What Spain and other European countries ignore at their peril is that paying ransom to their sworn enemies is a prelude to larger, more unfortunate events.

Not only pay ransom, but also pay them a dentist

What an ignorant illiterate point of view.

When U.S. companies stop selling arms to China we might be able to take issue with the Europeans. The hypocrisy of the U.S. position is almost sickening.

When the U.S. stops indulging dictators we might also hace some room to complain.

Europe is a fateful place. Fifty years of an American defense umbrella and coddling has made Europeans 'aggressively docile' -- it's almost an oxymoron, but there it is.

Most of Europe didn't actually exist under this so-called umbrella (of course that the ignorant always ignore the significant efforts of the Western Europeans to defend themselves never shocks me).

By paying terrorists millions of dollars, the Spanish government is now a supporter of terrorism. They are now possibly complicit in every act of terrorism that the "insurgents" in Iraq commit.

The financial support of terrorism is illegal in Iraq. The Iraqis are understandably upset when their streets run with blood after a terrorist attack. If you believe that opposition to the support of terrorism is an ignorant, illiterate point of view, ampikle, you should go to Iraq and tell them that.

Don't worry about Europe selling weapons to China, because after Muslims take over, they will stop the practice.

#2

Explain.

#3 Do you think it likely that Europe could have defended itself from the Soviet army without the US? Really?

I don't follow what you try to say

After the muslims take over what? What will they take over. The USA, China?

DaneGeld.

Oh, and Gary what arms have we sent to China? Please give one solid example of a piece of military equipment we have sold to China. Finally, which dicatators are we coddling? Mubarrak? The Sauds?

As for significant efforts of the Western Europeans to defend themselves, please expound, because apparently I'm ignorant.

Come on! Don't be so simplistic! The matter deserves an in-depth analysis.

What Spain and other European countries ignore at their peril is that paying ransom to their sworn enemies is a prelude to larger, more unfortunate events.

Cicero, the continental way of doing politics in Europe consists of exactly that, paying ransoms, usually in the form of privileges, such as the 35 hour week. Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of the Second Reich conceived it in Germany during the 1880's. He developed the Welfare State in order to form and alliance with the Socialists against the Liberals (using the former meaning of that word). Mises depicted it clearly in Omnipotnent Government

Europe is a fateful place. Indeed, freedom has never prevailed here.

Fifty years of an American defense umbrella and coddling has made Europeans 'aggressively docile'

aggressively docile? What a definition of envy!

They seek post-Cold War independence from the United States

Who seeks the independence? The left wing parties, not right wing's outside the French.

Finally, which dicatators are we coddling? Mubarrak? The Sauds?

Well... yes. You can add Abbas and Abdullah to the list.

johnnymozart,

Do you think it likely that Europe could have defended itself from the Soviet army without the US? Really?

You completely misapprehend my statement; how you did so is beyond me. The idea that Western Europeans just sat around on their duffs and waited for the Cold War to end is about as ridiculous as stating that the U.S. didn't aid in Western European security. Its was a co-operative project that required the willingness, lucre and efforts of all parties.

AnotherScott,

Oh, and Gary what arms have we sent to China?

There was an article in the IHT a few weeks ago detailing how the U.S. fails to crack down on American companies who sell arms to China (note that some of these companies are as I recall subsidiaries of Chinese companies). The statutes exist, we simply fail to enforce them. As such, its slightly hypocritical for us to start slamming the Europeans for something we won't do ourselves; indeed, its a bit like standing in front of the henhouse arguing with your neighbor for giving his chickens to the fox while you let the same fox snip open the fence in the back of the henhouse and walk away with your chickens chickens.

As for significant efforts of the Western Europeans to defend themselves, please expound, because apparently I'm ignorant.

Both the U.K. and France created independent nuclear deterrants. The U.K., France and West Germany expended tremendous amounts of resources to man armies, create new military technology, field air forces, etc. Think about it, at one point France during the Cold War fielded over a million military personnel (at one point it was approximately 1.3 million as I recall). France today has approximately 61 million people and its population was smaller in the 1970s and 1980s. However, even today 1 out of 61 members of a population in the military would be a signficant percentage.***

***Note that French military reform since the mid-1990s has emphasized smaller units, more resources being applied to the development and purchase of high-tech weaponry, greater mobility, etc. Now what the hell does that remind you of?

I was thinking "Jagged Little Pill" myself, for a whole bunch of reasons.

Belmont Club has the Danegeld story down solid, with his coverage of recent abductions of Filipinos by Islamic terrorists. Wait, didn't they pay off Iraqi kidnappers, surrender, and go home to avoid that? Yup. Here's what that gets you - and how much farther the Europeans will sink before they're done.

AnotherScott: China has a licence to manufacture Hummers domestically. That's their army Jeep these days, and it's the biggest example. Under Clinton, advanced American electronics were also sold/transferred to the Chinese which made their ballistic missile guidance systems far more effective. (That, and not Monica Lewinsky, is what they should have tried to impeach him for.) At present, both the USA and Europe have bans in place that limit major military technology sales like fighters, warships, missile systems, et. al. The EU is almost certainly about to remove its ban, hence Cicero's reference.

With China making loud noises about invading Taiwan (though see Bill Roggio's excellent piece re: why that's hard ), one can hardly push for a policy of major arms sales and have it anything else but encouragement and abettment of a war of conquest against one of Asia's democracies - all in exchange for corporate deals.

"Closer and closer to an outright lie" indeed.

It is anachronistic to argue the U.S. is coddling ruthless dictators. It was certainly the policy of the U.S., during the Cold War, to tolerate brutality for the sake of peace of stability, and that policy remained largely unchanged during the Clinton Administration. However, no one can seriously argue that continues to be our policy in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even a cursory examination of the National Security Strategy and President Bush's speech at Whitehall Palace in London clearly match the reality of a more progressive U.S. foreign policy.

"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold." - President Bush at Whitehall Palace in London

In contrast, most European nations are clinging to those reactionary policies with a literal death grip. Aside from the rampant practice of aid-tying (aid-for-contracts) and devastating agricultural subsidies, Europe continues to hold the despots ruling their client states close to the vest.

The U.S. has already had to pry Charles Taylor and Saddam Hussein away from Jacques Chirac and France. The only question is who will be next? Will we have to pry Kim Jong Il away from the Schroeder or Mugabe away from Chirac? I don't think Schroeder's government is strong enough to initiate any resistance to a more progressive foreign policy in these areas. Chirac, on the other hand, is quite capable of defending the status quo.

Gary, how I did so is obvious. Nowhere do I see Cicero make the statement you imply he makes. While I can't speak for Cicero, "being under the American umbrella of defense" implies my question. Just because the Europeans were unable to defend themselves from the Soviets doesn't mean they "sat around on their duffs." But however exaggerated, there is a tendency in Europe to look to the United States to solve internal security problems. Serbia/Kosovo/Croatia is a perfect example.

Gary,

Your description of France's military prowess is terrifying. Watch out, children of West Africa!

The US has coddled many dictators. So has Europe. The difference has generally been each's preferred type of dictator. Has Europe's (and leftist America's) honeymoon with Castro, Stalin, Mugabe, and Arafat been any less catastrophic than the US's flirtation with Pinochet, Abdullah, Trujillo, and Somoza?

Arguing about who is coddling dictators is silly, as if the pot is somehow going to score a major point against the kettle. What's more relevant is how we in the West undermine our collective security.

The case could be made that Europe (and more precisely, France and its allies in the "multipolar world" movement) has repeatedly undermined American interests while paying lipservice to the transatlantic alliance (the USSR, Libya, and Iraq come immediately to mind). But I can't remember a single time the US funded the Baader-Meinhof gang, sold weapons to Algeria, or obstructed French actions in Africa (save for the Suez affair). I do, however, remember the outcry when the US announced it would withdraw a small number of troops from Germany last year.

But however exaggerated, there is a tendency in Europe to look to the United States to solve internal security problems. Serbia/Kosovo/Croatia is a perfect example.

A tendency? My godness! The war of Bosnia and Croatia is a perfect example of the European inability to tackle any threat: four years of killings ending in one month of American bombings...

... thus in Kosovo the Americans did not wait that long before solving the matter.

I think what is missing from this debate is a kind word or two from the oppressed.

The oppressed are denouncing France and Germany (evidently Spain is not important enough to gain their ire) and asking "where is Bush?". i.e. calling for some very active American Diplomacy.

In any case the Iranian people think Europe is kaput. Morally bankrupt. I think they get tthe fundamentals correct.

Pedro --

Another important distinction is why the dictator was coddled; if it was for reasons of strategic necessity (e.g. winning the cold war), or if it's just a matter of greed.

I'd assert that most American dictator-coddling falls in the "necessity" category, while most European dictator-coddling falls in the "greed" category.

I agree, Pedro (#15)

Fredrik (#18)

I'd assert that most American dictator-coddling falls in the "necessity" category, while most European dictator-coddling falls in the "greed" category.

French dictators. American foreign policy is aimed towards security, French's towards money.

Halliburton through its Cayman Island subsidiary is selling arms and services to Iran. We allow Halliburton to overcharge this country by trillions and give it noncompetitive contracts to serve the military poorly in our war on Iraq. Source: David Chu of the Defense Department.

The French learned about the non-feasibility of controlling a middle eastern country with military presence in Algeria - and Jaques Chiraq was there early in his military career. Source: PBS reshowing of the early 'Algiers' documentary.

There wouldn't be a need for ransom if we weren't in over our heads in Iraq.

Ruth,

First Algeria is not a middle east country.
Second, the French still have a great control of its economy.

#20 Ruth,

Aparently the Iranian people on the street think America is not in deep enough.

I think if Iran falls a lot of our Iraqi troubles will disappear.

So you are saying that the reason Spanish businessmen are being held for ransom in Iraq is because of America's presence in Iraq? I was under the impression that the Spanich get captured is that because they know the Spanish will pay.

Capture an American and what will you get? A world of hurt.

Ah yes, the French couldn't control Algeria, what chance do the Americans have? Since the French ruled and misruled Algeria for more than a century, it might be fairer to say the French couldn't maintain control for another century. There is also the subtle, value-laden matter of distinguishing a foreign power deposing an unpopular dictator with a foreign power fighting to maintain French settlements abroad. See Christopher Hitchens

Patrick

Correction: The Evil Halliburton™.

Lets not lose the primary point here: paying ransom to terrorists kills Iraqis dead, not to mention Americans. So while we are all on our high horses of who supported which tyrant and why, lets take a moment to appreciate the 'nuance' of sacrificing dozens of Iraqi lives to save one European.

Hmmm...

There appear to be two types of postings here today. Those who are affronted by the idea that Europe has strapped herself onto the Rack of Appeasment, and those who are affronted by those who are affronted. [I think.]

Lets try it from a different angle ~ Cicero is looking sadly upon the newest revelation of European equivocation and moral relativism, and is pining for a more determined, stoic, principled, righteous and frankly 'prickley' Continental response to hostage taking and recovery. The Europhiles here seem to think that there's nary a dint wrong in horking up payola to win the return of a political hostage. If we limit ourselves to the economic argumentum, ... sure its cheap. A million euros to lube the tube of return? Hey, it probably costs more to mount a proper negotiating team, forensic specialist group, undercover investigation force and of course one's share of 'maintaining the peace' in the Coalition. Win-win, right? No bloodshed, everyone gets to go home and have her Sunday dinner, business-as-usual.

From the other side, some of us argue though that this is just another form of Bakhshish or institutionalized bribery at play. It is antithetical to how America perceives that business should be done. I'm not saying that we are blessedly pure and free from the sins of graft and usury. Not at all. But it is still antithetical to our way of doing things. We'll engage in the practice if we must but under few other circumstances.

Yet, look at the status quo in essentially every "former colony" of Europe around the world. There are few that aren't almost entirely powered by an even mix of straight and crooked economics. Being only an "armchair economist", it is particularly clear that there must be a relationship with "third-world-ness" and institutionalized graft. Hard to say whether the egg or the chicken is first, but at the risk of soundig like Obvious-Man, it seems obvious to this old goat that removing the incentive of monentary reward via graft and ransom markedly diminishes the attraction of taking hostages to begin with, and the moral and ethilogical decay that escallates therein. Just sayin...

Appeasement takes many forms. Bakhshish is one of those, as would be releasing prisoners, or signing treaties under duress, or funding the Hamas, or selling arms to Yemen, a third party negociant. Hell, if we were simply interested in the least-cost road to unseating Ol' Saddie, we could have bought his assassination for far, far, far less than the cost of waging a foreign war in the Middle East. No doubt about it.

But its not The Marlborough Man's style. And that, frankly, still rings true among most Americans.

GoatGuy

lets take a moment to appreciate the 'nuance' of sacrificing dozens of Iraqi lives to save one European.

Well, in that spirit, we should also remember Fabrizio Quattrocchi, Italian hero.

Patrick

Sure seem to be a lot of rants lately based on, well, on hunches.

The Italians paid a million, no 5 million, wait 10 million to free their reporter.

And now Spain. Why not take a wild guess at the amount on this one??

Personally I have no idea if either release was the result of a ransom paid. Additionally I'd have serious questions about border security if one were able to easily smuggle millions in cash into Iraq at this point in the game.

Amen. Fabrizio was a true hero, of a kind Europe once produced in numbers. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Goat- I appreciate your argument, but why get bogged down with esoterics like appeasement, etc. This is a very simple case of helping killers to murder other people in exchange for sparing your own. Europeans and Europhiles might be careful condemning Saudi Madrassa funders in the future.

Davebo- Simple, the ol diplomatic pouch routine.

johnnymozart,

"being under the American umbrella of defense"

Try:

Fifty years of an American defense umbrella and coddling has made Europeans 'aggressively docile'...

Pedro,

...sold weapons to Algeria...

Its fairly well known that the U.S. under Ike pressured France to end its campaign there. Indeed, de Gaulle's rise to power in 1958 has a lot to do with that pressure, though de Gaulle would have never have admitted to it.

There are other times when the U.S. has involved itself in important aspects of French FP; for example, Kissinger torpedoed a peace proposal for Cambodia in 1973 or 1974.

...has repeatedly undermined American interests while paying lipservice to the transatlantic alliance (the USSR, Libya, and Iraq come immediately to mind).

Did any of the members of NATO ever bolt and join the Warsaw Pact? Nope. Did the Germans allow the Pershing II's to come to Germany? Yes. Did NATO countries besides the U.S. spend tremendous resources on their defense in the face of the Warsaw Pact? Yes. You act like they were in the pay of the USSR when that clearly was never the case.

Didn't all of the E.U. have an embargo against Libya?

M. Simon,

Kind of humorous how you morph two people into "the people of Iran."

Frederik Nyman,

...if it was for reasons of strategic necessity (e.g. winning the cold war), or if it's just a matter of greed.

I would argue that it would quite difficult to tell the difference.

I'd assert that most American dictator-coddling falls in the "necessity" category, while most European dictator-coddling falls in the "greed" category.

Don't just assert it, demostrate it.

Joe A.,

Second, the French still have a great control of its economy.

You'll find that Italy and the U.S. have as great a role in the Algerian economy as France does. China also has a growing role there (as it does everywhere else).

Mark Buehner,

So while we are all on our high horses of who supported which tyrant and why, lets take a moment to appreciate the 'nuance' of sacrificing dozens of Iraqi lives to save one European.

Yes, but states don't exist to protect the lives of non-citizens (unless that non-citizen falls within its jurisdiction somehow). Its perfectly valid for say Italy to favor the lives of Italian citizens or the lives of non-Italian citizens.

GoatGuy,

The Europhiles here seem to think that there's nary a dint wrong in horking up payola to win the return of a political hostage.

I took issue with some outlandishly incorrect claims. Paying ransoms is clearly stupid.

It is antithetical to how America perceives that business should be done. I'm not saying that we are blessedly pure and free from the sins of graft and usury. Not at all. But it is still antithetical to our way of doing things.

I think we pay a lot of lip-service to such values, but when the rubber meets the road, rarely live up to them. I think that puts us on par with the rest of the planet.

