Should we Americans care what the world thinks of us?

[ilw]

Given that this turnabout in international opinion is universally considered to have coincided with the advent of the Bush administration,

not sure how much of a turnabout there has been around the world, europe yes, but the rest?
Maybe the change in opinion had always been on the cards since the end of the cold war. maybe that marked a shift in the way europeans saw america, from vital ally to competitor. Maybe people thought that a post cold-war america should act differently to before. Or maybe Mr Bush is a knob-jockey.

[bornwithnoname]

I like the quarantine option. We pull back all our citizens from everywhere. Then we expel everyone from our country who is not a citizen. Then everybody will happy. I know I will.

[j2k4]

Given that this turnabout in international opinion is universally considered to have coincided with the advent of the Bush administration,

not sure how much of a turnabout there has been around the world, europe yes, but the rest?
Maybe the change in opinion had always been on the cards since the end of the cold war. maybe that marked a shift in the way europeans saw america, from vital ally to competitor. Maybe people thought that a post cold-war america should act differently to before. Or maybe Mr Bush is a knob-jockey.

The end of the Cold War certainly did mark a change in the relationship between western Europe and the U.S., though we are still relatively well-thought-of in the former Eastern Bloc countries, who have an abiding affinity for the Brits as well, owing to the efforts of your Mrs. Thatcher in aid of vanquishing the Soviets.

The fact of NATO's survival (and growth) considering the defunct status of the Warsaw Pact continues however to nettle Mr. Putin, whose recent attitudes seem to run counter to those he exhibited earlier in the Bush administration.

It is apparent he feels threatened by the continued existence of NATO, and certainly resents the dissolution of the old USSR.

There is also an undeniable western European resentment of US presence/hegemony, but I wonder what the reaction would be to a unilateral decision to withdraw US resources from Europe, et.al., with a commensurate need for the current host countries (who are in quite a budget bind over their overweening and ever-expanding social programs already) to expand their defensive capabilities to compensate, or do you consider any expansionist mind-set to have been forever banished from your neighboring cultures?

Also, if you had to mind your own defense (with the attendant regional responsibilities) from A to Z, do you think you might find a few things on your new plate a bit less palatable?

Do you think any of this would change your view of the US's difficulty in sorting the situation?

[ilw]

it kinda cuts both ways, the US has on numerous applied pressure to prevent the EU forming a military force. I presume NATO must offer you sufficient benefit in terms of bargaining power that you feel it worthwhile.

An EU defence force is hard to implement for a number of reasons, but i don't think cash is really the main one, obviously we wouldn't spend as much as you guys do, but then i think your level of defence spending is fecking crazy. You spend roughly as much as the rest of the planet and a large chunk of that is wasted.

As for the current geopolitical situation in terms of threats and things that the EU defence force might have to deal with, I reckon theres not a great deal of threat at the moment, and its hard to tell what will happen long term. There is the possibility of various wars breaking out in europe, but its unlikely to involve invasion of an EU nation (except pos cyprus) so i assume that would be more an issue for an UN task force (if intervention were required).
Russia isn't currently threatening and i don't think Putin has any desire to invade former USSR nations (although i think Russia will attempt to put some under its sway).

[j2k4]

it kinda cuts both ways, the US has on numerous applied pressure to prevent the EU forming a military force. I presume NATO must offer you sufficient benefit in terms of bargaining power that you feel it worthwhile.

You make my point; the US "pressure" is applied for any number of reasons, not least of which is the undeniable difficulty in assembling a coherent force from the disparate entities of the EU - this is apparent to us, if not to you.

While variety may the spice of life, it also makes for dis-unity where the rubber meets the road, and while the US can occasionally exhibit schizophrenic behaviors as re: it's defense, it is rarely of more than two or three minds, whereas you-all start with a minimum of perhaps seven or eight.

Your ordinance would corrode while the generals were deciding whether or not to strategize.

An EU defence force is hard to implement for a number of reasons,

See above.

but i don't think cash is really the main one, obviously we wouldn't spend as much as you guys do,

Obviously?

How can you know that?

but then i think your level of defence spending is fecking crazy. You spend roughly as much as the rest of the planet and a large chunk of that is wasted.

It certainly is inordinate, but how can you deduce that cumulative spending by the EU wouldn't equal or (more likely) even outstrip that of the US?

How do you think the array of abilities/talents/ideas/inclinations/ideals/ideologies the EU would bring to bear on the question of defense could be anything but extremely wasteful and duplicative?

Has there been a rebirth of the attitude of intracontinental cooperation for which the EU is so historically famous?

As for the current geopolitical situation in terms of threats and things that the EU defence force might have to deal with, I reckon theres not a great deal of threat at the moment, and its hard to tell what will happen long term.

Terrorists are largely immune from geopolitical considerations, but apart from that, your acknowledgment of the possibility of future concerns should be sufficient to negate a dismissal of current ones.

There is the possibility of various wars breaking out in europe, but its unlikely to involve invasion of an EU nation (except pos cyprus) so i assume that would be more an issue for an UN task force (if intervention were required).

A UN task force?

Shirley you jest.

Hitler was a tin-pot until he wasn't one anymore, and he would have laughed at the UN.

Give "sanctions" time to work, and he'd already be marching.

To quote a previous poster, History teaches a lot...

Russia isn't currently threatening and i don't think Putin has any desire to invade former USSR nations (although i think Russia will attempt to put some under its sway).

And if Putin achieves the latter without resorting to the former, at least he hasn't invaded?

Sounds downright Chamberlainesque, if you ask me.

The Soviets were famous for working from the inside out, via the expedient of insurgency; they didn't have to actually do a whole lot of invading in their heyday.

History.

[ilw]

can't be arsed to respond to it all so i'll just say: yes its a problem getting countries to work together, NATO has the same problem. A suggestion has been floated that a european defence force from just the biggest several nations could be formed which could help ease these issues.

I can't be certain that we wouldn't spend as much as you, but lets face it you spend as much on 'defence' as the rest of the planet put together. We are spectacularly unlikely to do the same unless russia really does invade...

fighting terrorists with the military doesn't really work. It might be interesting to wonder what the EU would've done if 9/11 happened here, but i doubt it would've involved invading afghanistan and iraq.

perhaps sway is too strong a word, maybe influence would've been better. And in a post-cold war society is there much difference between a european nation being influenced by Russia and one being influenced by America? You're both competitors to EU influence... Russia has the bigger potential to be a destabilising force on our borders and the decline of democracy is a seriously bad indicator, but Russia could also be an excellent ally and fundamentally we're not enemies anymore.

[j2k4]

can't be arsed to respond to it all so i'll just say: yes its a problem getting countries to work together, NATO has the same problem. A suggestion has been floated that a european defence force from just the biggest several nations could be formed which could help ease these issues.

Can't be arsed?

For shame, Ian.

Here's a question:

Say we dissolve NATO, if for no reason other than to subtract the US from the equation, which should formally relieve us of any obligation to backstop the EU or any of it's various parts in any circumstance.

What then?

I can't be certain that we wouldn't spend as much as you, but lets face it you spend as much on 'defence' as the rest of the planet put together. We are spectacularly unlikely to do the same unless russia really does invade...

"Spectacularly unlikely"?

Russia is not about to invade any country that can 1) fight back effectively, or 2) has nukes.

However:

Such preparedness as the US has practiced since WWII has been on the order of covering any and every potentiality.

You and your cohort could/should anticipate having to do the same, with the attendant expense.

BTW-

Waiting to 'overspend' on defense until the invasion has begun is not much of a strategy; in fact, spending anything at all might prove impossible at that juncture.

fighting terrorists with the military doesn't really work. It might be interesting to wonder what the EU would've done if 9/11 happened here, but i doubt it would've involved invading afghanistan and iraq.

Well, then.

What does work against terrorists?

I submit that networked international intelligence backed-up by a flexible military response capability is the only method available for dealing with terrorists.

Or would you prefer a mercenary force of some sort?

Please consider the likelihood of such a force answering to your beloved UN and Geneva accords.

Don't really know what else you'd consider...

perhaps sway is too strong a word, maybe influence would've been better. And in a post-cold war society is there much difference between a european nation being influenced by Russia and one being influenced by America? You're both competitors to EU influence... Russia has the bigger potential to be a destabilising force on our borders and the decline of democracy is a seriously bad indicator, but Russia could also be an excellent ally and fundamentally we're not enemies anymore.

Have you considered that Russia's original expansionist tendencies may not necessarily have been born of or attributable to Communism.

I'm sure they still believe themselves ultimately to be the 800 lb. gorilla in your neighborhood.

[kalypso]

This country is in the state it's in because we've cared too much about how the rest of the world views us. Our government needs to sweep around it's own front door before it assaults other countries that are not our concern. I'm all for keeping our enemies at bay, but at what cost I ask you?

[invadercat]

nobody ever cares about anybody other than themselves. its simple as that

[eram]

simple answer : YES