Europeans Are Not Cowards. It's That We Know War.

The International Herald Tribune ^ | January 28, 2004 | Fletcher Crossman

[quidnunc]

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina – Listening to Richard Perle on the radio recently was a little hard for a European like me. Perle, a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, stated that European nations "do not have the most courageous of instincts," with the implication that America has to intervene in international affairs because Europeans are afraid to. Perle's comments take place against a chorus of similar sentiments to be heard on America's airwaves in recent months.

An average listener would be forgiven for believing that Europeans are a cowardly bunch of ungrateful wimps, whose anti-American bombast is a merely a cover for their complicity with evil regimes.

It may be true. But as a European myself — I'm from Britain — it doesn't feel true. And I wonder if our cultural disconnect comes from two very different experiences of war.

-snip-

[Sprite518]

Lets get to the meat and potatoes about the Eurotrash. Now I understand there are some exceptions to the rule, but I am just speaking about the majority of this content that brought us the worst people to ever exist on this Earth(Stalin and Hitler). Especially, about the cowardly French! These bed wetting pansies are jealous of the USA. Everyone in the USA know and Europe know it, but pretend we do not. I can see why they are upset though. We have been around only for a short time(compared to Europe). However, we provide the leadership, help, entertainment, charity, food, etc.... that they so desire. So naturally their jealous.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Mt. PLEASANT, South Carolina Listening to Richard Perle on the radio recently was a little hard for a European like me.

The writer might consider himself to be more of an 'Englishman'; I'm not about to call myself a 'North American'. Especially in light of how my fellow 'North Americans' want things to be run.

Perle, a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, stated that European nations "do not have the most courageous of instincts," with the implication that America has to intervene in international affairs because Europeans are afraid to. Perle's comments take place against a chorus of similar sentiments to be heard on America's airwaves in recent months.

Probably because it's true. I'm loathing the idea of US soldiers bailing France out when Islamic peoples overrun them.

An average listener would be forgiven for believing that Europeans are a cowardly bunch of ungrateful wimps, whose anti-American bombast is a merely a cover for their complicity with evil regimes.

It may be true. But as a European myself - I'm from Britain - it doesn't feel true. And I wonder if our cultural disconnect comes from two very different experiences of war.

It is true.

Let's be clear: Europeans don't run away from war. Even the most fleeting look at our history will tell you that we love war, we want war, we will find almost any excuse for a war. In 1914 young men from all across Europe jauntily marched off to start yet another one, with flags waving and patriotic songs playing. Young men from my country marched in the knowledge that they represented the greatest nation on Earth, an economic powerhouse, a country blessed by God. Any of this sounding familiar?

The only problem isn't that you weren't the greatest nation on earth, and America proved it as we slogged across the mud to quell your latest suicidal outburst.

Barely one of those men could have clearly explained what the war was about, it was enough that they were fighting for freedom, and against oppression.

The author himself cannot explain what the war was about. No wonder they did it again in 1939.

Fast forward five years. 1919. A whole generation of young men - over 8.5 million - wiped out in the most disgusting war the world had ever seen. Economies collapsed, vast regions were blighted. No longer was anyone playing patriotic songs. Now poets like Wilfred Owen were bitterly decrying "the old lie" that it is an honorable thing to die for your country. Who was the enemy, anyway? Was it those pathetic, blood-stained bodies strewn across the opposing trenches, or the fat, cigar-smoking politicians that ordered us into this nightmare?

You decide, Mr. Crossman.

This feeling has never been totally expunged from the European psyche. However clear-cut the rationale sounds at the start of a war, the reality always results in atrocities, injustices and moral ambiguity. Within a few short years we were forced into a World War II, and this time there was none of the flag-waving; instead there was a stunned gasp of: "Are we really going through all this again?"

Of course you were. What other result did you expect?

And this time it was worse. Our cities were flattened, a genocide was committed, a whole civilization was brought to its knees.

....and next time it will be even worse........if you can imagine it.

But World War II was mercifully different for America. Despite its debilitating losses - and its astonishing selflessness in prioritizing the European theater ahead of its own mission in the Pacific - America emerged from the devastation in a pre-eminent position, its infrastructure intact. Culturally, politically and economically, America stood like a gleaming Colossus above an impoverished world. If America had believed that by use of force, Good could prevail over Evil, then it had been proved right. War had saved Freedom and defeated Tyranny.

