Posted on 09/14/2001 12:11:11 PM PDT by Silly
The reality is more surely this, in effect, in a world without counterweight, physically destabilized and thus dangerous, failure of multipolar equilibrium. And America, in the solitude of her power, of her super-power, in the absence from that point of any Soviet-style antagonist, has ceased to hold the people to her; or more precisely, in some parts of the globe, she seems no longer to attract hate. In a world regulated by the Cold War where terrorism was more or less aided by Moscow, one form of control was always available; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington was never interrupted. In the monopolistic world of today, it's a new barbarism, apparently without control, which seems to want to make itself the counterweight (to the USA). And perhaps we have ourselves in Europe, from the Gulf War to the use of F16s by the Israeli Defense Force against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of hate which, from the suburbs of Jakarta to those of Durban, in passing by the rejoicing crowds of Naplouse (the West Bank?) and Cairo, have been concentrated against the US.
That's what the German paper Bild is also saying today.
But the reality is perhaps also one in which America is trapped by its own cynicism: if bin Laden is indeed, as the American authorities seem to think, the organizer of the September 11th attacks, how can we not remember that bin Laden himself was created by the CIA, that he was one of the elements of a policy, turned against the Soviets, that Americans knowingly believed in. Would it not then be America which gave birth to this devil?
In any case, America is going to change. Profoundly. She is like a great oceanliner, remaining along the same course. And even when that course is bent, she stays solidly on that course. Even though it's a cliche, the U.S. has sustained an unprecedented shock. Without going back to the very first attack on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army burned the White House to the ground, the most comparable event which comes to mind is Pearl Harbor. This was in 1941, far from the mainland, with bombers against a naval fleet: the horror of Pearl Harbor is nothing when compared to what has just happened. There really is no comparison in a proper sense: yesterday 2,400 sailors, today a LOT more innocent civilians.
In this tragic moment where the words appear too poor to say the shock that one feels, the first thing which comes to mind is this one: we all are American! We all are New-Yorkers, as surely as John Kennedy declared himself a Berliner in 1963 in Berlin. How one is not to feel in effect, as in the most serious moments of our history, deeply in solidarity with these people and this country, the United States, to which we are so close and to which we owe freedom, and thus our solidarity. (I know it’s awkward, but that’s what it seems to say).
How not to be assailed at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of September 11, 2001 marks the beginning of a new era, which appears to us very far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which the somewhat euphoric year 2000, that one believed had the capacity to conclude with peace in the Middle East, had given birth to.
One new century thus advances, technologically powerful, as shown by the sophistication of the operation of war which struck all the symbols of America: those of economic superpower at the heart of Manhattan, of the military " power " of the Pentagon, and finally of the (guardian power??? symbolismc?) of the Middle East very close to Camp David. The (approaches or encounters?) of this century are also unintelligible without buying promptly and without precautions into the stereotype already widespread, that of the release of a war of the south against north. But to say that is to credit the authors of this fatal madness of " good intentions " or an unspecified project according to which it would be necessary to avenge the oppressed people against their unique oppressor, America. It would be to enable them to claim " poverty ", thus insulting the poor! What monstrous hypocrisy. None of those which lent a hand in this operation can claim to want the good of humanity. These do not want a better or more just world. They want simply to stripe ours of the card (I think this is a colloquialism for ‘they just want to screw us’).
Reality is more surely that, indeed, of a world without counterweights, physically destabilized and dangerous, due to inequalities. And America, in the loneliness of its power, of its hyper-power, in the absence from now on of any Soviet countermodel, ceased attracting people with it; or more precisely, in certain parts of the world, it only seems to attract hatred. In the controlled world of the cold war where terrorism was more or less helped by Moscow, a form of control was always possible; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In the monopolistic world of today it is a new cruelty, apparently without control, which appears to want to set up as a countervailing power. And perhaps we ourselves in Europe have, because of the war of the Gulf and the use of F16 by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of the hatred which, from the suburbs of Djakarta to those of Durban, while passing through this delighted crowd of Naplouse (? Where the Palestinians were cheering? Beats me, sorry) and of Cairo, concentrates against the United States.
