Pentagon chief condemns European “pacifism”

Antid Oto aorta at HOME.NL
Fri Feb 26 09:28:06 CET 2010


REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Pentagon chief condemns European “pacifism”
By Bill Van Auken
26 February 2010

Amid growing fears in Washington that European powers may withdraw
their troops from Afghanistan, just as the US escalates the war there,
Defense Secretary Robert Gates delivered a speech blasting Europe for
insufficient militarization and warning of a deepening crisis in the
NATO alliance.

Gates gave the speech February 23 at Washington’s National Defense
University, a training center for mid-level and senior US officers.
His audience was a forum on the reworking of the “strategic
concept”—essentially the mission statement—of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization.

The revision of the statement is being conducted by a panel led by
former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and a draft is to be
presented to a NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal in November.

Gates’ remarks came just three days after the Dutch government was
brought down over opposition to continuing the deployment of some
2,000 Dutch troops in Afghanistan. The Labor Party, one of the
government’s coalition partners, refused to support the extension of
the deployment for another year, setting the stage for their
withdrawal by the end of 2010.

There is strong popular opposition to the Afghanistan war in the
Netherlands, as there is throughout Europe. The concern within US
ruling circles is that a Dutch withdrawal could set a precedent for a
number of other NATO members pulling out their troops as well.

With the total number of US troops killed in “Operation Enduring
Freedom”, centered in Afghanistan, having topped the 1,000 mark, and
US generals predicting far bloodier months ahead, Washington is
anxious to dampen opposition to the war at home by employing more
European soldiers as cannon fodder.

Gates insisted that to achieve this aim, European powers would have to
confront underlying “cultural and political” trends.

“One of the triumphs of the last century was the pacification of
Europe after ages of ruinous warfare” he said. “But, as I’ve said
before, I believe we have reached an inflection point, where much of
the continent has gone too far in the other direction.”

Gates continued: “The demilitarization of Europe—where large swaths of
the general public and political class are averse to military force
and the risks that go with it—has gone from a blessing in the 20th
century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace
in the 21st.

“Not only can real or perceived weakness be a temptation to
miscalculation and aggression, but, on a more basic level, the
resulting funding and capability shortfalls make it difficult to
operate and fight together to confront shared threats.”

The conception that “lasting peace” in the present century can be
achieved only by confronting popular aversion to war and building up
the armed forces of the continent’s nation states will no doubt be
seen as perverse in Europe itself. European militarization in the
first half of the last century preceded two world wars and the deaths
of tens of millions.

Underlying Gates’ remarks are deepening tensions between Europe and
America that threaten to undermine the 60-year-old trans-Atlantic
alliance.

In the “post-Cold War, post-9/11 world,” Gates argued, NATO is
compelled to shift “from a static, defensive force to an expeditionary
force—from a defensive alliance to a security alliance.”

In reality, this supposed transition from defense to “expeditionary”
interventions has been driven by an explosive growth of US militarism
and the waging of two aggressive wars—in Iraq and Afghanistan—over the
course of the last decade.

Washington is attempting to pressure NATO’s European members to bear
more of the costs of America’s wars, both in terms of money and the
lives of their troops.

Gates complained that the Europeans are not pulling their weight. He
pointed out that while the Obama administration has proposed a record
military budget of over $700 billion for 2011—5 percent of US GDP—only
four of NATO’s 26 European members had budgeted more than 2 percent of
their GDP for military spending.

As a result, said Gates, NATO “faces very serious, long-term, systemic
problems.” He pointed in particular to the failure of European NATO
states to carry through on proposals to build more cargo planes and
helicopters, warning that “their absence is directly impacting
operations in Afghanistan.”

In what appeared to be a sharp rebuke of unnamed NATO members, the US
defense secretary invoked the conditions facing troops in Afghanistan
“living in austere conditions, and…facing enemy fire on a daily basis.”

“That is a stark reminder that NATO is not now, nor should it ever be,
a talk-shop or a Renaissance weekend on steroids,” he continued. “It
is a military alliance with real-world obligations that have
life-or-death consequences.”

Divisions within NATO have emerged over a host of issues. In relation
to Afghanistan, the Obama administration had requested other NATO
countries to join in its “surge” by deploying an additional 10,000
troops. Only 7,000 have been promised, and even this lower figure
reportedly includes soldiers already deployed in the country.
Moreover, some of NATO’s European members have placed restrictions on
the mission of their contingents that limit their role in combat.

The European powers have backed the US war in Afghanistan in part out
of concern that to withhold support could tear apart the NATO alliance
under conditions in which they have no structure to replace it.
Moreover, European ruling circles hope to reap some of the spoils of
the predatory war, in terms of access to the energy-rich Caspian Basin
and the pipeline routes for extracting its oil and gas reserves.

With the election of Barack Obama, European governments had hoped that
the unilateralist character of US policy would be changed and that
they would be dealt with as Washington’s partners. Despite cosmetic
and tactical shifts, however, the US continues to pursue its interests
unilaterally, demanding that Europe accept its decisions and line up
accordingly.

In ordering the escalation of the Afghanistan war and the deployment
of an additional 30,000 US troops, for example, the Obama
administration acted without any consultation with the European
states, despite the fact that the war and occupation are ostensibly
being carried out under NATO’s banner.

Sharp divisions have also emerged over NATO expansion, with Germany
and France reluctant to bring Washington’s client states in Eastern
Europe into the alliance and wary of provoking Moscow by pushing NATO
to Russia’s borders.

Der Speigel, meanwhile, reports that Germany is demanding that “the US
remove its nuclear weapons from German soil.” It has allied itself
with Norway and the Benelux countries in seeking a discussion of the
issue at a NATO conference set for April in Tallinn, Estonia.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton preceded Gates’ remarks with her
own speech on Monday, ratcheting up intra-NATO tensions and speaking
directly to Germany’s position on nuclear arms, insisting that they
should stay put.

“This dangerous world still requires deterrence and we know there’s a
debate going on in Europe and even among some of our leading member
nations about, well, what does that mean,” she said. “We would hope
that there is no precipitous move made that would undermine the
deterrence capability.”

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/gate-f26.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********



More information about the D66 mailing list