Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Satan doesn't wear sweaty socks
The Times (U.K.) ^ | 01/19/2002 | MATTHEW PARRIS

Posted on 01/18/2002 4:03:49 PM PST by Pokey78

I love America. I love the place and I love the people. I admire the country as a nation. I spent two years as a postgraduate studying at Yale on a fellowship paid for by an American philanthropist, and assimilated fast.

I like their warmth, their courage, their vision. I like their individualism, energy and capitalist spirit; and I like their deep belief in liberty. You will not find a readier apologist for American values or the American way of life.

So if I sound a note of warning about the United States as a political ally, do not write me off as one of those sour European lefties with a grudge against Uncle Sam. I am a pro-American British Conservative.

My difficulty is not with America as America, but with Washington as a hoped-for coalition partner. Partnership in foreign policy is not in their nature. Consensus is not in their lexicon. They do not see their place in our world as we would do. America is either right outside, or right on top. For Americans, alongside is not an option.

My first encounter with this truth came at Yale in the 1970s. A group of us were talking about oil prices and Saudi Arabia. My friend Dave McCormack, a spirited Southerner from Charleston, had pointed out that while US hegemony protected producers from the Russians, US technology enabled Arabs to extract their oil, and US demand created the market in which to sell it. “It’s our oil, goddammit!” Dave roared.

He meant it. When Ronald Reagan remarked of the Panama Canal: “We built it; it’s ours; and we’re going to keep it,” he was tapping into the same vein.

The vein runs deep. It is not unusually greedy; and not, in any malignant way, bullying. It is a simple conviction that America will decide. Her citizens do not see her as one country among many but as nonpareil, the biggest, the best, the one-and-only: final judge of her own interests and a pretty fair judge of what’s good for the rest of us too.

None of this is inconsistent with a strong sense of justice: a sense of justice characterises America at home and abroad, but it will be their justice and they will be the arbiters. Nor is it inconsistent with a wish to do good abroad: no people have shown such a consistently generous ambition to make our world a better place.

But their help will be given ex gratia and its terms dictated by them. America will save the planet if America must, and it will pay the piper: but it will then call the tune. A negotiated process of cooperation is not what America has in mind.

It seems to me that the past century of international affairs points this lesson in no very shaded way. British dreams of a transatlantic marriage of interests are always being dashed, yet still hope triumphs over experience. My earliest political memory is Suez, a debacle on which it is unnecessary to elaborate. Succeeding memories are of a colonial boyhood in Southern Rhodesia.

The United States was running her own clear policy in Southern Africa at the time and it was unfriendly to British interests and our gradualist approach to decolonisation. The American Reading Room in Salisbury (now Harare) was a focal point for impatient young African nationalists whom America was eager to befriend before the Russians did.

Washington may have been right. My point is that it would not have occurred to them to reconsider if we had not agreed. Twenty years later the Queen was actually head of state in Grenada when America invaded the Caribbean island, to the acute discomfiture of Sir Geoffrey Howe, our Foreign Secretary. Tory Eurosceptics, ever-vigilant for threats from an alliance in whose policies we do have a say, carelessly recommend one where we don’t.

Now that President Bush has signed up Tony Blair as British Robin to the American Batman, is there reason to think these verities have been suspended? The question is not posed rhetorically, for there are some reasons for hope. Terrorism is, after all, against all our interests.

But how we define terrorism, where we diagnose it, and to what resorts we think it right to go in combating it, are debates in which we Europeans and the United States may find our preferred positions sliding apart. I think that slide began this week, as the unsavoury pantomime took to the stage in Guantanamo Bay.

Take Donald Rumsfeld’s angry brushing aside of concerns about the treatment of prisoners, an outburst which, from the Prime Minister down, members of the British Government have been trying to sidle past, looking the other way. Said the US Defence Secretary: “I do not feel the slightest concern at their treatment. They are being treated vastly better than they treated anybody else.” In a saloon bar this will do, but is that the standard? How much does the Secretary of State really know about these individuals? And why are they not prisoners of war? Face it: Mr Rumsfeld does not care about the niceties and cares little who knows it. Washington’s way of “fighting terror” is not, despite appearances, the same as Britain’s. We seek to project the message that there are rules to which all nations are subject. America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat.

The British Foreign Office may huff and puff that US swagger is “counterproductive”, alienating “moderate Arab opinion”, but Washington proposes a different approach: show them who’s boss.

America — not Britain, Europe and America and not “the international community”, but America — is boss. On this analysis Rumsfeld with his visual aids — cages, razor-wire, manacles and sedating syringes — is not maladroit: he’s on message. Be sure that frantic private telegrams are winging their way over the Atlantic explaining the embarrassment this is causing Mr Blair. Be equally sure where Mr Bush is putting them.

America has simple gods and likes to keep her satan simple, too. Every populace has a tendency to see for a while evidence of a single demon’s fiendish plans beneath every stone, but Americans take this to extremes. In Salem it was once witches. In Senator Joe McCarthy’s heyday it was Commies. Now it is al-Qaeda. And September 11 offered tremendous provocation.

Of the brutality and ill-intent of the United States’ fundamentalist foe there can be no doubt, nor of the righteousness of American wrath. But this does not make their assessment of the foe accurate.

We are told on very little evidence that the al-Qaeda network is incredibly sophisticated, yet the things we know it has done have been relatively crude, the technology modest.

We are told (and the slavishness of the British press in printing this unquestioned is depressing) that al-Qaeda “masterminds” are at work here — in London, Leicester, or wherever else some fundamentalist nutcase with nasty ambitions and contacts abroad is found in a bedsit. But in the claimed evil genius about whom we do know a bit, Richard Reid, we see little to justify the term. This imbecile is about as inconspicuous as a bag-lady. He has been attracting suspicion wherever he goes. When he flies El Al it puts a marshal in the adjacent seat. He couldn’t even devise a way of detonating his own shoes, short of bending down in his aeroplane seat, with passengers around, and trying to set fire with matches to a foot-sweaty fuse. Why didn’t he go into the loo? If this really is the cream of al-Qaeda then things are less dire than we feared.

You, reader, will have furrowed your brow about some of this already.

So will a million others. A silent minority used likewise to wonder if half the village really were witches; if the goofy clerk at work really was a key communist spy. Of course al-Qaeda exists; of course it is numerous; of course it is murderous; of course it must be fought. But it is not the only, and may not even be the cleverest, terrorist organisation in the world.

Suicide bombing is as old as the bomb, and dangerous prisoners who would stop at nothing have been transported and held in custody since courts and prisons were invented.

This is not the greatest evil the world has ever seen, nor the cleverest, nor the first — and nor, certainly, will it be the last.

But America is moving into a phase of believing so, and America is apt to throw her weight around.

It may go to some lengths and last some time. We should hang back.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 01/18/2002 4:03:49 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
On this analysis Rumsfeld with his visual aids ? cages, razor-wire, manacles and sedating syringes ? is not maladroit: he?s on message. Be sure that frantic private telegrams are winging their way over the Atlantic explaining the embarrassment this is causing Mr Blair. Be equally sure where Mr Bush is putting them.
Yuh-huh.
2 posted on 01/18/2002 4:08:43 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Don't necessarily disagree with his feelings. But some of the feelings are foolish. Britain can choose for itself, EU sovreignty or America. Is America pushing itself away, or is wimpy British elites? Even this "conservative" marks as important what Americans do with a few hundred al-Qaeda in Cuba. Is this kind of nonsense what he stakes the relationship upon?

Also,

1. Count times America "swung" its weight because Europe wouldn't act;

2. Does this weight-swinging benefit Europe?

3. "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse." -OBL Forget the stupid "moderate Arab opinion" stuff fella!

3 posted on 01/18/2002 4:26:12 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat.

Sounds right to me.

4 posted on 01/18/2002 4:26:49 PM PST by AZLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat. WTF is wrong with that, the writer seems anti-American to me.
5 posted on 01/18/2002 4:27:07 PM PST by cinciphil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"It may go to some lengths and last some time. We should hang back."

I.e., play a little role when Euro interests at play, which America protects. Quite a conveient analysis.

6 posted on 01/18/2002 4:27:36 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

I wish our foreign policy were that cut and dried.

Still, it sounds alot closer to someting you would hear from America or Russia than Great Britan.

And, imo Blair and the rest of the Euroweenies could learn a lesson from either or both on how to address foreign radicals.

What's this supposed to mean?

7 posted on 01/18/2002 4:28:18 PM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Yup. You got a problem with that? :-)
8 posted on 01/18/2002 4:33:31 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Washington’s way of “fighting terror” is not, despite appearances, the same as Britain’s

Good. We don't need to do anything "Britain's way".

9 posted on 01/18/2002 4:36:32 PM PST by mrfixit514
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Well now, Mr. Parris of "The Times" no less has weighed in with his pithy analysis of American government. From the genric of how other Western governments, all of which have needed America to come to their rescue, will now tell us how to conduct foreign relations, to the examination of how terrorists should look and conduct themselves, we have been set straight. America has always been slow to enter into foreign lands and commit themselves to war. We were pushed rather strenuously by Mr. Churchill to join the British and others to fend off Hitler et al. We finally entered the fro only to be chastised for our presence in Europe these many years later. Ironic, how we are sought after when the tough work needs to be done. It's alright for thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans to give of their lives on European soil but now our way of handling our enemies who have attacked America on its soil is less than acceptable to the British! Our worst treatment of POWs is better than anything the enemies of America have ever given our people. This particular enemy has already shown that it will riot and kill at the first opportunity. Now we're supposed to give them that opportunity? It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." He knew that you cannot have peace unless you are ready to wipe out your enemies, not play "paddy cake" (a British game) with them. As far as how they appear; it doesn't take much sophistication to pull the trigger on an automatic rifle and kill Americans. It doesn't take much sophistication to blow yourself and thousands of others to bits. Frankly, I rather have the more sophisticated enemies who have a sense of purpose and want to survive. I can deal with that. This insanity that passes for a third world foe is far more dangerous and should be treated that way So, go ahead, Mr. Parris, "hold back" you'll be safer that way. In the end many of the Europeans do that any way. As for me, the only "stiff upper lip" I want to see is on a dead enemy.
10 posted on 01/18/2002 4:39:34 PM PST by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat.

This is referred to as the "Texas Solution".
11 posted on 01/18/2002 4:40:49 PM PST by TexanToTheCore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Well now, Mr. Parris of "The Times" no less has weighed in with his pithy analysis of American government.
From the genric of how other Western governments, all of which have needed America to come to their rescue,
will now tell us how to conduct foreign relations, to the examination of how terrorists should look and conduct themselves, we have been set straight.
America has always been slow to enter into foreign lands and commit themselves to war. We were pushed rather strenuously by Mr. Churchill to join the British and others to fend off Hitler et al.
We finally entered the fro only to be chastised for our presence in Europe these many years later. Ironic, how we are sought after when the tough work needs to be done.
It's alright for thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans to give of their lives on European soil but now our way of handling our enemies who have attacked America on its soil is less than acceptable to the British!
Our worst treatment of POWs is better than anything the enemies of America have ever given our people.
This particular enemy has already shown that it will riot and kill at the first opportunity. Now we're supposed to give them that opportunity?
It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." He knew that you cannot have peace unless you are ready to wipe out your enemies,
not play "paddy cake" (a British game) with them. As far as how they appear; it doesn't take much sophistication to pull the trigger on an automatic rifle and kill Americans.
It doesn't take much sophistication to blow yourself and thousands of others to bits. Frankly, I'd rather have the more sophisticated enemies who have a sense of purpose and want to survive.
I can deal with that. This insanity that passes for a third world foe is far more dangerous and should be treated that way
So, go ahead, Mr. Parris, "hold back" you'll be safer that way. In the end many of the Europeans do that any way. As for me, the only "stiff upper lip" I want to see is on a dead enemy.
12 posted on 01/18/2002 4:43:33 PM PST by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"But their help will be given ex gratia and its terms dictated by them. America will save the planet if America must,
and it will pay the piper: but it will then call the tune. A negotiated process of cooperation is not what America has in mind. "

you should begin with, "once upon a time...." n end with "they lived happily ever after"
we don't tell arafat what to do, what bombs to buy....,
we don't tell south america what to do, when we forgive billions of $$$ debt...
n we sure as hell don't tell the u.n. what to do with the $$$ they demand from us...
this could turn into a book....

13 posted on 01/18/2002 4:47:38 PM PST by hoot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Satan doesn't wear sweaty socks

Actually, doesn't he wear ONE sweaty sock and one horseshoe?

14 posted on 01/18/2002 4:47:51 PM PST by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
We seek to project the message that there are rules to which all nations are subject. America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat.

Not to throw stones or anything but the UK has been dealing with the IRA for how long now? And the progress has been?

Let's face it; before you can sit down and have a calm discussion about how there are rules you first have to get the other side to stop shooting at you. To do that you have to get their attention.

We will win their hearts and minds later. Right now we have to stop them from trying to kill us.

A. Cricket

15 posted on 01/18/2002 4:52:01 PM PST by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"British dreams of a transatlantic marriage..."
britian doesn't exist any more...its "euro now...

"The United States was running her own clear policy in Southern Africa... "
the "communist party" thru the "congressional black caucus" was in charge of that "clear policy"...
compare south africa then, n now after the "black communist's" took over....

16 posted on 01/18/2002 4:55:26 PM PST by hoot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
When you write the check, you can call the tune.
17 posted on 01/18/2002 5:00:49 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The British Empire had its day, but all that ended 100 years ago. And no amount of whining about America as the new world leader is going to change this. Mr. Parris has had 50 years to accept this. What a stubborn guy.
18 posted on 01/18/2002 5:05:32 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
This is a terrific article and I'd have to say that he is right on point...we are the world's policemen...we are the best country at defining our goals, targeting our energies and resources, and getting the job done with a minimum of fuss...we are large geographically and very rich...we have our place in the civilized world as do the British...I wouldn't demean the British role as being Batman to our Robin...Britain has a tremendously important role to play in this war...Tony Blair is the diplomat who can soothe the ruffled egos of the Arab world and the former colonies of southern Asia....he can be the poet support guy while GW is our Braveheart.
19 posted on 01/18/2002 5:09:51 PM PST by foreshadowed at waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Lots of problems with this article. To address just one:

Why didn't he go into the loo?

Seems obvoious (based on other reports, if one believes them): The loo was nowhere near as strategically located, with respect to damage from a small bomb, as the seat he sat in.

20 posted on 01/18/2002 5:10:20 PM PST by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson