Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
that these NSDs may be wrong on facts, but right on politics. Americans did not want to hear, after 9/11, that kicking Ay-rab ass was not the solution; now, Americans do not (yet?) want to hear from their leaders that they have lost a war, even if it's true.

Could things have changed if these NSDs had stood to Bush in 2002 and said, this is insane? We'll never know, but I suspect they would have been brushed aside and branded traitors, appeasers, etc... like the rest of the opponents.

Would it be easier now to pick the pieces? Yep. They did bet on Bush's ability to succeeds in a totally hopeless task, and for that they deserve all our scorn, for abandoning their principles, betting on a political opponent (especially one that was never going to give them anything in return), and losing badly.

But don't think that Europeans underestimate how much that mindset was set in American circles. It was precisely because the mindset was so widespread, and that there effectively was so little opposition internally, that European opposition became so visible and so significant politically. We did try to warn them.

Now we are all stuck in the mess, but those that created it in the first place should be taken with a big grain of salt before anything they say is seriously considered again.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 11:47:40 AM EST
Strangely enough Billmon just said much the same thing.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 01:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Americans did not want to hear, after 9/11, that kicking Ay-rab ass was not the solution;

I'm not sure we can declare Americans that stupid and mean. Especially as no one tried except for the 'fringe'.

Could things have changed if these NSDs had stood to Bush in 2002 and said, this is insane? We'll never know, but I suspect they would have been brushed aside and branded traitors, appeasers, etc... like the rest of the opponents.

Of course they would have - and they were anyway, that's the operandus modi of the Republicans! They shouldn't have cared.

Had they not done this, one result would have been that much of the US Left wouldn't have been taken along for the "support-your-troops" ride and came out stronger; the other that they would have been proven right by the events, and with their much wider echo chamber and media access than the Michael Moore Left had, would have been able to make that point recognised.

they deserve all our scorn, for abandoning their principles,

Jérôme, the point of the article is that they didn't abadon their principles. Their principles are different from ours.

But don't think that Europeans underestimate how much that mindset was set in American circles.

I disagree for two reasons. (Well three, see previous quote/reply.)

One is the wide uncritical European support for Kerry: as I wrote, he was considered an anti-war candidate, tough he actually was calling for more troops. The other is earlier times: when Clinton's charm took many (but not all) along in NSD operations like Desert Fox, which weren't qualitatively different from neocon ones. (I.e. stemming from strategic miscalculation and ignorance, popularised and excused with lies and deceit, then failing at both the real and claimed goals, with serious collateral damage.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Aug 17th, 2005 at 05:46:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
operandus modi

modus operandi...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Aug 17th, 2005 at 06:25:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I disagree with your comments...

  • Americans did rally around Bush and his jingoistic mood, and that lasted for a long time. Criticism was antipatriotic and required a toughness to face ut that not everybody has.

  • NSDs did interiorise the "blame the "blame the USA" mindset" mindset. Thay felt that it was suicidal for liberals, which they still claim to be, to be soft on terror. They bought the "everything changed on 9/11" line uncritically. Kerry was on the "law enforcement" against the "nuisance" of terrorism, a really substantial difference.

  • there were big fights with Clinton all the time. Remember the arguments on the bombing targets in Serbia. Remember the criticism of US "hyperpower". Kerry was seen as a return to sanity, not to good relationships. Some, like Chirac, preferred Bush because he made it so easy, and palatable to many, to be violently critical. Kerry would have forced France to make serious efforts or not been taken seriously by anybody.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 17th, 2005 at 07:12:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series