Europe is dependant on US

Fraser Nelson

If the Turks crush Syrian Kurdish forces, how should we react? You can say that Kurds risked and gave their lives confronting Daesh not so long ago. 
When Sir John Major’s government in the UK decided to defend the Iraqi Kurds with a no-fly zone in 1991, in effect, protecting them from Saddam , it led to stability. The UK ended up with good relations, trade, even Land Rover dealerships in Irbil. But Donald Trump is redefining alliances now.
The Kurds didn’t fight in Normandy, he bizarrely said, so why should America shield them from the Turks? Or shield anyone in the region from anyone? “The worst mistake the United States has ever made, in my opinion, is going into the Middle East,” he said.
He puts the cost of deployments in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq at anything from $4 trillion to $8 trillion (Dh29.3 trillion), depending on his mood and his audience. His upshot: he’s fed up with America being the world’s policeman. He’s walking away from the role, and his allies will have to get used to it.
For US allies this is all rather serious. “Before, the Americans would at least consult us,” says one UK minister. “Now, we have no idea what they’ll do. This lowers our credibility with our own allies.” Britain’s great boast has been a “special relationship” that can influence America. But what good is that when even the Pentagon is blindsided by the White House? When Trump said he’d pull troops out of Syria earlier this year, there was panic in London and talk about whether Britain should stay and continue the fight. It was a brief discussion. Without America, no one else had the power to do anything.
Most of the 20-odd Democrats running for the presidential nomination offer their own versions of Trump’s arguments: that too much blood and money has been spent trying (and failing) to solve problems in the wider world. Bernie Sanders and Trump both talk about American interventions over the years as “endless war.”
Polls show Americans have come to regard the George W. Bush missions as a miserable failure. Given that the Taliban now control more of Afghanistan than at any point since 2001, no wonder. You’ll find plenty of politicians in Washington w If the Turks crush Syrian Kurdish forces, how should we react? You can say that Kurds risked and gave their lives confronting Daesh not so long ago. 
When Sir John Major’s government in the UK decided to defend the Iraqi Kurds with a no-fly zone in 1991 in effect, protecting them from Saddam it led to stability. The UK ended up with good relations, trade, even Land Rover dealerships in Irbil. But Donald Trump is redefining alliances now.
The Kurds didn’t fight in Normandy, he bizarrely said, so why should America shield them from the Turks? Or shield anyone in the region from anyone? “The worst mistake the United States has ever made, in my opinion, is going into the Middle East,” he said.
He puts the cost of deployments in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq at anything from $4 trillion to $8 trillion (Dh29.3 trillion), depending on his mood and his audience. His upshot: he’s fed up with America being the world’s policeman. He’s walking away from the role, and his allies will have to get used to it.
For US allies this is all rather serious. “Before, the Americans would at least consult us,” says one UK minister. “Now, we have no idea what they’ll do. This lowers our credibility with our own allies.” Britain’s great boast has been a “special relationship” that can influence America. But what good is that when even the Pentagon is blindsided by the White House?
When Trump said he’d pull troops out of Syria earlier this year, there was panic in London and talk about whether Britain should stay and continue the fight. It was a brief discussion. Without America, no one else had the power to do anything.
Most of the 20-odd Democrats running for the presidential nomination offer their own versions of Trump’s arguments: that too much blood and money has been spent trying (and failing) to solve problems in the wider world. Bernie Sanders and Trump both talk about American interventions over the years as “endless war.”
Polls show Americans have come to regard the George W. Bush missions as a miserable failure. Given that the Taliban now control more of Afghanistan than at any point since 2001, no wonder.
You’ll find plenty of politicians in Washington who also describe Nato as a scam that allows freeloading Europeans to enjoy US military protection without paying for it. Or asking why Britain (and many other countries) have not taken care of their home-grown extremists caught in Syria, especially the 2,000 jailed by the Syrian Kurds. – GN

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 Comments
scroll to top