Please explain clearly how these comments amount to appeasement. I think George Bush, with his calls for the expansion of democracy and social reform in the Middle East, would agree that defense policy cannot rest on the force of arms alone. As do I. Mr. Prodi has made some troubling remarks lately, but these aren't among them. It is in the U.S. interest for Europe to remain united politically. In the arc of history, Europe's divisions have been more deadly for the U.S. than Islamic terror. As long as Europe remains united, they are contributing to U.S. security.

Have a look at this and scroll down to this:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040315/1/3irv0.html

"Wars such as that which has occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate," he said.

The head of the EU executive arm, European Commission chief Romano Prodi, agreed, in an interview published by Italy's La Stampa newspaper Monday.

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago," and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper."

How is a united group of European socialists who are leading countries with dwindling militaries, failing national security plans, increased immigration of supposed disenfranchised Muslims from N. Africa, continuous funding w/o accountability to the so-called Palestinians (in their minds: underdogs vs. big bad Jews), and views that are staunchly anti-American supposed to put together a vision for a world w/o Muslim terrorism?
The European elitists have muddled thought processes as it is intertwined with socialism, thus the only diplomacy they have left is b**** slapping the USA into alienation. So, regardless of whether or not the US prefers to maintain good relations with the EU, this is no longer possible, thanks to Spain.

"As long as Europe remains united, they are contributing to U.S. security".

Not while they're united in denial. If they just shut up and avoid offending the dear little terrorists, they're contributing to neither their own security nor that of the US.

"I would hope the Constitution will be considered one of the indispensible political instruments for the fight against terrorism".

Incredible. The proposed Constitution is a masterpiece of anti-democracy and rule by unaccountable bureaucrats. It is unlikely to be ratified, and will merely enrich the caterers of hundreds of unproductive meetings over many years. Only an intellectual could imagine that such a Constitution could have any effect at all on Islamic terrorists who have more use for bombs and bullets than ballots.

Do sleep soundly till the next bomb goes off.

In response to Barry's comment, let me point out that I linked to the same remarks as you do (quoted in Robert Kagan's excellent column in the Washington Post) and called them "troubling." Thanks anyway.

As for Naarski and Insufficiently Sensitive, haven't you noticed that millions of Americans have fought and died on European soil? We can quibble with Europe's foreign policy at the moment, but we should also remember that one of the most vital interests of the United States is a Europe which is peaceful and prosperous. If we must, we can find military allies in the fight against radical Islamists elsewhere.

"haven't you noticed that millions of Americans have fought and died on European soil?"

Millions? Get a grip. Yes, many thousands, and yes, I have indeed noticed. Apparently the grateful Europeans have all died of old age, because the ingrates are now running the asylum and they have wilfully NOT noticed the Americans who died to get the Germano-fascists off their necks.

Agreed we should wish the Europeans peace and prosperity. Have you ever heard of the Marshall Plan? I think our dues are fully paid up. I also think that the Europeans would do well to sit down with a few of the surviving grannies and gaffers who fought (FOUGHT! Have they ever heard that word before?) in the Resistance, and ask them what they advise their coddled offspring to do against these newfangled Islamo-fascists. That is, if said grannies and gaffers didn't all expire in last summer's heat wave while the coddled ones were enjoying extended vacations on the Riviera.

And we might indeed find military allies against the Islamo-fascists elsewhere, but M. Chirac might become petulant and call them shitty little countries and demand that they shut up. So why doesn't he just spare himself the chagrin and join us in the fight right now?

I agree, many of our soldiers have died on Europe's soil and it must remain in tact and at peace. However, within their boarders, they hold thousands of Islamic terrorists bent on preaching hatred and instigating attacks that are all aimed at destroying the West. This must be eradicated. The only way to do that is to have these European elitists stop paying amage to political correctness and stop pretending that the threat of Islamic terrorism is very real in their countries. This can be done by forbidding Muslim extremists from entering their countries, deport the Islamic terrorists that are currently there, encourage integration and stop them from inciting hatred at Mosque and Madrasas. The Danish have finally realized this and began enforcing all the fore mentioned. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12372
The fight has to begin within their own countries as currently they are hotbeds for pods of Islamic hatred to fester, grow and become dangerous per their PC rules. Does this make sense Gary?

To reply to Insufficiently Sensitive, let me reiterate my one of my previous points: the US is better off with Europe secure and prosperous, plain and simple. Yes, we would be even better off if they spent more on their militaries and helped with the war on terror beyond their borders. But that shouldn't be the centerpiece of our foreign policy towards Europe. In foreign policy, interests endure. They are not debts that we can "pay off," as you would have it. Peace in Europe has been a vital interest of the United States for its entire existence, and still is. Your immature and lame insults of Europeans do not change that. As for you, Naarski, European countries already do most of what you call on them to do. Take "integration." Didn't you read about France banning Muslim headscarves? I hardly agreed with that policy choice, but at least give them credit for attempting to "integrate" Muslims into France's secular society. It's worth remembering as well that the United States has the same problem with Islamic extremists within our own borders. Where did the 9/11 hijackers live before their murderous attack? Europe, yes, but also the United States.

