Blame whom? (A precise damnation of Spain, Greece, and other European appeasers)

Let me get this straight. Two-and-a-half years after September 11, on a similar eleventh day of the month, 911 days following 9-11, and on the eve of Spanish elections, Al Qaeda or its epigones blows up 200 and wounds 1,400 Spaniards. This horrific attack follows chaotic months when Turks were similarly butchered (who opposed the Iraq War), Saudis were targeted (who opposed the Iraqi war), Moroccans were blown apart (who opposed the Iraqi war) and French periodically threatened (who opposed the Iraqi War).

I remember well the passage from Brecht you quote, and it astonishes me that any German can read it and go out and appease the Islamofascists.

During the Vietnam War, the Anti-War left used a loose translation of the first part of the quote: What if they gave a war, and nobody came?

It much amused me after the famous Goethe scholar Stuart Atkins, with whom I was studying Faust at the time, referred us to the entire passage.

Perhaps the average American does not have a detailed knowledge of European, or even American, history, but most Americans do have a strong sense of the importance of our liberties and the need to be ready to defend them.

Golo Mann writes well (at least his Deutsche Geschichte im 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts), but I confess to being more sympathetic to Gerhard Ritter (Staatskunst und Kriegshandwerk and Ernst Nolte Der Faschismus in seiner Epoche und Der europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917-1945) than to Mann's rather more leftwing views.

I think what frustrates me the most about the German position is that many of you see almost all of the pieces (for example your bringing up the Brecht), and you have recent experience in Berlin and the East with tyranny, but you steadfastly, as a people, refuse to confront the evil. I don't expect anything from the French, who haven't aquitted themselves honorably militarily or diplomatically since Louis XV assited American independence, but I do expect more from Germany.

I think your question represents a fundamental historical misconception.

No. -- Its a valid question, based on the fact that this seems to be a religious war, one that could become a 'global jihad'..

It is not the United States which is bringing the world to the brink of a 'global jihad'. Rather, it is the Islamofascists who declared war on the West.

Yep, and they are embedded within dozens of countries with a billion people to hide behind. As someone earlier remarked, we can't kill em all..

Beginning who knows precisely when, but surely no later than the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Al Qaeda declared war on the West. The Iranian mullahs declared war on the West some 25 years ago and more. And, on 9/11/01, the government of the United States of America, and most of our people, woke up to the FACT that we are at WAR.

You preach to the choir. I agree with Hansen on waging war, once we are committed.

We do not have a choice. We did not start this war, nor seek it out. Our choice is victory or, ultimately, death and slavery to Islamofascism Anyone who does not understand this is a fool!

I agree, 'cato'! -- Sometimes however, the ones shouting loudest are the biggest fools.

The only question is how should the West defend itself. Our choices are equally stark: let the enemy bring the war to us, or bring the war to the enemy. America chooses to fight the enemy abroad.

Yep.. -- Much noted by the europeans..

The Europeans choose appeasement, hoping the enemy will go away, while actually emboldening the enemy to bring more war to Europe. Soon, we may have to make some grand gesture that will make the price of supporting Islamofascism clear.

I like that idea.. I was in favor of nuking Mecca on 9/12.. What do you see as a grand gesture, cato?

Berliner, I give lectures on Lincoln...teach US History here. I see tremendous comparisons between Bush and Lincoln. I think we also see parallels with Reagan, certainly in the way both were despised by Europe.

You can write this down...Bush WILL get re-elected, possibly in a landslide. And as Reagan took the arrows for his unpopular stance in the 80's (and no credit for the fall of the Soviet Union), Bush will get no credit for the eventual victory in the war against terrorism. But the world will owe him gratitude. He won't get it...but, as in all great men, he won't care anyway.

Bush is popular because Americans remember Pearl Harbor AND 9/11...and don't want to be doomed to repeat history again.

We value leadership here, not appeasement. Eventually, the American voter will see that, and Bush will be rewarded with another four years, and a more Republican Congress.

Would that France, Germany, and, of course now, the Spanish voters did...

Perhaps I'm missing something. You seem to agree with me that we neither started nor wanted this war, that the war thrust upon us may be religious in nature (at least in part), but you think it's a valid question whether the USA [should] bring the world to the brink of 'global jihad?</> and wonder whether western civiliztion will be saved by such a war?
As I see it, there is no viable alternative to this war. What do you see as a viable alternative? You say we can't kill a billion Moslems, but if we go after the countries where they are hiding one by one, in order of their importance, we make the price of supporting Islamofascism expensive and clear. Doing what we can reasonably do to avoid killing the truly uninvolved, we should not shrink from killing hundreds, even thousand or tens of thousands if they stand between us and the Islamofascists. Help us, get out of the way, or be dead. Simple, clear message.