A war backed by the forces of good will overcome the forces of evil. Europe should try reading that Bible before they throw it into the bonfire next time.

And this is now burned into the American psyche in much the same way that cynicism is for the European. America is the brave young soldier, with shining eyes and a firm jaw, marching towards a battle that will make the world a better place.

As long as we keep our principles intact.

Europe is the bitter old veteran sitting on the sidewalk, his medals collecting dust somewhere, shaking his head knowingly as the young soldier marches by.

Hopefully he is shaking his head, acknowledging to himself, "That" is what we should have been fighting for.

Both views are valid and both are forged in the furnace of experience. America has the power and inclination to promote justice in the world, and Richard Perle may indeed be right: Perhaps Europeans don't have the most courageous of instincts. Not anymore. They still live in the shadow of two unthinkable wars, and have learnt that patriotism and courageous instincts have too often resulted in corruption, destruction and death.

It's not patriotism and courageous instincts that have resulted in corruption, destruction, and death. It is the misapplication of virtues that have led to the destruction that the author describes.

God Bless the United States of America.

[sarasmom]

Not that simple, unfortunately.
The Euros think the USA is stupid for not assuming absolute power over their failed dictators.They are also furious that we did not "free" them, when we had the chance in WWII.
It's hard to negotiate as equals with countries who eschew the entire concept of free sovereign nations.
The world is angry because the USA refuses to conquer them.
Sounds stupid, but that is the root cause of anti-USA vitriol.

[He Rides A White Horse]

ping

[longtermmemmory]

This bafoon knows nothing. I have family who know the horrors of war, who survived the horrors of communists. You must say no to evil BECAUSE you know.

[marron]

You are perhaps the first here to actually read the whole article. The writer winds a circuitous route before concluding that the Americans aren't wrong. It is almost like amateur dentistry to get him to go to the next step and admit we're right, and he can't quite do it...

But he admits that we aren't wrong.

America has the power and inclination to promote justice in the world, and Richard Perle may indeed be right: Perhaps Europeans don't have the most courageous of instincts. Not anymore.

[He Rides A White Horse]

My Regards..............

[saul goode]

Do you speak German? Oh, well then, you're welcome, old boy.....

How does the saying go? "If you are reading this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, thank a soldier." I'll bet the saying is not referring to a French soldier...Call it a hunch.

[saul goode]

"The writer might consider himself to be more of an 'Englishman'; I'm not about to call myself a 'North American'. Especially in light of how my fellow 'North Americans' want things to be run."

When was the last time you heard the term "North America" in conversation. The term Europe is used so much more often because each of the piddly little countries that comprise it are, individually barely significent. Maybe that explains why Europe was so willing to sacrifice Poland 65 years ago. Poland wasn't and isn't the identity of Europe. Neither is France or Spain or Luxemborg, or any other country. The term "North American" is a term of geography. Politically speaking, North America is the United States and the surrounding countries. They have names, but negligable importance. The term "European" is far more ideological than geographical. That's why when someone uses the term, Russia is probably exempt from the idea being expressed. Russia is not a part of Europe or Asia in a political or idealogical sense. Russia is Russia. It has an identity. It is autonomous. Throughout history, this has been true. Love them or hate them, Russians have pride. They have a core of dignity and self-respect. Russia is an extremely racially diverse country, but it is not perceived as such because Russia has an identity (albeit one that sparks a great deal of civil unrest.)
Just as the Russians can assume exemption from indictments of Europeans as cowards, Americans can rest assured that, whether we are loved or hated, we will never have to suffer the indignity of being referred to as a minor cog in our continent instead of a seperate entity deserving to be addressed as such.

[Bigg Red]

It is they, and not we, who have presented the world with the central moral dilemma of our time: how much can one ignore in the interest of not dirtying one's hands, and at what point do scruples and a preference for the niceties of international order become the handcuffs that allow cowards to oppress the weak unhindered?

***
Most eloquent and so true.

[Bigg Red]

Britain always seems to find a great leader in time of war. We should be so lucky.

**

We are so lucky, viz. George W. Bush.

[js1138]

You managed to say what I had intended to say -- and more -- in the very first response to this thread.

[Stentor]

they were all photos of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz.

I know why two of them were there. Maybe assumptions were made about the other two.

[DFW_Repub]

"Europeans think themselves too sophisticated"

I make several trips to Europe every year ( 3 in 2003). Maybe I don't really know what "sophisticated" really is, but most Western European's I meet and interact with could not be called "sophisticated" by my definition.

Ignorant and Ill-informed stand out as good descriptors of them, especially when it comes to all things American.

[truth_seeker]

"Bye the way, do you know why the Champs Elysees is line with trees? Ans: To shade German soldiers as they march into Paris."

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

No. It has never been tried.

[truth_seeker]

"Fine. Richard Perle wears no stripes, and does not function as the Commander in Chief of our nation's armed forces."

FYI the US of A has civilian top management, of the armed forces. The President (who has always been a civilian), the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretaries of Defense, on down the line.

The HIGHEST general reports to a civilian. I wouldn't know if it is so, in the Alberta national guard.

Mr. Secretary Perle was in the Military chain of command, or a related staff role.

A lot of Americans served in wars because they were drafted. They didn't have the choice of deciding if the particular war (or Deputy Secretary of Defense in question) met their high, personal, individual standards.

But serve honorably they did.

You have not posted anything which would lead one to see where you would serve your country (countries, which one?) honorably.

You have simply posted excuses for why you WOULDN'T serve, provided you could find an excuse. You seem to have many.

I served as a conscript during Vietnam and the Cold War. No combat, no medals, honorable discharge.

And for the rest of my days I respect any who have served, but I don't heap disrespect on those that didn't.

Until they mouth off.

[Cacique]

btt

[Alberta's Child]

"Mr. Secretary" was an incorrect title for Richard Perle while he was still playing a role in the Bush Administration. In fact, he had no official role whatsoever in the U.S. Department of Defense; he was the chairman of a group called the Defense Policy Board -- comprised mainly of former government officials and retired military officers. Of particular note is the fact that Perle's position has always been described as one of an "unpaid advisor," which in and of itself raises a lot of questions. In particular:

1. He wasn't donating time to the Defense Policy Board simply out of a sense of altruism. Somebody was paying his bills.

2. I have raised the question as to whether Perle functioned in this kind of role simply because he could never obtain the required security clearances necessary to serve in an official capacity in the U.S. Department of Defense. While a member of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson's staff in the 1970s, he had been accused of leaking classified information to soimeone working at the Israeli embassy. In addition, his infamous 1996 report to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm raises some serious questions about which country he's really been working for all these years -- the "realm" he was talking about, if you haven't guessed already, wasn't the United States.

And lest you think my criticism of Mr. Perle is overly harsh, consider this: During the 1980s when he served as Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, his most vocal critic was Alabama Senator and retired Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton, who spent eight years as a POW in Vietnam and later chronicled his experiences as a POW in his book, When Hell Was In Session. You and others have asked me in what capacity I would have served in the U.S. military, so here's your answer: I would have gone to hell and back with someone of Jeremiah Denton's caliber. The fact that he spent so much time in his post-Senate years fighting on behalf of POWs/MIAs in Vietnam who had been utterly neglected by their own government says a lot more, quite frankly, about this country than it does about Denton's honor and virtue.

While I have the utmost respect for anyone who serves in the U.S. armed forces (either of their own volition or as a draftee), I have to admit that your comments go a long way toward explaining how this country could piss away 58,000 lives in Vietnam and yet still allow people like Jane Fonda and Bill Clinton to pursue lucrative, successful careers in the U.S. as if their disloyalty and outright treason weren't such a big deal.

[My Point Is]

Like Vietnam.
Like Afghanistan, where Bin Laden still has not been found and where anarchy is ruling. Where those celebrating a wedding have to be afraid of US bombers and where more civilians were killed than on September 11th.
Like Iraq, where more than 500 soldiers have been killed after the war "ended".
Like the war on truth when showing faked proofs to the UN Security Council.
Like the war against civilians when cluster bombing them, a crime against humanity.
Like the war on terror, which has produced hundreds of victims in Bali, Africa, Djerba, etc. after the war in Afghanistan started.

[My Point Is]

I am afraid I will not be able to respond to questions because there is no free speech in the free republic. People with good arguments get banned because freepers have no better way to defend themselves.