Who do you think he means by “their counterparts in the UK”? Methinks that’ll be the evil Tories. But of curse they don’t sayv anything of the sort.

It seems to me this kind of sentiment is not entirely uncommon among a certain segment of the right-wing American intelligentsia (should that be in scare-quotes ?).

They regard Yerp as a grave enemy of the US. Yerpeans are always scheming to undermine the US, and any friendly, co-operative gestures on the part of Yerpeans (like sending troops to Afghanistan, or condolences after 9-11) are regarded as insidious and insincere.

For some reason they’re also always ranting about what Yerpeans typically think of Americans (“They think we’re crude, uncultured barbarians, the hypocrites!”), although they will assert in the same breath that they don’t care what Yerpeans think.

They will also, often within the same paragraph, hotly decry Yerp’s parasitic dependency on the US, but issue dire warnings about the awful dangers posed by Yerpean yearnings to steer an independent course. (The Frog subtribe of Yerp is apparently prone to such yearnings).

What to do with such writings? I have no idea. Maybe such rants are aimed at a local US-based audience, preaching to the choir, as it were. If you’re not part of that choir, it makes little sense to get jiggy with the preacher. If such rants are aimed at Yerpeans, in an effort to get them to realise the error of their ways, then a message to the author might be in order, advising of the efficacy of a little more diplomacy in his use of language. Otherwise I would suggest just ignoring them.

Unless, of course, such views start surfacing in the White House. Hmmm…..

Excellently put, Elliott. Ignoring is indeed the only viable option as discussion is not intended by the author. And I would like to add something from Wikipedia that helps explain it:

“The Spectator is a British right-wing political magazine, established 1828, published weekly. The current editor is Boris Johnson.” [http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spectator]

There was a great analysis of this kind of thinking by Timothy Garton Ash in the NY Review of books in Febuary this year. Here’s my take and a link to his article: http://almostadiary.baldingwithgrace.de/archives/2003_01.php#000767

“Europe is dying. As I’ve pointed out here before, it can’t square rising welfare costs, a collapsed birthrate and a manpower dependent on the world’s least skilled, least assimilable immigrants.”

I think this one is worth picking up on, as it is a fairly common distortion you find around these days. That we are dying may or may not be true, but it is also true of the US. Strip out the 90’s immigrants and there is no real difference with Europe on the birthrate, the inability to square rising welfare costs is what is threatening to produce what some Americans term the ’fiscal train wreck’, and of course the US is also host to many of the worlds low-skilled immigrants - a fact which of course is reflected in the relatively high infant mortality and poor primary school performance. (I’m not criticisng this, I’m just saying it’s a fact).

So it’s kind of shoot yourself in the foot-ism.

Elliott is probably right that it’s normally better ignored, but I am surprised about how rabid all this has become. The nearest thing to this situation that I’ve experienced would be trying to argue with precisely those east european marxists they seem to think they’re so different from.

They’re also pretty like the old school marxists in another sense: they’re economic determinists. Culture either doesn’t exist or isn’t imporant. This is why there is such a mess in Iraq in my view.

In the end we are watching the American Tragedy, since there are obviously loads and loads of really decent intelligent open-minded Americans, but they’re trapped in a madhouse with this lot. I mean the whole point about the list of European ’usual suspects’ that Nick mentions is that we do have them marginalised. The US is ’a house divided against itself’ and from this no good can come: for them or for us.

It’s no use decrying these kind of articles, since they are only increasing in number and tone. What Europeans should realize is that the Atlantic divide is growing, and that Europeans need Americans more than vice versa (unless, of course, Europeans decide to not let the American worker-consumer finance their welfare states).

There’s an ill wind blowing, and it’s not blowing in Europe’s favor. Former French FM Vedrine’s suggestion that the US should be tied down like Gulliver through countless international treaties seems to have unraveled when Gulliver woke up after Sept. 11th. The bizarre thing is that Europeans still don’t realize that lighting candles is just not enough….

More robots!

Well, now you know how Americans feel when they read European papers and see a lot of racist stereotypes. Stuff like this doesn’t even appear in US papers often. This was written by a Canadian and printed in a British paper. But he does have a point: If those Muslims do not integrate and from what I’ve read, it’s an uphill battle, then welcome to Shariah. I don’t think honor killings and female genital mutilation is anything anyone wants present in a huge amount in any European country. Seems improbable from here but could still happen.

Also, the American birth rate among former Europeans is at replacement, Europe’s is below. Most immigrants are Catholics, not Muslims. It’ll be far easier for Spanish-speaking Catholics to assimilate than Arabic-speaking Muslims, and it’s not like we haven’t done this before.

“The US is ’a house divided against itself’ and from this no good can come: for them or for us.”

Yes, it would be better if all Americans walked in ideological lock-step. Ridiculous.

Infamouse wrote:
“The US is ’a house divided against itself’ and from this no good can come: for them or for us.”
Yes, it would be better if all Americans walked in ideological lock-step. Ridiculous.

You are confusing ideological differences with partisanship for partisanship’s sake. Ideological variety is healthy. Self-sustaining partisanship where Party fervour is more akin to football fanaticism than political dialogue, is ultimately destructive.

Markku:
“What Europeans should realize is that the Atlantic divide is growing, and that Europeans need Americans more than vice versa”

A blinding flash of the obvious hits all Europeans and they suddenly realise the truth of this statement.

Now what?

“the American birth rate among former Europeans is at replacement”

This is not correct. The aggregate is at 2.1 (more or less), but this is only because of the tendency of immigrants to have more children, and to marry and start having children younger.Take these numbers out and you’d be around 1.7 or 1.8 (like say Sweden). Incidentally the ’dreaded’ France headed by ’lifelong socialist’ Chirac comes pretty close to replacement: so what does this prove.

Even with 2.1 now in the child bearing generation, the distortion in structure caused by the ’boomers’ and increased life expectancy is enormous which is why that ’well known commie’ Alan Greenspan is so terribly worried about long term federal finance sustainability in the US.

My point here is not to try to score cheap points. We all have a common problem, and it would be interesting to have a dialogue about what to do about it rather than trading insults. Wesley Clark is making the point that we Europeans are the best friends the US has right now, which is why it isn’t terribly smart alienating us.

All this smacks of the infamous ’third period’ communism when middle-of-the-roaders like us modern maintream Europeans naturally are were labelled ’social fascists’. With every friend lost we grow stronger seems to be the mood.

The real problem the US has coming doesn’t come from the muslim world, it comes from China. Glenn Reynolds seems to pick this up today (while at the same time giving a handy plug to a China page I write for:

“Taken together with China’s growing nuclear ambitions, this is troubling indeed. Given the large number of Chinese products imported by American companies like WalMart and K-Mart, I think we’ll see this sort of concern spilling over into the U.S. political arena, with pressure being put on American companies to buy fewer Chinese products, and on politicians to make trade with China less expansive”.

http://glennreynolds.com/#031107

This problem could be economic, it could be political, it could be military, or it could be all three. Meantime getting tied down in a war with Arab nationalism (not, please note not with Islamic fundamentalism: that seems to be based more in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) doesn’t seem to be the smartest of moves.

Of course I’m a Brit, so all this isn’t really my problem, except that I do remember the former US, that helped us out in two world wars, that helped Europe reconstruct via things like the Marshal plan, and I would be more than willing to see Europe helping and not gloating over America’s problems. But please, without the insults.

Just one detail. There was a time when it was pretty boring being in the centre, everyone was converging, and all we had was a kind of wishywashyism. Nowadays it’s really getting to be exciting. The hard left has all but disappeared, and what we have is the hard right to take its place.

But entertainment-wise this is really a plus. I mean the arguments are so absurd, but so absurd, and you really don’t know where the next ’argument for silly walks’ is coming from: it really puts Monty Python in the shade. And it means the centre is now a ground where you can defend yourself with a fairly robust vigour.

Of course this is good news for entertainment, somehow I fear we won’t be able to say the same about the impact on our civilisation and values.

I think Steyn is correct: there is a quasi-Cold War being waged on Europe by American media. It is a low level one, but it is there. I am 46 and have been reading/watching the American news media since I was a child. There has been a change.

IT is not just the Iraq thing. I think maybe a lot of the corporate, govt and media elite see the success of the euro welfare states, where the citizens there get free medical, free university, longterm welfare and unemployment and free childcare, etc etc etc as a threat to their pocketbooks. Now with the wider use of the internet, more Americans are getting a good picture of how successful the western european (and Australian, and to some degree, Canadian) welfare states are.