As to the grand gesture, I'd save Mecca for later (although I might seize it). After freezing all of the assets of the Iranians, the Saudis and the Pakistanis, I think I'd start by taking out the Iranian nuclear capability completely. Nuke every suspected site, and damn the catarwallering that would follow. If that doesn't go quite far enough, Medina might be a good target.

Your arguments don't hold water with me. Why did the US get involved in WWI or WWII anyway?

In WWI, we weren't directly attacked by the Germans. We engaged after the Lusitania (a British ship) was sunk. We entered the war to support our "allies". You know, those reliable French, Italians, Russians (and Japanese).

And WWII was more of the same. The Germans were trying to get out from under the Versailles Treaty. Our prior "allies" in WWI, the French, Italians, and Japanese, wound up on the other side. Even so, we waited until Pearl Harbor took the hit from the Japanese to fully commit. You could make the case that we could have played this one better, too.

After WWII it seemed that our old buddies, the Russians and Chinese, became our new enemies of the day. We propped up Germany, France, and Italy because...why exactly? I stand by my assessment that there was no long-term security benefit to the US. The Europeans could have fielded their own armies against the Soviets. We had strategic bombers and ballistic missile subs to protect our homeland. All the US got from the massive investment in the Marshall Plan and European military bases was a bunch of recalcitrant, ungrateful, and erstwhile "allies" who gave us an unprecedented national debt and a large military death toll.

I will grant that the only wild card in the bunch that has proven to be a stalwart ally is Britain. Given the history of the past century, I would make the English the only European country that receives unequivocal support from the US. Places like Italy, Japan, and Poland are put on notice. Places like Germany, France, and Spain can go to hell.

Perhaps I'm missing something.
As I see it, there is no viable alternative to this war. What do you see as a viable alternative?
You say we can't kill a billion Moslems, but if we go after the countries where they are hiding one by one, in order of their importance, we make the price of supporting Islamofascism expensive and clear.

I think "going after countries, -- one by one", is an impossilbe task that would bring on that 'global jihad'. We should be going after terrorists [and heads of states that suppport them], -- one by one"

Doing what we can reasonably do to avoid killing the truly uninvolved, we should not shrink from killing hundreds, even thousand or tens of thousands if they stand between us and the Islamofascists.

I agree, -- kill the bad guys, not countries.

Help us, get out of the way, or be dead. Simple, clear message.
As to the grand gesture, I'd save Mecca for later (although I might seize it). After freezing all of the assets of the Iranians, the Saudis and the Pakistanis, I think I'd start by taking out the Iranian nuclear capability completely. Nuke every suspected site, and damn the catarwallering that would follow. If that doesn't go quite far enough, Medina might be a good target.

It may come to that. -- Once started though, such measures will inevitably lead to that jihad, imo.. Can anyone win such a global jihad?
I'd like to see that question addressed by our socalled 'leaders'.. Knowing full well that it cannot be even mentioned because of politics..

I should have been clearer and said we should go after the terrorists in the countries where they are hiding, and telling the countries involved to help us kill the terrorists, get out of our way, or take them out.

I'm not at the point, quite, of the grand gesture, but we must surely be ready for it. Any significant attack on the United States should call forth atomic fire on the source.

You question whether anyone can win. Well, what choice do we have? If we don't fight, we will lose. I don't want a global jihad, but then, I didn't start this war, either. The Islamofascists want a final war with the West. I wish there were a way to avoid it, but I just don't see one. The larger question is whether the average Moslem wants any part of this or not. I think we must be much clearer than we've been that it is Moslems who will determine whether this is a relatively small scale war against Islamofascist terrorists who have few refuges and no support, or whether this will be a major war between Islam and the West.

If it comes to that, we cannot be squeamish, and must use our monopoly on thermonuclear weapons to make sure we win a permanent victory. I want to throw up as I write that, but I don't see an alternataive. Do you?

We "only" differ in evaluating the situation. War vs. terrorist campaign. Europeans aren't that appeasing - if we really felt there was a serious war at our doorsteps, we'd pick our vigilant instincts from the past right up. And running in danger of driving your frustration up once more, I do wonder:

I am quite startled over the almost panic and urgent tone which seems to ooze from these boards. You guys really feel in danger as a society? You don't feel/see that there aren't just criminal groups out there for law enforcement to be dealt with, trying to kill some of us?

I do not try to belittle now death - and every killed person is one too many and those responsible shall be harshly punished -, but kept in perspective with other figures of violent deaths or numbers from past classic wars, the numbers suggest that it is a matter for law enforcement rather than seeing our society as a whole in danger.

Aren't you guys giving Osama and his goons way too much credit for his powers in saying it is "a matter of life or death for the West"? Wouldn't he feel pleased when he hears that and why you think it's not totally exaggarated, this "war-talk" from Bush? (as is our perspective in Europe: Bush drums this unnecessarly up in order to gather ranks behind him)

Europe was an Economy-of-Force defensive line for the US throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

American strategic interests are global in scope and commercial in nature. The main threat to those interests, until quite recently, came from the Eurasian landmass. Didn't matter if it was the Kaiser, Hitler or the Soviets, we couldn't allow anybody to cheaply consolidate power in Europe. We never wanted to dominate Europe - we were never strong enough to do so - we merely wanted to keep anybody else from doing so. Britain used to mediate in Europe, but isn't strong enough to fulfill that role any longer without US support.

If you are arguing for a return to a defensive posture based only within the continental US, then we must also be prepared to giveup the advantages of the US commercial postion. Won't happen my friend. Even the socialists in the Democratic Party wouldn't go that far. Their argument is largely quibbling about the Means, they already agree with the Ends.

And to those not reading foreign press: It's not as if Europe doesn't understand the threat from terror - Europe 'only' differed strongly with Bush on his phony arguments on the Saddam-issue - and as history showed on WMD, who was right? Germany is quite aware that a "big one" could also happen here due to our engagement in Afghanistan.

Truly incredible. The only reason Germany and France differed on the Saddam issue is that they stood to get huge sums of money from the murderous dictator in oil business contracts and France liked to sell them various weapon systems. You hypocrites accused us of going to war for oil when your own governments, in order to secure future business and oil money with Hussien, would rather let a tyrant continue to fill mass graves. I suspect the reason for the UNs hesitation was that the "cash cow" Oil for Food Program would end and they would be exposed for skimming the money. As for your point about a full belly being less agressive, you obviously know nothing about the middle east. Most Arabs don't work and do nothing if it relates to manual labor. They don't have too as some of the revenue from oil and natural gas is doled out to arab citizens by their governments. In three of the middle eastern countries I have been in recently, all labor is done by imported Third Country Nationals. It's not the TCNs that are spouting the anti-western rhetoric in this part of the world. Furthermore, if the TCNs left, the countries would fall apart and nothing would get done. A recent article in the Peninsula newspaper on the country of Brunei stated that there was poverty in Brunei, with the caveat being that this poverty would be considered upper middle class in most countries. All of the Arabs in the current country I am in, have full stomachs. They are not wanting here of any amenity. Please quit perpetuating the myth that the "root" cause of terrorism is poverty. It is a blatant lie. The cause of terroism is simply ideology.

It baffles me that a historically well-educated and obviously intelligent person like you can suddenly make rather savage suggestions, which appear to satify more a feeling for revenge than for justice. It doesn't compute with me.

Madrid now as example: Imagine they had used some form of WMDs instead of bombs and tens-of-thousands would have been killed. A Morrocan seems to be the suspect.

Your suggestion would be in such a case to nuke whom? To turn Morroco into a nuclear wasteland because the guilty criminal happened to come from their country? Just dropping those big ones won't be helpful in any case.

We "only" differ in evaluating the situation. War vs. terrorist campaign

You have hit the nail on the head. We believe, having been attacked in our largest city, that we are at war. Old continental Europe, meaning the French and Germans primarily, but with their running dogs from the low countries, and now the Spanish, does not believe it is a war.

What is going on, in our view, is that Europeans are not taking the situation seriously, just as they did not take Hitler seriously in the 30's. The Islamofasists are as clear about their intentions as Hitler was in Mein Kampf.

Yes, you get a sense of urgency from Americans, and conservative Americans espectially. Primarily because we believe that we are seeing an enemy who wishes to destroy our civilization and is clear about it. This enemy is not yet so powerful that we cannot defeat it. In fact, to defeat it now, however expensive it may seem now, it will be far more difficult and expensive in five or ten years.

Think of this a little like Pascal's bet on the existence of God:

If the Europeans are right, and the Americans are wrong, and we take the European approach, things are ok.

If the Europeans are right, and the Americans are wrong, and we take the American approach, we will have over reacted, but Western civilization will be preserved.

If the Americans are right and the Europeans are wrong, and we take the European approach, the West will fall.

If the Americans are right, and the Europeans are wrong, but we take the American approach, the West will be preserved.

The only one of these possibilities which can lead to catastrophic results for the West involves taking the European approach.

