Re: [Swprograms] Does Europe Hate Us?

[Joel Rubin <jmrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:20:07 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>Recommended: Thomas Friedman Reporting, a.k.a. Spotlight, on the Discovery
>Channel, was at 0000-0100 UT Friday, and repeats at 0300, at least on the
>eastern feed. 73, Glenn
>
>
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/09/18/do1801.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/09/18/ixopinion.html

[An edited extract from P.J. O'Rourke's book, "Peace Kills: America's
Fun New Imperialism". Mr. O'Rourke was, in past years, the house
conservative for the Rolling Stone. IIRC there was also a section
about something like "Why Americans Hate Europe" which you may be able
to find with Google. I love that phrase "Trick or Treaties" for
traditional manipulative European diplomacy.]

 Why Americans hate foreign policy
By P J O'Rourke
(Filed: 18/09/2004)

Frankly, nothing concerning foreign policy ever occurred to me until
the middle of the last decade. I'd been writing about foreign
countries and foreign affairs and foreigners for years. But you can
own dogs all your life and not have "dog policy".

You have rules, yes - Get off the couch! - and training, sure. We want
the dumb creatures to be well behaved and friendly. So we feed
foreigners, take care of them, give them treats, and, when absolutely
necessary, whack them with a rolled-up newspaper.

That was as far as my foreign policy thinking went until the middle
1990s, when I realised America's foreign policy thinking hadn't gone
that far.

In the fall of 1996, I travelled to Bosnia to visit a friend whom I'll
call Major Tom. Major Tom was in Banja Luka serving with the Nato-led
international peacekeeping force, Ifor. From 1992 to 1995, Bosnian
Serbs had fought Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims in an attempt to
split Bosnia into two hostile territories.

In 1995, the US-brokered Dayton Agreement ended the war by splitting
Bosnia into two hostile territories. The Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina was run by Croats and Muslims. The Republika Srpska was
run by Serbs.

IFOR's job was to "implement and monitor the Dayton Agreement." Major
Tom's job was to sit in an office where Croat and Muslim residents of
Republika Srpska went to report Dayton Agreement violations.

"They come to me," said Major Tom, "and they say, 'The Serbs stole my
car.' And I say, 'I'm writing that in my report.' They say, 'The Serbs
burnt my house.' And I say, 'I'm writing that in my report.' They say,
'The Serbs raped my daughter.' And I say, 'I'm writing that in my
report."'

"Then what happens?" I said.

"I put my report in a filing cabinet."

Major Tom had fought in the Gulf war. He'd been deployed to Haiti
during the American reinstatement of President Aristide (which
preceded the recent American un-reinstatement). He was on his second
tour of duty in Bosnia and would go on to fight in the Iraq war.

That night, we got drunk.

"Please, no nation-building," said Major Tom. "We're the Army. We kill
people and break things. They didn't teach nation-building in infantry
school."

Or in journalism school, either. The night before I left to cover the
Iraq war, I got drunk with another friend, who works in TV news. We
were talking about how - as an approach to national security -
invading Iraq was... different.

I'd moved my family from Washington to New Hampshire. My friend was
considering getting his family out of New York. "Don't you hope," my
friend said, "that all this has been thought through by someone who is
smarter than we are?"

It is, however, a universal tenet of democracy that no one is.

Americans hate foreign policy. Americans hate foreign policy because
Americans hate foreigners. Americans hate foreigners because Americans
are foreigners. We all come from foreign lands, even if we came 10,000
years ago on a land bridge across the Bering Strait.

America is not "globally conscious" or "multi-cultural." Americans
didn't come to America to be Limey Poofters, Frog-Eaters, Bucket
Heads, Micks, Spicks, Sheenies or Wogs. If we'd wanted foreign
entanglements, we would have stayed home. Or - in the case of those of
us who were shipped to America against our will - as slaves, exiles,
or transported prisoners - we would have gone back.

