ATLANTA— Barack Obama and his entourage return to Europe this week, but the headlinesare giving a picture of much greater caution in Europe about the young president than they were last summer. Last summer, Obamamania swept Europe into a frenzy during the run-up to the 2008 election. But this time around, Mr. Obama is in power and he is bringing with him policies which are increasingly at odds with Europe’s preferred method of handling things. While Europeans still adore him as a man and politician (and while they prefer him immensely to George W. Bush), they are finding his policies somewhat less likable.
In various pockets of Europe, three of Mr. Obama’s policies in particular are troubling:
-
Mr. Obama’s policies on increasing troop strength in Afghanistan. The European preference is to begin winding down that operation.
-
Mr. Obama’s policies on large government spending packages to stimulate economic growth. The Europeans have intensely resisted calls to follow the Keynesian approach to addressing the economic crisis through massive deficit spending. They (rightly) fear inflation and are troubled by the effects that increase U.S. borrowing will have on the international credit markets. They believe more rigorous market regulations, and not more spending, is needed to fix the economy.
-
Mr. Obama’s policies on the missile defense shield. This one splits Europe, but the eastern European countries that feel the greatest threat from an increasingly bellicose Russia fear that Mr. Obama is selling them short by deemphasising the defense shield. While the shield was intended as a counter to Iran, Russia’s increasingly expansive proclivities in the region have caused more to view the shield as a protection against Russian hegemony.
In my opinion, I agree Barack Obama on point 1 above, while leaning towards the European view on points 2 and 3. I believe we have a moral imperative to leave Afghanistan more stable than we found it in 2001. I also believe Europeans should feel a vested interest in reducing its ability to be a safe haven for terrorists, particularly since Europe seems much more vulnerable to radical Islam.
On the fiscal stimulus packages, unlike the United States, Europe has felt much more pain over the last century from bad management of debt and currency. Germany endured two currency collapses during the twentieth century, while several eastern European countries endured hyperinflation during the 1990′s. They understand the threat that poor management of national debt can be to a national economy. In this, I agree with them. I do not agree with the Europeans that draconian market regulations will be helpful to stimulating the economy, but that is a topic for another time.
On the missile defense shield, I think it continues to be an important part of our national defense and of the defense of Europe, particularly of Eastern European countries. Russia is becoming increasingly nationalistic and I fear that the economic crisis is stirring a radicalism that could lead them to be more confrontational. I also fear that Iran is very close to developing nuclear weapons and could very easily hold continental Europe hostage in any international dispute by aiming the missiles in their direction.
It will be interesting to read what affect Mr. Obama has on the views of his European counterparts during this visit. Will he be able to persuade them to embrace his Administration’s views on the above matters? Or will they treat him politely, but ultimately ignore his overtures?
If they ignore him, then his first major international trip may be viewed as a failure. And should his policies in each of these areas likewise show signs of failing, this could spell trouble for Mr. Obama’s credibility down the road.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
On your point number two it’s kind of funny to see the socialists actually worried about our government spending but not surprising that they want more regulation.
Your point number one is interesting I didn’t know that Europe was against the troop surge. I don’t know enough about what is right on point number three. This is so complex due to our worldview, Russia and the rise of Islam.
I feel that Islam is greatly underestimated. Everything that I have read indicates Europe is nearly lost and all but conquered by Islam. Just look at the riots over cartoons, look at Englands actions towards one of their own for having unaligned messages about Islam, and the riots in France to name a few instances.
Missile Defense Shield – Why does it make sense for us to fund what should be European supranational defense project? Please identify the conservative and Constitutional logic supporting this. If anything, I think we could work on something domestically here in the US and that might make more sense. Europe’s problems are just that – Europe’s problems.
One other point to make. That woman in that photo on top of that guy’s shoulders – she appears to be rather attractive. I mean her face is kind of scrunched up with excitement and what not, but she does look hot.
It’s American Missives new marketing tactic for their ideas. Instead of pictures of Obama who appeal to teeny boppers it’s going to be pictures of women pursuing Obama. Good move American Missive you’ll be writing your ticket to blog stardom before to long.
BMM: The defense sheild isn’t totally and completely a European defense measure. It is a US defense measure. Presidents have sold it to Europe as an aid to defend them. “Hey we’re building a big gun and would like to put it in your back yard.” The natural question is, “Why would we help you do that?” The reply is “It could help protect you.” But just because it is sold as having a dual purpose doesn’t mean the secondary purpose is the major reason for having it. The major reason is to intercept missles over some one elses yard. It is American Defense. Europe just happens to the field of battle over which America would like to station this defense.
BMM – If you haven’t already, click on that Mark Steyn article TP posted and check out the debate. There is an excellent going on right now on Denmark and national socialism. Maybe the best we’ve had on this site. It’s prevented me from writing a new blog this morning, but that’s fine. I love the discussion. I’ve learned a good deal already!
#2 – I think the defense shield arises out of our obligations under NATO, which is a military alliance we ratified long ago and that I believe the method of our ratification of that alliance was consistent with consitutional principles for such things. I’m talking off the top of my head though, so I welcome your disagreement here.
In terms of our national security, Europe is a major trading partner. I think we have a vested interest in protecting it from destruction via nuclear missiles from Iran or from watching it fall under the sway of Russian hegemony. I think our shields in Europe and in the pacific make a lot of sense. They protect our biggest trading partners against what I believe are very real threats.
Alright, BMM, here’s a good one I read for why we need a missile defense shield. Newt wrote it. If you don’t like the source, oh well. But you should think twice before disregarding the facts he offers. I for one believe you either appear strong or weak in international affairs. My impressions are Obama appears weak, with all his niceties. We will see if that is good for our national security- or if it is just a retread of the type of niceties that led to Jimmy Carter to be humiliated in the Iranian hostage crisis.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/grigrich_emp_weapon/2009/03/29/197257.html
#5, #6, and #7 – Well, first off – I would not argue against a missile defense shield per se. I argue against it being stationed in Europe. If for no other reason that they gain benefit from our efforts (and tax dollars), many berating it at every turn as American imperialism, and quite frankly why should we feel the need to protect Europe. As I said before, Europe’s problems are just that… Europe’s problems. I am all for a domestically maintained missile shield because anything we do in Europe is always subject to repatriation and ultimately our national security is at risk for no other reason than that. So to put it quite frankly, I would say we could quite easily be bent over the proverbial barrel if allegiances change (which does happen in politics).
#6 – NATO – Well it is a treaty. One could question the Constitutionality of such treaty as it pledges our military to protect other nations that are threatened as part of the treaty. That is not something which is specifically enumerated in our Constitution and in many ways go against our Constitution in that it obligates our military forces to defend another nation. This goes against national self interest as a sovereign nation in my opinion – especially for us when the primary logical threats to us would be terrorist cells in our own country and can be addressed through covert military and intelligence operations internationally. The US military is quite capable of handling any threats that would be brought to bear on our soil and I am all for a shield that is here domestically and used expressly for our purposes unless Europe wants to chip in.
#6 (Trading Partners) – Sounds like a subsidization of industry to me to want to protect your trading partners. Where is your bright line here? Is our military now also an expeditionary force to protect American businesses and trading partners worldwide? Individuals doing business abroad should understand the risk of the markets they are operating in. That includes all risks – repatriation by foreign countries, insurgencies, and the lot.
#7 – I think the co-author (apparently writes science fiction) had more of an impact on this article than Newt. With that aside, I am perfectly willing to accept arguments for a missile defense shield maintained here domestically. If anything, I think we could sell off protection to Europe and turn a profit on it. Granted, I don’t think the Constitution says the government should be involved in big business.
Good article on Constitution and treaties is found below:
http://www.haciendapub.com/article4.html
I agree with him on the UN. Would be interested to hear Freedom Thinker’s views on the Constitutionality of a missile defense system with protection for Europe. Read what he alluded to in the Denmark discussion and I think we are close to the same page. Europe benefits from our military might and doesn’t foot any of the bill. NATO is a useless organization. If you look at the operations in Iraq, I think it is rather clear that many of the member countries are absent. Granted, the viability of that war for national self-defense is marginal at best. Oversold at the beginning, exposed as a fraud thereafter and now we have to make it safe to be good for our national security.
I would not argue against a missile defense shield per se. I argue against it being stationed in Europe. If for no other reason that they gain benefit from our efforts
I’m of the firm belief that this entire defense is based upon the defense of America and sold as a possible means of defending Europe in addition, and secondary to the defense of America, so long as European and American interests are aligned. I could see where one would question the thinking of such a shield based in Europe if one assumed Europe would not always be ‘friendly’ to America (ie: suddenly Europe sides with Russia or Iran or some other highly anti-American organization and seeks to destroy and undermine America, very doubtful, or at least extremely long term).
I remember discussing with Boeing and other corporations the mathematical and physical questions at the root of missile interceptors. This was, for me, nearly nine years ago. Many at the time didn’t think this was physically possible, but the truth is, this is very possible. The heart of the matter is having the best possible vantage point to station, and hence Europe enters the equation.
I, for one, and in the premise of defense of the home, would not exclude a neighborhood watch simply because my efforts to guard my house benefit others in my neighborhood of like minded concerns. I still maintain a strong home defense, but encourage and aim to build a larger defense which prevents, or impedes the aggressors assault on my home. But it is at this point where I might differ from others. I have grave concerns over pre-emptive action.
[...] Categories: Uncategorized Tags: Europe, military strategy, missle defense At the request of others I’m writing this article. There are some important questions that come out of the debate [...]
This is very hot information. I think I’ll share it on Digg.