Farsighted academics

[Ken White]

the one looking at the entire thing from the wrong angle...

Ken, you look at the ad from the wrong angle.It was no study or intel paper. It was meant to counteract the pro-war propaganda of that time.As such it did address issues that were discussed in the public, using a consensus approach among the many people who signed it and refrained from engaging matters that were already too ingrained in the public opinion (CB).

I understood that -- and did also when I read it at the time. I and many others disagreed with their conclusion. There was as much anti war propaganda -- and that's what it was -- at the time as there was pro war propaganda. There was a balance and the nation was about 50:50 on whether it was a good idea or not. IMO, the majority who thought it not a good idea hung believed the same things the deluded academics did and you seem to. That's sad, because the WMD / AQ linkage stuff was never of any importance at all -- and the Administration later acknowledged (quietly) that they made a bad choice in using that for justification.

This 'meant for public discussion, no treatise' thing also covers the pottery barn thing. There was no space (and readers likely not patient enough) to discuss such things in detail, they mentioned how it would most likely be viewed and happen - and were right in that. It's all about context, as usual.

No, they were not right, as I've shown and all I've said above is pretty easily tracked. We can disagree on the Pottery Barn bit. If you hit me and I hit you back, I do not acquire a responsibility to raise your children...

Ken, I believe you underestimate an extremely powerful factor here; the societal commemoration of war, its wastefulness/destructiveness and the lessons drawn from it and incorporated into the societies.

Not at all. Having experienced that destruction and wastefulness for many total months in several nations and been apart of the suffering, I'm very much aware of that factor -- probably a good deal more so than those who've merely read and thought about it. There is no human endeavor that is stupid as war and there is no such thing as a good war -- they're all bad and terribly regrettable.

However, some are necessary and Iraq -- or something like it -- was necessary. I wouldn't have done it the way Bush did but he did do something that was necessary. Four of his predecessors from both major political parties over a period of 22 years had let probes and forays from the Middle East occur and they failed to properly respond, so the probes continued and each was a little more daring than the last -- that's classic Middle eastern warfare -- until they came here; again -- the first try was in 1993. That needed to be stopped. Iraq was selected as the stopper.

It would be surprising if the average European was smarter in terms of IQ than the U.S.Americans and intra-European differences in education disqualify the education criterion for smartness as well. I'm quite convinced that the European nations (some more than others) were and are smarter as societies than the U.S. in matters of war & peace due to much richer (worse) experiences. The result were different majorities and different institutional reactions.

I completely agree. Smarter may or may not be correct but I grant a very different outlook toward conflict and war -- and that should be acceptsble. I would note that I and most Americans realize that and accept it and believe that is your right and it is not our place to complain about it. There are some Americans who are disposed for various reasons to make an issue of it but they are a small minority. It does surprise us that many in Europe do not seem disposed to accept that difference without a lot of harsh criticism.

Besides that, almost all European countries had and have a popular majority against the Iraq War - usually for very different reasons than U.S.Americans like to cite to excuse themselves imho (this includes your ICC/Kyoto hint - I was in Germany in 2002/03 and never heard any such arguments as the U.S.Americans seem to believe to have been decisive - at all. Never. I've never seen/read an U.S.American who had a grasp of why Germans opposed the war.).

I'm prepared to learn. I do recall European fulminating about both those things and I do recall concern over the Muslims resident in Europe and their potential reaction. I don't think there's any question about French, German and Russian commercial concerns (which may not have bothered the average citizen but did worry the governments)

Being right about something on such a scale (and there's no doubt that the Iraq War went terrible and has hurt the USA much more than benefited) is a strong argument for smarter opinion-finding in itself.

I submit that 'right' is in the eye of the beholder -- I do not think you, Europe, were or are right at all and a good many here agree with me. I believe it is far too early -- by a couple of decades -- to say whether the Iraq war was a net plus or minus to the US. I do believe at this point it is a plus even in view of the cost and casualties but it's too soon to say for certain. I also believe at this point that Europe has benefited from the action -- again, too early to know. I'm curious to know why you seem to think we have been hurt so badly?

