Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
Yeah but they still have the U.S. to help them secure Middle East Oil that they import more than we do. They'll jump in the fray as soon as access is threatened. Hence Nato...they just won't necessarily lead the charge and take on all the risk and blowback like we have decided to do.
|
Europe has plenty of experience with risk and "blowback." More than the United States. (See 1914-18 and 1939-45.) Part of Sheehan's argument is that, over the past 60 years, Europe has experienced the benefits of ceding sovereignty to international organizations (NATO, the U.N., the World Court,etc., etc.) and prefers those benefits -- chiefly, a generous social-safety net -- to the constant drain of military expenditures and the gamble of victory in any specific conflict.
What the United States needs is leaders who can build on the (current, transitory) disenchantment with military solutions because of the Iraq fiasco to educate Americans that there are other ways to live in the world.