Being foreigners ourselves, we Americans know what foreigners are up
to with their foreign policy - their venomous convents, lying
alliances, greedy agreements and trick-or-treaties. America is not a
wily, sneaky nation. We don't think that way.

We don't think much at all, thank God. Start thinking and pretty soon
you get ideas, and then you get idealism, and the next thing you know
you've got ideology, with millions dead in concentration camps and
gulags. A fundamental American question is: "What's the big idea?"

Americans would like to ignore foreign policy. Our previous attempts
at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful
for Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan. Evil is an outreach programme.
A solitary bad person sitting alone, harbouring genocidal thoughts,
and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next
to us in the trailer park.

In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does.
America has to act. But, when America acts, other nations accuse us of
being "hegemonistic," of engaging in "unilateralism," of behaving as
if we're the only nation on earth that counts.

We are. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned "to spend more
time with the family." China is supposed to be mighty, but the Chinese
leadership quakes when a couple of hundred Falun Gong members do tai
chi for Jesus.

The European Union looks impressive on paper, with a greater
population and a larger economy than America's. But the military
spending of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy combined does not
equal one third of the US defence budget.

When other countries demand a role in the exercise of global power,
America can ask another fundamental American question: "You and what
army?"

Americans find foreign policy confusing. We are perplexed by the
subtle tactics and complex strategies of the Great Game. America's
great game is pulling the levers on the slot machines in Las Vegas. We
can't figure out what the goal of American foreign policy is supposed
to be.

The goal of American tax policy is avoiding taxes. The goal of
American environmental policy is to clean up the environment, clearing
away scruffy caribou and seals so that America's drillers for Arctic
oil don't get trampled or slapped with a flipper.

But the goal of American foreign policy is to foster international
co-operation, protect Americans at home and abroad, promote world
peace, eliminate human rights abuses, improve US business and trade
opportunities, and stop global warming.

We were going to stop global warming by signing the Kyoto protocol on
greenhouse gas emissions. Then we realized the Kyoto protocol was
ridiculous and unenforceable and that no one who signed it was even
trying to meet the emissions requirements except for some countries
from the former Soviet Union. They accidentally quit emitting
greenhouse gases because their economies collapsed.

However, if we withdraw from diplomatic agreements because they're
ridiculous, we'll have to withdraw from every diplomatic agreement
because they're all ridiculous. This will not foster international
co-operation. But if we do foster international co-operation, we won't
be able to protect Americans at home and abroad, because there has
been a lot of international co-operation in killing Americans.

Attacking internationals won't promote world peace, which we can't
have anyway if we're going to eliminate human rights abuses, because
there's no peaceful way to get rid of the governments that abuse the
rights of people - people who are chained to American gym-shoe-making
machinery, dying of gym-shoe lung, and getting paid in shoe-laces,
thereby improving US business and trade opportunities, which result in
economic expansion that causes global warming to get worse.

One problem with changing America's foreign policy is that we keep
doing it. President Bill Clinton dreamed of letting the lion lie down
with the lamb chop. Clinton kept International Monetary Fund cash
flowing into the ever-criminalising Russian economy. He ignored
Kremlin misbehaviour - from Boris Yeltsin's shelling of elected
representatives in the Duma to Vladimir Putin's airlifting of
uninvited Russian troops into Kosovo.

Clinton compared the Chechnya fighting to the American Civil War
(murdered Chechens being on the South Carolina statehouse,
Confederate-flag-flying side). Clinton called China America's
"strategic partner" and paid a nine-day visit to that country, not
bothering himself with courtesy calls on America's actual strategic
partners, Japan and South Korea. Clinton announced, "We don't support
independence for Taiwan," and said of Jiang Zemin, instigator of the
assault on democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square: "He has vision."

Anything for peace, that was Clinton's policy. Clinton had special
peace-mongering envoys in Cyprus, Congo, the Middle East, the Balkans,
and flying off to attend secret talks with Marxist guerrillas in
Colombia.

On his last day in office, Clinton was still phoning Sinn Fein leader
Gerry Adams. "Love your work, Gerry. Do you ever actually kill people?
Or do you just do the spin?"

Clinton was everybody's best friend. Except when he wasn't. He
conducted undeclared air wars against Serbia and Iraq and launched
missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan. Clinton used the military more
often than any previous peacetime American president. He sent armed
forces into areas of conflict on an average of once every nine weeks.

President George W Bush's foreign policy was characterised, in early
2001, as "disciplined and consistent" (Condoleezza Rice): "blunt" (The
Washington Post), and "in-your-face" (the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace). Bush began his term with the expulsion of one
fourth of the Russian diplomatic corps on grounds of espionage. He
snubbed Vladimir Putin by delaying a first summit meeting until June
2001, and then holding it in fashionable Slovenia.

On April 1, 2001, a Chinese fighter jet, harassing a US reconnaissance
plane in international air space, collided with the American aircraft,
which was forced to land in Chinese territory. Bush did not regard
this as an April Fools' prank. By the end of the month, he had gone on
Good Morning America and said that, if China attacked Taiwan, the
United States had an obligation to defend it with "whatever it took".

The President also brandished American missile defences at Russia and
China. The Russians and Chinese were wroth. The missile shield might
or might not stop missiles but, even unbuilt, it was an effective tool
for gathering intelligence on Russian and Chinese foreign policy
intentions. We knew how things stood when the town drunk and the town
bully strongly suggested that we shouldn't get a new home security
system.

In the Middle East, Bush made an attempt to let the Israelis and the
Palestinians go at it until David ran out of pebbles and Goliath had
been hit on the head so many times that he was voting for Likud. In
Northern Ireland, Bush also tried minding his own business. And he
quit negotiating with North Korea about its atomic weapons for the
same reason that you'd quit jawing with a crazy person about the gun
he was waving and call 999.

We saw the results of Clinton's emotional, ad hoc, higgledy-piggledy
foreign policy. It led to strained relations with Russia and China,
increased violence in the Middle East, continued fighting in Africa
and Asia, and Serbs killing Albanians. Then we saw the results of
Bush's tough, calculated, focused foreign policy: strained relations
with Russia and China, increased violence in the Middle East,
continued fighting in Africa and Asia, and Albanians killing Serbs.

Further changes could be made to US foreign policy. For a sample of
alternative ideas, we can turn to a group of randomly (even
haphazardly) chosen, average (not to say dull-normal) Americans: the
2004 Democratic presidential hopefuls. By the time this is read, most
of them will be forgotten. With luck, all of them will be.

None the less, it's instructive to recall what 10 people who offered
themselves as potential leaders of the world deemed to be America's
foreign policy options.

Incessant activist Al Sharpton pleaded for "a policy of befriending
and creating allies around the world". The way Sharpton intended to
make friends was by fixing the world's toilets and sinks. "There are
1.7 billion people that need clean water," he said, "almost three
billion that need sanitation systems... I would train engineers...
would export people that would help with these things."

Ex-child mayor of Cleveland Dennis Kucinich promised to establish "a
cabinet-level Department of Peace". The secretary of peace would do
for international understanding what the postmaster general does for
mail.

Former one-term senator and erstwhile ambassador to New Zealand Carol
Moseley Braun said, "I believe women have a contribution to make... we
are clever enough to defeat terror without destroying our own
liberty... we can provide for long-term security by making peace
everybody's business". Elect me because women are clever busybodies.
This is the "Lucy and Ethel Get an Idea" foreign policy.

Massachusetts's thinner, more sober senator, John Kerry, said that he
voted for threatening to use force on Saddam Hussein, but that
actually using force was wrong. This is what's known, in the language
of diplomacy, as bullshit.

Previous almost-vice president Joe Lieberman indignantly demanded that
Bush do somewhat more of what Bush already was doing. "Commit more US
troops," create "an Iraqi interim authority," and "work with the Iraqi
people and the United Nations." Perhaps Lieberman was suffering from a
delusion that he was part of the current presidential administration.