By the way; I started this thread to hint subtly at the importance of learning from national mistakes. It's important whether there's something driving hawkish pundits into the media or whether voices of caution get heard as loudly.

Heh. Americans aren't into voices of caution. As I said earlier, if we wanted to have a European approach to life, our grandparents wouldn't have left there in there first place -- as you noted above, we are different -- and that should be acceptable.

I don't have the impression that the USA has already learned from its mistake. It looks as if it is being treated as an aberration, a Neocon-only failure.

Partly them, partly Army untrained and unready, partly some other little things. None of any great significance.

It's basically a "We told you so" thing (that's what I held back initially). The problem is that even after being told about it and experiencing the consequences, it seems as if the USA would be all too interested in doing the same mistakes again - if only the military could promise to do a better job and deliver a clean result next time.

You held it back? Who knew...

Nope, we got your "we told you so" -- most of just think you're wrong, that's all.

That's what 'irritates' me about the efforts to improve COIN capabilities in the future and about the expectation that future wars will be small wars. The USA is extremely resilient - against some lessons.

You cannot have missed the fact many here -- including me -- are saying small wars may not be as prevalent as some like to think and that we must prepare for full spectrum conflict and that by definition means an emphasis on high intensity conflict.

However, that's not your point. Your point is you think Iraq was a terrible mistake and the US is stupid. It appears that you believe since you think that is true it must be true. I hate to tell you this, but that is only your opinion. Many in Europe may agree with you. A few here in the US agree with you -- but it's all opinion; not fact, opinion. Others have a differing opinion. Only time will tell which opinion is correct.

[Ken White]

@jmm99:Tolerance is fine, but don't be surprised if very different attitudes lead to a separation. The USA could break NATO with its style - and would be pretty alone afterward. It's open for debate whether the British would stick to the USA in such a case.

That'll fit in with the large percentage of people here who say we should have left NATO in 1990. I suspect we'll all survive if that occurs.

@Entropy:"They conflate the decision and rationale for the invasion with the poor execution afterward."

That's a key quote that shows that you don't use the European point of view.

It's not about whether the war is clean or dirty, successful or failure.
The Iraq invasion was pretty much a crime by European standards (and international law, but that's another story).The act itself was not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose and overall it wasn't more reasonable than a random action.

Of course he doesn't use the European point of view. That's like me saying you do not use the American point of view...

As for a crime by European standards; Okay. Uh, you do realize we aren't European? International law? I'll leave the legality debate to my attorney but I will ask you this; since a law is "The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system as international law." who or what is the political authority that enforces this international law?

With respect to "not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose..." I'd ask if those are fact or opinions?

I'm also very, very curious as to what you believe to have been the purpose of the invasion of Iraq?

[Surferbeetle]

Ken, I believe you underestimate an extremely powerful factor here; the societal commemoration of war, its wastefulness/destructiveness and the lessons drawn from it and incorporated into the societies.

Fuchs,

Do have have any links or general feeling as to how this factor is spread across the generations?

I'm quite convinced that the European nations (some more than others) were and are smarter as societies than the U.S. in matters of war & peace due to much richer (worse) experiences. The result were different majorities and different institutional reactions.

Klug, schlau, oder weise? Smart, clever, or wise? As a native speaker I suggest considering using the word wise here...

I don't have the impression that the USA has already learned from its mistake. It looks as if it is being treated as an aberration, a Neocon-only failure.

It's basically a "We told you so" thing (that's what I held back initially).
The problem is that even after being told about it and experiencing the consequences, it seems as if the USA would be all too interested in doing the same mistakes again - if only the military could promise to do a better job and deliver a clean result next time.

That's what 'irritates' me about the efforts to improve COIN capabilities in the future and about the expectation that future wars will be small wars.

The USA is extremely resilient - against some lessons.

In what part of the world do you see us as repeating this mistake?

