This is an except from an The American Enterprise (current issue) article
The pattern stretches back to Korea
For evidence that obstruction of the U.S. is more important to many European elites than making progress in the worldâs most dangerous flashpoints, look no farther than Afghanistan. The Afghan war was not controversial in Old Europe. It was universally agreed that the Taliban was a blight on central Asia, and that the al-Qaeda cells incubating in Afghanistan were a menace to the entire globe. Europeans accepted the urgent necessity of rooting out both entities militarily, and then rebuilding the Afghan government and civil society.
But once U.S. forces had done the dirty work of eliminating Afghanistanâs fanatical ruling cliques, did our European allies live up to their promises to help update that nationâs infrastructure, train its police, build up its courts, revive its social sector and economy? Scandalously, no.
As weâve been pointing out for two years (see TAEâs January/February 2004 issue, SCAN), the Europeans immediately fell way behind on their financial pledges. Their troop commitments were not met. The German promise to train the Afghan police became a joke. European offers to reconstruct the justice system went nowhere. In all of these areas, America had to step into the breach to help suffering Afghans, and stave off disorder and a re-emergence of terror cells.
Truth be told, continental Europeans have been making themselves scarce during times of crisis for more than two generations. Their current claim is that lack of a U.N. mandate is what has prevented Europe from standing shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. since the 9/11 attacks. But the Old Worldâs failure to make any proportionate contribution to the war on terror is actually part of a long historical pattern. Consider their response the last time a large U.N.-commanded force went to warâin Korea.
After North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, the U.N. responded militarily. Of the 340,000 troops sent under U.N. control, how many of these do you suppose were European? About 5 percent. In the crunch, only Britain provided meaningful help, sending 14,198 soldiers at the Korean Warâs peak. The next biggest European contribution? Greece, with 1,263. France followed, providing all of 1,119 troops.
The U.S., meanwhile, provided more than 300,000 fighters. Do the math and youâll see something interesting: The Korean War alliance included 16 nations, and America supplied 88 percent of the military manpower. The Iraq War coalition included 32 nations, and 85 percent of the G.I.s were Americans. (Poland, Holland, and the Ukraine each contributed more soldiers to the Iraq War coalition than the French did to the Korean War.) See a pattern?
More at link
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/13/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
To say the truth the French (1) had already their hands full of trouble in Vietnam (2). The other factor was the strength of the Communist Party after the Resistance (3) who limited the options of the government
(1) at that time the "Atlantist party" was strong, today it has disappeared. The atlantist political formations have become strong EU proponents and, since they dream of the EU replacing America as world leader, hate it.
(2) When they returned to Vietnam, the French "Koreans" became the most combative of the French troops since they had seen communism in action. For the record, when the Vietminh anihilated the Groupemnt Mobile 101 (portrayed at the start of "We were soldiers") a company of Korea veterans managed to break the encirclement so it wasn't anihilated like the remainder of the Groupement
(3) By the end of the War, the Communist Party was getting 30% of the votes. That was due in no small part to the Nazi habit of attributting every act of sabotage to the Communists, whatever the real authors so people began to believe they were the only real resistants (also booming makes for better propaganda than passing info to the allies, other resistance movements feared endangering civilians they couldn't protect agaisnt germain repraisals) and forgot their german-friendly attitude before invasion of Soviet Union.
#2
That, and the French have never met a bloody-handed dictator whose boot they won't lick.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/13/2005 7:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The entire article should be read.
Rather than being a military discussion, or an invitation to Frog bashing, it is an appraisal of the current direction of Europe of which diplomatic and military impotence is only one dimension. Reading it became more and more depressing.
The conclusion speaks to how we need to work with our allies in Europe to help it revive. But Europe's path to becoming the next Russia is clear. Soon what we today see as dhimmitude will become Islamization as westerners die off and muslims inherit the ruins.
We should prepare to remove all our forces from Europe before they are caught up in its next round of pointless slaughter. At a certain point our forces become hostages in Europe's civil war. If the Europeans will not defend themselves, we should not delude them into believeing we will do it for them. Nor should we leave our troops in the middle on a fool's errand. We should make it clear to the UK that they face a choice, remain in the Free World or join Europe. Then leave the Europeans to lie in the bed they've made.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/13/2005 8:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
France followed, providing all of 1,119 troops.
IIRC those were mostly French Foreign Legionaires who were to a significant number former members of the Wehrmarcht.
And offer to shelter anything of cultural signifigance that can be moved.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/13/2005 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
RC, correct. Tthe time will come when the big questions are, when should we loosen green card restricitions on Europeans, and when will we start granting political asylum.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/13/2005 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mr Crawford
For obvious reasons I would be glad if you didn't use my posts for French bashing. One of the points of my posts was to highlight the error (mostly during the Clinton administrations) of encouraging the transformation of the EU from a mere free-trade zone into something political. As the centrists in Europe, not only in France, began to dream about Europe becoming the next dominat power, the logical consequence was challenging the defending champion. European far left ver hated America. Same for the far right (in case of France we have to add the gaullists, but the bruises inflicted on De Gaulle by the Roosevelt administration played a role) but America could count on the moderates. Thanks to the EU dream now the moderates hate America at least as much as the others.
#8
JFM. not all of us are French bashers. I for one regularly point out that we need France to show us 'the other (better) way'. Nuclear power and vaccines come to mind, but I am sure there are many others.
#9
JFM, no offense to you or to other Frenchmen who support the US, but when I look at the actions of the French government, I see them supporting the bloody-handed dictators over the US.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/13/2005 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#10
IIRC those were mostly French Foreign Legionaires who were to a significant number former members of the Wehrmarcht.
And to a still more significant part former members of Free France: After the campaign of Narvik part of the Foreign Legion was in the UK when France fell. Since their officers (all French) rallied Free France the privates and NCOs followed. I don't know what happenned with those Foreign Legionnaires who had been born Germans: were they interned? did they desert? or did they end at Bir Hakeim shooting at Rommel's troops?
BTW, since I mentionned the French veterans of Korea in GM101, I don't remember any mention of them being of the Foreign Legion or of the presence of people of the Foreign Legion in it. I could be wrong however
At that time the French government supported America and France was about the only nation providing state of the art weaponry to Israel. Times have changed for the worse.
I wouldn't want to interfere on your constitutional rights to French bashing. :-) Just that I don't like when it is done on a post that I had posted to put the things in perspective, still more when IMHO your bashing is unfair to the people I was talking about.
'Flood That Released America's Demons", said the Sun on Saturday. Underneath the arresting headline was a column by Jeremy Clarkson, and, after the usual good-natured knockabout - "Most Americans barely have the brains to walk on their back legs" - he turned to the desperate scenes being played out in New Orleans: "On the streets you've got some poor, starving soul helping themselves to a packet of food from a ruined, deserted supermarket. And as a result, finding themselves being blown to pieces by a helicopter gunship. With the none-too-bright soldiers urged on by their illiterate political masters, the poor and needy never stood a chance. It's easier and much more fun to shoot someone than make them a cup of tea. Especially if they're black."
I have to agree with Jeremy there. It is easier to shoot someone than make them a cup of tea. Especially if you're the US Marine Corps and you're making tea for some Brit columnist: don't forget to warm the pot. Pour the milk before the water - or is it the other way round? Who the hell can stay on top of it all? Easier to pull out the .44 Magnum and say: "Go ahead, punk, make my Earl Grey."
So, instead of Special Forces rappelling down with steaming samovars of PG Tips strapped to their backs, the helicopter gunships blew the poor needy starving blacks to pieces.
Hmm. I must have dozed off during that bit on CNN.
I'll leave it to future generations of historians to settle the precise moment at which Hurricane Katrina finally completed its transformation into a Kansas-type twister, and swept up the massed ranks of the world's press to deposit them on the wilder shores of the Land of Oz. But for a couple of weeks now they've been there frolicking and gambolling as happy Media Munchkins, singing and dancing "Ding Dong, The Bush Is Dead".
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the storm is exhausted, meteorologically and politically. Power has been restored to the whole of Mississippi (much quicker than in Euro-style big-government Quebec during the 1998 ice storm, incidentally), the Big Easy is being pumped free of water far ahead of anybody's expectations, and, as the New York Times put it: "Death Toll In New Orleans May Be Lower Than First Feared".
No truth in the rumour that early editions read "Than First Hoped".
Still, the media could never quite disguise the impression that their principal enthusiasm for this story derived from its potential as "the Bush Administration's political nemesis," as The Sunday Telegraph's Niall Ferguson put it. Predicting a back-to-the-Seventies economic slump, Prof Ferguson noted that post-Katrina "gasoline prices in some parts of the United States soared to $5 a gallon".
I wonder where. In New Hampshire this weekend, gas was back below three bucks a gallon and heading south. Undeterred, the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland got out his crystal ball - for the 2004 election: "It's safe to say that if George Bush was in his first term, he would now be heading for defeat."
C'mon, man, how lame is that? At least Gavin Macdonald, a reader in Amsterdam writing to mock "Mark Steyn's dependly nutty take", is confident enough to declare that "the Republicans' chances of winning the next election are already pretty much over".
Let me dispel Messrs Freedland and Macdonald's illusions: there will be no political consequences from Hurricane Katrina. Apart from anything else, it would seem unlikely that in the 2006 elections voters in states unafflicted by Katrina would eschew Republican incumbents and stampede to vote for the party that's given us the New Orleans Police Department, its clown mayor and Louisiana's sob-sister governor. But forget the question of jurisdictional responsibility and instead grant the critics their fraudulent argument that this is all the fault of the federal government - ie, Bush and the Republicans. Why then will it have no electoral fallout?
