Ciao!

I think there is a genuine alliance across the pond (as they call it here in Deutschland). However, the alliance is not based on governments or politics. It is more based on values and common culture. So there is a deeper connection, which transcends politics. Especially in times of trouble, these two, very different regions, need eachother to keep their hegemony over the rest of the world.

I think there's a friendship between these countries, which is different than an alliance. Perhaps that's just more semantics. But an alliance, I believe, is functional. And it requires absolute complicity. In an alliance, if A goes to war, B stands by A's side. We're seeing more & more that these decisions are case-by-case basis. That's not what I'd call an "alliance".

And I don't mean just Iraq. Numerous times, in dealing w/ Lybia or other issues, several European allies have dragged their feet, or even refused to let other countries use their airspace, etc. Now, I realize that's well w/in their rights. But that's not the behavior of allies. More like friends who don't think you're doing the right thing at the moment & want no part in it.

Between September 1939 and December 1941 we weren't Britain's ally, we were her friend. Even though we had common interests, values, and a similar desired outcome for the war. Only after we declared war on Germany & Japan did we become allies.

You are right. But, since you mentioned semantics, I, rather than calling it just a friendship, would call it a relationship (love-hate relationship, to be more exact).

One can really experience this love-hate relationship here in Europe.

I think the better analogy is to two peeps whose bodies remain the same, yet they're possessed by a different spirit upon every change in respective administrations; bound together by mutual interests.

So, Tom, I take it you don't believe in staatsraison (the idea that state's have their own inherent, near-constant strategic interests, irregardless of leadership)?

I think the problem right now has to do with the existence of BOTH an ending transatlantic alliance AND a confusing new transatlantic friendship. Both sides are trying to figure out the new relationship.

On the European side, the Germans and the French have chosen to begin to withdraw from the Cold War alliance(NATO) while still remaining friends. This choice fits with their continuing preference for increasing the power of the EU and putting the focus on a future US-EU alliance. The British on the other hand, have chosen to continue the Cold War alliance and increase the friendship. Again, this fits with domestic British opinion which has chosen to remain outside parts of the EU, such as the common currency--while still keeping the "special relationship" with the US.

One of the ongoing problems with the alliance has been the insistence of the US on using NATO for purposes never intended, like Libya, Iraq, and Kosovo. I think the EU states dragged their feet on cases like Libya because the US was attempting to use the alliance for things it was never intended to do--i.e. bomb Libya under a NATO cover, when NATO was intended solely to protect against the USSR. Of course, they reversed themselves when they agreed to use NATO in the "out of area" example of Kosovo--but that reversal also showed the weakness of the NATO alliance to handle anything but the Soviet threat.

Rcently, I think the Europeans have remained consistent in their basic understanding of the NATO alliance, allowing NATO action in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Afghanistan could qualify as an Article 51 act (when a NATO member is attacked all members respond) but Iraq was an example of the US attempting to stretch the NATO alliance beyond its intent--similar to the Libya example.

On the US side, it's been difficult to understand how to deal with Europe. Do we deal with the EU? Or with France, Germany, and the UK separately? What is the purpose of NATO if there is no longer a USSR or a Warsaw Pact? Personally, I think the US would benefit greatly if the European NATO countries were allowed to change the alliance from US-Europe to US-EU. The Brussells Treaty desparately needs to be updated for the post-Cold War world of global terrorism. Also, the US would benefit militarily if a new treaty called for the creation of EU-based logistical forces. Instead of having to rely on the US military to move resources, the EU would have its own Eurocorps to take care of problems like Kosovo, Macedonia, Cyprus, etc.

Of course, the Bush administration doesn't support such a relationship because the current arrangement allows them to poach various European countries into coalitions to serve its interests and to somewhat legitimize its activities (see: Polish troops in Iraq). Also, allowing the creation of a formal defense relationship between the US-EU would negate the "special relationship" between the US and the UK, who is currently Bush's best friend in Europe.

Patrick:

Well put! On the one hand, Europe is a collection of different countries, w/ different interests. On the other hand, it's moving towards becoming something else (a single, multinational state). It'll be interesting to see the end result.

And your point about NATO coincides w/ what I meant to say. Alliances are functional, friendships (or acquantinces) aren't to the same extent. Now that the Cold War is over, NATO's a military alliance w/o a purpose. It'll probably melt into, at best, something like the US-Latin American Rio Protocal (a loose agreement of mutual hemispheric defense, but w/o a centralized operational structure).

Maybe some future evolving Anglosphere alliance? There's already a great deal of near-constant cooperation between US-UK-Australia around the world.

Re Staatsraison. There are clearly some interests that remain the same. Yet methods of pursuing those interests may vary significantly b/w admins.