Posted on 08/12/2002 12:47:34 PM PDT by Pokey78
This summer of phony war looks even weirder when you compare the European and American press. In London and Paris, Berlin and Brussels, the papers are full of speculation about war with Iraq. There are demands that parliament be recalled; there are rumors of potential cabinet resignations; there are secret polls showing the enormous unpopularity of George Bush among Britons. In Germany, the Chancellor is even making opposition to war a key plank of his re-election campaign. But in the imperial capital, thousands of miles away, a strange calm prevails. The Senate has just held hearings on a potential war against Saddam, but the administration says it is not yet ready to give testimony. Congress is in recess. The president has gone to Texas. Many Americans are on vacation. Newspapers are covering the issue, but it has yet to rise to an actual, impassioned, substantive debate. And there's little mystery why. Despite the efforts of anti-war newspapers such as the New York Times, polls consistently show somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of Americans support war. The president has rhetorically committed himself to such an outcome. Privately no one close to the administration doubts it will take place - probably this winter. Americans are not blithe about this war: it will be their sons and daughters who die in it. But neither are they prepared to ignore a threat to the West as dangerous as any we have faced.
And American response to European panic and resistance? It's perhaps best summed up by a slightly impatient sigh. "Europeans Queasy About American Power" is not exactly a shocking headline any more. It simply isn't news that the Guardian opposes the use of arms to pre-empt the re-emergence of one of the most evil and dangerous regimes in the world. It isn't news that the EU, as represented by Chris Patten, prefers to subsidize Palestinian terror rather than fret about the possible Iraqi use of biological weapons. American eyes simply glaze over at this habitual pattern of European denial and protest. If Europeans opposed even the war in Afghanistan, what chance is there they will support war against Iraq? Americans have seen it before. They'll see it again. Meanwhile, they have work to do.
But, at a deeper and more worrying level, it's increasingly true that many Americans simply don't care any more. They are used to Europeans instinctually opposing any use of military force; and they are used to reflexive (and often hypocritical) anti-Americanism from the European center and left. But added to this is a relatively new and unanswerable factor: why on earth, apart from good manners, should Americans care about what Europe thinks? Yes, diplomacy demands courtesy and "listening." But it's not at all clear what else it requires. Militarily, Europe is a dud, and well on its way to becoming a complete irrelevance. With the sole exception of Britain, the Europeans have contributed a minuscule amount of the money and manpower to defang (but not yet defeat) al Qaeda. They couldn't even muster enough initiative and coordination to prevent another genocide in their own continent in the 1990s. They have cut their defense spending to such an extent that, with the exception of Britain, they are virtually useless as military allies. And these cuts in military spending are continuing - even after September 11. If a person who refuses to lock his door at night starts complaining about the only cop on the beat, sane people should wonder what has happened to his grip on reality. Does he actually want to be robbed or murdered? Similarly, it is one thing for Europeans to say that they are ceding all military responsibility to maintain international order to the United States. It is quite another for Europeans to then object when the United States takes the Europeans at their word and acts to defend that world order.
And the need for such order has not been abolished in the last decade. The world is still a terrifyingly dangerous place - perhaps, with the advance of destructive technology, more dangerous than at any time in the past. It was once impossible to conceive that radical terrorists could acquire the capacity to destroy an entire city like New York or Rome. But they are now on the verge of that capacity, and last September demonstrated to the world that they would show no hesitation in using it. An average, bewildered American therefore feels like asking of nervous Europeans: just what about September 11 do you not understand? These murderous fanatics could not have been clearer about their intent and capabilities. They want to kill you and destroy your civilization. This must change the prudential equation when faced with a menace like Saddam Hussein. When a tyrant like Saddam is doing all he can to acquirre biological, cehmical and nuclear weapons, when he has already invaded a neighboring state, when he has used chemical weapons against his own people, when he is subsidizing terror elsewhere in the Middle East, when he has extensive ties to Islamist terrorist groups around the world, doesn't the benefit of the doubt shift toward those who aim to disarm and dethrone him? And doesn't the mass grave of 3,000 Americans in the middle of New York City change the equation just a little?
This is the core of Americans' puzzlement about not just European vacillation but passionate opposition to taking on Saddam. When religious leaders actually argue that the United States is more moraly troubling than a butcher who has gassed his own people and waged wars of incalculable human cost, then you know some moral bearings have been lost. You know that the forces of appeasement and moral equivalence are as powerful today as they were in the 1970s when faced with Soviet evil and the 1930s when faced with Nazi evil. In this regard, it is useful to compare the response of Russia and Britain, with the official EU and widespread European hostility to the use of American force in the world. Both Russia and Britain provided key aid in the Afghanistan mission and both governments have been supportive of American concerns over Iraq. Both countries are acting as if they too have a responsibility to counter international terrorism and to sever its umbilical link to rogue states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Russia, Britain and America may disagree on some matters - their interests won't always coincide. But they share a common understanding of the threat we all face and have found a practical response to it. This is the difference between cooperating and mere whining. And it's a difference Washington appreciates.
In contrast, the Europe-wide hostility to American power and ingratitude for the Afghanistan campaign are bewildering. It's worth repeating an obvious fact: If it were not for America, al Qaeda, with support from Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Hamas, would still be ensconced in Afghanistan, planning new and more deadly attacks against the West. If it weren't for America, it is a virtual certainty that London and Paris would have by now experienced similarly catastrophic events as September 11. If it weren't for America, militarized fundamentalist Islam would, with the help of millions of Islamist immigrants, be gaining even more strength in Continental Europe. Yet European response to America's world-saving Afghanistan mission has not been thanks, appreciation or support. It has been increased criticism of the United States for seeking to continue the job in Iraq and elsewhere. At times, it even seems that Europeans believe that America's self-defense is more of a problem for world order than terrorist groups, aided by local tyrants like Saddam, coming close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction. On this score, many Americans don't just differ with many Europeans, they are repulsed by their inverted logic and moral delinquency. And they have a point. In a recent essay in National Review, a conservative magazine, Victor Davis Hanson summed up a common American view toward European complainers:
"Iraq? Stay put — we don't necessarily need or desire your help. The Middle East? Shame on you, not us, for financing the terrorists on the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority and Israel? You helped to fund a terrorist clique; we, a democracy — go figure. Racism? Arabs are safer in America than Jews are in Europe. That 200,000 were butchered in Bosnia and Kosovo a few hours from Rome and Berlin is a stain on you, the inactive, not us, the interventionist. Capital punishment? Our government has executed terrorists; yours have freed them. Do the moral calculus."
Israel, of course, plays a central role in this divide. It is still shocking to read, say, the BBC's accounts of what is happening in Israel and the West Bank, compared with even the most pro-Palestinian of major media in America. It is almost a given in the European media that Israel is the problem, Israel the aggressor, Israel the immoral protagonist in the conflict. To read the Independent or the Daily Mirror is to see a world where Israel is always guilty until proved innocent - in Jenin, for example, where the Independent declared a war crime before any real evidence had been presented. The fact that Israel is a democracy, while there is not a single democracy in the entire Arab world, is ignored. The fact that Israel exists in part because of Europe's legacy of genocidal anti-Semitism is also conveniently forgotten. The fact that Israel occupies the West Bank out of self-defense in the 1967 war is also expunged from memory. The incidental killing of civilians in Israel's acts of military self-defense are routinely regarded as morally equivalent to the deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian terrorists. And the routine, vile, Nazi-like hatred of Jews, an anti-Semitism that is now a key part of the governing ideology of the Arab states, is simply ignored, or down-played or denied.
When Americans see these double-standards, when they witness reflexive hostility to Israel in the European media, they naturally wonder if anti-Semitism, Europe's indigenous form of hate, isn't somehow behind it. And when Europeans respond with outrage toward this inference, it only compounds the problem. We're not anti-Semitic, we're anti-Israel, they claim. But while the slightest infraction of civilized norms by the Israelis is trumpeted from the mountaintops, the routine torture, despotism, intolerance and corruption that is the norm among Israel's neighbors barely gains a column inch or two. And the mis-steps and human rights violations of other countries - China in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya, Sri Lanka against the Tamils, and most famously, Serbia against Bosnian Muslims - never quite make the sniff-test of outrage and action. (Remember: it was America who finally rescued the Muslims of the Balkans, while Europe fiddled and diddled.) In this context, it is simply natural to ask of Europeans: isn't it a little suspicious, given Europe's history, that it's Israel that always gets your critical attention?
Talk to many Europeans and their self-defense gets even worse. They will soon tell you that America's support for the only democracy in the Middle East is a function of the "all-powerful Jewish lobby" in Washington. It doesn't occur to them that references to such a lobby's subterranean influence are themselves facets of anti-Semitism so deep it barely registers. When the Guardian can run a column days after September 11 with the headline, "Who Dare Blame Israel?" you can see how deep the anti-Semitic rot has buried itself into the liberal mind. When the French have a best-seller on how the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was part of a CIA-Jewish plot, you can see why Americans are circumspect. When synagogues are burned, when Jewish cemeteries are desecrated and an anti-Semitic fascist comes in second in the first round of French voting, is it a shock that Americans see Europe as a place that hasn't really changed that much in fifty years in some respects?
There are, of course, deeper structural reasons for Europe's aversion to American power. By unilaterally disarming itself, Europe is making a statement about how the world should be governed: by mediation, diplomacy, international agreements, polled sovereignty. The American analyst Robert Kagan famously expanded on this theme in a much-discussed recent essay. The experience of the EU - the way in which ancient enemies like France and Germany now cooperate in a conflict-free, post-nationalist arena - is regarded as morally and strategically superior to America's still-tenacious defense of sovereignty and millitary force. What this analysis misses, of course, is a little history. The only reason the E.U. can exist at all is because American military force defeated Nazi Germany. The only reason why all of Germany is now included in the E.U. is because American military force defeated the Soviet Union. Europhiles mistake the fruits of realpolitik with its abolition. And they don't realize that the best and only guarantor of European peace and integration - now threatened from within and without by Islamist terror - is American force again. Instead of cavilling at such intervention, these Europeans should be praying for it - in order to save their own political achievement.
This is not to dismiss the serious questions to be asked about any Iraq war. Should it be a massive land invasion with over 200,000 troops - or a smaller force of, say, 50,000 supplemented by special forces? How do we prevent Saddam using chemical or biological weapons if attacked? How could this destabilize the region in worrying ways - as opposed to the right ways? Is Turkey on board? How do we cope with a post-Saddam Iraq? These are onerous matters and they deserve a thorough airing. But their premise is responsibility for world order. Europeans may believe that they have abolished realpolitik in their internal affairs, that national interest is a thing of the past, that military power is an anachronism. And within the confines of a few European countries, they may be right. But in the wider world - especially in the combustible Middle East - history hasn't ended and a new threat to world peace is rising, with the most dangerous weapons in world history close to its grasp. If Europeans believe that it can be palliated by subsidy or diplomacy or appeasement or surrender, then they are simply mistaking their own elysian state of affairs for the Hobbesian world outside their borders. They are misreading their own times - as profoundly as they did in the 1930s.
America, in contrast, has no option but to tackle this threat - or face its own destruction at the hands of it. The longer America takes to tackle it, the greater the costs will be. The threat is primarily to America, as the world hegemon, but Europe is not immune either. The question for European leaders is therefore not whether they want to back America or not. The question is whether they want to be adult players in a new and dangerous world. Grow up and join in - or pipe down and let us do it. That's the message America is now sending to Europe. And it's a message long, long overdue.
Originally published in The Sunday Times of London, August 11, 2002
Britain is excepted with the caveat that they are headed down the same road. We have provided their security for over a half century and they got 2 months on holiday. Unemployment in Germany is reaching new heights. If you have any friends over there you might want to douse them with cold water, it's time to wake up.
Noted above is the distinct likelihood that the greatest European opposition to American resolve vis a vis Iraq/Saddam is in its government/media elite, steeped in socialism/globalism, ignorant of the texture of the facts on the ground.
We here are shedding our media like so much snakeskin, empty and useless, as the sinewy strength evolves.
Sullivan has laid out in dense clarity the perception of European condescension by Americans with sleeves rolled up.
It's clear that all would not be swell had not U.S. and Russian armies driven to the very block above Hitler's bunker--as they must do in Baghdad.
It's not for nothing that Bush labelled Iran, Iraq and North Korea the Axis of Evil, as they flank the Anus of Evil: China.
China is currently aiding Al Qaeda in Pakistan as it did in Afghanistan, as it provided Saddam with fiber optic links for his air defense, and (through its deniable sock puppet North Korea) the various Scud derivatives of Taipodong-types, themselves derived from Chinese No Dong technology--and all, of course, improved by traitor-rapist42 and his donors Schwartz/Armstrong Loral/Hughes.
The French sip wine as the Israeli Embassy in Paris is destroyed by fire, having denied us airspace to hit Kadafi.
Should Al Qaeda fly hijacked aircraft into their Eiffel Tower, would they not simply headline it, "Le Eiffel hit--Where was Israel?"
Oui.
No. Europe has decimated their military despite the largesse of America. They have neither the will nor the means to help in any significant way. They can't even vote to limit unemployment for philanderers for pete's sake. They are currently hopeless and helpless.
It can change but not in my lifetime.
JMHO, of course. :-}
? Just curious. :) Are they cracking down on prostitution or something?
