| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Euro leadership, general public differs on US presence in Iraq |
| 2005-12-09 |
| The war in Iraq is inciting and spreading Islamic extremism, making the world a more dangerous place, but the United States and its allies should not withdraw their troops until the country is more stable, European government leaders and analysts say. There is broad public opposition to the war in many parts of Europe and support for an immediate pullout, fueled in part by a belief that the presence of U.S. troops is itself creating upheaval. Public opinion against the war also is growing because of what many Europeans see as dubious U.S. tactics in the broader fight against terrorism, including the use of secret prisons and abusive interrogations, analysts said. Questions about tactics have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her trip through Europe this week. But among policymakers and politicians, there is a consensus that a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq would only make matters there worse. Such a move could hand a victory to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and plunge the country into civil war, many have said. It could also create an Iranian client state, or a theocracy run by the country's majority Shiite Muslims, or a breeding ground for Islamic extremism that could spread through the Middle East and beyond, the analysts said. "I think most Europeans are against the war in Iraq and feel that the U.S. is part of the problem now and is causing more damage by staying and should just admit it got things wrong and leave," said Daniel Keohane, a research fellow at the Center for European Reform in London. "But when you talk to leaders, it's more maintenance," he said, explaining that to leaders who feel Iraqi forces are not ready to control the country, "it makes sense for the U.S. to stay there and finish the job." In an interview last month with CNN, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin was asked whether he believed the United States should set a timetable for withdrawal. "The real timetable is the Iraqi situation," he replied. "We should avoid at all costs the chaos in Iraq, which, of course, will be disaster for the whole region." As foreign minister, Villepin helped lead international opposition to the invasion in 2003. "There is 100 percent, across-the-board support for fighting terror in Europe, but Europeans see Iraq as a distraction in the fight against terror at best, and at worst, they think it is making the fight against terror more difficult," said Gilles Andreani, a professor at the University of Paris II. "Lots of Europeans are afraid that Iraq might now become a training ground for terrorists the way Afghanistan was 20 years ago." Numerous analysts said hotel bombings that killed 60 people in Jordan on Nov. 9 and an attack on U.S. forces in Baghdad the same day by a female suicide bomber from Belgium were the most recent evidence of Iraq's evolution into a jihadist training ground. In addition, U.S. troops' use of white phosphorus in combat in Iraq has generated considerable attention in Europe, though little in the United States. Dario Valcarcel, editor of Politica Exterior (Foreign Policy) magazine in Madrid, noted that while Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq in April 2004 in the face of popular opposition to the war, it has expanded its military role in Afghanistan. "This may well have been a way of sending a message that having exited Iraq does not mean we are a country that has washed its hands of the fight against extremists or Islamic terrorists," he said. But "once you invade a country, you have to stay there until you can find a way out," Valcarcel added, referring to the United States. An abrupt withdrawal," he said, "would have an immense risk, especially in such an exceedingly flammable region, with neighbors like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The U.S. cannot blithely walk away." That seemed to be the attitude reflected in a September poll by the Sunday Express newspaper in London. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed said the Iraq war had made the world a more dangerous place, and 46 percent said the presence of British troops in Iraq was "doing more harm than good." But only 38 percent favored an immediate withdrawal of British troops, as compared with 52 percent who favored a pullout "when the situation has settled." Even left-leaning politicians and opinion shapers are conflicted about whether the United States should stay in Iraq. In a recent editorial, Spain's left-of-center newspaper El Pais said that while the U.S. presence "nurtures" the insurgency, "a withdrawal could lead to a civil war on several fronts and the eventual rupture of Iraq. The United States cannot decide how to stay or how to leave. That is the tragedy of this mistaken war." Francois Heisbourg, a defense analyst and director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, said revelations about questionable U.S. tactics -- particularly disclosures that the CIA transported terrorist suspects through European countries to secret prisons in Eastern Europe -- were making it increasingly difficult for European politicians to support U.S. military operations in Iraq and elsewhere. "If there is a dark side in the war on terror, by definition you want to keep it dark, and if you are unable to do so, then you shouldn't be doing these things," Heisbourg said. Either the United States did not inform its allies of its secret activities, he said, or it persuaded them to join in and then talked about it to the media. "It's either nastiness or incompetence, but either way it's a breach of trust." Several diplomats and analysts said Europe's attitude and approach to Iraqis were colored by World War II experiences. "After World War II, there was a feeling in Europe that things could be done through international law, but America doesn't feel that way," said Sergio Romano, a former Italian ambassador to Moscow and now a columnist for Corriere della Sera, a Milan daily. Romano cited as evidence the controversy over alleged secret prisons run by the CIA, which he said had increased opposition to U.S. military operations in Iraq. Heisbourg also said World War II had heightened Europeans' sensitivity to human rights. "They don't want to go back to the bad old days," he said, "and I must say, there is something deeply disappointing about the things that are happening with human rights in the U.S. as seen from Europe. I can't believe the manner in which the Americans have lost their bearings." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #33 Bush is responsible for what he said, not for how a person feels about what he heard. The misinterpretation is the fault of the listener not the speaker. |
| Posted by: Scott R 2005-12-09 20:19 |
| #32 Aris, Your description of what Bush *could* have meant is exactly what he *did* mean. It’s just that you and many others in Europe choose to perceive anything that comes out of the US with contempt and disdain. |
| Posted by: jn1 2005-12-09 20:15 |
| #31 or...as they sing in Manila: "Peeelings...." |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-09 19:58 |
| #30 Ofcourse Bush *could* have meant "You are either with the democratic, freedom-loving world, or you are with the terrorists." (and I'd have agreed with him in that case) but the way the sentence felt was that he portrayed *agreement towards the United States* to be the one and only criterion that defined sides. Feelings! Nothing more than.... Feeelings! |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-12-09 19:53 |
| #29 There will be one redeeming feature to Greece rejoining the Caliphate. |
| Posted by: Phetch Unong9358 2005-12-09 19:44 |
| #28 AK - A distinction without a difference. At some point the West will realize that GWB was exactly correct. I just hope that there is enough left in Europe to defend. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-12-09 19:35 |
| #27 bah... more white phosphorus, less talk. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2005-12-09 19:33 |
| #26 Would I be wasting my time if I pointed out yet again that the phrase is NOT "You're either with us or against us" but "You're either with us or with the terrorists"? [emphasis added] Barbara, I understand you see some kind of difference between the two phrases, but I can't see it. The point remains that either of these two phrases seems to label everyone who disagrees with US policy to be an enemy allied with the terrorists. Ofcourse Bush *could* have meant "You are either with the democratic, freedom-loving world, or you are with the terrorists." (and I'd have agreed with him in that case) but the way the sentence felt was that he portrayed *agreement towards the United States* to be the one and only criterion that defined sides. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-09 18:32 |
| #25 Would I be wasting my time if I pointed out yet again that the phrase is NOT "You're either with us or against us" but "You're either with us or with the terrorists"? [emphasis added] There is no neutrality possible here. Whatever else you may think of the U.S., WE are against terrorists and the evil they inflict. You cannot be neutral about that. So, you are either with us (against terrorists) or you are in fact with the terrorists. It's unfortunate that far too many people (including so-called "leaders"), both in Europe and here, think they can remain neutral by feeding the crocodile of islamic terrorism. What they forget is that even if the islamic crocodile eats them last, it will still eat them. Feet first. Slowly. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-12-09 18:08 |
| #24 "There is 100 percent, across-the-board support for fighting terror in Europe ... Yeah, sure. You betcha. Just look at France's handling of the riots. Galloway is giving them a standing ovation. ... but Europeans see Iraq as a distraction in the fight against terror at best, and at worst, they think it is making the fight against terror more difficult," said Gilles Andreani, a professor at the University of Paris II. Which is why Europe is rapidly descending into Eurabia. They do not seem to grasp the fact that the fight must be taken to the enemy on all possible fronts. Sitting back and thinking that such evil, once it rears its ugly little head, can merely be combatted at home is suicidal lunacy. Lack of intervention = Lack of will to survive. See Kate Seredy's children's book, "The Singing Tree. Great book, mom. People should also be sure to read its prequel, "The Good Master." Both are excellent children's stories. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-12-09 14:04 |
| #23 Zhang Fei was the only one that caught my satirical misstatement. But Soilder boy jumped right on it. The EU press and propaganda arm is busy as we speak distracting the prols from reality. The EU is more screwed than any place on the planet is in this whole war. The prols rabidly eat it up the propaganda. The EU defends their lack of involvement in legalistic jingoism and false concerns over human rights while they negotiate with real lawbreakers and human rights abusers. Yup, they are screwed. |