But the reality is perhaps also that of America caught up with by its cynicism: if Ben Laden is the director of the day of September 11, as the American authorities seem to think, how not to recall that it itself (i.e. Bin Laden’s power) was formed by the CIA, that it was one of the elements of a policy, used against the Soviets, that the Americans believed wise. Wouldn't it be then America which would have given birth to this devil?
In any event, America will change. Deeply. It is like a large steamer, slipping a long time on an unchanging trajectory. And when it is changed, it is changed durably. However even if the language is galvaudé (sorry, can’t find this, could be “galvanized”?), the United States has just undergone a shock without precedent. Without returning to the very first aggression on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army destroyed the first White House, the episode nearest this is that of Pearl Harbor. It was in 1941, far from the continent, with bombers against a military fleet: the horror of Pearl Harbor is nothing compared to what has just happened. It is literally without common measurement: then (Pearl Harbor) 2400 (drowned or submerged, literally “absorbed”) sailors, today many more innocent civilian ones.
Pearl Harbor had marked the end of an isolationism, strong enough to have resisted even the cruelty of Hitler. When in 1941, Charles Lindbergh made a lecture tour in Europe to plead against any American involvement, a broad part of the opinion on the other side of the Atlantic dreamed already of a closing of Latin-American space, leaving Europe with its ruins and its crimes. After Pearl Harbor all changed. And America accepted the Marshall plan like the sending of GI's to all the points of the globe. Came then the Vietnam War, which led to new doctrines, that of the rare large-scale use of force, accompanied by the dogma of "zero dead" American as was illustrated during the Gulf War. All that from now on is swept away: there is no doubt that all means will be used against adversaries who have been imperceptible to date. The news outlined in blood comprises at this stage at least two foreseeable consequences. Both deal with alliances: it finishes a very whole strategy conceived against Russia, then Soviet. Russia, at least in its not Islamized part, will become the principal ally of the United States. As shown by president Putin’s remarks on the evening of the drama. Perhaps also finished by it is the alliance which the United States had outlined as of the Thirties and firmly established in the 1950’s with the integration of the Sunni Moslems, such as defended in particular Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In the eyes of American opinion and its leaders, Islamism, in all its forms, is likely to be designated as the new enemy. Admittedly, the anti-Islamic reflex had already taken place, at once after the attack in Oklahoma City against a federal building, with ridiculous, if not odious, declarations. But, this time, the inextinguishable hatred which nourishes these attacks just like the choice of the targets and the military character of the organization necessary limits the number of the possible authors.
Beyond their apparent fatal madness, the latter despite everything act with a logic. It is obviously a barbarian logic, of a new nihilism which is repugnant to a great majority of those which believe in Islam, whose religion does not authorize suicide more than Christianity; all the more suicide coupled with the massacre of the innocent. But it is about a political logic which by the rise to the extremes wants to oblige the Moslem opinions " to choose their camp ", against those which are usually indicated as " the great Satan ". By doing this, their objective could well be to extend and develop a crisis without precedent in the whole of the Arab world.
In the long run, this attitude is obviously suicidal. Because it attracts the lightning. And that it can attract it without understanding. This situation obliges our leaders to rise to the circumstances. To avoid the people that these warmongers covet (? i.e. “want to control”?) and on whom they hope to inculcate in their turn this suicidal logic. Because one can say it with fear: modern technology enables them to go even further. The madness, even with the pretext of despair, is never a force which can regenerate the world. For this reason, today, we are American.
El-Oh-El!
They basically accuse us of being racists and want us to give up on our anti-Russian bias. This is not a big change for Le Monde. They are basically communists.