However, some are necessary and Iraq -- or something like it -- was necessary. I wouldn't have done it the way Bush did but he did do something that was necessary. Four of his predecessors from both major political parties over a period of 22 years had let probes and forays from the Middle East occur and they failed to properly respond, so the probes continued and each was a little more daring than the last -- that's classic Middle eastern warfare -- until they came here; again -- the first try was in 1993. That needed to be stopped. Iraq was selected as the stopper.

Ken,

I have been thinking about your thesis, and you are the first person that I heard to advance this, for about a year now. It's logical, it seems to be plausible, and it makes more sense to me as time passes. It's seems to be part of the equation that I missed.

Riding the plane in before just before I linked up with my unit (OIF1) I felt that WMD and Oil/Energy were the primary reasons for the war. Hindsight shows that WMD was not part of the equation.

A significant part of my experiences dealt with living through what it means to not have Energy and trying to figure out ways to procure/generate/deliver it on the civil affairs side of things. Electricity for industry and essentials & amenities (generated by oil, diesel, or nat. gas in Iraq), fuel for vehicles, and fuel for cooking make the difference between third world and second/first world living. Theory and textbooks do not full convey the importance of Energy and I believe it to be a key part of the equation. IMHO it is worth fighting over.

Best,

Steve

[jmm99]

Fuchs,

Tolerance is fine, but don't be surprised if very different attitudes lead to a separation. The USA could break NATO with its style - and would be pretty alone afterward. It's open for debate whether the British would stick to the USA in such a case.

My little sermonette wasn't aimed at tolerance, but more for an officer and gentleman standard of discourse - application of the Pauline theme: "When I was a child, I spake like a child ... , but now I put away childish things...." We all (including JMM) sometimes forget that wisdom.

Now, for NATO substance. Since I am well aware of Article 5 and its escape and evasion loophole (several JMM posts on that), a "separation" would not surprise me. Our national policy is to support NATO - that may be because of US self-interest, or because of inertia, or both. I suggest the following:

1. If a European nation is that conclusively adverse to US attitude, style (or whatever), then I believe it has a duty to separate its link to us - assuming that nation has any sense of honor. That doesn't mean that it becomes our enemy.

2. Assuming NATO were dissolved tomorrow, the US would be fine. That might constrain US globalism in some military matters - perhaps, that would be a good thing.

3. Assuming #2, I suspect the Atlantic tier European nations - and quite possibly some in Africa and South America - would forge relationships with the US (whether bi- or multi-lateral). We have a common interest in that lake.

Next discussion point.

The Iraq invasion was pretty much a crime by European standards (and international law, but that's another story).

The act itself was not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose and overall it wasn't more reasonable than a random action.

I really don't want to beat this one into the ground. I am comfortable with the US legal position on Iraq - not a war crime (I think I have at least one post on that also).

I am well aware of German public opinion (and legal opinions) on Iraq and other I Law matters (several posts on that also). What people here (at SWC) should understand is that there are substantial differences between how the US and the European Code nations (most of the world's nations, in fact) view I Law.

Those differences arise from the basic theory of I Law - it arises from nations. In the US, our over-riding organic law (the Constitution) arises from the People (starting from its Preamble on). That, BTW, is why our system of government is 180 degrees out of phase with pure Sharia Law (which comes directly from God via a literal application of the Koran).

In US constitutional law, international law does not become part of US law until it is incorporated. Treaties and executive agreements are obvious examples of incorporation. However, even they may be over-ridden by subsequent Congressional statute. That might create an I Law flap (with the offended nation having a choice of remedies); but for our (US) purposes, the treaty is a dead letter.

I think (based on reading a number of German cases - and two Israeli cases on targeted killing and detention) that Code nations place I Law on a higher plane - that is, that it is incorporated (by reference) into the basic organic law. Thus, I Law becomes mandatory as a matter of domestic constitutional law. Any and all verified corrections on my comparative law views will be accepted.