But imagine having a Democrat as commander-in-chief during the War
Against Terrorism, with Oprah Winfrey as secretary of defence. Big hug
for Mr Taliban. Republicans are squares, but it's the squares who know
how to fly the bombers, launch the missiles and fire the M-16s.
Democrats would still be fumbling with the federally mandated trigger
locks.

One-time governor of insignificant Vermont Howard Dean wanted a cold
war on terrorism. Dean said that we'd won the Cold War without firing
a shot (a statement that doubtless surprised veterans of Korea and
Vietnam). Dean said that the reason we'd won the Cold War without
firing a shot was because we were able to show the communists "a
better ideal."

But what is the "better ideal" that we can show the Islamic
fundamentalists? Maybe we can tell them: "Our President is a
born-again. You're religious lunatics - we're religious lunatics.
America was founded by religious lunatics! How about those Salem witch
trials? Come to America and you could be Osama bin Ashcroft. You could
get your own state, like Utah, run by religious lunatics. You could
have an Islamic Fundamentalist Winter Olympics - the Chador Schuss."

Since the gist of Howard Dean's campaign platform was "It Worked in
Vermont," he really may have thought that the terrorists should take
up snowboarding. On the other hand, the gist of General (very retired)
Wesley Clark's campaign platform was "It Worked in Kosovo". Kosovo
certainly taught the world a lesson. Wherever there's suffering,
injustice, and oppression, America will show up six months late and
bomb the country next to where it's happening.

The winner of South Carolina's JFK look-alike contest, John Edwards,
and the winner of Florida's Bob Gramm look-alike contest, Bob Gramm,
said that America had won the war in Iraq but was losing the peace
because Iraq was so unstable. When Iraq was stable, it attacked Israel
in 1967 and 1973. It attacked Iran. It attacked Kuwait. It gassed the
Kurds. It butchered the Shiites. It fostered terrorism in the Middle
East. Who wanted a stable Iraq?

And perennial representative of the House of Representatives Dick
Gephardt wouldn't talk much about foreign policy. He was concentrating
on economic issues, claiming that he'd make the American Dream come
true for everyone.

Gephardt may have been on to something there. Once people get rich,
they don't go in much for war-making. The shoes are ugly and the
uniforms itch. Some day, Osama bin Laden will call a member of one of
his "sleeper cells" - a person who was planted in the United States
years before and told to live like a normal American, and...

"Dad, some guy named Ozzy's on the phone."

"Oh, uh, good to hear from you. Of course, of course... Rockefeller
Center?... Next Wednesday?... I'd love to, but the kid's got her
ballet recital. You miss something like that, they never forget it...
Thursday's no good. I have to see my mom off on her cruise to Bermuda
in the morning. It's Fatima's yoga day. And I've got courtside seats
for the Nets... Friday, we're going to the Hamptons for the
weekend..."

But how, exactly, did Gephardt plan to make everyone on earth as
materialistic, self-indulgent, and over-scheduled as Americans? Would
Gephardt give foreigners options on hot dot-com stocks? That might
have worked during the Clinton years.

As of early 2004, America didn't seem to have the answers for postwar
Iraq. Then again, what were the questions?

Was there a bad man? And his bad kids? Were they running a bad
country? That did bad things? Did they have a lot of oil money to do
bad things with? Were they going to do more bad things?

If those were the questions, was the answer "UN-supervised national
reconciliation" or "rapid return to self-rule"? No. The answer was
blow the place to bits.

A mess was left behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight
aggressive wars; a mess without the facilities to develop dangerous
weapons; a mess that cannot systematically kill, torture, and oppress
millions of its citizens. It's a mess with a message - don't mess with
us.

As frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers. When
someone detonates a suicide bomb, that person does not have career
prospects.

And no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by
losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an air
force.



_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.