Thoughts for Europe
Unsolicited advice is rude. But so much of it wafted across the pond in the months before the presidential election that a little tit for tat seems to be in order. Here's my tit.
Europeans need to think hard about military power. The lesson of 2003 was, when war debates begin, you tend to respond politically. You take a reflexive contrarian view to American power, rather than applying realistic, sensible principles on how and when to employ military force. But you would gain a lot more credibility with American presidents, and American voters, if you learn to think honestly about war as more than something to be avoided at any cost (except when the French venture into Africa).
Because, as the recent footage from Fallujah will show you, Americans do not avoid force at all costs.
Some Europeans hold the view that Europe should stand up and take some authority on itself in the world scene. I applaud that. But to do that, too, you need to have this internal discussion about power and military force.
We're trying it your way in Iran right now. Let's see how that goes. Internationalism and diplomacy are essential, but without muscle in the background they don't get much traction in this imperfect world. Hard power and soft power in alternation makes a dynamic. Soft power all the time makes mud. Personally, I like the idea that the Iranian mullahs start awake in the night and think, "was that a squirrel in the attic or are the SEALs are coming over the balcony?" You may not like that we scare them. But those nightmares probably make your conversations with them more productive.
The last U.S. military action most Europeans approve, as far as I can see, was the one that chased the Nazis off the map and out of power. So we know you're not entirely pacifists. You're willing to see our sons die in some causes. And by abdicating your own defense to the Americans in the Cold War, you involved yourselves in the ongoing expression of that theory: It's OK for American troops to die to defend Europe. But you want to make the work of our military as difficult as possible elsewhere. Oh, that's a simple drawing of a complicated picture, but I'm telling you: This is noticed, and noted, over here. Better deal with it.
Overcoming your reflexive dislike of American power won't be easy. Modern Europeans pride themselves on having broken with their militaristic past. Germany had a thousand-year heritage of fighting prowess, but in a generation that has evaporated. Congratulations, if that's what you want. But there's a price; once that tradition is broken, it's gone. Many current European leaders grew up during the Vietnam War, and they hold a deep distrust, expressed or not, of the military. Rising European politicians have few mentors to teach them to think clearly about war and security. Without experience, these matters are difficult to understand.
If Europeans wish to explore this without talking to the Red State Americans, they can get an instruction by watching the conflict in the modern Democratic Party in the U.S. As one Democratic analyst put it in 2002:
And so now the Democrats have a serious credibility gap with the American voters when it comes to security. It probably cost them the last election. It's gotten to the point that John Kerry wanted Republican John McCain as his Secretary of Defense, while Bill Clinton had moderate Republican William Cohen as his. That's not a good trend for a healthy two-party system.
Europeans need to think hard about military power. The lesson of 2003 was, when war debates begin, you tend to respond politically. You take a reflexive contrarian view to American power, rather than applying realistic, sensible principles on how and when to employ military force. But you would gain a lot more credibility with American presidents, and American voters, if you learn to think honestly about war as more than something to be avoided at any cost (except when the French venture into Africa).
Because, as the recent footage from Fallujah will show you, Americans do not avoid force at all costs.
Some Europeans hold the view that Europe should stand up and take some authority on itself in the world scene. I applaud that. But to do that, too, you need to have this internal discussion about power and military force.
We're trying it your way in Iran right now. Let's see how that goes. Internationalism and diplomacy are essential, but without muscle in the background they don't get much traction in this imperfect world. Hard power and soft power in alternation makes a dynamic. Soft power all the time makes mud. Personally, I like the idea that the Iranian mullahs start awake in the night and think, "was that a squirrel in the attic or are the SEALs are coming over the balcony?" You may not like that we scare them. But those nightmares probably make your conversations with them more productive.
The last U.S. military action most Europeans approve, as far as I can see, was the one that chased the Nazis off the map and out of power. So we know you're not entirely pacifists. You're willing to see our sons die in some causes. And by abdicating your own defense to the Americans in the Cold War, you involved yourselves in the ongoing expression of that theory: It's OK for American troops to die to defend Europe. But you want to make the work of our military as difficult as possible elsewhere. Oh, that's a simple drawing of a complicated picture, but I'm telling you: This is noticed, and noted, over here. Better deal with it.
Overcoming your reflexive dislike of American power won't be easy. Modern Europeans pride themselves on having broken with their militaristic past. Germany had a thousand-year heritage of fighting prowess, but in a generation that has evaporated. Congratulations, if that's what you want. But there's a price; once that tradition is broken, it's gone. Many current European leaders grew up during the Vietnam War, and they hold a deep distrust, expressed or not, of the military. Rising European politicians have few mentors to teach them to think clearly about war and security. Without experience, these matters are difficult to understand.
If Europeans wish to explore this without talking to the Red State Americans, they can get an instruction by watching the conflict in the modern Democratic Party in the U.S. As one Democratic analyst put it in 2002:
"After Vietnam, the old Cold War liberalism no longer seemed credible to the party's core and to many of its leaders. Many Democratic officeholders and operatives responded by focusing on those foreign policy issues that they and their base were comfortable with, such as human rights and arms control, while others shied away from international policy altogether and focused on domestic issues. At the same time, most Democrats understood that a reputation for being 'soft' on defense issues was a serious political liability. But instead of grappling with the substance of war and national security, Democrats began to approach their vulnerability as a problem of tactics and political positioning."
And so now the Democrats have a serious credibility gap with the American voters when it comes to security. It probably cost them the last election. It's gotten to the point that John Kerry wanted Republican John McCain as his Secretary of Defense, while Bill Clinton had moderate Republican William Cohen as his. That's not a good trend for a healthy two-party system.
Labels: Europe