Pearl Harbor marked the end of isolationism, so firly anchored in America that it could even resist intervening to end the barbarism of Hitler. (This is SUCH a French myth. You always have to remember that the French STILL love Jerry Lewis). When in 1941, Charles Lindbergh (a freaking Nazi-sympathizer as it turns out) was making the rounds at conferences in Europe to plead against any American interest in the war, a large part of the opinion on the other side of the Atlantic was dreaming of a curtain over the western hemisphere, leaving Europe to its ruins and crimes. (This is total horseshit coming from a country that bent over for Hitler and deported their Jews to die in Poland.) After Pearl Harbor, everything changed. And America accepted the full burden, the Marshall plan like sending GIs to all four corners of the globe. Next came the shredding in Vietnam, which uncorked a new doctrine, that of the massive and rare use of force, accompanied by the concept of "no dead American" as was illustrated during the Gulf War. All of which has been swept away at this point: no one doubts that every means necessary will be used against these adversaries who to this day remain uncatchable. This new approach which is written in the blood has brought to the world stage at least two predictible consequences. Both are linked to alliances: the Cold War strategy conceived entirely to contain the Russians, then the Soviets, is as good as dead. (I totally disagree here. My anti-communism is mostly focused on China now, but I do not discount the likelihood of a return of the Soviet threat in the future). Russia, at least in it's non-Islamic areas, will become the principal ally of the U.S. It's a change that President Putin seized on the night of the attack. Perhaps it is also the end of an alliance that the U.S. had drawn up since the 1930s and solidified during the 1950s with the fundamentalist Sunni Muslim, such as it is notably defended (forbidden?) in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. In the eyes of American public opinion, and in those of its leaders, Islam, in all of its forms, risks being portrayed as the new enemy. Certainly the anti-Islamic reflex has already been seen, witness the ridiculous, if not obnoxious, condemnations of Islamic radicals following the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. But, this time, the inextinguishable hate which fed these attacks just like the choice of targets and the military character of the required organization limits the number of possible culprits.
Read these paragraphs and I will summarize what they are saying afterwards.
Beyond their apparent murderous folly, these culprits are nevertheless captured by a way of thinking. It is evidently a barbaric way of thinking, one of nihilism which is rejected by a great majority of those who believe in Islam, a religion which no more favors suicide than does Christianity; let alone suicide coupled with the massacre of innocent people. But it's a political way of thinking which, by going to extremes, forces muslims to "pick a side", against those who are often referred to as "The Great Satan". In so doing, their strategy could well be to cause an unprecendented crisis in the entire Arab world.
In the long run, this attitude is clearly suicidal. Because it attracts lightning. And lightning can strike them without discrimination. This situation requires our leaders to rise to the occasion so that their people (us) can avoid what the terrorist warmongers want, our entry into their suicidal way of thinking. For we can say with fear: modern technology enables our leaders to go even further. Madness, even in the face of despair, is never a force that can rebuild the world. That is why, today, we are Americans.
When I was in France and discussing translations over way too much alcohol with the father of a French student I knew, we came to the conclusion that you just couldn't understand everything unless you knew a gzillion languages and you knew them fluently. Here's a great example of why.
The writers at Le Monde used two words separately in this editorial in a way that conveys what they mean precisely, but you wouldn't know it unless you knew something of French history over the last 40 years.
The two words are "frappe" and "force". Separately and literally these words mean "strike" or "hit" as in, "the terrorists struck at the symbols of American power"; and "force" as in "Madness is never a force that can rebuild the world".
What they don't need to tell their French readership is what they are referring to when they use "force" in this context and what they really mean by "madness" or "folie". After WWII when France almost ceased to exist as a separate country, Charles de Gaulle realized that (in addition to having a century-long inferiority complex with respect to the British) the French needed to have an independent nuclear force in case the U.S. should ever return to its pre-war "isolationism".
Well, Charles de Gaulle coined a term for their nuclear weapons capability which was "force de frappe". I would translate it as meaning "strike force".
Le Monde, in their way too subtle French way, is advocating that the U.S. (and its allies), not use nukes in their battle with bin Laden. They start out by sympathizing, and almost empathizing with how everyone is angry, but they want cooler heads to prevail before we turn the Middle East or Afghanistan into a hot zone.
And I must say that, as long as the nukes are tactical, I completely disagree. We are the only country to ever fire a nuke in anger. We fired them "to prevent thousands of American deaths", but also to avenge the deaths of servicemen and women at Pearl Harbor. We've done it once before. We can do it again, especially if it means that we can save American lives by doing so. And this time there are civilian lives to avenge, including at least one 2 and one 4 year old on Flight 93.
Thanks for your insight and care with the language.
Silly
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.