On the other hand, the basic US position on I Law is that it is applied as a matter of comity (reciprocity is another term for the same thing). That may change tomorrow, but I doubt it.

You might want to take a look at the Operational Law Handbook - 2007 (6mb) is here; 2008 version (32mb) is here. Since only a few pages were added for 2008, the difference must be .pdf versions.

[Fuchs]

I believe you take too much for granted.

This "being different" taken to extremes and the well-demonstrated lack of respect for others and international law could lead to an isolated USA in less than a generation. Seriously, a McCain term could have accomplished that.

You don't seem to have an idea how poor the USA would be off without the European allies. No, this is not a text about European power; it's a text about how too much seems to be taken for granted.

A permanent alienation and display of different values and disrespect can break the alliance, and I don't think that U.S.Americans understand the possible consequences and how much they could lose.

Two different European nations could veto everything the U.S. wants to pass in the UNSC.
No more auxiliary troops for small or big wars.
No more overt intelligence-gathering in Europe.
No more overseas bases in European-controlled territories (including Diego Garcia).
Difficult diplomatic situation for the USA in most Latin American, almost all African, all European, many South Asian countries - closed doors on many issues.
No more economies of scale for U.S. arms production by selling to European countries.
No more military technology exchanges.
Immediate loss of most naval infrastructure for the observation of the Russian northern fleet's SSBNs.
No more intelligence exchange with European countries.
Loss of World Bank president's seat.
Many economic policy consequences (trade wars, copyrights).
Even such simple things like flying a C-17 to Israel would be pretty much impossible without European consent.

We could pretty much end up containing each other in 2020.
Another war of aggression like Iraq would probably suffice.
Keep in mind that a thing like the long-time survival of NATO is a historical anomaly.

This seems unrealistic today, but patience isn't endless, and the change in attitude caused by the Bush administration was already unthinkable a mere ten years ago.
The dislike for the costs associated with confronting each other is probably a stronger bond today than the sympathy for each other and actual benefits are. I read more often about measures to repair/strengthen the alliance than about (efforts to exploit) advantages. It's like about 100:0.
The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years.

U.S. Americans sometimes discuss the alliance and the UN as something almost burdensome - apparently oblivious to the benefits they get from these organizations.
Equally, they seem to think that international law only applies to others just because nobody invades or bombs them (well, with military bombs) in response to violations (so far).



You can't keep an alliance forever if you do to others what you want and tell your partners to accept that you're exceptional.



@jmm:

Johnny breaks into a house and beats up inhabitants.
The judge allows Johnny to defend himself.
Johnny tells him that his own moral compass is higher ranked than the law.
Nobody else cares, Johnny is a criminal.
Now Johnny is the greatest bully in the village and nobody really incarcerates him - but nobody likes him, other think he's a criminal and his family will soon kick him as a black sheep if he keeps committing crimes.

By the way; the German sovereign is the German people, yet we accept international law as standing above our laws.

Our chancellor might have been arrested if Germany had planned to participate in the war of aggression against Iraq.
A failure of the justice to stop the government in that case could possibly have outlawed the government for all Germans - including legal assassination (article 20 GG).

[Surferbeetle]

I am well aware of German public opinion (and legal opinions) on Iraq and other I Law matters (several posts on that also). What people here (at SWC) should understand is that there are substantial differences between how the US and the European Code nations (most of the world's nations, in fact) view I Law.

JMM,

The legal pool is usually deeper than I am willing to dog paddle around in, however your post rings bells about topics raised in a business law class that I enjoyed. France, as I recall is a Civil Law country with laws being code based rather than Judge based as is here in the US?

My questions are:

1) Is Germany, and is the EU Civil Law based?

2) Is US Environmental Law, an exception or hybrid to the Judge based system?

Thanks/Best,

Steve

[Schmedlap]

By the way; the German sovereign is the German people, yet we accept international law as standing above our laws.

Maybe this is just my feeble American brain failing to grasp this, but that sentence above sounds self-contradictory. Germans do not pass international laws. But they accept them as above their own - how does that make the Germans sovereign over anything?

[RTK]

The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years.

Are you saying Europe deserves no blame in their deteriorated security in the past 10 years?

If the answer to the above is "no," what are the internal issues that have brought about a deteriorating security posture?

If the answer is "yes" then what is causing European nations to continue the delicate relationship with the United States as things stand?

[jmm99]

You don't seem to have an idea how poor...

in the future, leave out ad hominems. The sentence is perfectly made by saying: "The USA would be much poorer off without the European allies."

Now, for substance. I agree that the EU, as a monolith, could do all you say:

Two different European nations could veto everything the U.S. wants to pass in the UNSC.
....
Even such simple things like flying a C-17 to Israel would be pretty much impossible without European consent.

In short, a monolithic EU could adopt a policy of containment - a Cold War is what it used to be called.

I don't believe that will happen in the absence of extreme US provocation which directly affects the domestic interests of the EU; and I do not believe the US will do that (or would have, if Sen. McCain were elected).

You believe differently and have stated your reasoning.

Assuming that I am wrong, and the EU disowns and blackballs "Johnny", then "Johnny" will adapt and improvise. Perhaps, he will have to pull in his belt and suffer some privations - and discard some delusions of grandeur. Not necessarily a bad thing.

I am aware that Germany is a strong proponent of extended universal criminal jurisdiction - as are some other countries. For the benefit of others here, universal criminal jurisdiction began with high seas piracy. The extended version holds that, if Johnny commits a crime under international law (e.g., in Zaire), Johnny can be prosecuted in a country that has adopted the extended jurisdiction (e.g., Germany).

No question that Germany has a national right to adopt such a law - just as the US has a national right to refuse to recognize a judgment entered under that law. That collision would be decided according to the usual remedies for nations that feel offended.

This discussion could go on to no useful purpose. I believe I know where you stand; by now, you should know where I stand.

Actually, I have a very non-intrusive concept for US foreign policy; but I will not give a mm on what I believe are our Constitutional rights - which are not subordinate to I Law. That is not negotiable with you or anyone else.

[Ken White]

I believe you take too much for granted.

That, I mean...

This "being different" taken to extremes and the well-demonstrated lack of respect for others and international law could lead to an isolated USA in less than a generation. Seriously, a McCain term could have accomplished that.

In reverse order, like many from other nations (and too many from this one), you have a false sense of what a President can do. This nation operates essentially on autopilot; Presidents will jerk it a little to the left or a little to the right but they never -- never -- get it as far their way as they'd like. This one won't either. None of 'em do nearly as much as people think.

He's the 13th US President I've watched; Iraq was my fourth good sized war and I got to play in two of them, I recall the Depression and this is my sixth recession. I have also been told by numerous residents of other nations -- and a few Americans -- since 1947 that we are all evil, we do dumb stuff, we are selfish, loud, gauche and many other things. So I hope you'll forgive me if I just say I read your list, I've heard it all before, some several times -- and we're still here and people are still telling us the same thing. Just a few examples:

Two different European nations could veto everything the U.S. wants to pass in the UNSC.

That's been happening since 1946. nothing new there...

No more auxiliary troops for small or big wars.

You're kidding, right?

Difficult diplomatic situation for the USA in most Latin American almost all African, all European, many South Asian countries - closed doors on many issues.

That's been basically true with random exceptions for most of my life. Anti-Americanism may be new to you, it isn't to me.

The dislike for the costs associated with confronting each other is probably a stronger bond today than the sympathy for each other and actual benefits are.

That has always been true, anyone who tells you otherwise isn't paying attention. We contributed to Germany's defeat twice; we forced the British and French out of the Colonial business during WW II and then made them leave Suez in 1956. There is no love for us in Europe and there hasn't been in my lifetime.

U.S. Americans sometimes discuss the alliance and the UN as something almost burdensome - apparently oblivious to the benefits they get from these organizations.

