Are Europeans not agressive enought in foreign politics?
February 2, 2013 at 10:19 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2013 at 10:23 am by Something completely different.)
Last week, French troops liberated the town of Timbuktu which was invaded and taken control of by salafist extremists a few months before.
Today as the French president visited the town he was hailed by the population as it`s savior.
Now I personaly think, that this is how more European nations should engage in foreign releationships with extremist countries. It seems that today only the UK, France and the Netherlands have the will to engage in military operations abroad and most of the time they do this to ensure stability in their former colonies.
Although alot of people seem to have a negative view on american foreign policie when it comes to military intervention, I do have a positive opinion on it.
Clintons intervention in Serbia for example, prohibited the ethnical cleansing of Kosovo, whilest Europe would have simply watched just like they had done in Bosnia 8 years before, where also the Clinton administration had intervened. US troops stationed in Djibuti and Guinea have prevented Islamists from terrorising the region.
I oftern have the feeling that especialy the European left tends to critizise the US for it`s military interventions abroad but is itself incapable to do anything when things happen in it`s neighbourhood and then oftern calls on the US to intervene.
To be fair, the Dutch have a big contingent of their very modern navy stationed in northeast Africa to fight pirates and islamists in Somalia and to hunt down militias which wage war in the region arround Etheopia - Kenia South Sudan and Congo.
The French have an enormous presents of troops in Africa and have intervened several times aswell as they are constantly training and equipting the armies of nations such as Congo, Niger, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Mauretania and Mali.
Jet nations such as Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany which all have well trained and modern armies refuse to take part in interventions.
Spain pulled out of the war in Afghanistan after the Madrid bombings, Germany may be in Afghanistan but in context with other conflicts only gives military aid and training. Poland however has been supporting and sending troops to every single conflict in which the US was involved, has built up a very modern and big army with the help of the US and is trying to profile itself as the US`s best ally on the continent.
I think my point is, that European nations should be more aggressive in foreign policy when confronted with extremists and tyrants.
For years it has mainly participated in dealing with such nations in diplomacy and mostly without any effect. To then almoust always rely on the US when military intervention is needed.
I think one of the reasons why the US budget spends so much on military spending is that it is one of the few democracies which is willing to defend democratic interests arround the globe and has to do so mostly on it`s own because other democratic nations arent willing to engage.
Today as the French president visited the town he was hailed by the population as it`s savior.
Now I personaly think, that this is how more European nations should engage in foreign releationships with extremist countries. It seems that today only the UK, France and the Netherlands have the will to engage in military operations abroad and most of the time they do this to ensure stability in their former colonies.
Although alot of people seem to have a negative view on american foreign policie when it comes to military intervention, I do have a positive opinion on it.
Clintons intervention in Serbia for example, prohibited the ethnical cleansing of Kosovo, whilest Europe would have simply watched just like they had done in Bosnia 8 years before, where also the Clinton administration had intervened. US troops stationed in Djibuti and Guinea have prevented Islamists from terrorising the region.
I oftern have the feeling that especialy the European left tends to critizise the US for it`s military interventions abroad but is itself incapable to do anything when things happen in it`s neighbourhood and then oftern calls on the US to intervene.
To be fair, the Dutch have a big contingent of their very modern navy stationed in northeast Africa to fight pirates and islamists in Somalia and to hunt down militias which wage war in the region arround Etheopia - Kenia South Sudan and Congo.
The French have an enormous presents of troops in Africa and have intervened several times aswell as they are constantly training and equipting the armies of nations such as Congo, Niger, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Mauretania and Mali.
Jet nations such as Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany which all have well trained and modern armies refuse to take part in interventions.
Spain pulled out of the war in Afghanistan after the Madrid bombings, Germany may be in Afghanistan but in context with other conflicts only gives military aid and training. Poland however has been supporting and sending troops to every single conflict in which the US was involved, has built up a very modern and big army with the help of the US and is trying to profile itself as the US`s best ally on the continent.
I think my point is, that European nations should be more aggressive in foreign policy when confronted with extremists and tyrants.
For years it has mainly participated in dealing with such nations in diplomacy and mostly without any effect. To then almoust always rely on the US when military intervention is needed.
I think one of the reasons why the US budget spends so much on military spending is that it is one of the few democracies which is willing to defend democratic interests arround the globe and has to do so mostly on it`s own because other democratic nations arent willing to engage.