Plus, now, with the rapid increases in American health care costs, push is coming to shove in the hearts and minds of Americans. I have to wonder whether the powerful elite in America are not only looking at support on Iraq, but also at euro-socialism as a potent meme which could bring down the republicrat empire?

Am I paranoid? Maybe, maybe not….

Cryofan: While I agree with you on your assessment of a quasi-Cold War, I must point out a common mistake many Americans make when assessing the value of the European welfare states. Having lived in one, I can attest to the fact that they are largely dependent on the fact that American worker-consumers have after-tax money to spend on European exports. In other words, the American worker-consumer in essence winds up picking up the tab for the cost of European welfare states.

This is a major blind spot for Americans, and one that would be good for Americans to divest themselves from.

However, I share in your concerns regarding lack of universal health care coverage here in America. Discussion and debate on how to improve the situation should continue, and it helps to study the European model.

National health care is not as great as it seems in Europe. In Scandinavia, for example, the system is so over-burdened that people are wait-listed before they get critical care. In one ironic incident - related to me by a former Wharton School of Economics professor who now teaches at the Helsinki School of Economics - the letter from the state-run hospital announcing that the professor’s father was finally slated for a heart bypass operation came… on the same day he died of a heart attack.

Like it or not, the fact that people in the US have to pay for medical services gives them some clout in demanding services on a prompt basis. If not, we all know that there are armies of lawyers just salivating to sue the irresponsible ones (while in most Scandinavian countries, the state-run medical establishment is usually limited to paying damages up to $50,000 for wrongful negligence - hardly an incentive to keep from making mistakes.)

Markku, congratulations. I think you just made a fair post.

Although be careful, private health care can have it’s pros and cons. I’ve been reading in India about plans to outsource some of your health care there. Neither one nor the other is perfect.

I think we should all take Steyn’s “quasi” as the most important word here. Out here in flyover country in America, we do see the actions of France and Germany and Belgium since 2001 as opposing our interests. The thing that separates American thinking and that of Europeans is September 11. For us, the world did change, but it seems that some of Europe wants to play the game as it was before.

We appreciate the snarkiness (sorry) of Steyn because we know what is at stake in this new world. It seems, after watching hours of UN coverage last winter, that France and Germany and others think either our civilization is not at stake or that we Americans are deluded simpletons crying that the sky is falling. Either way, our patience has run out. So the “quasi-Cold War” Steyn describes may or may not be the intention of some of Europe, but from where we stand it certainly appears that way. To us, the jabs of de Villipan and Patten about the reasons America is fighting this war are an insult to the lives of our brothers and sisters we watched be murdered on live TV that day. I know Edward would like to dispense with the insults of Steyn and Goldberg, et al., but that is what it has come to. I know you are outside observers, but please do not underestimate the American psyche on this: we do not want to tolerate folks spitting on the graves of our dead, whether their headstones are in New York, DC, or Pennsylvania, or on the beaches of France. Sorry, just the way it is.

Terve, Matt, it’s nice to find out about your website! I must study it further…

Edward: I would disagree with you on one point: it is pointless for the US to try to maintain good relations with Europe, as Europe continues to be a freeloading entity wallowing in shallow anti-Americanism. Alienating Europe further would be a good thing: perhaps Americans will finally retaliate through organized consumer boycotts.

In the end, the Japanese are probably far more reliable friends for the US, and geopolitically more important and significant. Whatever we buy from Europe can also be bought from the Japanese, and from those Asian countries Japan has invested in.

I would also caution you about Wesley Clark: examine his erratic record during the Yugoslav crisis. The British General Sir Michael Jackson had quite an interesting clash with Clark, - and I believe for good reason. Clark’s take on the Russian paratrooper deployment at Pristina airport in Kosovo certainly did not speak well of his understanding of international relations….

Clark also acted quite strangely in the middle of the campaign by openly questioning Clinton’s policy, so much that some critics brought charges of insubordination against the commander-in-chief. Whatever people might think of Clinton, it just doesn’t speak well for a US general to break ranks in the middle of a campaign. His call for more US troops also brings his ability to assess political situations into question, especially as it turned out no troops were needed.

Clark is yet to come under the microscope: the Democratic primaries must vet out the weak ones first. But my bet is that Dean will handle the coming tests better than Clark, since Dean has a tougher politician’s skin, while Clark doesn’t seem to be able to handle the below-the-belt attacks that are surely coming….

For various reasons, administrations in America and Europe are motivated to stir up mutual animosities. As historians have often noted, governing regimes under internal threat of losing power tend to invoke the prospect of threats by external enemies in order to rally support at home.

What’s new? As a leading propagandist of the 20th century observed: “The broad mass of a nation . . will more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one,” while a social philosopher [George Santayana] observed: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Europe’s economic failings are in large measure due to its own internal policy deficiencies and that needs wider recognition in Europe. The growth records and living standards of countries like Canada and Australia, both with relatively small populations by world standards and their own national currencies, suggest that European economic integration with monetary union are not going to provide substitutes for the Holy Grail and only the confused and would-be gravy train travellers suppose otherwise.

The self-serving incompetence of the Bush administration in America is perhaps mostly aptly demonstrated by the emerging prospect of mounting fiscal deficits in America for the foreseeable future - which will tend to push up interest rates in, and suck in capital from the rest of the world - along with the 30% hike of tariffs on American steel imports, which American analysts estimate is costing more jobs in steel-using industries in America than are being safeguarded in steel-producers there. The tariff hike was just a pay-off by the Bush administration for political support without regard for the consequences falling upon other countries - or steel-using industries in America.

Europeans need to remember that in the American presidential election in 2000, more Americans voted for the other guy and that European criticism of the Bush administration looks pale by the standards of the mounting criticism by Americans.

Markku,

“organized consumer boycotts”

Funnily enough I’m not one of those who believes that the Hawley Smoot tarrif provoked the great depression, short term it may even have helped the US, but long term coming out of global markets and global contact can only mean one thing: technological backwardness.

I’m not going to ask the neo-cons ’why they hate America so much’ that they want to rip it apart, I would simply say that if you care about the future of America you could read this link (called ’How to Get Rich) from Jared Diamond:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond_rich/rich_p1.html

Especially this idea:

“The first batch of natural experiments concerns understanding the effects of isolation and of group size and of communication with other groups on the productivity of human societies.”

On your other points, Dean is a bit too far to the “ol’ left” for me, and pragmatically I don’t think he can win, but I note your support.

I guess what the US needs right now is someone who can unite the world around it. The US is under attack, it does need support, and you need a leader who can win this support effectively. Ouside the US Bush is finished politically (Kaput).

I go for a military man, since I think you need someone who appreciates the price your soldiers are paying on the ground in Iraq, someone who cares for your soldiers and their families. Curiously I am one of the few Europeans who is not laughing at Swartznegger (although I don’t like what I read about his reputation with women), I don’t think the professional political class has much to be proud of at the moment, and I don’t exclude outsiders. We should wait and see what happens in California before passing judgement.

So I say a military man, since they ironically will not lead you into ’military adventures’ as they know the price only to well. They will also not be seen as weak by an American public obviously desperately in need of protection and reassurance. I would buy either Powell or Clark, but since Powell can’t stand unless Bush withdraws (which, of course, may yet happen) I have to go for Clark.

This doesn’t mean I think he’s perfect. I’m sure there are alot of things you can point me to where I’d agree, he’s up the spout. But this is a second best world, and even second best is a lot better than what we have.

“our civilization is not at stake or that we Americans are deluded simpletons crying that the sky is falling”

Mat, I understand (I think) how you feel. But junking the values that made you great: this would mean they win, wouldn’t it? I mean, I have formed - rightly or wrongly - the opinion that Bin Laden is not a big issue in Iraq. But he is somewhere. And one day he could strike again, and bigtime. I may be a coward but this fills me with fear. This is why we need an effective strategy.

In Vietnam you learned that you can win the military war and lose the political one. This seems to be what is happening again. Bush has isolated America (Ok you can say France and Germany have done it, but the end result is the same, Bush has been outmanoevred by France and Germany: the rumours had it right, he isn’t very intelligent).

