The Blue Voice

«Home | Next: Dobson's World: Christians vs. Muslims»

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

The US and Europe and the neoconservative vision

It's a good thing for our military - and a sad commentary on the state of civic discourse in American (if what typically goes out from Republican hate radio and FOX News can be called "civic discourse" at all) - that the foreign policy and military issues facing the United States are much more thoroughly discussed in military publications than in typical discussions on cable TV or even the best American newspapers. Military journals and papers are often much more blunt in their descriptions and less conformist to the existing Republican Party Correct Line.

It's one reason I'm not surprised to hear some of the current ex-generals' criticisms of Rummy. It's not like the military services themselves have been totally clueless about what's been happening these last few years - unlike the fantasists who imagine what they see on FOX is a "fair and balanced" representation of the real world.

This is one of many examples: The Atlantic Crises: Britain, Europe and Parting from the United States (2005) by William Hopkinson (Naval War College Newport Papers). Virtually every word in the following paragraph would be counted as heresy by good Republicans today, also as heretical as suggesting that Republican Presidents should be required to obey the law:

Thinking independently is not a hostile act. To engage and debate is not to be anti-American; indeed endeavoring to maintain a relationship that reflects the necessities and factors of half a century ago is far more likely to lead to tension in the longer term. As many American commentators have recognized, the only entity of any comparable weight to the United States in this century is likely to be the European Union. Since the United States, for understandable if not supportable reasons, will not take the lead in reforming the transatlantic relationships, the Europeans must. (my emphasis)

Hopkinson's description of the recent state of US-European relations, and the practical calculations that go into them, could only be regarded by loyal Bush fans as cause for rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth.

He writes:

Cooperation [by European democracies] with the U.S. military is in principle highly desirable, but that depends in equal measure on whether the Americans desire and accept it, and make the necessary adjustments in their own policies and doctrines. All that is not very likely in the near future.

If the Europeans fail to sort out their political and military capabilities, the transatlantic relationships will indeed be made anew, but in a way in which Europe will have less influence on U.S. policies, not more. That is, countries of equal wealth, at least equal cultural and social development, and with a greater population [Europe] will be subject to a global hegemon [the United States], just as the countries of Asia or the Middle East are, and as those of Africa would be if the United States could be bothered with them. NATO, despite the fine words, was never really a balanced partnership, but the present prospect would be much less balanced, and without the underlying necessity for the United States to manage the security of Europeans because of their weakness. Without countervailing balancers the United States will shape the international system in its own preferred form, which will reflect its own interests or perhaps the perceived interests of certain elements of the body politic. It goes without saying that that form would be greatly preferable to that which (say) the Soviet Union might have sought, or even that which (say) China might seek in the future. It does not follow by any means that it would be optimal, even for the United States in the long term. It is time for Europeans to act effectively in the international system, collectively and as individual national players, in a manner consistent with their wealth and level of development—in short, in accordance with their importance. (my emphasis)

The standard political jargon has become so nationalistic that virtually no American politician would say something like this.

He even manages to touch on one of the darker point in the neoconservative worldview. Prior to the declaration of the War on Terror, the neocons had been pushing for a more confrontational posture toward China. Their basic strategic perspective is that the United Statets needs to maintain such global military superiority that no power or combination of powers can successfully challenge American dominance. That strategy would essentially dooms the US for the indefinite future to continue the current situation, where the US spends more on the military than all the rest of the world combined.

But the power with the greatest potential to challenge the US politically and militarily in this century is not China; it's the European Union. And Hopkinson makes the point in the first excerpt quoted above that "the only entity of any comparable weight to the United States in this century is likely to be the European Union". He doesn't connect that explicitly to what that might mean in the neocon nightmare vision for the future. But their strategic perspective inevitably leads them to regard the power of the EU as potential hostile to American interests.

posted at 12:59:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |