Anti-Americanism In Europe 'Helps Al-Qa'eda'

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 2-8-2007 | David Blair

[blam]

Anti-Americanism in Europe 'helps al-Qa'eda'

By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent
Last Updated: 8:41pm GMT 08/02/2007

Anti-American feeling in Europe is playing into the hands of al-Qa'eda and unwittingly encouraging terrorism, Australia's foreign minister said today.

France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder both opposed the US-led war in Iraq in 2003

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Alexander Downer urged European politicians to weigh the consequences of their words before they "leap out there and attack America".

Mr Downer gave warning that criticism of America's conduct in Iraq could – inadvertently – provide an incentive for terrorist attacks.

"People in the West, and not only in Europe, blame America for a suicide bomber in a market in Baghdad," he said.

"That only encourages more horrific behaviour. Every time there is an atrocity committed, it is implicitly America's fault, so why not commit some more atrocities and put even more pressure on America?"

Mr Downer added: "The al-Qa'eda leadership has said on many occasions that more than 50 per cent of the battle is a battle in the media. The more you can get media denigration of America, the more that the war against terrorism is seen to be an indictment of America, the better for those who started this war."

Speaking during a visit to London, Mr Downer, who has served as Australia's foreign minister for almost 11 years, said that European critics of Washington were not aiming to help terrorists, but this could be the unintentional consequence of their words.

"It's very rude to say these people want to help al-Qa'eda. They don't. But obviously America's enemies take comfort from continual attacks on America by America's friends," he said. "Before you leap out there and vigorously attack America, think about what you're saying and the consequences of what you're saying."

Mr Downer, 55, added that populist attacks on Washington "might play well in some political constituencies in Europe, but that's no excuse".

Australia supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, sending 500 special forces soldiers and three frigates to the Gulf. Some 500 Australian troops are now deployed in Afghanistan, where they are engaged against Taliban fighters in the southern province of Uruzgan.

Nato defence ministers met in Seville today to consider sending more soldiers to Afghanistan. General Dan McNeill, the new American commander of Nato forces in the country, asked for 2,000 more troops to join the 33,000 deployed at present.

Mr Downer urged Nato to agree to this request. He criticised countries like France who have sent forces to Afghanistan – but only on condition that their troops do not operate in the south, where the fighting against the Taliban is fiercest.

"At the end of the day, it's weakening the coalition's efforts in Afghanistan," said Mr Downer. "Think of Afghanistan as a battle that has to be won. The Taliban have to be defeated. So it's not about just symbolically sending some soldiers there."

Mr Downer added: "Nato needs to be very robust. We're now getting towards the end of the winter. When the spring comes, you will see a spring offensive from the Taliban and I think it will be pretty tough and that's going to require a lot of resolve. So we would like to see more troops."

[steel_resolve]

HAHA weso enjoy being pricks don't we gearhardt?"

Yes we do Jacques. Good thing stabbing America in the back doesn't come with any consequences hunh?...uh..."

[Felis_irritable]

"It's very rude to say these people want to help al-Qa'eda. They don't."

And how, exactly, does he know this ?

[himno hero]

funny how the west now means america, whereas previously it included the western europeans....(christian descent)

the dilution at work

Chirac - you laughing fool. Actually these two ass clowns personify idiots at work.

enjoy your brief hillarity, one day soon you will be calling for americas help....

[omega4412]

"unwittingly"? "inadvertently"?

[MARKUSPRIME]

I agree 100%. God bless the aussies.

[Rembrandt_fan]

The article read, "Mr Downer gave warning that criticism of America's conduct in Iraq could – inadvertently – provide an incentive for terrorist attacks."

There is and has been nothing 'inadvertent' about support for Al-Queda by summertime allies--France, particularly. The sole claim to international standing that wretched, ungrateful land possesses is its seat on the UN Security Council. From the French perspective, a confident, assertive America is the major obstacle to the UN assuming a viable role as a genuine arbiter of international affairs. An America beaten into defeatism and isolationism would allow France to assume its place as a kind of diplomatic fulcrum, lending its weight to those issues and power blocs that further French interests, whatever those interests might be. French interests may vary over time, but its desire to assert what it believes is its historical leadership role in world affairs hasn't changed since 1787.

This all sounds like tinfoil-hat stuff, I know, particularly the part about the UN, but it's the only explanation I can come up with to explain seemingly inexplicable French motivations. The Chinese and Russians have their own agendas, as well, but at least--by comparison with the French--their goals are straightforward. To give enemies their due, the Chinese and Russians come at you like men, from the front, with clear intentions.

[Felis_irritable]

"one day soon you will be calling for americas help...."

Again.

[Billthedrill]

Posted on a duplicate thread -

An excellent point, actually, but it's falling on deaf ears. One of the chief reasons that anti-Americanism has become such a first resort in European intellectual life is that it has always had no negative consequences at all. One may invoke it, appear a brave and dissenting figure, a fierce and independent critic, etc ad nauseun, and still the stupid Americans had to maintain, say, a missile shield or lose the Cold War.

The world has changed but not, alas, the behavior. Downer is correct in pointing out that now there are negative consequences to this profoundly self-satisfying behavior and the question is whether a frank assessment of the risk on the part of the critics will outweigh the considerable egocentric benefits of anti-Americanism.

My guess is that it will not. These are largely persons who prefer being regarded brave and independent to actually being so in reality - the latter carries its own risks, as the late Oriana Fallaci exemplifies. Downer is correct, IMHO, but he might as well have saved his breath.

[Cindy]

On another note...

Anti-Americanism by Americans lifts up our enemies, too.

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=antiamerica
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=antiamerican
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=unamerican

[himno hero]

there is a HUGE chance they may not. the dilution has occured. firstly it was in style for any french "intellectual" to ostracize the US. They didnt even have to be leftists. Then the muzzies moved in compounding opinion.

now the muzzies are fairly quietly displacing the frogs. with a little time, 10-15 years,IMO, all they will have to do is vote and the muzzies will have a majority government, a nuclear armed government. a silent coupe d'tat. not a shot fired.

go figure