Le Divorce?

Mark Steyn has a pessimistic column on US/EU relations:

But, in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there’s no substance that can be changed, what’s to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you’re still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that’s never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six – make that 10 – months and do the whole hey-isn’t-it-terrific-the-way-we’re-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn’t care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he’s a total loser.

Steyn is right on many things. NATO is no longer worthwhile, and the concept of “collective security” is largely meaningless when President Chirac is falling over himself to sell high-tech weapons to the Chinese or anyone else willing to pony up the cash. The Europeans have largely embraced an anti-American fantasy where they still matter despite having a military that can’t project force beyond rifle range – assuming they even have ammunition for their rifles these days. The French force de frappe is an absolute joke — the French had to borrow a corporate helicopter from Aérospatiale just to have something in the field for the Asian tsunami. The Charles de Gaulle is far more likely to kill its sailors than any enemy.

If Europe can’t even provide for its own defense, what good is NATO other than to serve as a largely meaningless debate club? Even former General Wesley Clark lambasted NATO for holding him back during the campaign to remove Serbian dictator Slobodon Milosevic.

NATO was designed to fight the Cold War, a war which is long over. Political scientist Melvin Krauss argued in the 1980s that NATO would provide Europe with self-defense, thus ensuring that European policymakers would ignore their own military development. 25 years later, Krauss’ thesis has essentially been vindicated. Europe’s unwillingness to use force is somewhat understandable given their bloody history — however, their relative intransigence towards any use of force is more worrying. “Soft power” cannot and will not replace the use of military force in defeating terrorism.

I would hope that Steyn’s death of the West is premature. While Europe wants to ignore the reality of the situation, we both face a common enemy. The joint Franco-American resolution demanding a Syrian withdrawl from Lebanon was a welcome first step, if as toothless as all UN resolutions.

The EU infatuation with anti-Americanism will fade. Whether Europe likes it or not, the threat of Islamofascism cannot be bought off, as the Madrid bombing and the death of Theo Van Gogh have indicated. If Europe wants to preserve its social tolerance, they will have to join this fight.

At the end of the day, the Europeans will continue to seethe and whine, and call the Americans reckless cowboys as they have done for decades — however, their grandiose dreams of defeating American hyperpuissance will remain just dreams. They will have to get used to an America ascendant, and the sooner they do the better. Europe’s ossified labor market and hyper-regulation ensure that their economy cannot be truly competitive, and their attempts to restrain America with “soft power” have failed. The Europeans like to think of themselves as the older, wiser half of the transatlantic alliance, but the reality is that if Europe wants to survive, they will have to learn the value of real cooperation.

UPDATE: Austin Bay has a much more eloquent response than mine that’s well worth reading. A sample:

The Iraqi election smacked Monsiuer Chirac and Herr Schroeder. The Chirac-Schroeder axis smells defeat and their “western front against America” is folding. The Iraqi people’s Jan 30 electoral show of force sealed Chirac’s defeat. Even in the benighted Bastilles of Paris and Berlin, those ink-stained indicators of democracy in the line of fire – purple fingers – point the way to the future.Besides, Chirac and Schroeder’s “Greater Europe” is simply too divided, as I point out in my column this week. (Thanks to StrategyPage.)

Steyn’s “bleakest last sentence” (to quote Roger Simon) is way too fin d’siecle. Steyn writes: “This week we’re toasting the end of an idea: the death of “the West”.” Try and tell that to Ukraine and Poland– and for that matter, Denmark. Post- Theo van Gogh Holland may also object.