My blog about talking about the world as it is. No mincing of words.
USA & European perspectives
Published on February 19, 2005 By Mmrnmhrm In War on Terror
The war in Iraq brought the lingering difference between Americans and Europeans into stark relief. Europeans were against the war, for the most part and Americans were for it, for the most part. It is, ironically, a reversal of world views. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the Americans were the ones espousing the importance of international law and the need for subtle diplomacy while the Europeans who made use of raw power on the international stage.

In the late 20th century, with the Soviet Union no longer a threat, the weakness of Europe forced it to take the old American strategy while the unchallenged might of the United States made it take on a different view.

This culminated with Iraq. As Robert Kagan put it, a man armed only with a knife may come to a different decision on what to do about the bear than the man armed with a rifle. From Europe's point of view, Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, was a threat but not an intolerable one. Removing Saddam was beyond the ability of the European military powers without great sacrifice.

By contrast, the Americans made a different calculation. Saddam could be likely removed with only a couple thousand American casualties. So why should this lingering threat be allowed to continue, especially after 9/11? And events bore this out. The United States was able to march into Baghad and remove Saddam with only a few hundred combat deaths. The 2 years since had brought on several hundred more deaths due to the "insurgency". A number that is pretty unimpressive when one considers that America's drunk drivers are more effective killers than the armed guerilla's that make up Iraq's insurgency.

This essay isn't to argue that the Americans were right to go into Iraq. Only that from the American perspective, if a significant thorn in the side and lingering threat to its security can be removed so easily, then why not do it? The Europeans, by contrast, really didn't have such an option. Realistically, they had to put up with Saddam no matter what. It is far easier to rationalize his existence than to simply admit that there is nothing they could do about it.

Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Feb 19, 2005
Interesting angle on the whole thing. Especially the way you looked at the two perspectives in comparison in historical contrast. Great article.
on Feb 20, 2005
Only that from the American perspective, if a significant thorn in the side and lingering threat to its security can be removed so easily, then why not do it? Aye, there's the rub. "several hundred more deaths due to the "insurgency"  1500 is several?  
on Feb 20, 2005
Only that from the American perspective, if a significant thorn in the side and lingering threat to its security can be removed so easily, then why not do it? Aye, there's the rub. "several hundred more deaths due to the "insurgency" 1500 is several?


That is a "total" figure which includes the actual war against Saddam. Not all those can be attributted to the insurgency.
on Feb 20, 2005
The number of combat deaths in Iraq is just over 1,000 total. Around 500 for the original invasion and another 600 or so since the occupation started.
on Feb 20, 2005
Interesting way to look at this. Nice job.
on Feb 20, 2005
We also have 10,000 combat injuries and another 15,000 non combat injuries in Iraq.

The fact is that at the time Bush attacked Iraq, about half of the Americans did not support the war. Today more than half believe we made a mistake.
on Feb 20, 2005
We also have 10,000 combat injuries and another 15,000 non combat injuries in Iraq.

The fact is that at the time Bush attacked Iraq, about half of the Americans did not support the war. Today more than half believe we made a mistake.


Just barely.


Gallup Poll. Feb. 7-10, 2005. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?" Form A (N=488, MoE ± 5)
Wording, 6/03-12/03: "All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?"
Wording prior to 6/03: "All in all, do you think the current situation in Iraq is worth going to war over, or not?"



Worth Going To War Not Worth Going To War No Opinion
2/7-10/05 48 50 2
1/3-5/05 46 52 2
10/9-10/04 44 54 2
9/3-5/04 49 48 3
8/23-25/04 51 46 3
8/9-11/04 49 48 3
7/8-11/04 47 50 3


Not a very large majority is it? Link Only 2% points different.
on Feb 20, 2005
drmiler

Going to war without the support (and I do not mean by a few %) of the American people was the error we made in Vietnam.

This was an elective war aginst a country that was no real danger to the United States which misused our military and financial resources. Yes, Saddan was a bad person as are many other Dictators in this world. Removing Saddam was a good idea just not by our hand! Bush 41 understood that and is why he did take him out in 1991. Bush 43 is not that smart!
on Feb 20, 2005
er

Going to war without the support (and I do not mean by a few %) of the American people was the error we made in Vietnam.

This was an elective war aginst a country that was no real danger to the United States which misused our military and financial resources. Yes, Saddan was a bad person as are many other Dictators in this world. Removing Saddam was a good idea just not by our hand! Bush 41 understood that and is why he did take him out in 1991. Bush 43 is not that smart!