I just spit beer on my monitor :)
I would vote for Tony Blair, even though he's a statist. He is impressive in that he always help the Americans, and recongize the threat that Islam has on the West.
Probably the most significant thing is that he's not an Euroweenie.
Arabs, Druze, Samaritan, and European Christian citizens of Israel have equal rights to Jews. Israel, to the detriment of its survival, is far more "Democratic" than the US was in 1850.
Majority rule itself has taken a peculiar form in Israel. The original Arab majority was driven out of their homes and their native land, and kept out.
1. The Arabs invaded in 640CE, when there were still almost as many Jews as Byzantine colonists. The Arabs aren't origional anything to the land. That is quite different from Jews who have had a continuous presence in the land for all but 60 of the last 3200+ years.
2. The Arabs of the Mandate of Palestine included two groups, the 1/3 whose families were they before 1890, and the 2/3 who came to land that Jews developed and then tried to take it.
3. Aside from 2 incidents over battelfields, there is no actual evidence that Jews expelled Arabs. In fact the Jews in 1947-48 made hundreds of declarations asking for peace and for the Arabs to stay. Those who left did so at the behest of the Arab armies so that these could exterminate the Jews. Teh 750,000 "refugees" chose to try to facilitate genocide to take land that they did not own. (Yes Jews did own property in the British mandate).
4. There is alot of instances of Arabs expelling Jews. After 1923, the 2/3 of Palestine, the Kingdom of Transjordan, given to teh Arabs was cleanesed of Jews.
In 1929, the Arabs murdered dozens and expelled the 3000 year old Jewish community in Hebron.
All Jews were expelled from the land (Trans)Jordan and Egypt conquered in 1948. Jewish property was stolen or destroyed. This included the Jewish quarter of old Jerusalem.
About 700,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries from 1947. These Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews now form a majority of the population of Israel.
Not only the first immigrants from Eastern Europe, but every Jew on earth was granted a "right of return" -- that is, "return" to a "homeland" most have never lived in, and in which none of their ancestors has ever lived.
The world-wide diaspora of Israelites have no ancestors from Israel? The Jews are not from Judea?
Thank you for proving yourself a liar. I'm quite certain that your response will also show your anti-Semetism.
In recent years Israel has been augmenting its Jewish majority by vigorously encouraging Jewish immigration, especially from Russia. Ariel Sharon has told a group of American senators that Israel needs a million more Jewish immigrants.
Israelites moving to Israel; that prove's Israel's nefariousness?
Israel rejects demands for a "right of return" for Palestinians exiled since 1948. Its reason? This would mean "the end of the Jewish state." An Arab majority would surely vote down Jewish ethnic privileges. If Israel remained democratic, it wouldn't long remain Jewish. It must be the only "democracy" whose existence depends on inequality.
If 3 million Arabs were to move to Israel, most of whose families where immigrant labor in the land in 1946, that would evntually destroy the country. The same is true if 200 million Chinese immigrated to Russia.
Do you oppose the concept of national identity, or do you believe that anyone, no matter how imagined, can make the claim, just not Jews in Israel?
Wake up Philip. (I hope you can still be saved.)
A communist cannot be a Jew anumore than he acan be a Christian. Communists are at war with Jews tthe same way they are with Christians. Why do you think the International left is trying to destroy both Israel and recreate America?
V.I. Lenin, supreme dictator.[Lenin was not a Jew, except in the fevered imaginations of Nazis like the compiler of this list.]
Isaac Babel: officer, Soviet Secret Police. [Babel was certainly a Jew, but he was not in the Cheka. He was murdered by it. At least half of the Soviet Jews on your little list were actually murdered by the Communist regime under Stalin.]
Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC): new form of the Bolshevik YEVKOM, Stalin's recruiting conduit for funding money, supplies and political influence for Soviet Russia from world Jewry as well as the dissemination of gas chamber atrocity propaganda (cf. The Black Book). [What a surprise, Holocaust denial. Who'd a thunk it? If anything, the Soviet government actively supressed the Jewish nature of the Holocaust.]
Nikolai Bukharin [Bzzzt! Not a Jew.]
By the way, it is not for me to judge whether a communist can or can't be a Jew, since I am not very familiar with the Jewish faith, but I see nothing inherently inconsistent with Communism and Christianity. Communism, at least as an socialist economic system, is morally neutral, just as is capitalism; of course, I consider it a pathetic and ineffective economic system but not inherently evil. It's only when totalitarianism is imposed (and I grant you that it does invariably happen) that Communism thus becomes inherently inconsistent with Christianity.
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.