Since no one else here seems to have much to say about the Great Debate, let me chip in with a few meandering thoughts. If you do not like meandering, stop now. Strong meandering warning. I have now read the rest of this, and believe me, it meanders. It nuances hither and thither like some damned diplomat who has been at the drugs.
Okay. So far as I am concerned, I thought John Kerry won it. My opinion of him could only improve, and it did. And I have got to admit that not only was I impressed, in the sense of feeling that others would be, by the air of coherence he brought to stating his case. I also think he may actually have an alternative policy that might count for something.
The general opinion in our part of the blogosphere/internet is that the idea of the USA ‘forming alliances’ better with the ‘international community’ is a load of old sneer quotes. Lileks said it yesterday. On what planet is Kerry living? Does he really think that the rest of the world will suddenly swing into line behind President John Kerry, and win/settle the War Against Terror? Will it bollocks, says Lileks, although a little more politely than that.
But I do not think it quite so unlikely as Lileks does that the rest of the world, by which I mean Europe, actually will swing obediently into line, like an eager little Euro-dog. Even those Moderate Arabs may feel less culturally slighted, and contribute somewhat more than they are contributing now. After all, what ‘Europe’ (the sneer quote version, the leadership of Europe) hates about Bush is not really his policies. It is not his alleged corruption, for the leadership of Europe is at least as corrupt as he is. That stuff is all projection. No, what they object to about Bush is what he is, that is, how he chooses to present himself, which in politics amounts to the same thing. And Bush is/presents himself as: an unashamed American. The cowboy boots, that amazing Tom Cruise performance with the sunglasses and the leather trousers and the aircraft carrier, his unashamed down home folksiness and hesitancy when he speaks in public on all occasions except the biggest, his whole air of “I know, I’m an American, and I know lots of you folks don’t really care for that, but hey, I am an American – is that really such a big deal for you to live with it? I’m not going to learn up a lot of crap about cathedrals and renaissance philosophers just to please you folks.” There is the whole born-again thing, the religion embraced, the booze completely abandoned. The crazy down-market brother (I presume he has at least one of those). It all adds up to something Europeans deeply disapprove of.
I know, Clinton had a lot of this also. True. But he presented it all very differently. He did that pseudo-cringe, that “Europe is still the shining light of the world” performance, as and when addressing Euro-audiences. Everyone knows this is bullshit, but at least he had the grace to do it. Bush refuses to. He talks about European countries (‘folks’) as if they were small US East Coast states of the sort that will not vote for him and will not need to. His words are polite, but you just know he thinks something else and something a lot less.
John Kerry, on the other hand, is quite different. Let me say that again, emphasising the word that matters, he is quite different. He is one of them. Tall, ex-lefty troublemaker, privileged, a Euro-travelled bullshit artist, expensive suits, rich posh wife, the whole Chirac Gisgard Monsieur le Euro-WaterSkier, hey (evocative Gallic shrug-and-wink) we-oll-do-crezzy-things-when-we-wair-yernger routine. No need to bring God into it, or to give up on drinking fine wine. No need to live, intellectually speaking, in a caravan. Stick with Chateau Nuance, to drink and to live it.
And never forget that the USA now contains a big I-hate-what-Bush-is-or-pretends-to-be constituency, who were lefty troublemakers themselves and who now like fine wine and who are embarrassed by God.
Now you may say, and I can hear the angry comments from America piling up in front of me: so f…er ‘rigging what? Are we supposed to give two flying … pins for what Sneer Quotes Europe thinks about this or that or any damned thing?
Well, life is, to quote a regular Americanism, not fair. It is not fair that Europe still counts for anything, or that so many Americans like to think that it does. Yet it does, and they do. Europe now contributes just about bugger all to the military effort of the International Community. But it might contribute quite a lot, and that might – the other kind of military might, you might say – is the basis of Europe’s continuing importance in the world.
For, to repeat a lot of the above a bit differently, Europe’s preoccupation is not with what is being done, but with who is doing it. (See also: European Union.)
Just now, Europe (the UK fitfully excepted) is on strike. Bush rules the world insofar as anyone does, and Europe sits on its hands, waiting for him to crash and burn. If Bush were to be crashed and burned by John Kerry, now, I think that those hands might come out from under those Euro-arses, in sheer pleasure at the come-uppance of the Hated Texan. And I think a genuine US-Euro effort to subjugate those Islamo-fascists might actually create a truly different world.
But none of that may turn out to be true, and we will almost certainly never know. Bush still looks like a winner to me. For, if Kerry were to win, Europe might remain the same sneering, shrugging, nuanced waste of space that it is now. All Kerry might achieve would be to confuse the US armed forces and drive them to drugs. Were I an American, I would say: why the hell take the risk? Stick with what you know. Win this damned thing and then let those damned Euros swing into line then. Or not. Who gives a shit?
But the idea that America and Europe might, now, join hands across the seas and actually make serious (far more serious than now) common cause against Islamo-fascism, were Kerry to win, is at least a plausible theory, and in politics, plausibilities count for as much as facts – plausibilities are facts.
Bush and his minions have succeeded in presenting Kerry to America as a vacillating bag of wind. Well, you can do that to a ducker and weaver of the European school of international relations. You can point to the various daggers, and to the various different smiles, and say: look, not the same! Which is it? Dagger? Smile? Which dagger? Which smile? “I think the American people deserve to be told” blah blah. But diplomacy, properly understood, can always be criticised for that.
Kerry’s point, if I understand him right, is that although this Terrorism thing may be a war, it is a mistake to turn it into a ‘war’ war, with the Tom Cruise sunglasses and the aircraft carriers. This is a more nuanced war, or should be. It is a war where you shake hands with Lawrence of Arabia extras in white robes and funny headgear at conferences and emit platitudes about their ancient and peace-loving cultures, and simultaneously have their sons assassinated in back allies and their camps and bases bombed to rubble with whatever civilian casualties that involves, and then you call in your media favours to ensure that the bombing never makes it to the Mainstream Media. But, the Lawrence of Arabia guys get the message. You need to be nuanced in a Middle Eastern kind of way. More treacherous. Less up front.
The irony there being that Bush is probably at least as ‘nuanced’ in that particular regard as John Kerry. Indeed. of the two, I would say that Bush is (as opposed to appears) more nuanced and treacherous and multi-faced than Kerry. Kerry, like so many of his type (and I would put myself also in this box), wants all his thoughts to be on show. God forbid he should seem dumb. That is a real weakness in a US President, I would say.
And so on. I am thinking aloud here.
According to the news stories I have read, Kerry has had a bounce. (By the way, I love that picture – especially the cool Secret Service (?) guys in the background, at whom Kerry’s performance is not being aimed.) My guess, now that I have seen this first debate, is that the debates, because Kerry is a better performer on the day than Bush, with fewer embarrassing pauses and verbal … … … … mis … … … verbalisationism … things … … will save Kerry from slaughter, but not from defeat. In the last days of the campaign, the Bush camp will point up the risks involved in the Kerry attitude (basically that he will nuance the USA into another Vietnam), and the fact that Kerry was able to attach such a plausible manner to the front of all his nuances will fade, a little.
But then again, what if Bush does his usual unsatisfactory performance, with all those too-long pauses, in Debate Two, but in Debate Three plays a blinder, while Kerry is then the one reduced to repeating himself, having used up all his ammo in Debates One and Two? That would be very much in character with the way they both seem to do things? If that happened Bush could yet wipe the floor and make the entire map the same colour. I just thought of that.
Oh, what do I know? I apologise now, Lileks style, for this having been such a Kerry-esque zig-zag through the terrain. (Copiers and pasters will be able to make me agree with any proposition that they personally favour.) As Lileks said at the end of his piece, thanks for reading this far, I would have given up long ago.
Basically, what I think about this debate is that it was at least a real Debate, between two entirely distinct positions, and as such an important World Event, and that if Samizdata has any serious pretensions towards being a Mainstream World Medium it ought to have something to say about it. Certainly it should have regular things to say about things like it. I have a very busy day, so I am going to just fling this up anyway, without nearly enough second thinking, and hope that it will amuse and enlighten, and get you thinking a bit straighter even if I have not been doing that. So, with apologies for all the errors, small and big: have a nice weekend.
Bush could care less about winning debates. He cares about winning the election. He kept on message said exactly what will win him votes.
Kerry showed his usual lack of judgment and made 5 major mistakes. These mistakes will be featured in Republican commercials for the next 30 days.
Kerry won the debate and lost the election with his performance.
Mr. Micklethwaite,
My goodness that was some meander with enough nuance for even the smooth talking Kerry. As a 70 year old american , let me help you summarize it:
Kerry is an anti-war candidate
He believes in the UN, the ICC, and summits
He wants to return to the nuclear freezes of the ’80s
He is more poll driven than Slick Willie
He disdains the US military
The war in Iraq was wrong
He thinks killing Bin Laden ends the WOT
He is 100% for and against each of those propositions except for those on which he vascillates. Regards
You’ve captured the essence of what Europe hates in Bush. But if you think Chirac, Shroeder and co will re-consider should Kerry be elected, I think you’re wrong.
They’ve invested far too much time pushing anti-Americanism (not just anti-Bushism) to stop now. If they did so, the left wings of their respective parties would have them for breakfast. For good or ill, they can’t dismount from this particular tiger.
Not sure that Kerry won the debate, Brian, judging from my reading of the blogs on Friday. My take is that it was a draw, and that Kerry was a lot more succinct than he usually is, while Bush started strongly, had a few problems in the middle but kept to his key message and finished pretty well.
I am sure that a President Kerry would be easier for the French and Germans and the Spanish to tolerate, while I don’t imagine he would be more appealing to the “New Europe” countries, though.
As Andrew Sullivan put it, the choice on offer is between solvent big govt (kerry) and insolvent bg (Bush). A shame.
What difference would the support of France or Germany actually make to the war on terror? Would they deploy troops anywhere? If so, how many? Could the condemnation of Jacques Chirac cow Osama Bin Laden? The French can’t even get their own hostages released in Iraq.
An alliance with people who don’t want to fight only degrades your own ability to fight. An alliance with those who don’t immediately stand shoulder to shoulder with you when confronted with Islamic terrorists is a liability. The coalition doesn’t need their millitary might and as the French seem to spend most of their time in Bosnia tipping off Serbian war criminals about possible arrest, maybe we don’t need their ‘help’ at all.
Kerry LOOKED more presidential, but I thought Bush bested him at nearly every position they examined..
BTW, is their anyone who thinks Edwards has a chance in hell winning the debate with Cheney?
Brian
Congrats , you did capture most of the essense of what is at stake.
France and Germany (Europe) have been angry at the US since 1945. Okay, so they have their reasons. They didn’t left a finger to help in the major battles of the Cold War , except for the French helping out in Chad, and the will not do so in this one.
Kerry flatters their sense of self importance even more than Clinton did . That will of couse lead nowhere if Kerry is elected. If that happens, expect all of Bush’s internationalist programs, such as the AIDS money for Africa, to be defunded.
One thing that changed since 9/11 is that previously most Americans when confronted with european anti americanism just shrugged and said “Thats just the French” or whatever. Now a large number of people in the Reds states and even in some of the blue ones, are just as hostile towards the Europeans as they are towards us. The old bemused tolerance is gone.
Don’t underestimate the anti-semitic factor, George Will referred to France as the ‘land of the burning synagogues’. Europe expects Kerry to be almost as hostile towards Israel as they are.
I skipped the debate because I’ve heard it all before ad nauseam, and I’m no longer interested. I know what my vote will be in November.
As a descendant of Europeans, and a happy visitor to those shores, I was distressed at how things turned out. Anti-Americanism in Europe is certainly not new, but it is fresher and more vile than it has been in my lifetime. I don’t really think Europe, sneer-quoted or otherwise, will do much to help us out even if Kerry wins. I regard him as weak, if not disastrous, should he win the presidency. If anything, the Europeans would end up hating him more than they hate Bush.