What's the matter? Didn't care for the poll I quoted?
on Feb 20, 2005
Spoken like a true civilian! Your casualty list is way off! US Dept of Defense reports that 1455 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, with over half (732) being 24 years old or younger. 10, 769 American soldiers have been wounded.

As for the "insurgency", quotation marks are unnecessary. They are real and they're fighting back hard.

Latest estimates since the Jan. 30th election are between 13,000 and 17,000 Arab Sunni Muslims loyal to the Baath Party. Of those, 5000 to 7000 are committed fighters in Iraq. They estimate 500 or so have come in from outside the country and another group of approximately 1,000 are believed to be followers of Jordanian-born Islamic terrorist Abu.Musab al-Zarqawi. (source: CNN online, Iraq section)

And as for who makes a more effective killer: drunk drivers vs armed guerillas - given that the outcome is death, I'd say they're equally effective. Ask their grieving families. Only they can truly know the answer to that question.

This war was a bad idea based on a Neo-conservative mindset that America is the de facto rulers of the planet. Two years and $200 billion dollars later, with no end in sight, should give us pause to reflect - just how thorny was Iraq? And what's Osama bin Laden up to lately.
on Feb 20, 2005
Removing Saddam was a good idea just not by our hand!

Just "who's" hand did you have in mind? Don't bother saying the UN, either.

ToughLove -

Very good article with a take on the European position that I hadn't considered. Thanks.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Feb 20, 2005
Sorry for the double post. There is a serious problem with the Back Button in SDC's browser just now.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Feb 21, 2005
Americans and mainly British were not there for the will of their people American and British military force is used by the systematic energy absorbtion desires of international capitalism wich is a bigger force than these governments. How ever the center and the forts of international capitalism mainly is in USA as well as the other parts of the world countries but let us not forget the governments here or there it makes no different by dealing with international copitalism plays a kind of popet game on the stage, audience is their people. The sceneary we see as a compution between Europe and USA that is not really true, real game behind the curtain is the one played inthe direction of the benefits of big families controlling world banks. poor Americans are being cheated by the popet games national and international wise played by their two parties Democrat and Republican. Americans and Europeans both need to turn back to national capitalism era to stop being sucled by world tycoons. But it needs a lots of gut to write about this sad truth for most of the news agencies or public press. It is like David fighting against Gloith with no slig shoot in hand. If you like to answer here is my email:yaltinok@ttnet.net.tr. American Perspective Magazine. Yuksel Sal Altinok, the head writer
on Feb 21, 2005
Insightful to Helix - nail on the head.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Feb 21, 2005
"The 2 years since had brought on several hundred more deaths due to the "insurgency". A number that is pretty unimpressive when one considers that America's drunk drivers are more effective killers than the armed guerilla's that make up Iraq's insurgency."
unimpressive? That's an interesting comment. What does that say about your definition and context of the word? In other words, what would the "insurgents" have to do and how many Americans would the "insurgents" have to kill until it fulfills your requirements to be labelled "impressive"? Personally, I like the most realistic and reality-based context for the term. Close your eyes and imagine two sides, like a bird's eye view of a huge soccer field. On one side imagine all the weapons and military might and military technology the Americans have on their side. Apache helicopters with hellfire missiles. Abrams tanks, stealth bombers, technology to uncover and/or detonate large tracts of Iraqi roads in order to defuse and/or neutralize the infamously reliable roadside bombs, or IED's. Cruise missiles, rockets, aircraft carriers, the murderous Spectre gunships, the list goes on. What's on the other side of the field? AK 47 machine guns which the US has had extensive experience against. RPG's. But nothing like American RPG's. Much less sophisticated. IED's, which, despite awesome US technology, is still the leading killer of US GI's. What else? Nothing more than the inspiration that they are fighting for their nation (as any American likely would) to expel a foreign invader (as any American likely would). What you have here is an army of elephants trying to stomp out an army of ants. And when the ants win a battle, or when the ants manage to topple and consume only one elephant, that, my friend, is what I would call "impressive". It takes a real man to face off against the most violent and effective military machine in the world's history. It doesn't take a real man to drop a payload on a village from 25,000 feet. All it is is a duckshoot. An easy one at that. Imagine if the US waged it's war on terror against a nation with strong defences and military capability. It won't happen again. Syria? 3rd world country. Iran? No more a threat than they've ever been before. North Korea? Nope. They have the means to defend. That makes them the prime candidate for American diplomacy.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last