Dear Gary,
You sound angry.
Sincerely, Naarski

I was rather surprised at the characterization of the French disallowing headscarves as an "attempt to "integrate" Muslims into France's secular society ." That action struck me as quite the opposite -- an effort to remove the identifying markers to make it easier to ignore the possibility of extremist views. "If everyone looks the same, they'll settle down and think the same," sort of tactic.

I agree that it is in the best interests of the world, as well as the US, for Europe to remain at peace and prosperous. Yet they hold a point of view which we believe will lead them back into Hell; and they believe will keep them safe. How are we to convince them? Is that our job, coming under the heading of covering our own nether regions? Or must we respect their need to go down that path again.

"Yes, we would be even better off if they spent more on their militaries and helped with the war on terror beyond their borders. But that shouldn't be the centerpiece of our foreign policy towards Europe."

Apparently some think that we should shape our anti-terrorist foreign policy to conform with European inertia and lack of will to resist. Or do they think we should conform with France-Germany to such an extent that we make no move before convincing them to do likewise? Wouldn't that result in our yielding control of our own defence to the self-interest of our competitors (mindful that France had enormous contracts to develop Iraqi oil, provided that their UN veto was used to lift the sanctions of 1991)?

Europe is shot, a few sparks of enlightenment still flicker along the margins, the Brits that still remember the moral issues of WWII and the liberated of the old eastern bloc that had first hand knowledge of tyranny. Otherwise, Islamic appeasers can go to hell. All the more reason why the sight of Europhile Kerry makes me sick. Bush has lots of flaws, but all too soon he'll be the only bitchslap, sans Israel, left across the terrorist's faces.

Jews for all the necessary historic survival reasons have worried too long what others think of them. Israel needs to ignore the rogue state label that Euroweenies have assigned them and just crush the Palestinians. It will not stop until total defeat is dealt to Islamofascists.

"As for Naarski and Insufficiently Sensitive, haven't you noticed that millions of Americans have fought and died on European soil? We can quibble with Europe's foreign policy at the moment, but we should also remember that one of the most vital interests of the United States is a Europe which is peaceful and prosperous. If we must, we can find military allies in the fight against radical Islamists elsewhere."...Posted by Gary.

"...the US is better off with Europe secure and prosperous, plain and simple...."...Posted by Gary

I won't quibble over the hundreds of thousands of American deaths on European soil. I won't quibble over the obvious statement that the US is better off with a prosperous and secure Europe (in spite of how much economic grief Europe can cause our economy).
Instead, I'll have you ponder the following questions and remind you that the answers to these questions have a direct bearing on what's going on in the world today. Also, I'll remind you that the European Union's nation states are only interested in themselves and don't even care about their fellow union's members.

When did "millions" of Europeans die for America?
When did even a few thousand Europeans die for America?
(Not since the American Revolution has any European country done anything for America and then France only helped America just to spite England).
How come the Europeans don't even help themselves?
Why did America have to go into Bosnia, and thus shame a small token force from a few European countries into sending troops?
How come the African continent doesn't get more assistance from the European countries that raped and pillaged it?
Why does it always fall upon America to fix the wrongs of the world?

Answers:
Never.
Never.
Because they're selfish and only care about their own country(s).
Because they're selfish and only care about their own country(s).
Because they're selfish and only care about their own country(s).
Because America cares about the downtrodden and is ready to help when we can.

Let's face it, most of Europe sees the rest of the world as their discarded ex-imperial subjects who deserve all the bad things that happen to them (because the subjugated countries rose up and threw off the yoke of their oppressor's). The EU couldn't give a rat's a** about how many people die by the hands of terrorists as long as none of them are doing the dying (and if they start dying then the heck with everyone else's dead! Hence, Spain's 200 dead are all that matter to Spain. America's 3000 dead mean nothing to Spain or any of the rest of the continent of Europe....heck, they think we deserve being killed by terrorist and even egg the terrorist's on!).

So please, spare me the bleeding heart "poor little Europe" routine. American football and baseball cancelled a whole week's worth of games in tribute to the dead of 9-11, but Spain wouldn't even cancel one stinking soccer match! I bet if the terrorist had bombed Spain during a soccer match, then they'd probably be sending more troups to the middle east.

Gary Manca:

No, peace in Europe has NOT been the interest of the United States. If it were, we could easily have allowed Germany to conquer it in World War I (by not intervening), by pursuing a Japan-First policy in World War II (coupled w/ ignoring Churchill, rather than engaging in pre-belligerency planning), or by allowing the USSR to take the place.

It would have been quite peaceful---the peace of the grave, perhaps, but peaceful nonetheless.

What the United States (and England before it) wanted was a balance of power, in which no single European state could come to dominate the continent and use its resources (industry, manpower) against us.

More to the point, what we hoped to find was a Europe (or, more accurately, constituent states) that shared our interests in human rights, in supporting freedom and liberty, in a capitalist economic system, in free global trade, in opposing totalitarianism.

I leave it to your own analysis as to whether the EUrope that is forming fits many, most, or any of the above.