Should the US Defend...

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

...Denmark and the Netherlands?

The Danes are being quite obstinate abour reprinting and not apologizing for the dread cartoons of blashemy.

Unyielding stance by Denmark: A group of Danish lawmakers has canceled a trip to Iran because Tehran demanded they condemn the reprinting of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in newspapers, a spokeswoman said Saturday.
 
Ten members of the parliament’s Foreign Policy Committee, including Denmark’s former foreign minister Mogens Lykketoft, were scheduled to visit Iran between Feb. 18 and Feb. 21.
 
Mette Vestergaard, a committee official, confirmed the cancellation. “The Iranian ambassador asked the Foreign Policy Committee to condemn the drawings. They can’t and they won’t,” she said without giving more details.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3507426,00.html

Similarly, Iran has warned the Netherlands not to air a TV show by Gert Wilders that is highly critical of Islam's violent ways:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has urged the Netherlands to prevent the screening of a film in which a right-wing populist lawmaker plans to lay out his view of the Koran, a news agency in the Islamic Republic said on Saturday.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
Justice Minister Gholamhossein Elham expressed concern about what he called the making of an offensive film against the Koran in a letter to his Dutch counterpart Ernst Hirsch Ballin, the Fars News Agency said.

He called on Ballin to prevent this "provocative and satanic act on the basis of European Convention on Human Rights," the news agency report, picked up by the BBC in London, said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/film_nm/iran_dutch_film_dc

The offended parties may well attempt retribution ala (allah?) Theo van Gogh.

It seems there are those that claim Israel has unduly provoked Islam; yet here we find an interesting cunumdrum: should we risk war/support a nation over mere ink on a page? To say no is to abandon nations struggling for their moral and political freedom. To say yes is to assent to war for principles far more amorphious than people seeking to live their lives in their own land.

No blood for oil? How about blood for cartoonist's ink?

[Wretched Excess]

standing firm on the cartoon thing.  how courageous.

[Attero Dominatus]

standing firm on the cartoon thing.  how courageous.

I think Danmark is doing the right thing by reprinting the cartoons. Appeasement emboldens the enemy.

As to the question about defending them. Yes.

[mamacags]

That is great that they gathered up their collective balls finally.  I hope brass ballitis spreads like wildfire through Europe before it is too late.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

standing firm on the cartoon thing.  how courageous.

For europeans? Yeah, kinda.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Since Denmark and the Netherlands are both NATO allies, we would of course defend them if either were physically attacked by an external enemy, and we are legally obligated to do so.  As far as speaking up for them at this point, it's not at all clear that they want us to involve ourselves in it.  But if they did make that desire known through diplomatic channels, then yes, we should.   

[Lauri]

cant France do it ....? 

[Wretched Excess]

standing firm on the cartoon thing.  how courageous.

For europeans? Yeah, kinda.

well, you do have a point there.  my thinker must be busted on this one, because I just have a hard time coming up with a "give a shit".

no blood for cartoons!

[formerlurker]

Since Denmark and the Netherlands are both NATO allies, we would of course defend them if either were physically attacked by an external enemy, and we are legally obligated to do so.  As far as speaking up for them at this point, it's not at all clear that they want us to involve ourselves in it.  But if they did make that desire known through diplomatic channels, then yes, we should.   

Agreed.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Since Denmark and the Netherlands are both NATO allies, we would of course defend them if either were physically attacked by an external enemy, and we are legally obligated to do so.  As far as speaking up for them at this point, it's not at all clear that they want us to involve ourselves in it.  But if they did make that desire known through diplomatic channels, then yes, we should.   

Even in the event of an Iranian-backed terrorist strike? And what would be the threshhold? What if it were non-catastrophic, say a "simple" bombing with few if any casualities? What if the attack didn't come on Danish territory, say, an overseas interest? Would we respond overwhelmingly or proportionally? Would we risk a regional war? Russian entanglements?

*sighs*

So many variables.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Since Denmark and the Netherlands are both NATO allies, we would of course defend them if either were physically attacked by an external enemy, and we are legally obligated to do so.  As far as speaking up for them at this point, it's not at all clear that they want us to involve ourselves in it.  But if they did make that desire known through diplomatic channels, then yes, we should.   

Even in the event of an Iranian-backed terrorist strike? And what would be the threshhold? What if it were non-catastrophic, say a "simple" bombing with few if any casualities? What if the attack didn't come on Danish territory, say, an overseas interest? Would we respond overwhelmingly or proportionally? Would we risk a regional war? Russian entanglements?

*sighs*

So many variables.

The first and biggest question is what kind of support the Danes would actually ask for from us.  Defending an ally does not mean charging off and doing something unilaterally.   

[formerlurker]

Since Denmark and the Netherlands are both NATO allies, we would of course defend them if either were physically attacked by an external enemy, and we are legally obligated to do so.  As far as speaking up for them at this point, it's not at all clear that they want us to involve ourselves in it.  But if they did make that desire known through diplomatic channels, then yes, we should.   

Even in the event of an Iranian-backed terrorist strike? And what would be the threshhold? What if it were non-catastrophic, say a "simple" bombing with few if any casualities? What if the attack didn't come on Danish territory, say, an overseas interest? Would we respond overwhelmingly or proportionally? Would we risk a regional war? Russian entanglements?

*sighs*

So many variables.

If Denmark gets hit by a terrorist attack the likes of 9/11 then the United States will certainly come to their aide, the level of which largely dependent upon the risk to the country and surrounding allies. 

I don't think we would need to concern ourselves with Russian entanglements in that instance.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Since Denmark and the Netherlands are both NATO allies, we would of course defend them if either were physically attacked by an external enemy, and we are legally obligated to do so.  As far as speaking up for them at this point, it's not at all clear that they want us to involve ourselves in it.  But if they did make that desire known through diplomatic channels, then yes, we should.   

Even in the event of an Iranian-backed terrorist strike? And what would be the threshhold? What if it were non-catastrophic, say a "simple" bombing with few if any casualities? What if the attack didn't come on Danish territory, say, an overseas interest? Would we respond overwhelmingly or proportionally? Would we risk a regional war? Russian entanglements?

*sighs*

So many variables.

The first and biggest question is what kind of support the Danes would actually ask for from us.  Defending an ally does not mean charging off and doing something unilaterally.   

Very, very true but alas the Danes lack any power to attack Iran even in retaliation. They would have to ask us to do their dirty work. NATO lacks power projection (they cannot/will not meet their Afghanistan commitments) so that leaves us. How much of a "Pretty please" from them constitutes a casus belli for us?

If the Danes are too timid, for whatever reason, to ask us what does the US do when terrorism is allowed to affected without consequence?

Worse, what if Denmark or the Netherlands capitulate?

 

[formerlurker]

Since Denmark and the Netherlands are both NATO allies, we would of course defend them if either were physically attacked by an external enemy, and we are legally obligated to do so.  As far as speaking up for them at this point, it's not at all clear that they want us to involve ourselves in it.  But if they did make that desire known through diplomatic channels, then yes, we should.   

Even in the event of an Iranian-backed terrorist strike? And what would be the threshhold? What if it were non-catastrophic, say a "simple" bombing with few if any casualities? What if the attack didn't come on Danish territory, say, an overseas interest? Would we respond overwhelmingly or proportionally? Would we risk a regional war? Russian entanglements?

*sighs*

So many variables.

The first and biggest question is what kind of support the Danes would actually ask for from us.  Defending an ally does not mean charging off and doing something unilaterally.   

Very, very true but alas the Danes lack any power to attack Iran even in retaliation. They would have to ask us to do their dirty work. NATO lacks power projection (they cannot/will not meet their Afghanistan commitments) so that leaves us. How much of a "Pretty please" from them constitutes a casus belli for us?