Yet, look at the status quo in essentially every "former colony" of Europe around the world. There are few that aren't almost entirely powered by an even mix of straight and crooked economics.

Except where Europeans dominated as a population. Or, for example, in the case of India and China, where there were old and very successful cultures to begin with.

...it seems obvious to this old goat that removing the incentive of monentary reward via graft and ransom markedly diminishes the attraction of taking hostages to begin with, and the moral and ethilogical decay that escallates therein.

True enough. And evactuating any citizen who is there also helps.

But its not The Marlborough Man's style. And that, frankly, still rings true among most Americans.

Except when Ronald Reagan was President.

"Yes, but states don't exist to protect the lives of non-citizens (unless that non-citizen falls within its jurisdiction somehow). Its perfectly valid for say Italy to favor the lives of Italian citizens or the lives of non-Italian citizens. "

It is? Then why have been been so careful with collateral damage in Iraq? How many US lives were lost in Fallujah, to pick a place, when we could have firebombed the joint and saved ourselves a lot of headache. Thats a ridiculous argument. If the US government was bribing the IRA or the Basques the Euros would be having a s*&t-fit, and justly so.

Davebo,

Well, in some instances a ransom appears to have been paid, in others none was paid.

Mark Buehner,

Then why have been been so careful with collateral damage in Iraq?

Have we been? We seem to have a serious problem telling friend from foe re: checkpoints for example (and don't jump to the silly conclusion that I believe there was some conspiracy).

How many US lives were lost in Fallujah, to pick a place, when we could have firebombed the joint and saved ourselves a lot of headache.

Wow, it would be actually helpful to read my remarks. Thus note that these were foreigners that fell under our jurisdiction; we invaded their country and therefor, its incumbent upon us to protect them. In the case of Spain it has no such duty.

Joe A:

Oops, I was speaking loosely geographically, Algeria being a little over the edge of actual middle east. Try telling the French they're in control!

M.Simon:

Why are Iranians on the street speaking to our increasing our involvement in Iraq, exactly?

The taking for ransom has been an eventuality of the collapsed economy, and much of it involves Iraqi citizens as well. There are so few sources of income, as I understand it, that hostage taking has so increased such that families are keeping children out of school in order to avoid it.

de mortuis nil nisi bonum, etc but who says fabrizio was a hero? i mean, who wrote the citation? the woman sitting next to him? the other italian involved in the screw up? for all anyone knows the guy was trying to hide behind the reporter. i'm not saying he was, but for all anyone KNOWS. since it all happened in a split second and no-one knew where the bullets were coming from, how would anyone know where to position oneself in order to block more bullets? maybe they were coming from behind, or from the side. i'm sure the dead agent was a brave man but i'm sure he hit the deck when the lead started flying like anyone else would. but to dress up the idea that he took a bullet to save the hostage - now who does that benefit? italians in general? a couple of italians in particular? not generally known for their heroism. no wonder they all seize the notion.
arrivederci. buona notte, ragazzi.

Follow the link. Fabrizio wasn't the guy in the car with the communist reporter. And his heroics were captured and broadcast on tape.

This is a very simple case of helping killers to murder other people in exchange for sparing your own. Europeans and Europhiles might be careful condemning Saudi Madrassa funders in the future.

Absolutely. Paying ransom to terrorists is another way of subsidizing -- and thus proliferating -- terrorism: kidnapping journalists, bombing hospitals and mosques, beheading humanitarian aid workers, and other glorious and courageous acts of Minutemen resistance. It is wrong, period, and just because the US (or anyone) doesn't have a spotlessly virtuous past doesn't mean we can't condemn it today and seek its end.

Ruth

The taking for ransom has been an eventuality of the collapsed economy, and much of it involves Iraqi citizens as well. There are so few sources of income, as I understand it, that hostage taking has so increased such that families are keeping children out of school in order to avoid it.

I can imagine some 24 something million Iraqi's would line up to give you the back of the hand for saying that. It insults them, and the rest therin seems to come from the moonbat Bushitler worldview.

There are iraq demostrations these days, btw, against france, against jordan, against syria.

