Friday, April 19, 2002

Interesting way to view the differences between US and European military capabilities

“I’ll use a Microsoft analogy: If America keeps buying the latest upgrades, they aren’t designed to work with last year’s model,” he says. “The U.S. doesn’t buy equipment with a view to working with allies. If America keeps buying 6.0 and you’re trudging on with version 3.0 then, well, the two sides can’t work together.” James Mulvenon, a national security strategy at the National War College, says that for now the model appears to be set. “The U.S. provides fire power to defeat enemies while afterwards others go in and establish a civil society,” he says. But Mulvenon stresses that as the war on terrorism moves beyond Afghanistan to lands not so directly linked to al-Qaida or Sept. 11, things will get more difficult. “The jury is still out for how long Europeans will be willing to play this role, and the U.S. has to be intelligent or Europeans will rebel against us.”

So, let me get this straight. If the US contiues to improve it's military and make it better and more efficient, the Europeans and our other allies may not like it and eventually just go home in a fit of petulance?

When the war is over,” a European diplomat based in Washington complained, “we’re expected to clean up the mess with European peacekeepers and European aid packages. That is simply unacceptable.”

And when the war is over US troops will still be stationed as peace-keepers in over 100 countires and up to 8 of our 12 carrier groups will, at given moment, be patrolling and keeping peace throughout the world. Maybe we should find this "unacceptable" and rebel against the Euro- and UN-o-crats and ask if we can change places.

< email | 4/19/2002 03:33:00 PM | link