>t springs from our ambivalence about
>Europe as a whole: that sense that the EU was bringing about a new
>realpolitik has been wrecked by the bombs. Is that in fact the big idea?
why does he say there is no one big idea then conclude that there is since there must be, if only one lurking even further in the darkness?
whatever happens with this war, and a sense of 'failure' would work just as easily, it will amount to a series of discussions and moves around expanding Europe's military capabilities, if not independence from the US (though I think this will be on the table), and it will serve to announce a 'new' set of European values' contra the internal/external other (the Balkans), not to mention a pool of starving workers compelled to do another round of breaking the 'rigidities'.
I think the brits tend to be routinely anxious about their servility to the US, to the point where 'the UK tails the US' becomes a substitute for an explanation. (The same pose is evident here, but that has never explained why for instance Aust govts have opposed US policy on east timor and indonesia.) the UK is trying to leverage itself into a key position IN Europe, which it can only really achieve militarily, given the relative incapacity of Germany in this regard.
and, hey, every time NATO murders those it claims to be saving, the brits and others in Europe can begin implicitly claiming that this is a result of crap US military leadership.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au