For the answer, let's go to Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. At a meeting in the White House last week, she had the guts to walk up to the flailing Bush and demand he immediately fire the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"Why?" asked Bush.
"Well," said Mrs Pelosi, and then paused. "For everything." Another pause. "It was so slow."
"Thank you for your advice," said the President drily. I'm often dismissed as a Bush cheerleader, though I disagree with him on immigration, education and bombing Syria. But come on, a guy doesn't have to be great to be better than Nancy Pelosi, the armchair general of armchair generalities.
These days, the Republicans are the party of small government and the party of big government, and the party of all points in between. The Democrats, meanwhile, are the party of emotive know-nothings, the go-to guys for soap-operatic sobbing and righteous histrionics. You can understand why the 24-hour cable-news networks love the Dems. Just stick a camera in front of New Orleans's Mayor Nagin: "To those who would criticise, where the hell were you?" he roared the other day. "Where the hell were you?" In a town you're not the mayor of, happily. That's how most Americans react. But the media think, wow, this is great television, he really socks it to Bush. And, if life were an especially bad daytime soap, he would. But ask Democrats for specifics and they're either as blank as Mrs Pelosi or as mired in their ancient tropes as Jesse Jackson, who demanded Bush appoint more high-ranking blacks to the hurricane relief effort. Charges of Republican "racism" rang particularly hollow in the context of New Orleans, where sodden blacks might be better advised to ponder what they have to show for being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party for four decades.
Unlike other dead horses flogged by the media - Cindy Sheehan, torture at Guantanamo, etc - this was at one point a real story: an actual hurricane, people dying, things going wrong. But that wasn't good enough, and the more they tossed in to damage Bush, the more they drowned any real controversy in the usual dreary pseudo-controversy. After watching Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu threatening to punch out the President, a reader e-mailed me Kipling: "If you can keep your head when all about you/Are losing theirs and blaming it on you."
That's all Bush had to do. The storm has passed.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/13/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
When Reuters reported the day Hurricane Katrina hit that it "could slow U.S. economic expansion," the only surprise was the admission in the headline that economy actually was - and had been - expanding. Expansion, after all, is a word that rarely shows up in newspaper headlines or TV news programs to describe today's economy, despite more than two years of solid growth.
Instead, readers and viewers have been treated to a steady diet of doom and gloom, Gloom. Doom. Fairbanks. with headlines like "An Economy on Thin Ice" or "Experts Warn Debt May Threaten Economy," and relentless coverage of gasoline prices, housing prices and job competition from China. The dirge goes on. Even when there is clearly good news, reporters seem to reflexively add a bold warning statement. Consider this recent Associated Press dispatch: "An abundance of jobs helped push consumer confidence higher this month, but the optimism could be short-lived as the pain at the gasoline pump becomes more acute." Typical.
Little wonder then, as The Washington Post reported, that Bush can't get any credit for a growing economy. WaPo invents the news, then reports it. And - news flash! - the economy is growing. Here are some of the basic facts:
- Gross domestic product: Since the beginning of April 2003, the economy has grown at a healthy clip, climbing an average of 4 percent. That's better than the average growth rate recorded during the Clinton years.
- Unemployment rate: The unemployment rate is now below 5 percent. During the past 20 years, the unemployment rate has averaged more than 5.4 percent.
- Tax revenues and the deficit: Economic growth has fueled a surge of revenues and cut sharply into the projected deficit, which is what happened in the latter years of the Clinton administration.
Of course, Katrina will have an impact on the economy, though just how much isn't known. A Congressional Budget Office report issued Wednesday says the hurricane could cost 400,000 jobs and shave off a full percentage point from GDP growth in second half of the year.
Meanwhile, gas prices could average about 40 percent higher than before the storm. But, since Americans spend on average just 3 percent of their annual budget on gasoline - less than they spend eating out or on entertainment - a spike in gasoline prices, while not meaningless, is hardly catastrophic.
There are other legitimate economic concerns. Real income hasn't budged in the past year, poverty has climbed according to the changing definition thereof and the ranks of the uninsured remain far too large bigger deductibles would allow coverage for major incidents, but the left wants free medical(not to mention the general worries created during a time of war).
But the economy always faces threats, even in the best of times. The question is why the news media is so maniacally focused on the dark lining on the big sliver economic cloud? Every silver lining has a cloud!™ Is the situation really that perilous? Or are reporters putting a negative spin on every story because good news would only help the current occupant of the White House? Whadda you think?
Unfortunately, the answer isn't clear, since reporters' biases have colored economic coverage in the past. Back in 1992, newspapers and TV stations relentlessly fussed about the terrible state of the economy. The tenor suddenly changed in early 1993. The only difference was that Bill Clinton had been given the keys to the White House - nearly two years after that recession had ended. So it is clear!
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/13/2005 08:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio
The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed
Sunday, September 11, 2005
It is settled wisdom among journalists that the federal response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina was unconscionably slow.
"Mr. Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever during a dire national emergency," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in a somewhat more strident expression of the conventional wisdom.
But the conventional wisdom is the opposite of the truth.
Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:
"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."
For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.
Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what is involved in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, telecommunications are out, no gasoline is available, bridges are damaged, roads and airports are covered with debris, and apparently have little interest in finding out.
So they libel as a "national disgrace" the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.
I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting New Orleans breached. In the course of that week:
More than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops by Coast Guard helicopters.
The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans.
Shelter, food and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000 refugees.
Journalists complain that it took a whole week to do this. A former Air Force logistics officer had some words of advice for us in the Fourth Estate on his blog, Moltenthought:
"We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering.
By Hassan Hanizadeh
On the threshold of the referendum on the newly drafted Iraqi constitution, two Iraqi minority organizations, the Salafis and the Wahhabis, have begun acting in concert to carry out propaganda activities. These two groups, which boycotted Iraqâs National Assembly and presidential elections, have issued a statement calling on the Iraqi nation to boycott the referendum. They also called for the dissolution of the Iraqi National Assembly and the removal of Ibrahim al-Jaafariâs elected cabinet.
In addition, by disseminating some rumors through Arab television networks, the Wahhabis and Salafis are trying to foment ethnic and sectarian discord in Iraq. For example, the hypocrite Salafis have begun saying that the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq is determined to transfer the Holy Shrine of Imam Hussein (AS) from Karbala to Iran. Journalists working for these Arab television networks claim they have seen a document proving the authenticity of their accusation. Although it would be practically impossible to transfer the holy tomb of Imam Hussein (AS) from Karbala to Iran, the question arises: Why are these Salafis, whose animosity toward the Household of the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him and his family) is obvious, now concerned about the Shrine of Imam Hussein (AS)? Isnât it common knowledge that the Wahhabis and Salafis do not even tolerate visits to the grave of Prophet Mohammad (S)? So, why are they suddenly so sensitive about the tomb of Imam Hussein (AS)?
On the other hand, the so-called Iraqi Muslim Ulema Association, which represents a mere 5 percent of the Iraqi nation, is trying to provoke the Iraqi nation into launching a rebellion against Iraqâs elected government by spreading some rumors. This association, which has clear connections with Salafis, Wahhabis, and Arab terrorists, helped deprive the Iraqi nation of their most basic rights for decades and now, with the new circumstances, is determined to create a political impasse in Iraq. The Baathists and the Iraqi Muslim Ulema Association, which was established by the Iraqi Baath Party and which played a significant role in destroying holy sites in Iraq, particularly during the Shia and Kurdish uprising of 1991, is now trying to turn back the clock to return Iraq to the situation during the time of the Baath regime. Although the association did not participate in the recent general elections and although they are not allowed to become involved in political issues according to Iraqi law, unfortunately, they have taken advantage of the patience of Iraqi officials and the democratic atmosphere prevailing in Iraq to hinder the democratization process in the country.
However, it is almost impossible for a minority within a minority that has established direct relations with a collapsed regime to return to power through carrying out assassinations and terrorist attacks. During their numerous meetings with the occupying forces, officials of the Iraqi Muslim Ulema Association underlined that if the United States intends to defend its interests in Iraq, it must support the association. This shows that the association has no qualms about enlisting the support of the occupying forces in order to regain power. The association is currently playing the same role that Amr al-Aas, the devious minister of Muawiyah, played in the Battle of Saffain, in which Qurans were placed on the ends of spears in order to deceive the naive Muslims to oppose Imam Ali (AS).
The Iraqi government, in line with efforts to suppress the criminal terrorists and in order to establish an appropriate climate for the referendum on the constitution and free elections, should abolish the duplicitous association and arrest and try its officials. Otherwise, the association, which advocates racism and Baathist attitudes and is supported by the occupying forces and Iraqâs neighboring Arab countries, will try to foment discord among the Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs, and Kurds to prevent Iraq from moving toward democracy. The Salafis, the terrorists, and the so-called Muslim Ulema Association are trying to take advantage of the current state of affairs in Iraq to create internal chaos in the name of Islam while actually following the Baathist ideology. Therefore, all of Iraqâs national and religious leaders should be wary about this associationâs activities.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/13/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This seems strange coming from the Tehran Times. The Iranians must be trying to limit their competition in Iraq.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/13/2005 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
