Bush is doing a good job of both making nice and reiterating his tough message about a proactive USA. I'm sure part of the favorable reception is due to the mild success of Iraqi elections... otherwise it would have been a "told-you-so" merry-go-round.
The problem is Bush is delaying an inevitable discussion. In his speech he states "the alliance of Europe and North America is the main pillar of our security." This is cold war thinking and is ultimately, simply not true.
Yes Europe maintains an oversized diplomatic role in the world, a remnant of a post-wwII world. But US security interests are NOT rooted in Europe any longer. Yes Europe remains an important economic partner (although Western Europe is a declining economic force), but the US committment to protect Europe is no longer necessary with the demise of the Soviet Union. And now that they don't need the protection, they have turned against their "masters" as the new threat to their interests. Indeed, many European nations have it in their agenda to oppose US hegemony.
The EU has one and half times the population and a slightly larger economy. There is no realistic threat to them that they shouldn't be able to handle on their own. It's time they man-up and take care of their own defense.
Many people think that anything that diminishes the US's military or diplomatic influence is contrary to our interests... but this isn't true, especially in Europe. Times have changed, threats have changed, and warfare has changed. NATO is an anachronism.
Good relationships are better than bad relationships, but our military ties to Europe are no longer the main event in protecting American interests. The new way is the "coalition of the willing" model rather than some decrepid alliance where one or two poor sports veto reasonable actions.
The problem is Bush is delaying an inevitable discussion. In his speech he states "the alliance of Europe and North America is the main pillar of our security." This is cold war thinking and is ultimately, simply not true.
Yes Europe maintains an oversized diplomatic role in the world, a remnant of a post-wwII world. But US security interests are NOT rooted in Europe any longer. Yes Europe remains an important economic partner (although Western Europe is a declining economic force), but the US committment to protect Europe is no longer necessary with the demise of the Soviet Union. And now that they don't need the protection, they have turned against their "masters" as the new threat to their interests. Indeed, many European nations have it in their agenda to oppose US hegemony.
The EU has one and half times the population and a slightly larger economy. There is no realistic threat to them that they shouldn't be able to handle on their own. It's time they man-up and take care of their own defense.
Many people think that anything that diminishes the US's military or diplomatic influence is contrary to our interests... but this isn't true, especially in Europe. Times have changed, threats have changed, and warfare has changed. NATO is an anachronism.
Good relationships are better than bad relationships, but our military ties to Europe are no longer the main event in protecting American interests. The new way is the "coalition of the willing" model rather than some decrepid alliance where one or two poor sports veto reasonable actions.