Look, everyone who cares about America has to be deeply preoccupied by all this. All the bravado is only a sign of weakness.

Last night I was watching Robert Redford in the Horse Whisperer. The values in that film, the characters, the rural america, New York. This is the America we love: what happened to it?

The problem didn’t start with Bush.

By way of light humour the Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations (for UK readers - this was edited by one of the script writers of: Yes, Minister) includes as an entry a report of a recording made of a microphone test by President Reagan in August 1984:

“My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I have just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five miniutes.”

OK, it was intended as a little joke but what it shows is the mindset of Republican administrations in what passes for American foreign policy.

I belong to a discussion group of the local branch of the University of the Third Age (U3A), of which there are offshoots and branches in other countries. One of the sharpest members of our particular group is over 80. His formal education ended at the age of 16, over 60 years ago. The value of his many discussion contributions is because he absorbs so much, his acute analysis and because of the sheer length of his experience of life and world affairs.

Out shopping, not long back, he was knocked off his bicycle by a car driven by a diplomat from a European mission in London. Fortunately, only the bike was seriously damaged and that was replaced. The accident did not lead him to propose: (1) war, (2) banning all cars, (3) expulsion of the relevant dilomatic mission from the UK or even (4) Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.

He served in WW2 but speaks little of that experience beyond a war joke he recalled during one of our discussions on Iraq. As he succinctly put it, there was a joke among the forces in WW2 that when the British bombed, the Germans ducked and when the Germans bombed the British ducked but when the Americans bombed everyone ducked.

Many a truth spoken in jest.

Matt:
“but please do not underestimate the American psyche on this: we do not want to tolerate folks spitting on the graves of our dead, whether their headstones are in New York, DC, or Pennsylvania, or on the beaches of France. Sorry, just the way it is.”

Nothing personal, and I understand the underlying point you are trying to make, but if this is the sole criterion by which you (the generic “you”, not persoanl) wish to make or break strategic alliances, I’m afraid you’ll have to develop much thicker skins.

Markku:
“Whatever we buy from Europe can also be bought from the Japanese, and from those Asian countries Japan has invested in.”

That’s a refreshing change from the exact opposite sentiments I heard in the 80s. I suppose it is a small mercy for the Japanese that most Americans can’t read Japanese, and are thus blissfully unaware of growing anti-American sentiment in Japan. (http://www.thehoya.com/news/032503/news4.cfm)

Politics:

I’ll be contrarian, and endorse Bush here for 2004. I think he’ll win anyway. I think it’s important to realise that Bush and the Republican platform still have a lot of popular support in the US.

We may feel that the Bush Administration has irresponsible fiscal and foreign policy. But these policies are immensely popular with a large segment of the US electorate: tax cuts, deficit spending, and kicking foreign butt are very popular policies. If Bush as incumbent is punished, it will be because public perception is that he has failed to carry out these policies, not that such policies are fundamentally flawed. That’s just shooting the messenger.

I say let Bush steer that train faster and faster down the track. Maybe we’re all wrong and he will be vindicated. The Middle East will be democratized and revitalized domino-fashion. Supply-side economics will energize the US economy. Grover Norquist will get to drown the US Federal government in a bathtub and there will be an explosion of prosperity and freedom. There’s no doubt that if all this succeeds there will be much to learn from this for the rest of the world.

Bush might also send that train hurtling to a massive train wreck. That would be a salutory experience for the US public, and one which would hammer a few important lessons home far harder, and far more permanently, than bloviating on web logs.

Whichever way a Bush victory is a win-win situation.

Elliott:

“but if this is the sole criterion by which you (the generic “you”, not persoanl) wish to make or break strategic alliances, I’m afraid you’ll have to develop much thicker skins.”

The key word there is “strategic”. We Americans do not want simply to break up the strategic alliances that are important to our national security. But the Old Europe of which Rumsfeld spoke, with whom we formerly had these alliances, are no longer seen as tactically or strategically aligned with our interests. So the thickness of our skinis not the issue, but the usefulness of the relationship with France and Germany.

That is what I, and folks like Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson, have been trying to get across: the status quo that existed before September 11 is over. We Americans believe, and thankfully so does our administration, that we do not have time to bother with the negotiation and discussion that Europeans seem to value so much. Just like any of us would re-evaluate his life after a near-death accident or losing his job, &c., America is right to re-evaluate all of her relationships. She has a new purpose: killing terrorists, and promoting liberty in the Muslim world. Any alliance that does not help us toward that goal, and especially ones that keep us from it, should rightly be scrapped.

Edward:

“But junking the values that made you great: this would mean they win, wouldn’t it?”

What values, exactly, are we trashing? If you mean the ones that caused Johnson and Nixon and Carter to accept the existence of our enemies and to permit defeat, then yes, absolutely. Think of Bush as Reagan rather than these guys. Whether he defeats our enemies during his two terms or not, they will be defeated. I would not be so fast to judge the results of this war. It may be another 5 to 7 years before we really see who outmanoevred whom. Bush, and so many of us do not give a fig about “isolation” from France and Germany. We understand that only victory counts, and fences might be mended later. Poland, Latvia, Estonia understand our position, so why does the French position matter?

And I thought that you were brighter than most, Edward, and you wouldn’t buy into the “Bush is a moron” meme that has time-and-again been smashed. Read some other news sources than the Guardian and BBC. I respect all of your stuff, so be more thoughtful, please.

“Read some other news sources than the Guardian and BBC”

On the quality of American intelligence about Iraq:

“The White House has the choice of either 1) blaming the CIA for bad intelligence or 2) admitting that the entire war was a pretext to keep Bush buoyant in the public opinion polls as a war-time president. Of the two, option No. 1 is much preferred.

“This means the designated fall guy is likely to be CIA Director George Tenet, whose job may be jeopardy.

“Also in the buck-passing file is the administration’s poor planning for the aftermath of the war in Iraq. The blame has fallen on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.”

- from: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/2614741/detail.html

Ooops, sorry, that was an American source.

“A former chief of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, has accused the United States and Britain of lack of foresight over the Iraq invasion and warned of even greater violence unless the civic infrastructure is established quickly.”

- from: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=461945

“Mr McGovern worked near the very top of his profession, giving direct advice to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon era and preparing the President’s daily security brief for Ronald Reagan. Now he is co-founder of a group of former CIA employees called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or Vips for short.

“What the Bush White House has done, he believes, is far worse than the false premise that dragged the United States into the Vietnam War - a reported second attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin which later turned out not to have taken place. ’The Gulf of Tonkin was a spur-of-the-moment thing, and Lyndon Johnson seized on that. That’s very different from the very calculated, 18-month, orchestrated, incredibly cynical campaign of lies that we’ve seen to justify a war. This is an order of magnitude different. It’s so blatant.’ “

- from: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=461946

Matt

When you repeatedly say “we Americans” - as in “We Americans believe, and thankfully so does our administration, that we do not have time to bother with the negotiation and discussion that Europeans seem to value so much” - are you including Americans who don’t share your mindset? For instance, Americans who think that Rumsfield’s lack of respect for negotiation and discussion is the primary cause of our current woes in Iraq?

I am well aware of the fact that only thanks to the quality of the buildings the attacks on the WTC did not take 40000 innocent lives.
We’ll have to fight terrorism on all kind of fronts.
But:
“I’m not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it”. Wolfowitz on the relation between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quada.
Source (!!): http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030801-depsecdef0526.html

“America is right to re-evaluate all of her relationships. She has a new purpose: killing terrorists, (and promoting liberty in the Muslim world).”
Killing terrorists as purpose?
Is my English not good enough? Shouldn’t we try to prevent terrorism? Shouldn’t we try to keep people from becoming terrorists?
If necessary we will have to kill them as a MEANS to prevent their activities but as a purpose?

But, Frans, bombing is the technologically efficient way of removing terrorist threats permanently. The more bombing and the bigger the bombs, the more potential threats get removed and stay removed. Why else would the Bush administration be wanting to make mini-nukes? Think I’m joking? I wish I were: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7210241.htm

Matt:
“We understand that only victory counts, and fences might be mended later. Poland, Latvia, Estonia understand our position, so why does the French position matter?”

The point is that Poland, latvia etc do not “understand” the US’s position, not in the sense you imply. Popular opposition to the war in Poland was twice as high numerically as supporters.