If the Danes are too timid, for whatever reason, to ask us what does the US do when terrorism is allowed to affected without consequence?

Worse, what if Denmark or the Netherlands capitulate?

 

An attack on Denmark is Europe's problem primarily.   So in a nutshell, the Dutch would send 25 people, France would send about 250, GB would send 5,000 and we would send about 50,000.   

All joking aside.   They are an ally.  If they are attacked we would be expected to come to their side.   It would be in our best interest to do so.   You (collective you) may not like it, but being a superpower has its responsibilities.  That type of unrest would be bad for our ecomony.

 

[Wretched Excess]

the crisis deepens.

Danish lawmakers cancel trip to Iran over cartoon

[DumbAss Tanker]

Very, very true but alas the Danes lack any power to attack Iran even in retaliation. They would have to ask us to do their dirty work. NATO lacks power projection (they cannot/will not meet their Afghanistan commitments) so that leaves us. How much of a "Pretty please" from them constitutes a casus belli for us?

If the Danes are too timid, for whatever reason, to ask us what does the US do when terrorism is allowed to affected without consequence?

Worse, what if Denmark or the Netherlands capitulate?

 

It just seems you're getting a bit wrapped around the axle over an event that's too ill-defined to fret over at this point.  The need for any kind of reaction beyond law enforcement agencies (and their tactical components) would depend on it actually being provably tied to a coherent, identifiable external regime of some sort.  Frankly the way things are in Europe these days, it seems far more likely to be native-born Euro Islamists that are involved in anything that does happen, rather than any Arabian imports.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

It just seems you're getting a bit wrapped around the axle over an event that's too ill-defined to fret over at this point.  The need for any kind of reaction beyond law enforcement agencies (and their tactical components) would depend on it actually being provably tied to a coherent, identifiable external regime of some sort.  Frankly the way things are in Europe these days, it seems far more likely to be native-born Euro Islamists that are involved in anything that does happen, rather than any Arabian imports.

I'm currently reading "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace" by Donald Kagan. As he reviews the various wars that have swallowed superpowers it seems the pattern that emerges in history is a superpower that is more than capable of dealing decisively with a threat has instead chosen a middle path minimal deterrence. They choose some ill-defined half-measure that neither keeps the adversary in check nor destroys him once invoked. The enemy gathers strength and ultimately unleashes a war that consumes all parties.

Please consider the very obvious: these minor European nations have no ability to project their will outside of Europe. Lacking a sufficiently horrific attack of the sort seen on 9/11 would mean that either the US picks-up and plays world policeman or we stand idle as the jihadists fight an international asymetric war kiling with a thousand cuts that puts Europe on the defensive using cops and lawer-ridden courts to staunch the bleeding. All the while Iran waves away the latest IAEA request to review whatever it is Amadinejad is giggling and pointing at.

[formerlurker]

I think you need to look at this in a very different perspective.  Canada has no military whatsoever to speak of.  They have no real means to protect themselves, yet they are oil and natural resource rich.    Why are they not attacked?  China would la-la-love to have their resources.

The United States is a powerful ally.  While Russia may patrol the Canadian border with ernest, that is about the extent of what they will do.

Iran launches an attack on Denmark they know who will settle the score.  Ron Paul would look the other way which of course would be disasterous to our interests, but reality 101 -- as any student of history will tell you, dictates we respond.  While some may claim that this has nothing to do with the United States, nothing could be further from the truth.

John Kerry and leftists everywhere claim GWB has destroyed our standing in the eyes of the world.  Make me laugh already.  They need us too much for such complete nonsense.

 

[Chris_]

I think you need to look at this in a very different perspective.  Canada has no military whatsoever to speak of.  They have no real means to protect themselves, yet they are oil and natural resource rich.    Why are they not attacked?  China would la-la-love to have their resources.

The United States is a powerful ally.  While Russia may patrol the Canadian border with ernest, that is about the extent of what they will do.

Iran launches an attack on Denmark they know who will settle the score.  Ron Paul would look the other way which of course would be disasterous to our interests, but reality 101 -- as any student of history will tell you, dictates we respond.  While some may claim that this has nothing to do with the United States, nothing could be further from the truth.

John Kerry and leftists everywhere claim GWB has destroyed our standing in the eyes of the world.  Make me laugh already.  They need us too much for such complete nonsense.

 

If the EU had to actually stand up a military that could withstand Russia and China, their vaunted socialized medicine, mandated 6 week vacations, short workweeks, etc. would cease to exist.  Our military subsidizes their economic foolishness (although I predict it will come crashing down in the next 20 years).  And don't get me started on our tree storage area, Canada.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

But what would be our threshhold to act on their behalf?

A suicide bomber?

A bombed out bus?

Another 9/11 sized catastrophe?

[formerlurker]

But what would be our threshhold to act on their behalf?

A suicide bomber?

A bombed out bus?

Another 9/11 sized catastrophe?

Whatever affects our interests. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

It just seems you're getting a bit wrapped around the axle over an event that's too ill-defined to fret over at this point.  The need for any kind of reaction beyond law enforcement agencies (and their tactical components) would depend on it actually being provably tied to a coherent, identifiable external regime of some sort.  Frankly the way things are in Europe these days, it seems far more likely to be native-born Euro Islamists that are involved in anything that does happen, rather than any Arabian imports.

I'm currently reading "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace" by Donald Kagan. As he reviews the various wars that have swallowed superpowers it seems the pattern that emerges in history is a superpower that is more than capable of dealing decisively with a threat has instead chosen a middle path minimal deterrence. They choose some ill-defined half-measure that neither keeps the adversary in check nor destroys him once invoked. The enemy gathers strength and ultimately unleashes a war that consumes all parties.

Please consider the very obvious: these minor European nations have no ability to project their will outside of Europe. Lacking a sufficiently horrific attack of the sort seen on 9/11 would mean that either the US picks-up and plays world policeman or we stand idle as the jihadists fight an international asymetric war kiling with a thousand cuts that puts Europe on the defensive using cops and lawer-ridden courts to staunch the bleeding. All the while Iran waves away the latest IAEA request to review whatever it is Amadinejad is giggling and pointing at.

Lighten up, Francis.  Relevant historical cases don't involve non-State actors or generally even noncontiguous borders, you are spinning up your argument over the least-likely progression of events...i.e. a clear and overt act of aggression from an identifiable State-sponsored actor at great geographical remove frm Denmark, with covert retribution for some reason being out of the question.  And any reaction to an attack in Denmark by us depends entirely on the extent the US sees its own interests affected, paramount among these being whether the Danes even want to ask us for help.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I dunno dude.

Ever hear of The Black Hand?



Granted I AM painting an extreme picture--hyperbole if you will--to examine a more refined principal: we have allies too weak to defend themselves/respond, they are "antagonizing" (read: refusing to be intimidated) a common adversary that has vowed our destruction and that adversary cannot be placated. I know you DAT and you know me and I think we both agree war with Iran is coming sooner or later and considering Iran's technological ambitions the sooner the better lest we risk catastrophe of our own and must respond in a way that would spell death for untold millions.

Alas, we both know absent sufficient casus belli (read: something the NYT can't spin away; read: another 9/11) we are politically powerless to meet that threat. I'm wondering if the inevitable sucker-punch we must endure could be counted on behalf of an ally and how much must be endured.


Now hush and 

So far the thread has generated fair comments; yours included.


EDIT:

eesh!

Muslims worldwide should bomb Denmark’s embassies and kill its diplomats following last week’s republication of caricatures of Muslim prophet Muhammad, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees in the Gaza Strip said on Monday.

Israel Radio reported that the spokesman, speaking to demonstrators burning Danish flags, said anyone involved the drawing, printing, or publication of the caricatures should be “slaughtered.”

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203343697751&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull