You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
Europe Pathetically Caves In to Islamist Threat
2006-09-22
By Gerard Baker

Late last year, at the invitation of Nato, and in the company of a small band of globetrotting pundits, I travelled to Afghanistan to witness first-hand the allied operation to reconstruct the benighted country.

After a day of briefings in Kabul, our friendly Nato hosts flew us by military transport to Herat, on the western border with Iran. We were due to spend a day touring a Nato post in the city and then fly back that evening to the capital. But the Danish plane that had taken us developed propeller problems and was grounded. As we cooled our heels outside the airfield , we waited for word of the aircraft that was supposed to come for us: a German C-130.

It soon became clear that the replacement plane was not coming. The reason, it turned out, was that the Germans would not fly in the dark. German aircraft are not permitted by their national rules to undertake night flights.

Now to those who survived the Blitz and Barbarossa, the news that todayÂ’s Luftwaffe will not fly at night in potentially hostile environments might be regarded as a welcome historical development. But when you are trying to fight a war against a ruthless band of terrorists who operate 24/7, never pausing to consider the dangers of venturing out in the dark, limiting yourself to daytime operations is a little constraining.

The Germans are not alone. Many of the European nations with forces in Afghanistan are operating under similarly ludicrous restrictions. Though their soldiers and airmen are highly capable and indeed eager to take the fight to the Taleban, their governments are desperately fearful of the public reaction should their soldiers suffer significant casualties. They donÂ’t think that their voters will stomach it. And the tragedy is, they are probably right.

I was reminded of my unscheduled night in Herat, and what it said about EuropeÂ’s dwindling commitment to its own survival, by a series of disheartening developments in the past week on the political and diplomatic front.

Last week we had the tragicomic spectacle of European Nato countries lining up to decline politely the request to beef up their forces in Afghanistan, many of whom are now fighting in perilously under-resourced conditions against a resurgent enemy.

Then on Monday Jacques Chirac went to New York to upend the long, delicate diplomacy designed to deny Iran nuclear weapons. He said France no longer thought the UN should impose sanctions if Iran did not end its uranium enrichment programme.

Various explanations were offered by commentators for this volte-face — from the thought that France might be fearful of the economic consequences of sanctions, to the possibility that M Chirac was trying to curry favour with sanctions-opposing Russia and China, to the suggestion that Paris worries that its new peacekeeping force in Lebanon might come under fire from Hezbollah if France acted tough with its Iranian sponsors.

Whatever the proximate cause of this latest French surrender, the basic reality is that Europeans have been extremely reluctant to press Iran with sanctions all along — the same noises are coming out of Berlin now — and are content instead to acquiesce in the nightmare of a nuclear-armed Tehran.

Then, of course, we have had the predictable European outrage following the latest apparent provocation of Islamic extremists by free speech in the West — Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks last week on Islam.

I actually heard a senior member of the British Government chide the Pope this week for what he described as his unhelpful comments. This minister went on to say that the Pope should keep quiet about Islamic violence because of the Crusades.

It was a jaw-dropping observation. If it was meant seriously its import is that, because of violence perpetrated in the name of Christ 900 years ago, todayÂ’s Church, and presumably todayÂ’s European governments (who, after all, were eager participants in the Crusades) should forever hold their peace on the subject of religious fanaticism. In this view the ChurchÂ’s repeated apologies for the sins committed in its name apparently are not enough. The Pope has no right, even in a lengthy disquisition on the complexities of faith and reason, to say anything about the religious role in Islamic terrorism.

It is apt that Pope Benedict should have received such European opprobrium for his remarks. His election last year looked like a final attempt by the Church to revive the European spirit in the face of accelerating secularisation and cultural morbidity.

But the scale of EuropeÂ’s moral crisis is larger than ever. Opposing the war in Iraq was one thing, defensible in the light of events. But opting out of a serious fight against the Taleban, sabotaging efforts to get Iran off its path towards nuclear status, pre-emptively cringing to Muslim intolerance of free speech and criticism, all suggest something quite different.

They imply a slow but insistent collapse of the European will, the steady attrition of the self-preservation instinct. Its effects can be seen not only in the political field, but in other ways — the startling decline of birth rates across the continent that represent a sort of self-inflicted genocide; the refusal to confront the harsh realities of a global economy.

It may well be that history will judge that EuropeÂ’s decline came at the very moment of its apparent triumph. The traumas of the first half of the 20th century have combined with the economic successes of the second half to induce a collective loss of will. Great civilisations die not in the end because of external force majeure but because internally the will to thrive is sapped.

The symptoms of this moral collapse may be far away from the affluent and still largely peaceful cities and towns of the old continent — in the mountains of Afghanistan, the diplomatic reception halls of Tehran and the angry Pope-effigy-burning streets of the Middle East. But there should be no doubt that it is closer to home where the disease has taken hold.
Posted by:ryuge

#8  Would they join up? And on whose side?

Neither, they'd head for Mexico and slaughter Aztecs.
Posted by: 6   2006-09-22 18:44  

#7  ...todayÂ’s European governments (who, after all, were eager participants in the Crusades)...

Hmmm, apparently the time machine has been perfected. Why wasn't I informed?

Anyone see the movie Final Countdown? Do you remember the F-14s vs. Zeros scene? Wasn't that cool? What would happen if a modern European warship was transported to the time of the Crusades? Would they join up? And on whose side?
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2006-09-22 18:39  

#6  SOP35/Rat, I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I have to remind myself what planet I'm on. I've been thinking that the reason we are eager about the future is that we love life and crave the everyday enjoyment of being alive. Possibly, Europeans are no longer pleased with their lives and they are in decline simply because they have lost their will to face tomorrow. They have no more joy, no more pride, no more mountains to climb.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-09-22 12:57  

#5  It is, indeed, a pathetic spectacle to watch. Hopefully, the US will observe the unfolding catastrophe in time to prevent the same here. Once Iran has a weapon and a dependable missile, I have no doubt they will order the EU to surrender all nukes. Then, they will demand complete submission to sharia over the entire continent. When you look back in a historical perspective these types of events are difficult to fathom. When you are living through them, they are even more mystifying.
Posted by: SOP35/Rat   2006-09-22 11:59  

#4  UN Secretary General Kofi Annan press release for October 1, 1939: "The UN deplores the recent violence in Poland but hopes that the situation there will return to peace and that Germany and the USSR will treat the population with decency. We commend Britain and France for seeking peaceful alternatives to attack and wish that the quiet established over the Franco-German border will continue."
Posted by: Steve White   2006-09-22 09:57  

#3  You have a point TC. The Poles have always managed to be plucky and unfortunate at the same time. Perhaps my comment should have referenced Western Europe, because it was primarily aimed at France, Spain, Germany, the Low countries, etc.
But my sentiment remains the same, if they want to roll over, screw them - I won't.
Posted by: JerseyMike   2006-09-22 09:47  

#2  The problem Mike is that Poland is in Europe. They have literally been in the fight. They have been there along side of us. They hear the Pope.

Unlike the French and British in 1939*, I wouldn't be happy letting them hang with the rest.


* For those who want to point out that geographically the British and France couldn't stop the Polish offensive, note well, the Germans striped the Western defenses to throw as much as possible against the Poles. The 'allies' elected to sit on their asses and really do nothing. It was called a 'phony war' for a reason. Had the allies made a serious effort at that point, the Germans, as in 1914, would have had to shift serious manpower out of the Polish campaign or forfeit land west of the Rhine. As it was, the Poles inflicted more casualties on the Germans than the French would do in 1940.**

** And as expected European comments about America's participation, let me point out the whining and moaning from Europe today complaining about being dragged into America's conflicts with little or no say. It applies in reverse to America being dragged into Europeans ones twice in the 20th Century.
Posted by: Thereger Chosing1087   2006-09-22 09:15  

#1  No amount of appeasement or placating of 7th century barbarian rabble is going to prevent Europes reckoning. They seem content to watch over their own impending slaughter.

Fuck 'em.
Posted by: JerseyMike   2006-09-22 08:59  

00:00