This is the interesting thing, that popular support for the US in many of the US’s allies was actually *lower* than in France or Germany. In effect, the governments of countries such as Spain or Poland went against the wishes of the electorate. At some point in time, with other cabinets, these countries will oppose particular US policies too. Prime example: the erstwhile loyal US ally Turkey. It is inevitable. You simply cannot get what you want all the time. This is a fact of life.

That’s what I mean by ’developing a thicker skin’. You either isolate yourselves fully, and take on the rest of the world single-handedly, or you take on the world as it is, not as it should be.

“Edward, and you wouldn’t buy into the “Bush is a moron” meme”

Look Matt, I think you’re right, it is in no way a proper part of my argument, and I unreservedly take it back. Though I still think he’s been outmanouevred.

Edward: Apropos to our discussion about Clark, The New Yorker today just published a comprehensive article about him:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact

Time to put him on a slide and under the microscope…

Bush certainly has a staunch supporter… - in Iraq:

“El George El Bush, I would like to call him from now on - as is the tradition when we wish to honor great Sheiks to add El (the) before their names, “The George The Bush”, El Bush the Lion-heart of the New World !”

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

It should be noted that most Americans know little and care less about the rest of the world, whether you are talking about culture, economy, politics, or simple geography. Not because we are stupid, but because we are a big, rich country with weak states to the north and south and fish to the east and west. So understanding what Americans think of the rest of the world is simple: they don’t. Just read a US magazine or watch the news for confirmation. The United States is one of the most insular countries in the world (rivals: Burma? North Korea?), and its foreign policy has always been determined by either elites or ethnno-religious pressure groups.

The later phenomenon is easy to understand: The Cubans get to determine policy towards Latin America, AIPAC and the Religious Right get the Middle East, Farmers and ADM get Asia, East Europeans get Russia, etc.., etc..,

The recent shift in US policy, however, is chiefly an elite phenomenon, though supported by some of the groups above and a vague sense of nationalist anger and revenge. Put simply, the old North-Eastern elite, which favored asserting American strength through diplomatic forms and cooperation with other great powers gradually faded away in the 80s and 90s. 9/11 dealt it a death-blow. Its current replacement is a coalition of Sunbelt nationalists and neoconservatives (though the largely Republican military and intelligence establishments are largely opposed to Bush’s policies). Defined in the broadest possible sense-Americans who take an interest in foreign policy in general-we are still talking about >2% of the population.

While neither Bush nor the American people are morons, they do share a high level of apathy and ignorance towards the outside world. The fact that most people in Poland or Italy opposed the war is unknown to 99% of the US population. Barring some unforseen cataclysm, I don’t see this changing anytime soon. Certainly, Matt and Makku are misrepresenting US opinion, though they are perfect examples of the neo-nationalists of which you can find more polished examples at NRO or The Weekly Standard.

Unfortunately, Quiet American, now you are engaged in those kinds of broad generalizations the right-wing is accused of. 2% of the population takes an interest in foreign affairs? Based on what study? The fact that Europeans were opposed to the war is unknown to 99% of the US population? Based on whose statistics? We can easily get into a game of competing statistics, to no avail…

What’s peculiar to me is your attempt to dissuade that my opinions are representative of the views of most Americans. Since when have I claimed that? On the other hand, it seems to me that your arguments are wholly partisan, and very similar to the current tactics of Democrats trying to put a spin on the shift in the American political landscape since 9/11. Like it or not, the country is still pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, when you consider that there is a large amount of voters in the center who historically often switch sides.

Furthermore, it is exactly because Americans have such a poor understanding of European thinking that I’m motivated to speak up, as I am a European-born American with life experience on both sides of the Atlantic. I’m also a former Democrat who will most likely vote Republican (unless the Democrats will finally come up with a platform that is unique, instead of just reactionary!), so if I do vote Republican it is out of no love for far-right conservative ideology, but because the opposition hasn’t understood the new political landscape on an international scale.

Try to rise above petty attempts at trivializing contrarian arguments. It would be more productive for everyone if you would try to refute such arguments in debate instead. That is, after all, why the blogosphere is shaping up to be such an interesting political force.

Sorry, I think I accidentally contributed to part of that. I said “We Americans” a couple of times but failed to use the word “some”. I used “some” when discussing European nations and governments, but not there. My bad. More later

A few years back I came across a statistic which purported to show some 70% of Americans had never travelled outside their home state. I cannot vouch for its dependability and no longer have the source. Even if true, from a European perspective such a statistic is not that startling - Texas alone has three times the land area of Britain.

What is worrying about the present situation is the combination of national parochialism, unprecedented and unsurpassed military power and an administration subverted by Neoconservatism. European readers here who have not experienced the joy of seeing the Neocon manifesto and its signatories can look here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

What is reassuring is plenty of evidence on the web from American media that many Americans share the concerns of Europeans about that manifesto. A special reason for Brits to worry is that Blair in a speech to the Chicago Economic Club in April 1999 said: “One state should not feel it has the right to change the political system of another or forment subversion or seize pieces of territory to which it feels it should have some claim. But the principle of non-interference must be qualified in important respects. Acts of genocide can never be a purely internal matter. When oppression produces massive flows of refugees which unsettle neighbouring countries then they can properly be described as ’threats to international peace and security’…If we want a world ruled by law and by international co-operation then we have to support the UN as its central pillar.” - at: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=4&kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=829 Naturally, we suppose Blair to be a man of his word but in the light of the Iraq war without UN sanction, it seems Blair no longer subscribes to his declared earlier principles.

News followers will know that Bush is to make a state visit to Britain later this month. It is a lead item in our news. By reports, it seems American security advisers have requested “an exclusion zone” around the President but, fortunately, reports that London is to be evacuated for the duration have turned out to be premature. The [London] Times has conducted a poll of opinion here:

“According to the survey, only one in four voters approves of the President’s handling of the war and overall support for the war in Britain has fallen heavily.

“Nearly three fifths of voters (59 per cent) think America’s standing in the world has diminished under the Bush presidency, while less than two fifths (39 per cent) think he has proved a strong president.” - from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-889717,00.html

“A few years back I came across a statistic which purported to show some 70% of Americans had never travelled outside their home state.”

That’s absurd.

Bob: I’ve just read your referenced link to the neo-con site, and I must say it stands in stark contrast to the moral stand of Europeans during the Yugoslavian crises, when Euros basically did nothing but watch from the sidelines while genocide akin to what was seen during WW2 was enacted anew.

As always, in the end, Americans will act to preserve values, while Europeans only mouthe them.

“…as he [Harry] puts it ’I don’t see much difference between this sort of analysis and the kind of garbage we hear from the likes of Le Pen, Haider, Bossi and their counterparts in the UK’)”

Whew! Do you really fail to see the importance of the difference between the inflamatory political views of a Canadian writer, M Steyn, and those of a French politician that 15+% of the French electorate voted for to become President of France???? Steyn is certainly writing from a conservative angle, but I think lumping him in the same category as Le Pen should be better defended at the very least.

And before we start jumping to conclusions over unsourced references to this or that poll, shouldn’t we agree to all be intelligent skeptics until given serious reasons to be otherwise?

Perhaps we could begin by distinguishing between “Europe” and “a couple Nations in Europe”? Shouldn’t we try when possible to define terms that have a tendency to be easily confused? And to first request clarification of other posters before descending to ad hominem and/or Straw Man attacks?

Thanks Matt

Sometimes a rhetorical flourish says more about someone’s beliefs than his argument does. Glad to see that there’s common sense beneath your obvious passion. As for the substance of the argument, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Reuben

Someone who can write: “Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it’s populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Possibly. Will Germany if it’s populated by Algerians? That’s a trickier proposition.” may not be guilty of the crime of being French, but he is certainly a racist.
Mark Steyn and The Spectator are both owned by Lord Conrad Black, Baron of Hollinger, who is preparing to bail from his media empire.
Maybe the serfs are getting nervous about the new Lord?

There was a time, not that long ago, when the extreme right didn’t control most of American government and much of the English-speaking media, and one could have reasonable discussions about politics.

Now it is mainly about listening to variations on such timeless gems as “Be reasonable, lefty scum”, “Why are all Democrats liars and traitors?” and my personal favorite, “Shut up and be objective!” It is a mistake to try and make sense of how most conservatives use the terms Left/Democrat/European; don’t bother asking them to clarify. These are simply interchangable terms of abuse to them, nothing more.
This doesn’t make any sense, but then, neither do the people who use such tactics.