A rational person, or a game theorist (like your own von Neumann), would look at this and say that regardless of whether the Americans are right or wrong, only taking the American approach will make one certain of preserving Western civilization.

Given that we view the European appeasement/law enforcement model as potentially catastrophic, most Americans are not willing to take that risk. It's not about giving Osama et. al. too much credit, it's simply taking their intentions at face value and mobilizing now. Had the French and the British marched in 1936, when Hitler remilitarized the Rheinland, the Germans would have turned tail and retreated. The two battalions that marched into the Rheinland carried no ammunition! It was a bluff. Likewise, had the French and the British been willing to fight in 1938, the German general staff had told Hitler they could not be confident of breaching the Czech defenses and staving off the French and British in the West. The Americans who do read history, which includes our leaders and their advisors, are well aware that appeasing an enemy is always fatal. You may not recall that we went to war with the Barbary pirates at the beginning of the 19th century amidst our Congress declaring "millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.

You must understand (which the British certainly do) that Americans are reluctant warriors. We want to be left alone to do our business and live our lives. But, our history teaches us that evil cannot be ignored or appeased.

I think the alarm you see on this board is the frustrating repeat of history.

America's history in the last century has been one of reluctant participation on European wars, with little thanks to come from it. I think we expected too much of the beneficiaries of American largess, both economic and human life largess, from not only two world wars, but a long and costly cold war. Now we have a devastatingly well coordinated attack on the heart of our society and world capitalism, and all we seem to get from the Europeans is, "You guys need to get rid of that warmongerer Bush."

From the treatment of the Barbary Pirates to the removal of Saddam Hussein, Americans have boldly confronted evil regimes in Europe's backyard. Our first president told us to let Europe stew in it's own juices but we inevitably find that we don't live in the isolation once allowed by two oceans and two weak/friendly (?) nations.

We ignored the first attempt to attack us on the first WTC bombing, we couldn't ignore the second.

If Europe continues to misconstrue what Madrid truly means about this global war, then the US will go it alone. But this time, when we are done, you may see the US happy to take a much harsher look at our ties to Europe. We will remember who stood by us when we needed it...

...I already took my stance when I chose to buy a Honda over a VW.

Multiply me by 290 million consumers...and appease at your own financial risk.

Bush is part FDR, part Reagan, part Lincoln, and 100% General Sherman.

We won't rest until the Islamofascists are destroyed. If you can't help, then just stay out of the friggin way.

If you are surprised by the tone on this board...don't be. It's why Bush will be re-elected.

PS...my grandparents were from Germany...Kassel, and Leipzig. They would be embarrassed at the way Schroeder has handled this...but then, those kinds of attitudes are probably why they left...to come here.

My response to this post is a continuation of my previous one.

We are, as I have said, reluctant warriors. However, once roused, America is a terrible enemy. We are prepared to do whatever it takes to win, because we believe our cause is just. The comment you quote begins if it comes to that, meaning if what I sincerely hope does not come to pass (that the Moslems of the world choose to stand with the Islamofascists rather than help us destroy them), then we must not flinch. I'm not talking about revenge, although we all have our moments I'm sure. Rather, I am talking about the cold calculation that Western civilization must be preserved at any cost. It is others who are choosing to oppose the West. Those others must understand that their choices do not include an Islamic victory. I would hope things never come to that, but if it does, we must not shrink from imposing a Carthagenian Peace.

You two have had an interesting exchange to this point.
The european viewpoint seems to be that it is indeed a different kind of war, one they don't want to see evolve into another conventional world war..
I see VD Hanson, in his article above, slowly coming to that same realization.

Which leaves the question.. Should the USA bring the world to the brink of a 'global jihad'?
Will western civilization be saved by such a war?

______________________________________

You question whether anyone can win.

Well, what choice do we have? If we don't fight, we will lose. I don't want a global jihad, but then, I didn't start this war, either. The Islamofascists want a final war with the West. I wish there were a way to avoid it, but I just don't see one.

The larger question is whether the average Moslem wants any part of this or not. I think we must be much clearer than we've been that it is Moslems who will determine whether this is a relatively small scale war against Islamofascist terrorists who have few refuges and no support, or whether this will be a major war between Islam and the West.

If it comes to that, we cannot be squeamish, and must use our monopoly on thermonuclear weapons to make sure we win a permanent victory. I want to throw up as I write that, but I don't see an alternataive.

Do you?

______________________________________

Asked and answered.
-- You're going around in circles here, trying to justify your point that we must continue doing exactly as we have been..

I think, as does Hansen, -- and the europeans, -- that we need to re-think the basics of our strategy, lest we end up at that 'global jihad' point before we know it..

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.