Some are oblivious -- just as some Europeans appear to be.

Equally, they seem to think that international law only applies to others just because nobody invades or bombs them (well, with military bombs) in response to violations (so far).

You frequently give the impression you do not read what others write here in response to your posts. J.M.M. explained quite well the different American and European perspectives on international law and you appear to have not read it or have dismissed it. Your prerogative but it does sort of stifle discussion.

By the way; the German sovereign is the German people, yet we accept international law as standing above our laws.

We do not so accept the precepts of international law.

BTW, you didn't answer my query: Who or what body enforces international law?.

[jmm99]

France, as I recall is a Civil Law country with laws being code based rather than Judge based as is here in the US?

My questions are:

1) Is Germany, and is the EU Civil Law based?

2) Is US Environmental Law, an exception or hybrid to the Judge based system?

Yup, all Euro countries (except UK and Ireland, which are Common Law) are Civil Law (title of my comparative law text in law school), which is code-based. As to the rest of the world, whether Civil- or Common-based usually depends on former colonial status. Those nations not colonized had a choice (e.g., China and Japan, which chose code).

Neither system is inherently better than the other; and Civil Law jurisdictions are not a monolith as to I Law - and its place in the pecking order of constitutional precedence. SovCom and ChiCom law (back when I studied them in the mid-60s) were if anything stronger on the concept of their national sovereignty than the US.

OK, you're on target with Civil Law. A bit incomplete on Common Law.

English common law was largely judge-made, but there were always statutes - which had to be applied by judges. When the colonies were formed, all of the English common law and statutes were not accepted - only those that were applicable to the conditions of the New World - as determined by its People. That streak of cussed individual independence began with the Mayflower Compact - the folks at Jamestown may also have had something to do with that, as well (had to put in a little plug there).

In any event, by Independence Day, colonial law was a mix of pure common law (judge-made) and statutes (judge-applied). As time went on, the statutory component increased - something like 400k Federal statutes now (IIRC). So, in appearence, our largely statute-based law seems not that much different from code-based law. In a sense, code-based law is more judge-made because codes tend more to generalized legal statements, which then have to be interpreted by the judges - so, there is more room for "judicial legislation".

For sake of completeness, there is also Sharia law in pure or mixed form. USMA has added a Sharia Law course to its law department. I have no idea how many people take it - or any of the other law courses beyond the basic military law offering.

Hope this helps.

PS: Schmedlap - I too caught the apparent logical disconnect between German sovereignty and the supremacy of I Law. I don't want to speculate, but I suspect that the German concept of sovereignty may be different from ours (US). Fuchs may provide a German-based answer.

[Fuchs]

Maybe this is just my feeble American brain failing to grasp this, but that sentence above sounds self-contradictory. Germans do not pass international laws. But they accept them as above their own - how does that make the Germans sovereign over anything?

A specific law passed by parliament breaks (is higher ranked than) a general law passed by the same parliament, no matter whether earlier or later.

International law is being accepted by such acts like joining the U.N. (which makes the UN charter binding international law) and signing treaties. These are acts in which the sovereign accepts the international law as binding by ratifying it in the parliament.

This allows the international law to break national law while the system works perfectly logical - it's afaik being treated as the more applicable law in such cases.
Our parliament could pass a law that there's no copyright any more, but it would be ineffectual unless we leave the relevant international treaty on copyrights.
We could also issue a law that's in violation of the UN charter, but it would be irrelevant (if our president signs it at all, not sure about that).

By the way; I wrote above our law, and our constitution is afaik not called "law" - I'm not sure about whether international law is bellow, even or higher than the constitution (Grundgesetz). I believe it's in between law and constitution because acceptance of UN charter and such does not require the same large majority in parliament as does a change of the constitution (2/3).

I don't recall that the U.S. constitution explicitly allows wars of aggression, so it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the USA to obey the signed & ratified UN charter and not commit wars of aggression imho. Just imagine how worthless signature and ratification of treaties and charters are/were if every nation could de-value their commitment (without leaving the treaty) by passing a simple law!


Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars".

[Ken White]

...I don't recall that the U.S. constitution explicitly allows wars of aggression, so it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the USA to obey the signed & ratified UN charter and not commit wars of aggression imho.

are never humble and, like America as a nation, I disagree with your opinion...

Just imagine how worthless signature and ratification of treaties and charters are/were if every nation could de-value their commitment (without leaving the treaty) by passing a simple law!

You may wish to give that some thought. My impression is that all nations do that. They will act in their interest regardless of 'commitments.' See German industrial sales to nations on which the UN has placed trading stipulations...

You misunderstood J.M.M., no law was passed, the point is that in our view, no international law can trump the US Constitution which was signed and ratified long ago and precedes all so-called International Law.

Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars".

Hitler was a sovereign? I thought he was 'elected.' What International Law did Wilhelm II violate? My reading of it says he was opposed and got trapped into a war he did not want by his Ministers (the 'experts') and Franz Joseph. He was also IIRC directed westward instead of eastward by his military 'expert' Helmuth the Younger...

[Fuchs]

Industrial sales that were illegal and punished by German justice, Ken. Individual manager's actions don't equal national policy.

And there's really no need for serious replies to half-serious jokes that are meant to lighten up everyone.



I think it would be reasonable to say that International Law doesn't overrule national constitutions in said nations, but most if not all nations consider international law as superior when said nation acts outside of its territory. It really doesn't matter if one nation thinks otherwise; it's just in error then. Or would you consider it as justified and legal that Iraq invaded Kuwait because it had a different interpretation of what Kuwait is (19th province)? No, they were simply wrong.
The USA is big - and even more important: distant - enough to not have suffered much conventional consequences (like bombing/invasion), just lower level consequences (diplomacy, terrorism) due to its behaviour. It's quite naive in my opinion to assume that this would last forever, especially as there's a lot to lose even without war.

We (and I don't just mean Ken and me) disagree on a lot in this thread (and I am certainly not representative for German public opinion anyway), it was even pointless to engage in details (that's why I didn't attempt to discuss the many small disagreements).

Just keep in mind; you might be wrong and your attitude (as expressed in national policy) might lead to national disasters ahead.
Other nations believed they were exceptional and need not submit themselves to rules and could ignore other's reactions - these nations failed because no nation is big enough to sustain such an attitude for long. Said nations are smarter now, they have learned about the consequences of such behavior. They have also learned that they can have a great living with very different, less conflict-prone behavior.

[RTK]

Industrial sales that were illegal and punished by German justice, Ken. Individual manager's actions don't equal national policy.

And there's really no need for serious replies to half-serious jokes that are meant to lighten up everyone.

My questions were serious. You haven't addressed any of them yet.

[Fuchs]

My questions were serious. You haven't addressed any of them yet.

That were very poor questions that didn't really deserve an answer in my opinion.

Are you saying Europe deserves no blame in their deteriorated security in the past 10 years?

I wrote
"The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years."
There's no logical connection between both. Your question was irrelevant to what you quoted and I had no interest in following such off-topic thought.

If the answer is "yes" then what is causing European nations to continue the delicate relationship with the United States as things stand?

That was already discussed elsewhere in the thread, just scroll up.


Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

[RTK]

That were very poor questions that didn't really deserve an answer in my opinion.



I wrote
"The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years."
There's no logical connection between both. Your question was irrelevant to what you quoted and I had no interest in following such off-topic thought.




That was already discussed elsewhere in the thread, just scroll up.


Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

I've asked with respect. You haven't reciprocated the courtesy.

My question stands: instead of casting stones from a glass house, I'm asking you what Europe could have done differently as well over the past ten years to improve their own security situation, outside of blaming the United States for their problems?

[jmm99]

Fuchs' post re: Grundgesetz ("fundamental or basic law" per my Langenscheidt's), etc., presents the German side of I Law and Con Law issues, where the two systems (German and US) have very different answers to the same questions.

Basically we have:

1. Pecking order of Basic Organic Law, International Law and Legislative Acts in the nation's system of governance.

2. Incorporation and Abrogation of International Law in that system.

3. Determination and Interpretation of International Law in that system.

Those are the general points that should be understood by each side before engaging on specific issues. And engage we will, because the answers are going to be different - although, in most cases, the results will be the same or at least similar.

I took this as German joke,

Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars".

although it does represent the post-WWII German position to view its WWI and WWII history in terms of the laws of war that were developed after WWII. If that evaluatioin is incorrect, please feel free to correct.

For the time being, I'd just as soon leave this sequence on the shelf for the moment:

Hague A > WWI > Paris Pact & Hague B > WWII > War Crimes Trials > UN Charter > GCs > Gulf I > Gulf II (legal and factual basis).

Unless each step in this process is understood, intelligent discourse about the OP is not possible.

Just some thoughts on ground rules - a Grundgesetz, so to speak.

-----------------
And, as I look to posts made while I write this - comments such as this are not helpful:

Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

My purpose here is not to make international friendships (although if that happens, fine); but to witness to respective concepts of war; and, to the extent possible, destroy misconceptions of each other's positions.

So, let's keep this on an officers' level of discourse (recognizing that SNCOs by their inherent nature and talents will outdiscourse any officer).

I also had questions similar to RJK (a builder of bridges turned horse wrangler) about your comment that:

The alliance [JMM: NATO] has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years

1. How (facts) has NATO degraded Europe's security situation since 1999 ?

2. What has Europe (or individual Euro states) done to address the degradation ?

3. What should Europe (or individual Euro states) do to address the degradation ?

Left out "glass houses" because you can say that of us; and we of you - yah da, yah da .....

[Fuchs]

Well, Europe faces only two possible threat directions (as long as it chooses to stay allied with North American countries): East - CIS and South - Arabs.

Black Africa, South Asia, Latin America and East Asia are pretty much irrelevant for European security. Distant powers might annoy us or even sue military assets to block us from certain areas, but they are no threat to us.

Direction East:

The USA has used aggressive diplomatic strategies, intelligence services and the BMD issue to split Europe (BMD issue) and to alienate Russia contrary to the political intent of several (especially the larger ones) European powers.
I consider the unnecessarily contrary positions in Eastern Europe as degradation of European security simply because of the stress and the very low levels at which problems are already counted as relevant today.
The USA has a similar policy in Eastern Europe as in the Far East; it heats up conflicts in the hope of winning its power games while the really involved allied powers of the region are more intent to co-operate.


Direction South:

European countries have no significant political problems with Arab countries or populations, and besides tiny episodes like Lebanon 82 and Lampedusa (now a quarter century past) there was no relevant irritation between the Arab world and Europe since a very long time.
The U.S. involvement in the Mid East and subsequent annoying of large swaths of the Arab World created the blowback of AQ. The alliance link between Europe and the USA meant that Europe became a foe and target of violent elements, with subsequent loss of life and troubles.

The unfair brokering in the 90's and subsequent negotiations about the Palestinian/Israeli problem made the USA look like the big brother of Israel, the arch-enemy of NATO's European southern flank.
Fair brokering would have earned respect and prestige, unfair brokering meant that the ally of Europeans took the side of the arch enemy of the neighbors of Europe.
Europe with its mix of Germany (pro-Israel) and France (pro-Arabs since 1967) could have handled the issue without alienating the Arab world like this.

Problems like the Danish caricature pseudo-scandal grew on the fertile ground of the already existing tensions and perceptions of ill-will.

-----

Home-grown reasons for international tensions (whatever that would be) are irrelevant to the question whether the alliance increased or decreased European security.

[Ken White]

Just keep in mind; you might be wrong and your attitude (as expressed in national policy) might lead to national disasters ahead.

Yes, indeed. Maybe not leading to national disasters but the first part bears some thinking.

For everyone...