Nowdays, ’debate’ is mainly a matter of listening to fundamentalists, racists, neo-nationalists, supply-side and xenophobic cranks froth at the mouth and howl whenever their worldview is questioned. One could only wish these men (and they are usually men) were truly made of straw, as some claim. They are, thankfully, not too common, but they make up for that in volume and persistence. They can be entertaining, but I prefer serious discussion.

I guess it will have to wait until GB and his merry men return to Texas-hopefully not too long from now…

Markku,

“I’ve just read your referenced link to the neo-con site, and I must say it stands in stark contrast to the moral stand of Europeans during the Yugoslavian crises, when Euros basically did nothing but watch from the sidelines while genocide akin to what was seen during WW2 was enacted anew.”

Something in that but that something is altogether far more complicated. Europe didn’t have the military capability to intervene in former Yugoslavia - it lacked the necessary means of logistical support and Europe did not and does not have the cruise missiles that America used - Britain’s cruise missiles cannot be used independently of American approval. There are separate, prior policy issues about whether Europe has been free-riding on American military support for NATO and should be spending more to boost capability for military intervention independently of America and NATO but that situation could not be instantly reversed in response to rapidly evolving events in former Yugoslavia.

The more telling, valid criticism of European diplomacy at that time is that a succession of threats were made about “serious consequences” unless the ethnic cleansing stopped which then failed to materialise. Basically, the Milosevic regime and its associates assessed Europe’s military impotence correctly and regarded the threats as bluff. It is certainly arguable that the (predictable) effect of making empty threats was to actually encourage or speed up ethnic cleansing to establish “facts on the ground” before any intervention could materialise.

However, that side tracks us from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) championing American unilateralism. The United Nations may have many flaws but it is the one international congress for nation states we have for curbing unilateral militarism. Blair was right when he said: “If we want a world ruled by law and by international co-operation then we have to support the UN as its central pillar.” Marginalise the UN and multilateralism - as America and Britain did with the Iraq war - and we have no valid cause for complaint about the Soviets “liberating” Hungary in 1956 or Czecho-Slovakia in 1968 or, prospectively, should China decide to “liberate” Taiwan.

What the Bush administration, subverted by the PNAC, has done is to jettison the whole rules-based approach in international affairs and substitute unilateralism, not just in foreign policy but in trade policy too, as the hike last year in steel tariffs demonstrated. The Bushies have also taken to lying on a grand scale to justify to the American people and the world at large what the administration does - as many American critics of the administration regularly complain.

Of course, defenders of the Bush administration, including Blair, claim that any criticism of American foreign policy and the PNAC amounts to anti-Americanism but that is just to cover up the mounting criticism from Americans, as here: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1172 But then Lincoln said, in a democracy you can’t fool all the people all the time. I suspect that Jeffrey Frankel (Harvard KSG) has it just right in suggesting, “the parties have switched places, with Democrats becoming the party of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets, and minimal government, while the Republicans have become the party of trade restriction, big government, and interventionist economics.” - from: http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html

This fresh link to Guardian news in today should make interesting reading in Washington: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1083165,00.html

You’ve just corroborated exactly what the neo-cons claim: Europe does not have the will to arm in order to take on responsibilities in world trouble spots, therefore leaving that role to the US.

As to the UN, please, two-thirds of the member states are not functioning democracies. It is hardly a democratic forum; it is, rather, a tool for the protection of cronyist states, whose influence should be curtailed.

But when it comes to US unilateralism, there is where we have to agree to disagree. I have absolutely no faith in multilateralism, as the Yugoslav crisis only served to underscore the mess (not to mention the loss of human life) multilateralist dawdling on the sidelines achieved. I have much more faith in American unilateralism, as it seems that Americans have historically stood up against the worldwide threats (Communism, Nazism, Anti-Semitism, Islamofascism) that Europe forever tries to appease.

Europe still hasn’t learned, trapped as it is with an overblown self-assessment of its own worth. If it would even want to begin to be independent of American “hegemony”, then it should consider ending its pathetic dependency on the after-tax spending money of the American worker-consumer. Perhaps then Europe could develop a sense of responsibility that would make it worthwhile to listen to in multilateral discourse.

Markku,

“Europe does not have the will to arm in order to take on responsibilities in world trouble spots, therefore leaving that role to the US.”

It was arguable that western Europe did not arm itself sufficiently against the contingency of a Soviet invasion. It is separately arguable that Europe has little liking for pre-emptive military action in world trouble spots largely for reasons of Europe’s traumatic historic experience of wars during and since the Roman empire 2000 years or so back.

The Thirty Years wars during the Reformation in Europe came to an end with the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which famously established the subsequent working principle of international relations, that what happens within the recognised external borders of a state are the concern and responsibility of its government and no business of other states. There were good reasons for adopting that principle, otherwise protestant/catholic states each considered they had divine sanction for invading neighbouring states of the opposite persuasion to install the “correct” religion and thereby save their citizens from heresy and eternal damnation - or so went the official narrative of those times.

You will doubtless recognise the parallel with the moral cause claimed by the Neocons in America to legitimise unilateralist, pre-emptive action to liberate oppressed peoples and install democracy. But then the Soviets were claiming similar prerogatives and motives for the invasion of Hungary in 1956 and Czecho-Slovakia in 1968. Once the rules-based Westphalian principle is abandoned then unilateralist might becomes the way of the world unless we can agree an alternative principle of multilateralism, which is what the Bush administration appears unwilling to do.

The trouble with America’s unilateralist stance is that states feeling threatened have more powerful incentives to covertly develop Weapons of Mass Destruction as a counter measure. The stance also stokes terrorist and insurgency movements which can and do claim legitimacy on the basis that “asymmetric conflicts” are the only effective means of challenging America’s unsurpassed military power. Some are also inclined to suspect that the moral high-ground claimed by the Neocons is really just a thin cover story for extending American economic imperialism or, perhaps more likely, those corporate interests the Neocons currently favour. The downstream consequences are that world affairs will likely become more turbulent than during the Cold War era and that America’s internal security will become more fragile as a result.

Those prospects are not reassuring. The declared commitments of the Clinton administration to multilateralism and a rules-based approach in international relations look a far more attractive foundation for improving stability in international affairs - which is doubtless why, “George Soros, one of the world’s wealthiest financiers and philanthropists, has declared that getting George Bush out of the White House has become the ’central focus’ of his life, and he has put more than $15m (£9m) of his own money where his mouth is…” - from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1083165,00.html

Annex - Latest news:

“A TOP-secret CIA report warns that growing numbers of Iraqis believe the US-led coalition can be defeated and are supporting the resistance.” - from: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,7850898,00.html

Currently the trade balance between EU and USA is under one euro/dollar a week more for Europeans. Hardly a hardship to lose.

DSW

Bob:

“The declared commitments of the Clinton administration to multilateralism and a rules-based approach in international relations look a far more attractive foundation for improving stability in international affairs…”

Do you agree with the idea that during the Clinton Adminstration, there existed a state of war declared on the US by al-Qaeda, and that September 11 required the US government to actively fight the war? I have read this in a couple of places, but don’t have time now to get the links, and would like to know what you, and the others here think on it.

Because, if it is the case, do you then think that the war by the Islamists is against all the West and not just the US?

BTW, please don’t read any sarcasm or attack into the questions. It’s not there. Just want a discussion.

Al Qaeda is nothing but a bunch of private individuals. The expression “a state of war” is in such instance meaningless. Or do the US citizens live in the USA like the palestinians in Gaza? Al Qaeda is a policial problem, not a military one.

DSW

I’m pretty sure that 3,000 dead in New York City is not a “political problem”, especially since the previous targets were military (USS Cole, Khobar Towers, etc.)

I put policial. And the (fortunately only)three thousands dead people on 9-11 would have prevented by a good police. As to the political part that allways exists, the USA should not have stood beside so many criminals governements.

The point is the USA will stand with criminals against innocents, as long as the USA can extract some benefit for its monied class.

DSW

Matt,

“Do you agree with the idea that during the Clinton Adminstration, there existed a state of war declared on the US by al-Qaeda, and that September 11 required the US government to actively fight the war?”

It would perhaps help to engage the interest and support of Europeans to outline the attacks attributed to al-Qaeda. As I recall, there was the earlier, abortive attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993, the bombing of the US embassies in Nairobia (Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) in 1998, and the bombing of the USS Cole while at anchor in Aden port (Yemen) in 2000. Perhaps I have overlooked other incidents but I am going from memory and a limited search.

My impression is that the American response to 9-11 (in 2001) by the invasion of Afghanistan probably had wide international understanding, saving predictable exceptions. By many reports, al-Qaeda had established a base and training facilities there under the shelter of the Taliban regime. It was a mistake to encourage the notion at home and abroad that an invasion of Afghanistan and establishing a new regime there would remove or significantly impair the threat from al-Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organisations. Effective terrorist organisations do not require large, fixed infrastructures - the human infrastructure is far more important. The concept of a “war against terrorism” belongs more to the realm of political rhetoric than substance. Sad to say, the most effective counter measures against terrorism depend on pervasive and intrusive intelligence gathering.

International understanding and the initial support in Afghanistan for removal of the Taliban regime were diminished by some indiscriminate bombing. It has to be said that American forces have built a deserved reputation for indiscriminate use of firepower - in Gulf I more British troops were killed by friendly fire than enemy action. The Bush administration also damaged its credibility when it forgot to put a budget line in last year for promised reconstruction work in Afghanistan and Congress had to repair the omission.

The really serious damage to America’s international cedibility and standing was afflicted by the Iraq war. It is fairly widely believed that the Bush administration was probably internally committed to an Iraq war before 9-11. I am aware of press reports going back at least to early December 2001 saying a war with Iraq was in prospect. It is also fairly widely believed that the administration’s real motives had little to do with either Saddam sponsoring al-Qaeda - in fact, he had good reason for avoiding al-Qaeda least it attempted to destabilise his self-serving regime in Iraq - or with the claimed virtuous objective of liberating the Iraqi people. Whatever the administration’s rhetoric, the wide belief is that objectives of the war had far more to do with: (1) oil; (2) extricating American bases from Saudi Arabia, which would have been impossible with Saddam still posing a threat in the region; (3) establishing strategic bases in the region to counter existing or prospective threats from Syria and Iran.

With the perceived gap between administration’s rhetoric and the attributed motives for the Iraq war, pursuing a unilateralist course on the war has done immense damage to America’s international credibility. A multilateralist approach was feasible, as was a policy of containment to safeguard the region. If anything, the war has increased the threat of terrorism by engendering greater popular sympathy for al-Qaeda in Arab countries. The administration’s efforts put into demonising and isolating France just look puerile from a European perspective. Most reports of European polls that I have seen show wide opposition to the war even in countries where the governments supported it. Far more could have been achieved by shedding light on what sort of an organisation al-Qaeda is. How come so much enterprise, finance and skills have been directed at destruction when those same resources could be applied to alleviating the unemployment and poverty of Arab countries?

As for whether al-Qaeda, or its like, is committed to a war against the west, the fact is that fundamentalist Islam has theocratic objectives in much the way that some fundamentalist Christian sects in America have now. As it is, the New Testament does not expound a theocratic theology - Christ said: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. The comment has been made often enough that Islam has been been through a process akin to that of the Reformation in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. As terrible as the comparison is, the thousands of victims of the tragic events of 9-11 in America are exceeded by a margin by the numbers of Huguenots massacred in France on 23/24 August 1572: http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm That is what religious reformations do.

Bob -

I agree with a lot of your post. So much so that I can’t discuss it because of time. But. I think you still have not answered my question. You have compared it to the ’Wars of Religion’ from the 16th Century. I do not believe this is an accurate comparison. That was a war inside the Christian realm and inside France. Al-Qaeda is at war with the West, outside Islam and into the Western nations.

So the question still stands: “Do you agree with the idea that during the Clinton Adminstration, there existed a state of war declared on the US by al-Qaeda, and that September 11 required the US government to actively fight the war?”

The idea that Bush is unilateralist is not true.

The Clinton administration said the exact same things about Saddam and wmd that Bush has said. The UN and many different countries intelligence agencies agreed he still had some wmd and had never been honest with the UN.

Goddam link didn’t work.

http://www.reason.com/rauch/110303.shtml

Matt:

“So the question still stands: “Do you agree with the idea that during the Clinton Adminstration, there existed a state of war declared on the US by al-Qaeda, and that September 11 required the US government to actively fight the war?”

I think it is undeniable that al-Qaeda (and similar organisations) has posed, still poses, and may continue to pose, a significant security threat to the US. It is the paramount duty of a government to ensure the security of the nation it governs. I don’t think anyone will argue with you on this.

Calling the present situation vis-a-vis al-Qaeda a “state of war” however is somewhat obscurantist, as such a term invites comparisons and parallels with inter-State wars which are wholly irrelevant.

Is this quibbling over definitions? Maybe, and I suspect most participants here do not really disagree with you on the fact that 9-11 and related events *are* problems the US government has to face and try to resolve.

However, al-Qaeda is not a state, it is a collection of loosely knit groupings sharing some common ideological elements. And this is the problem with the usage of “State of War” as a descriptive term. You can wipe out the entire IRA leadership, but that will not prevent another group of Irish hotheads from calling themselves the New IRA and resuming the struggle. As they used to say back in the days of the Cold War, “You can bomb Russia, but you cannot bomb Communism”. In the same vein, you can enlighten a Communist, but you cannot enlighten a bullet. Fighting a war, and fighting anti-US sentiment require two different stratagems.

Killing Osama or Saddam will not stop terrorism; winning hearts and minds will. Short of thorough genocide, in fact, militaristic adventures such as the one the US is currently engaged in will do absolutely nothing to prevent the growth of anti-US sentiment. It’s important to recognise this, ere the US will face the blowback from some home-grown embittered Iraqi “Osama” ten years down the road - and we’ll have deja-vú all over again.

Linden:

Paying lip service to multilateralism, and worse still, maing it explicit that one is only paying lip service to multilateralism, is not the same thing as multilateralism.

Despite what Rauch says.

In the runup to the war, Rumsfeld made it clear that they would go to war in Iraq with or without the UN, and even without their British allies, if necessary. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2838593.stm

Now if the US is decided on a particular course of action and is ready to go the course even without its staunchest ally, then this is not multilateralism, this is unilateralism with the US’s partners coming along for the ride.

Matt,

“So the question still stands: ’Do you agree with the idea that during the Clinton Adminstration, there existed a state of war declared on the US by al-Qaeda, and that September 11 required the US government to actively fight the war?’”

As Britain’s experience with Northern Ireland shows only too clearly, there are hazards with becoming trapped by insisting on using particular names and terms and then debating about whether reality conforms with the words. It is more fruitful to focus on the substantive realities. Words are only labels. As Thomas Hobbes sharply put it: Words are the money of fools and the counters of wise men.

American people, interests and property were the targets for a terrorist organisation - I listed above the earlier attempt on the WTC in 1993, the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole in Aden in 2000 before we get to the terrorist events of 9-11 in 2001. I’m not a lawyer but doubt all that qualifies as a “state of war” in international law since al-Qaeda is not a recognised nation state or even, as far as I know, a corporate persona. That is why the detainees at Guantanamo Bay were officially classified as “unlawful combatants” by the Bush administration.

Most folks would likely agree that US administrations would and should respond to the attacks and the implied prospect of future threats. Declaring “a war against terrorism” is just a piece of vacuous political rhetoric, presumably expressed to rally support to the adopted cause of the Bush administration. What matters is what the administration intends to do in response to the threats and what it does and achieves.

Whether a “state of war” exists between al-Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalism and the West is only a semantic game. It is far more important to understand what motivates the enmity and associated terrorism than to debate whether this label or that applies. Both fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christian sects have theocratic ambitions. Both religions are also monotheistic. I often recall conversations with a professional colleague of the early 1970s.

He was Hindu although neither of us were or are devoutly religious. Some 30 years back he predicted then that Islamic states would have difficulty in making transitions to democratic forms of government and contrasted India, a secular state, which has maintained political pluralism through from independence in 1948. He conjectured that was because Hinduism is a polytheistic religion so the notion of rivalrous deities is built in to India’s national culture. From there it is a short step to accepting rivalrous political parties and that ascendancy to government will change from time to time.

His analysis of some 30 years back has proved remarkably prescient whereas the Bush administration seems only recently to have noticed that Islamic states have a problem in making transitions to democracy. That could be one reason why Europeans are apt to regard the Bushies as slow learners. The Bushies respond by tagging Europeans as anti-American. The truth is that Clinton is warmly welcomed on his informal visits here whereas with the prospective Bush state visit his security advisers have requested a wide exclusion zone around him. That’s the difference. As best I can judge, in Europe the Bushies are the most reviled US administration since WW2: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=403011&section=news

America and Americans are not the only victims of terrorism - you have probably read about the enduring state of civil war in Sudan and the periodic massacres of Christian communities in Indonesia and Nigeria. For some insights, I recalled comparable massacres of the Huguenots in 16th century France during the Reformation in Europe. Religious divides were a recurring theme in British history through to the 19th century. The Gordon Riots in London in 1780 amounted to an anti-catholic pogrom and catholics were not accorded equal civil rights in law in Britain until 1829. The religious frictions in Northern Ireland are still with us. Even now, the heir to the throne in Britain is precluded by law from marrying a catholic.

Reverting to your question, I’m reminded of the episode on the Berlin Airlift (1948-9) in CNN’s famed TV series on the Cold War. As per its usual format, the episode included archived interviews with people who had been involved with events at the time, in this case someone who had been part of the American team which had negotiated a settlement with the Soviets. He said the Soviets had a particular negotiating style. They would first try to secure agreement to some broad, apparently innocuous principle couched in bland language. If that was achieved, they then claimed the principle entailed acceptance of a whole string of fine print details which had not been agreed and which were often entirely unacceptable so the negotiations had to backtrack to unpick what the Soviets were construing the principle to mean. It was evidently a wearisome experience, especially as the tactic was persistently repeated. Very likely that is part of what the Soviets had intended. As the man wrote: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Wow, thanks fellas. I assume Bob and Elliott are Europeans, so your thoughts are extremely valuable to me.

I agree that “War against terrorism” is a bad construction of words for us. “War against murderous islamsist bastards” is more accurate, but not politically viable. So we fundamentalist Christian rednecks support the name and the war. We, mostly, also enjoy the fact that Bush is reviled around the world while Clinton is still loved. I’m glad you brought that up. It is precisely Bill Clinton’s administration that has gotten us to where we are today.

I know that is a big charge to make in this company, but the 1990s saw America attacked repeatedly around the world - Bob listed most of the incidents. The Clintons barely raised a finger to respond to and deter al-Qaeda during his 8 years. He preferred to sit and talk about problems rather than deal forcefully with them. His dealings with the Israeli-Palestinian issue is evidence enough. If that is what it takes for a president to be loved around the world, I’ll take hatred of GWB anyday of the week. Most of the world hated Reagan too, and he was right about the Soviets and communism.

So many Americans believe what Bush and the administration are doing to win (destroying not only al-Qaeda but states who support them) is right that it does not matter who agrees or not. That’s what I’ve been trying to get at for a while here. A large part of us will tolerate foreign leaders calling our president, and by extension us, a moron and cowboy &c.

As many of you may loathe about us Americans, we despise semantics and prefer action in times of crisis. So whether or not a “state of war” can legally exist between a state and an unorganized group of men is pointless. The fact is that we are at war, and have been for over 10 years. Bush and others believe the forceful exercise of American power and the promulgation of liberty and self-government is the best way to end the war. I agree. And we’re back to our original discussion: Does Europe see its future as being threatened by Islamic terrorism or not? The answer to that question determines the course of action for both Europe and the US.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000066.html

Oh, by the way, please read Bill Whittle’s essay on American power. He articulates it all so much better than I’ll ever be able to.

Funny that, Steyn’s piece riled me up to go write a long retort, only to check by your site to see you’ve been all over him for almost a week.

http://www.stefangeens.com/000297.html

“Does Europe see its future as being threatened by Islamic terrorism or not?”

The short answer (-: is that Europe is threatened as the links below show all too clearly and the threats from North African and Middle East groups are not necessarily just from al-Qaeda affiliates. Other unrelated groups, insurgency movements and potential or actual terrorist organisations also have axes to grind. It is important to appreciate that al-Qaeda has many characteristics of a fanatical cult while other groups don’t.

“Twenty-four alleged members of an Algerian extremist network have gone on trial in Paris for a wave of bombings that left 12 dead. Ten people were killed and more than 100 injured in the worst attack on an underground train at the St Michel metro station in Paris in July 1995… The men are suspected of being supporters of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria… One of those believed to have played a major role in the bombings, Khaled Kelkal, was shot and killed by police later in 1995.” - from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/357808.stm

“A French court has convicted three men of heading support networks for Islamic insurgents in Algeria at the end of France’s largest ever trial. Mohamed Chalabi, Mourad Tacine and Mohamed Kerrouche, were among 138 men accused of backing Islamic radicals seeking to overthrow the Algerian Government.” - from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/260393.stm

“Europe’s first al-Qaeda trial opened in Frankfurt on Tuesday. At stake is the fate of five Algerian men accused of planning a bomb attack in Strasbourg and Germany’s reputation as a serious terrorist-fighting country.” - from: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_499109,00.html

“A Jordanian man has gone on trial in Duesseldorf accused of plotting attacks in Germany on behalf of a Palestinian group. Shadi Abdallah is accused of being a member of al-Tawhid, a group with alleged links to al-Qaeda.” - from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3016166.stm

“Germany has issued official arrest warrants for a group of suspected Islamic extremists detained in the past two days, which the authorities say had been planning to carry out attacks in the country.” - from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1949762.stm

There is a recognised urgent need for international cooperation because of al-Qaeda’s modus operandi: recruiting young men who have problems holding down a stable job and using a cell in one country to plan attacks in another, all intended, presumably, to confuse security services.

It is wrong and certainly counter-productive to demonise all muslims regardless. However, France and Germany have recognised potential security problems: France from settlers from North Africa and Germany from its “gastarbeiter” (guest workers). France’s muslim population is estimated at 5 to 6m, out of a total of 60m. Germany’s gastarbeiter were estimated at 10% of the workforce in the source I have to hand.

I know you don’t like the BBC website, Matt, but it is very friendly to use and an effective way of retrieving old news reports even if you don’t like the reporting nuances. At worst, you can use the BBC reports to extract dates, names and places and then use those data for a google search to access other reports. Much the same can be said of the Guardian site.

Elliott: “Killing Osama or Saddam will not stop terrorism; winning hearts and minds will. Short of thorough genocide, in fact, militaristic adventures such as the one the US is currently engaged in will do absolutely nothing to prevent the growth of anti-US sentiment.”

Ironically, the belief that hearts and minds can be won was exactly the reason why US forces failed in Vietnam. It is better to give up on that idea, and just make sure they fear us.

Anti-US sentiment exists even when America is at peace, so whatever America does or doesn’t do is irrelevant: it will still get blamed for every slight and wrong.

Markku:
“Ironically, the belief that hearts and minds can be won was exactly the reason why US forces failed in Vietnam.”

In what parallel universe?

“’the American birth rate among former Europeans is at replacement’”

“This is not correct. The aggregate is at 2.1 (more or less), but this is only because of the tendency of immigrants to have more children, and to marry and start having children younger.Take these numbers out and you’d be around 1.7 or 1.8 (like say Sweden). Incidentally the ’dreaded’ France headed by ’lifelong socialist’ Chirac comes pretty close to replacement: so what does this prove.”

Actually, the native French birth rate is only 1.3. The immigrant Muslim population’s far higher birth rate (3.6 or something) drives it up to 1.7.

Eh, no.

Immigrant fertility rates are around 3 children per woman and dropping; native fertility rates at least 1.6 and rising. The total French fertility rate is 1.9 children per woman.

“Immigrant fertility rates are around 3 children per woman and dropping; native fertility rates at least 1.6 and rising. The total French fertility rate is 1.9 children per woman.”

Actually, I think you’re right- at least about the current French fertility rate. I remember now that the figures of 1.7 for overall French fertility and 1.3 for native French fertility are three years old, prior to the recent mini-baby boom that occurred following the new pro-natalist policy. So it seems likely that native French fertility could have risen from 1.3 to 1.6, given that overall French fertility has risen from 1.7 to 1.9 in said amount of time. It was an honest mistake. I didn’t mean to mislead.

Still, I wouldn’t bet on the pro-natalist policy to ressurect the native French birth rate permanently. The experience in Sweden suggests that such policies influence when people have children, but not how many they ultimately have. As for the declining immigrant birth rate, I haven’t seen any statistics on that, but will take your word on it.

Bob,

Here’s Thomas Jefferson, “Reply to the Representations of Affairs in America by British Newspapers (1) [before November 20, 1784] ”

“….I have received serious condolances from all my friends on the bitter fruits of so prosperous a war. These friends I know to be so well disposed towards America that they wished the reverse of what they repeated from the public papers. have enquired into the source of all this misinformation & have found it not difficult to be traced. The printers on the Continent have not yet got into the habit of taking the American newspapers. Whatever they retail therefore on the subject of America, they take from the English. If your readers will reflect a moment they will recollect that every unfavourable account they have seen of the transactions in America has been taken from the English papers only. Nothing is known in Europe of the situation of the U.S. since the acknowlegement of their independance but thro’ the channel of these papers.

“But these papers have been under the influence of two ruling motives 1. deep-rooted hatred springing from an unsuccesful attempt to injure 2. a fear that their island will be depopulated by the emigration of it’s inhabitants to America. Hence no paper comes out without a due charge of paragraphs manufactured by persons employed for that purpose. According to these America is a scene of continued riot & anarchy. Wearied out with contention, it is on the verge of falling again into the lap of Gr. Br. for repose. It’s citizens are groaning under the oppression of heavy taxes. They are flying for refuge to the frozen regions which still remain subject to Gr. Br. Their assemblies and congresses are become odious, in one paragraph represented as tyrranising over their constituents, & in another as possessing no power or influence at all, &c. &c.”…

“…To bring more home to every reader the reliance which may be put on the English papers let him examine, if a Frenchman, what account they give of the affairs of France, if a Dutchman, what of the United Netherl ds ., if an Irishman, what of Ireland &c. If he finds that those of his own country with which he happens to be acquainted are wickedly misrepresented, let him consider how much more likely to be so are those of a nation so hated as America. America was the great pillar on which British glory was raised: America has been the instrument for levelling that glory with the dust. A little ill humour therefore might have found excuse in our commiseration: but an apostasy from truth, under whatever misfortunes, calls up feelings of a very different order.”

Perhaps it’s worth considering Jeffersons warning, as you should be skeptical of ANY British newspaper scooping the WP or NYT regarding a “top secret CIA” document.

Quiet American,

It’s said that wise men tend to their own gardens prior to taking a neighbor to task for planting slovenly rows. If we accept an analogy between ones opinions and the quality of ones produce, it’s my experience that zealously weeding partisan rhetoric results in a greater yield of reasonable discussion. To wit:

“There was a time, not that long ago, when the extreme right didn’t control most of American government and much of the English-speaking media, and one could have reasonable discussions about politics. “

Just how “Much” of the English-speaking “media” is controlled by the Extreme Right? And how Much do you claim is required to stifle reasonable discussion? The GOP does indeed control, in Congress, the Senate, the White House, a majority of State Goverors and Legislatures; enough of America’s various electoral positions to qualify as Most of the US government. That said, can you please clarify the difference between the Republicans and the ’extreme Right”? Are they logically interchangeable?

QA wrote: “… It is a mistake to try and make sense of how most conservatives use the terms Left/Democrat/European; don’t bother asking them to clarify. These are simply interchangable terms of abuse to them, nothing more.
This doesn’t make any sense, but then, neither do the people who use such tactics.”

I’m not certain if the above was serious or satire? It’s often hard to make sense of arguments, as you astutely point out, from “people who use such tactics”. Could you clarify your curious interchanging use of the terms Extreme Right/Conservatives/American government?

QA wrote: “Nowdays, ’debate’ is mainly a matter of listening to fundamentalists, racists, neo-nationalists, supply-side and xenophobic cranks froth at the mouth and howl whenever their worldview is questioned. One could only wish these men (and they are usually men) were truly made of straw, as some claim…”

I’m still uncertain on the satire question… if so, it was too subtle for me to descern for sure. As a male, paleo-Nationalist, neo-Libertarian, proto-Taoist Unitarian fundamentalist, who’s never denied his Racism (I’d be happy to defend the virtues of the Scottish race, by God!), I take great offense at your implication that either xenophbia or crank are inherently bad! It’s a proven fact that people who use Crank attract treacherous ScareCrows of straw, and if you’d been abducted by aliens while on Crank, you’d be xenophobic as well!

Alexander,

Thanks for the quotes from Thomas Jefferson. I’m one of his many latter-day admirers although I have to admit to browsing our George Orwell (1903-1950) more often for his perennially valuable insights. Big Brother’s slogans in Orwell’s classic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-four (1949) have a renewed resonance of late:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

I’ve been often reminded of this passage too:

“Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous, and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph,”

and this: “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them,”

and this: “The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of the thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”

Recognising your aversion to the subversive inclinations of the NYT I turned elsewhere for enlightenment on Bush and America:

“There are two George Bushes. One is ideological, divisive, willing to tear up the rule book and push strongly conservative policies. This is the Bush loved by Republicans, loathed by Democrats (see chart 6). The other is more incremental and sometimes more bipartisan. Yet even this Bush, who might appeal to the middle, is also surprisingly audacious. His audacity causes wariness among voters who are not strongly inclined for or against him.” - from: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2172181

As for we British: “On Friday the British polling firm YouGov provided NEWSWEEK with survey data gathered in recent days. It doesn’t make pretty reading for Bush fans. By big majorities, Britons believe Bush is - not very intelligent (62 percent), - insincere (53 percent) and - not very well informed about the world (62 percent). He also - does not care much about the views of people in other countries (82 percent), is - a bad advertisement for America (65 percent) and is - foolish (63 percent).” - from: http://www.msnbc.com/news/993833.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1

Regards from Oceania,

Alexander,

Thank you for that most interesting quote from Jefferson. As it was before, so it is now, - with the BBC and Reuters.

Bob: George Orwell is always an entertaining read, but his 1984 prediction hardly came through, except if you really exert yourself in a stretch of the imagination.

I also caution you about using even American media to judge what is going on within America. The media here, too, has a left-of-center bias (thank goodness for a little opposition from Fox and other right-wing voices). And the media has been spectacularly wrong in divining the mind of the nation. I won’t dwell on post 9/11 issues for examples, but point to how little they understood the Monica Lewinsky/Clinton impeachment fracas. It simply was not an issue the public wanted to dwell on, despite the best efforts of the media to hype it up (something the right-wing, - reprehensively so - relied on).

As for bashing Bush, there will be Americans out there who will view it as an attack on America, and not just on Bush. I doubt that the protestors in the upcoming visit will be able to make that distinction, despite the best efforts of the BBC and Reuters to spin it that way.

Hopefully, it will rather increase the divide between the US and Europe; next time, we shouldn’t trust a Blair’s promise that he could deliver Europe and the UN, if we only let them have a voice….

Markku,

On Orwell, he wasn’t predicting, more like depicting a possible future. You are make no allowance for the context in which he was writing. Remember that Victor Gollancz, who had been pleased to publish Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier in 1937 with its account of poverty in the north of England during the depression, refused to publish his next book, Homage to Catalonia in 1938 on the civil war in Spain, and then Animal Farm just after WW2, the last because it was insulting to our heroic Soviet allies. Stalin’s “personality cult” was then still in full flush. Orwell was among the first of the leftist literary glitterati to uncover the realities. Look around on the web and folks on both sides of the Atlantic are still writing and talking about Orwell’s perceptions more than 50 years after he died of TB in his late 40s.

“I won’t dwell on post 9/11 issues for examples, but point to how little they understood the Monica Lewinsky/Clinton impeachment fracas. It simply was not an issue the public wanted to dwell on, despite the best efforts of the media to hype it up (something the right-wing, - reprehensively so - relied on).

Take it up with Newt Gingrich. At the time, I was much embroiled online with Americans reminding them then that polls in America were reporting steady 60% ratings in support of Clinton but they wouldn’t have it.

“As for bashing Bush, there will be Americans out there who will view it as an attack on America, and not just on Bush.”

Bush’s poll ratings have been declining. The latest polls show a 50-50 split on support for the administration’s position on the Iraq war. The Bushies and Blair claim that any criticism of Bush amounts to anti-Americanism just as Sharon claims that any criticism of himself amounts to anti-semitism. Risible.