| Posted by: Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu 2005-12-09 14:03 |
| #22 Mom, "Europe is emotionally and spiritually drained, and they don't recognize why." As our own little Greek Tartuffe brilliantly illustrates. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-09 13:18 |
| #21 HT, "...is time to build the new global alliance of (classically) liberal peripheral powers (US, UK, Japan, Taiwan, Israel and India) to safeguard commerce until the continental powers can catch morally and politically or return themselves to the stone age as Africa, and perhaps Russia, seems to wish." The fascism-appeasing filth in Europe love to grovel before mass murderers and justify themselves through the most pathetic tu quoque arguments. You can see their love for terrorism and tyranny by their support for such filth even in the face of naked aggression and utter contempt for "trans-national" institutions, Saddam merely being the tip of the iceberg. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-09 13:02 |
| #20 Apologies to phil_b et al for my error in #17. Australia should be listed first among the equals with whom we should ally as they have always stood by us so well. |
| Posted by: Hupoluting Threretch5189 2005-12-09 12:58 |
| #19 Bravo to HP for the observation of a "cultural post traumatic stress disorder." (Rant) WWI was planned and fought by a bunch of fat old generals and politicians whose tactics were 40 years behine the weapons development, egged on by the Krupps and other profiteers, and blamed on the Jews by the grunts in the front. See Kate Seredy's children's book, "The Singing Tree. It was published in 1935, describes the horrors of the war on the Eastern European home front, and expresses what must have been the heart cry of many who saw Hitler's rise to power and couldn't understand why anybody would want to put their people through war. "Russko, Magyarsko, li'l German--all same!" said the Russian POWs in the story, who then went home to their family farms, where Stalin starved them to death. Europe has been saying, "Can't we all just get along" for decades. They keep thinking, thanks to Rousseau and others, that "everbyody is basically good, it's just society that corrupts them" (and what, pray tell, is society made up of? Gerbils?) and they keep wondering why people just don't exert their natural goodness. Answer: we are a fallen race, there is none righteous. Europe is emotionally and spiritually drained, and they don't recognize why. (end rant) |
| Posted by: mom 2005-12-09 12:33 |
| #18 Democrats with accents... Good one, Frank. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-12-09 12:11 |
| #17 Get any troops out of Europe, We've paid for this territory twice, I don't think we need to chance a third. We should not leave Europe. But we should stop treating NATO as if it were a group of equals. Our troops in Europe should be recognized for what they are, an army of occupation preserving the peace. And we should act a bit more like one. We should withdraw from the Balkans and let the Europeans use their own force to settle their problem, which would be fine, or fail in the attempt, which would also be fine as it would reveal them before the world for what they are. Part and parcel of this degradation of NATO should also be the degredation of the UN. It too has metastasized into something that is no longer of sufficient value to justify its existence. It is time to build the new global alliance of (classically) liberal peripheral powers (US, UK, Japan, Taiwan, Israel and India) to safeguard commerce until the continental powers can catch morally and politically or return themselves to the stone age as Africa, and perhaps Russia, seems to wish. |
| Posted by: Hupoluting Threretch5189 2005-12-09 11:20 |
| #16 so how long has NATO been dead? Get any troops out of Europe, including the Balkans. Poland and Romania will welcome our investments and bases. F*&k Euro sentiments. They aren't our intellectual, moral, ethical, political, or military superiors. Weak little anklebiting parasites. Democrats with accents.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-09 11:09 |
| #15 The war in Iraq is inciting and spreading Islamic extremism, making the world a more dangerous place, but the United States and its allies should not withdraw their troops until the country is more stable, European government leaders and analysts say. Oh yeah, like Islamic extremism wasn't spreading anyway before then. While it may have been a creeping infestation previously, it's now under full illumination. Now after all this, if Europe wants to go back to its head-in-the-sand mentality, they can go right ahead. The problem can be tackled now or later, and if they decide to go the latter route, I'd prefer that they do it on their own. (read: don't call us) |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-09 10:33 |
| #14 It has been said before: nations do not have allies, they have interests. HP is correct. Our interests currently do not coincide with the EU's. We should pursue our national interests and not be overly influenced by Euro public opinion. The EU's Arab policies will inevitably bring them into opposition to the US. This may change later if they realize that the cost of dhimmitude is too high. Until that time, we will be on our own. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-12-09 10:07 |
| #13 The realities are they are so economically tied to us they are forced to support us Sounds like 1913 thinking to me. Look at WWI or WWII. Do you see rational thought at work there? The Euros blew their wad in the 20th century. They are now suffering from a cultural PTSD. They believe nothing, they stand for nothing and they think nothing is worth dying for. That's why every life is so precious to him whose name must not be mentioned. They are fertile ground for the Islamists to sow. They are not on our side. |
| Posted by: Hupoluting Threretch5189 2005-12-09 09:28 |
| #12 Trusting an Arab is a fatal mistake in any case. Your right about the Arab leaders, never to be trusted. But I think the Euros are a different lot. The realities are they are so economically tied to us they are forced to support us, if not publicly then privately. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2005-12-09 09:07 |
| #11 49, is'nt that what we were doing with the leadership of the Arab Countries and the Palestinians. Let them say one thing in public, (and hope when they told us in private, that was for show,) that they meant what they said in private. Did'nt work to well. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2005-12-09 09:01 |
| #10 AK: It played VERY well in portraying a government arrogant enough to think that anyone who disagreed with its policies must be by definition evil. Actually, he did not say that - he said anyone who isn't with us is with the terrorists. Evil doesn't come into it. You are either for us or against us. Neutrality - i.e. allowing the terrorists to operate on your soil against us - will be regarded as an act of war. That's all there is to it. If Europeans don't like it, they can always pull out of NATO. What I don't get is why Greece hasn't signed up to a new Warsaw Pact-type treaty with Russia. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-12-09 08:56 |
| #9 The Euros have their MSM’s to deal with. The vast majorities of people there watch and believe the press; to a larger scale they follow the press as gospel, as compared to even the US. This creates real issues for their leadership. To stand up and say America was right and justified would be political suicide. They would be tossed and then true anarchists would take office. The realities of politics are: They have to publicly straddle the fence to stay in office and privately support us. If the politicos were really not in support of the US then they would have denied the CIA flights back when we needed their help, do we really think they had no knowledge of the renditions? Let’s not get too wrapped up in their speeches to the public and fence walking, let’s look at their continued support and chuckle at their claims of no knowledge when MSM’s out them for support. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2005-12-09 08:53 |
| #8 Right on Anon. Sanctions could work if the people who signed up for them followed them. As long as they don't, the UN is useless except to bide for time as Sadamn did. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2005-12-09 08:48 |
| #7 And if Europe had not subverted the sanctions on Saddam to turn a corrupt buck here and there - lots of them, in France, Germany, Russia and elsewhere - then just maybe the US wouldn't have to resort to these harsh measures to contain a situation that never should have been allowed to occur in the first place. I am past disgust with Europe and on to active disdain. |
| Posted by: anon on this one 2005-12-09 08:23 |
| #6 Public opinion against the war also is growing because of what many Europeans see as dubious U.S. tactics in the broader fight against terrorism, including the use of secret prisons and abusive interrogations, analysts said. And if some analyst didn't say that, they should have. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-12-09 08:00 |
| #5 I agree Aris. The With us/Against us statement played right into the hands of the anti-American crowd. But let us be honest about that crowd it has been there LONG before Bush threw his hat into the political ring. But I also think that many European governments understand that we cannot un-invade Iraq and restore Saddam to power. Given that reality they really have to be on the side of seeing the formation of a democratic Iraq to its conclusion. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-12-09 07:57 |
| #4 With us = the good side Against us = with the terrorists Yup. Europe had to think about that one. Unwilling to fight terrorism because that would be helping uncle Sam. Who's showing arrogance here? |
| Posted by: Fluque Sneck1987 2005-12-09 07:55 |
| #3 "vs an implication"="via an implication" |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-09 07:06 |
| #2 The prols in Europe believe what the socialist press wants to to believe. It's only those proles that support Bush who are good-thinking proles, the others are all misled by the doubleplusungood socialist press. They missed that with us or against us message I reckon. Oh, no, in my experience the anti-American press gave that "message" extra emphasis. It played VERY well in portraying a government arrogant enough to think that anyone who disagreed with its policies must be by definition evil. And its seeming appeal for "allies" vs an implication of threat was doomed to annoy. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-09 07:05 |
| #1 Typical socialist clap trap. The prols in Europe believe what the socialist press wants to to believe. They missed that with us or against us message I reckon. |
| Posted by: Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu 2005-12-09 06:36 |