And the recent demonstration in Iran was the largest since the revolution.

shrug

'Bama lost!

War Eagle

I can imagine some 24 something million Iraqi's would line up to give you the back of the hand for saying that. It insults them, and the rest therin seems to come from the moonbat Bushitler worldview.

Only when one of the "liberating" American soldiers is present and armed.

Carl F(#13)

It is anachronistic to argue the U.S. is coddling ruthless dictators.
_ However, no one can seriously argue that continues to be our policy in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

counterexample: Every country with stan in it.

Even a cursory examination of the National Security Strategy and President Bush's speech at Whitehall Palace in London clearly match the reality of a more progressive U.S. foreign policy.

Talk is cheap. And this has been the talk forever. Even a state like the USSR said that they wanted states were the people were free, democratic etc.

The U.S. has already had to pry Charles Taylor and Saddam Hussein away from Jacques Chirac and France.

Charles Taylor? The little support he had left was from the US.

#18

I'd assert that most American dictator-coddling falls in the "necessity" category, while most European dictator-coddling falls in the "greed" category.

We see this especially well in Middle America and the Middle East. The US never ever intervened there for greed reasons.

#22

Capture an American and what will you get? A world of hurt.

A piece of meat to learn how to slaughter goats as you don't want to hurt goats. Or you sell him to a Jordanian.

GoatGuy (#25)

And Europe is the only one which had colonies? Could name a few American ex-colonies for which this is true too

#29

Maybe we don't mind the people the hostage takers kill. Maybe the US doesn't mind that Iraq is in a mess. How else could they stay there?

#36

Every soldier is brave when they are killed in duty but that doesn't make them a hero. Being killed because you are part of a foreign army that invaded a foreign country without good reason doesn't make you a hero

Fabrizio Quattrocchi wasn't a solidier, he was a baker who came to Iraq to work security. He was supposed to cower before the camera as they took his life. All he was supposed to do was show fear as he died. All he did was resist that most basic urge.

His captors are said to have spoken fluent, unaccented Italian, probably their mother tongue.

The wolves are at the door.

Patrick

In response to #41

counterexample: Every country with stan in it.

We are not propping up dictators in any of those nations.

Talk is cheap.

Yes, but I like Bush because he has been backing up his rhetoric with the most progressive foreign aid policy in 40 years. The Millenium Challenge Account grades foreign aid applicant nations on criteria, including human rights, economic transparency, and democratic reforms. U.S. foreign aid is no longer a blind gift supporting the worst atrocitiies. Also, the African Growth and Opportunity Act has helped many sub-saharan African nations escape the crushing oppression of the EU agriculture subsidies. Some have even begun to see improvement in their own devastated agricultural industry as a result of AGOA support.

Charles Taylor? The little support he had left was from the US.

I rarely speak in such emphatic terms, but that is utter nonsense. The U.S. and the U.K. were the driving force, even at the United Nations, behind Taylor's fall despite obstruction by France. Do some research into the subject of 'conflict timber' in your spare time. France and China clung to Taylor to the very end.

We are not propping up dictators in any of those nations.

Sure.

The UK was the driving force but i serious doubt that France didn't want to see Taylor go. He started in all his neighbouring countries civil war.

he was a baker who came to Iraq to work security

security is an euphorisme for working as a soldier doing duty

security is an euphorisme for working as a soldier doing duty

euphorisme??

"a" is a euphemism for illiterate cave troll (or is it a europhism?)

Gary ... the state of Western Europe's military abilities were seen in the Balkans (once again impotent, against Mighty Serbia) where AGAIN the US had to bail them out, right on the borders of NATO.

And in Afghanistan, where NATO assistance is essentially a joke. The French had to LEASE helicopters from the Russians because they had none of their own. The French Aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle sits in Marseilles because the propellor fell off and hasn't been replaced in over a year.

While on paper Europeans had a "formidable" military, in practice it was a joke. The US and to a lesser extent, the British had the only real military in place on the West. What was not known until after the Soviet Union collapsed was how poor the Soviet military was also at this time. A rather pathetic force.

Ruth -- Algeria was a conflict that was won largely by the French Army, but cost too much diplomatically and internally with a nation weary from WWII and Vietnam and Suez. Even so the costs of settling with the Algerian Nationalists were not cheap; the OAS came close to mounting coups at several points. Also, all this happened with both the Soviets and the US limiting the freedom of action of their clients and themselves to avoid nuclear war. This bipolar Cold War limiting factor is gone now, and with it the efficacy of terrorist and guerilla actions. Nations with modern militaries are free to unleash their power as much as domestic politics allow them.

>>We are not propping up dictators in any of those nations.

Let's start with "the boiler" Karimov of Uzbekistan as Exhibit A. I've got some nice pictures of Rummy and Bush Jr. hanging with their buddy, who the USG gives millions of dollars a year to subsidize his "security services."

I can't see the point of this argument.

I am Spaniard, and I think that objectively is wrong to pay ransoms to radical Islamists. I agree with Cicero on that matter.

But I also think that this post misses the point. You will get nothing just blaming (and blaming all the Europeans). As far as I know these problems are solved identifing its causes and tackling them, not just complaining about this or that behaviour or compiting for whom supported the worst dictator.

Raymond:

Those who can be embarrassed by the truth, should be.

Rockford:

Thanks, interesting thought.

Raymond, Rockford, a:

Interestingly, there's an extensive report on USA Today called, Families' lives measure pace of progress in Iraq, which gives some insight into conditions in Iraq today. I am excerpting a few items from it here:

-The experiences of individual Iraqis can vary dramatically based on ethnicity, location and luck. Some members of the former ruling Baath Party have seen their families' status and income plummet. Some families had loved ones imprisoned or executed under Saddam, losses that cannot be made up by his ouster. There are wealthy Iraqis riding the wave of economic freedom and poor Iraqis trying to cope with rising prices and the loss of the Saddam-era safety net.
***********************************
Zahra says that her neighborhood is safe but that she doesn't feel secure walking at night and doesn't let her daughters go out. Her greatest fear is kidnappers. -

Jim Rockford:
"While on paper Europeans had a "formidable" military, in practice it was a joke."
I've heard contradictory reports about that. A British Army officer back in the mid-70's told me he rated the Bundeswehr second in NATO in terms of fighting ability, and the US Army a rather poor third.

WTO former Yugoslavia in the Croatia/Bosnia phase.
The impotence there was, above all, political paralysis, a massive reminder that in foreign policy there is NO SUCH THING as "Europe".
Germany, for various reasons, looked favourably on Slovenia and (to a lesser extent) Croatia.
But with memories of WW2 German activity in the region, nobody wanted a major German deployment there.
Italy was not on good terms with any, and has similar historic baggage in the region to the Germans.
France wanted to take Germany down a peg for it's show of independence in recognising Slovenia and Croatia, and had a tradition of good relations with the Serbs.
UK generally (wrongly IMO) viewed the whole mess as a rooted in historic ethnic hatred and Balkan barbarism, thought the Germans fools for stirring the pot in the first place, and saw no reason to risk British soldiers because the conflict was within the geographic abstraction called "the continent of Europe".

What sucked the Powers gradually in was the continual determination of the Serbs to bite off more of the pie, and the appalling methods of massacre and "ethnic cleansing" they employed.
What finally wrecked the Serbs in the Croatia/Bosnia phase, though, was the US-backed Croatian military reconstruction and the Croat/Bosnian counter-offensive in Bosnia, Krajina and the 1995, and the US air threat against larger Yugoslav/Serbian intervention.

The Kossovo phase of the conflict was disconnected, to a large extent, from the earlier parts, and saw rapid NATO reaction. Largely because Milosovic underestimated the extent to which the earlier atrocities had destroyed Serbian credbility and Western patience.

The US army was at its worse in the mid 70's. Conscription armies like the Bundeswehr are also much better than profesional armies when the soldiers feel that the objective is literally to protect their family.

The French learned about the non-feasibility of controlling a middle eastern country with military presence in Algeria - and Jaques Chiraq was there early in his military career. Source: PBS reshowing of the early 'Algiers' documentary.