr Young suggests that Europe could help "by diluting their passion for legalism" - yet President Bush invokes Iraqi violation of US resolutions as a "legalistic" reason for invading that country and killing thousands of civilians.
I wish Mr Young would expand on his critique of legalism, so that we understand whether he supports such a legalistic concept as limited constitutional government.
Mike H. | September 23, 2004, 6:00pm | #
I have yet to see them play hysterics; they do of course mock the US intervention there; but that's another issue.Call it what you like; why the "mocking" then?
They state that its bad for the US, not for themselves.
No, it's not bad for them at all. Except for the kidnapping of their citizens and the potential for full-blown civil war if the US leaves.
But let's say that it's actually not bad for them. If that's the case, and this isn't necessarily directed at you as I don't think you've ever addressed the issue, could we please all give up on the idea of the "international community" helping us in Iraq?
They have no power to derail the project; indeed, their potential influence there - even if they threw in a great deal of support - is minimal. What Young is bitching about is so marginal as to be laughable.
They certainly act as if they do sometimes. And it's not as if I even want their overt support - I'd be happy with an end to the simple obstruction.
Incidentally, seeing the reference to hostages reminds me of another petty irritation: people who say that the kidnapping (and as yet, no killing) of two (2) French journalists proves that France isn't safe because of its non-intervention posture. This ignores the more likely possibility: The kidnappers just grabbed the first two white guys they came across and only found out after they got back to their hide-out that they had grabbed Frenchmen. Then, to save face, they tried to think of something to demand from the French government, which would explain the lame "headscarf ban" demand.
Jason Bourne | September 23, 2004, 6:29pm | #
Mike H.,But let's say that it's actually not bad for them. If that's the case, and this isn't necessarily directed at you as I don't think you've ever addressed the issue, could we please all give up on the idea of the "international community" helping us in Iraq?
Sure. The problem is that both Bush and Kerry go that route every so often, so we end up talking about it again.
They certainly act as if they do sometimes. And it's not as if I even want their overt support - I'd be happy with an end to the simple obstruction.
I don't see much in the way of obstruction.
aaron | September 23, 2004, 6:49pm | #
Before the invasion, I asked all of my hawk friends, "Suppose Bush and his hawks are successful in capturing Saddam. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?" Not a single one gave me an answer. (I mean that literally. They all either stared at me silently, walked away, or changed the subject with a complete non sequitor.) Now I know what happens next thanks to the Bush speechwriter who wrote this article. What happens next is that the hawks who couldn't answer me before the war are now whining that Europeans aren't coming up with a magic bullet solution to a problem that they had no part in creating. When I was in kindergarten, I learned to clean up my own messes. Perhaps Bush and his supporters need to go back to kindergarten to relearn this concept.Oh yeah, and about that ridiculous assertion that the Europeans are "obstructing" progress in Iraq. Ha! What a laugh! What have they done other than say words? (mockery=words, hysteria=words) Did the Europeans sent troops or planes to intercept the American invaders? I missed that part in the news. Can someone send me a link? How could mere "words" "obstruct" the Bush administration when he can't even read?
One last thought for those who think the onus is on Old Europe to help in Iraq: Did the Europeans unilaterally decide not to allow any of their corporations to apply for rebuilding contracts, or did the Bush administration disallow them from doing so? Has Bush lifted that restriction yet? Then what do you expect them to do besides say, "I told you so"?
Joe L. | September 23, 2004, 8:00pm | #
Hey Aaron, have you ever wondered where the Monet Plan and then EU came from? Well they weren't planned in 1944... My point being, what Europe looks like today and looked like in 1950 where unknown in 1944 when post-war planning began. What it be your point that one must be Nostardamus in order to ever wage a war?Tell me what will your city look like in 5 years? Can you answer that? If not, can you vote "intelligently?" Apply the rules you propose to others to YOUR life and then see if they make sense.
dibert dogbert | September 23, 2004, 8:59pm | #
The europeans know that if they joined in the most wonderful Iraq adventure and things went to sh** Geo W.T.F. bush would blame them. If things went well, he would take all the credit and tell them to get the hell out and leave the money making to his good friends. Don't get suckered into this mess. Wait till geo C.A.R bush is gone and the troops are home, then, with a clean slate, europe can see what can be done to repair the damage. Getting involved in anything with this US administration is a recipe for disaster.spur | September 23, 2004, 9:10pm | #
This is one of the worse articles, factually anyways, I have read on reason.com in quite some time.As many people here have said -- 'bambi' was only carrying out campaign promises he made way before the Madrid train bombings.
Its also worth noting that the countries Mr. Young scrutinizes -- Spain, France, and Germany have since 9/11 and before treated this matter as Jesse Walker has referred to it back in 2001 as a 'Kojak' problem -- arresting dozens of Al Queada suspects in their respective countries and prosecuting them. They have in no way sat on their hands and bitched about this.
These countries have zero reason to help the Americans in Iraq and the Bush Administration has not laid out a coherent case as to why they should help them; anything but, really.
Germany also has a large contingent of troops -- large in a post WWII sense -- in Afganistan and has not indicated it wishes to pull out.
To blame these countries leaders for the utter and complete failure of US Wilsonian nation building in Iraq is ridiculous -- the blame falls completely on the US and to some extent Blair and Howard and the polish government whose names I will not try to replicate here...
its a sad day when as a Libertarian I'm reduced to cheering from the sidelines for the Australian Labour Party and the LibDems in the UK.
Glory Glory Charles Kennedy
Spur
(just in case someone doesn't know, ETA are the Basque separatists who have committed quite a few terrorist attacks in Spain over the years)
Josh | September 23, 2004, 10:59pm | #
Aznar and all his neo-fascist goonsThank you for your objective take on the situation, Andy!
andy | September 23, 2004, 11:46pm | #
"Thank you for your objective take on the situation, Andy!"Well, Josh, when you take into account the incredible amount of connections that the PP has to the late Franco and his cohorts, my comment is more "objective" than you think.
James | September 24, 2004, 1:19am | #
Michael Young is writing nonsense. The French warned us not to invade on the grounds that it would cause more problems than it would solve (and despite Keegan's whining that force is sometimes a good thing, it most often does cause more problems than it solves), that the postwar plans were rather sketchy (or nonexistent, except for lots of secret contracts larded out to politically connected firms), and that it might well spread beyond the borders of Iraq.Right on the first two counts and number three is on deck. Now he complains that the Europeans aren't coming up with any solutions to the problems we created over their objections. I can appreciate the logic that anyone whose analysis of the war was one hundred percent correct in advance is a good person to ask for advice but why should they put themselves out when all we've done is ignore the excellent advice they've given in the past?
Now everything has blown up the way the French predicted, the war party wants to blame them for "not helping." For all the pleading that they should be "helping," what the empire-builders really want is for them to follow us into the quagmire without asking any questions. If throwing more men and more money into that sinkhole would do any good, we wouldn't need their freaking help. Since Bush and his appointees have proven remarkably immune to the influence of informed advice, what would you have the French actually do?
long time reader | September 24, 2004, 2:28am | #
I'm a pretty sensible anti-Iraq War libterarian dude. I supported the invasion of Afganistan, if not how it has been managed since...I don't go into hysteria when Ron Bailey deviates from wonderful environmental reporting to foreign policy war-hawking or even most pro-war libertarian arguments I have read - I accept it as part of the libertarian diaspora that makes life interesting -- but this article...As a long time reason reader I want an apology from Michael or Nick or both (I have never asked for an apology before in 10 years reading reason) -- it is factually incorrect in several places and has no place in reason mag -- the libertarian pro-war-in-Iraq argument can be made and made in good faith I believe, but that argument has never coincided with neo-con beliefs held by people who frankly have a lot of blood on their hands (ideas having consequence after all) like Kegan.
I am reminded of the song "Blame Canada" after reading this article...sad.
Ayn_Randian | September 24, 2004, 8:02am | #
Right on Michael!I think that everyone is missing the blatant hypocrisy and lack of intelligent foreing policy on the part of Europe. There is absolutely incentive for Europe to help in Iraq. To begin, the danger is much closer to them than it is to us. Yes, if you believe Bush shouldn't have gone, then fine, blah blah blah. We could talk about the "March to War" all day long. But note to Europe:
America ALREADY DID IT!
What's done is done, and Europe could certainly start becoming principled instead of being so-called realistic. Why is it that liberals (*cough Joe) berated Reagan for upholding stable dictatorships in the face of communism, but when Bush tries to take down dictatorships, Europe's pragmatic policy is suddenly lauded?
joe | September 24, 2004, 10:30am | #
"Why is it that liberals (*cough Joe) berated Reagan for upholding stable dictatorships in the face of communism, but when Bush tries to take down dictatorships, Europe's pragmatic policy is suddenly lauded?"Reagan actively worked to support those dictatorships. He sent money, arms, and troops. He stuck his country's nose into all sorts of places it didn't belong.
European countries, on the other hand, are being critcized by the likes of Young for...well, for minding their own business, and failing to stick their noses into places where they don't belong. (No ancient history responses, please. We're talking about the current century, not 23 years ago, whe Saddam was America and France's bestest buddy in the whole world).
I think the libertarians have a term for this principle - the non something of something? Help me out here.
joe | September 24, 2004, 10:53am | #
I believe that our Iraq adventure DID make Europe (and pretty much the rest of the world, too) less safe.But the Europeans ARE doing something about it - they are doing their best to make sure Bush loses this election, because they are aware no progress can be made with him as president. The last three years have demonstrated that he is personally incapable of managing a project this complex. What's more, his actions over the that period make it impossible for him, the American government, or the Iraqi government he installed to have any legitimacy in Iraq, in the region, or among our allies. George Bush just spun around, broom in hand, and knocked half the china off the store shelves. Would YOU hand him another broom to clean up the shards if it were your china shop?
gaius marius | September 24, 2004, 12:18pm | #
It's not that Young is "bitching" about the Europeans or anyone else; he's just pointing out that it may just be in the Europeans' interest to see Iraq succeed.i just wonder about that. i'm ore inclined to agree with mr dogbert:
The europeans know that if they joined in the most wonderful Iraq adventure and things went to sh** Geo W.T.F. bush would blame them. If things went well, he would take all the credit and tell them to get the hell out and leave the money making to his good friends. Don't get suckered into this mess. Wait till geo C.A.R bush is gone and the troops are home, then, with a clean slate, europe can see what can be done to repair the damage. Getting involved in anything with this US administration is a recipe for disaster.
they've no desire to play scapegoat.
moreover, regardless of what some republicans want to believe, the us military is mightily constrained for so long as they remain in iraq -- manpower, material, none of it is enough to do the job, as any general will tell you given half a chance. (there's a reason, after all, that tensions are at an all-time high between the white house and the chiefs of staff.)
i would not blame the europeans for playing america into iraq as best they can, simply to forestall an invasion of iran, in the hopes that the united states will be conscientious enough to stay so long as civil war seems the only possible aftermath of leaving. i'm sure they see the potential of another foray into neocon ideology-cum-practice as far more dangerous than containing the united states to iraq.
gaius marius | September 24, 2004, 12:20pm | #
This is one of the worse articles, factually anyways, I have read on reason.com in quite some time.facts (or the lack of them) cannot be allowed to stand in the way of narrative and ideology, spur. ;)
joe | September 24, 2004, 3:34pm | #
My cat puked on the rug last night.My dog didn't do anything about it, so now I'm not feeding him.
SM | September 24, 2004, 4:35pm | #
"I think the libertarians have a term for this principle - the non something of something? Help me out here."Didn't you make a case for the Clinton-doctrine as applied to the Balkans, complete with ancient history references to WW 1 and so on ? Who died and made
"non something of something" King in your world ?
Psuedo | September 24, 2004, 5:20pm | #
Off topic, but is it true Spain has legislation requiring an equal number of women and men in their leislature? If so, it would be the greatest blow to individual identity to date.As fucked up as the US and UK are right now, I think we should cut the pinkos loose, Atlas Shrugged style. See how the Bambi Administration handles itself without a superpower covering its ass.
They're free to disagree, and not participate in actions they feel are unconscionable. But as long as Europe maintains its dependence on America, it has an obligation not to undermine it. Maybe we should send them a bill for the 50 years of defense. And call in the Marshall plan, with interest.
Jason Bourne | September 26, 2004, 2:08am | #
Psuedo,I'm going to note right now that Europe has spent lots of its own money defending itself during the Cold War (indeed, into the 100s of billions of dollars), and that the U.S. gained significant benefits from having allies in Europe during the Cold War. In other words, its was a mutually beneficial relationship, and suggesting that it was all some sort of "philanthropic" measure as you do is just downright stupid. If the U.S. put money into NATO, it got back much in benefits from that relationship during the Cold War; including bases in Europe that were owned and operated by the various NATO countries.
Furthermore, most European countries received no or little Marshall Plan money, and those that did were generally worse for it (the countries with the most Marshall Plan funds recovered the slowest from WWII).
See how the Bambi Administration handles itself without a superpower covering its ass.
How is the U.S. "covering" Spain's ass right now?
But as long as Europe maintains its dependence on America, it has an obligation not to undermine it.
Europe is hardly dependent on the U.S.
Seeing as how Spain was run by Franko at the time, and was largely untouched by WWII I doubt they got any Marshall plan money -- I'm also not aware of any US bases on Spanish territory...