Let whoever wins the 2008 presidential election mend fences with Europe. Right now, I’m just concerned that there will be a 2008 presidential election. With all American cities intact.
The Euro Leftist elite and their Islamofascist allies will hate us no matter who is in power. They hated us when Clinton was in the White House too. They lie when they say they didn’t. The Euro Elite will hate us because we aren’t socialist and won’t ever embrace that “superior” economic system no matter what. Kerry is naive to think that his French -tailored shirts will somehow make a dent in this hardened amber-coating of Leftist hatred.
Eurabia has made its choice. It prefers the Islamofascists to the people who have looked out for its safety and economic health for 90 years. So be it. We have made our choice too. I have a real hatred in my heart now for Europe. The only thing I care about are all the great artworks and cathedrals which are part of our American-Western heritage also. Those I’d be up for saving; the people, let them lie in the bed they made for themselves.
We are on our own, we might as well face it. Even Britain will one day not be our ally, the way things are going. Might as well start planning for the inevitable.
The US is better off without the “help” of the French and Germans. They were worthless in Kosovo, which was a piece of cake compared to the WOT. The last thing we need in Iraq is having to compromise our military effectiveness with French nuance.
The British, Aussies, Italians, and Poles are another matter. In fact, I would much rather ally with Pakistan than France.
Bush has gained allies that help the cause. Kerry would gain allies that sell out the cause.
!!?? …. I think you’re being naif to the extreme .
Europe is a Post-Modernist civilisation, that means we (i am portuguese) forgot the way a civilisation grows, defends, and what is needed to sustain itself. We choosed to forgot and our quest for perfection/ zero defect just helped it.
That means even if there will be platitudes or a temporary honeymoon when it will be needed to do dirty work no one will move a foot. Not because we arent friends but because Europe moved to another dimension.
“Even those Moderate Arabs may feel less culturally slighted, and contribute somewhat more than they are contributing now.” heeh ?! how?
I guess I have a somewhat different take on Europe, and their relationship with the US.
First, I cannot consider any situation in which Europe is basically without significant military strength to be a bad thing. Given their repeated attempts at empire building, incessant wars, and weakness for lunatic dictators, a de-militarized and pacifist Europe is a positive development.
Secondly, let me correct a commom misperception: Americans do not want everybody to be just like us. We do recommend certain approaches to dealing with business and government, but if others wish to go their own way, well that’s their decision.
Therefore, if Europe wishes to adopt the byzantine regulatory and social structures of India, with its all-smothering bureaucracy and continual sectarian violence, only replacing Hinduism with what’s left of Christianity, then God bless their little hearts. All the better for the US if a major potential competitor decides to hamstring itself from the get go.
(The same argument can be made for the Japanese, Chinese, Russians, and any other significant possible economic or military antagonist. If your first act is to shoot yourself in the foot, why should we object?)
Thirdly, and enough for this post, most all of us are descended from those who fled from someplace else because it was so lousy being there that even the unknown was better. My own family fled the wars and turmoil of the mid 19th century in Europe. Whether it was the economic stagnation, lack of freedom, or violence of the “old country”, whatever that was, we have adopted this country as ours.
If we wanted to be dictated to by the old country, we would have stayed there, or go back. If you will notice, for all the kvetching we all do, there is no outward migration from the US. The continuous, and relentless, flow is inwards, toward freedom and uncertainty, and away from repression, and a certain, but unsatisfactory, fate.
Others are always upset we don’t pay enough attention to them. They forget that we came here to get away from all that b.s. in the first place. Why should we listen to it now?
“Europe now contributes just about bugger all to the military effort of the International Community”
This is missing the point. In terms of troops on foriegn soil, no-one contributes worth a damn compared with the US. The US have done a superb job of stationing their military everywhere.
However, you are forgetting the way the modern world works. The US military would fall apart without European technology almost as fast as the UK or French military would fall apart without the US. From French avionics in fighter jets, to British armour on tanks, the US relies on the free exchange of goods and ideas with the rest of the west for its armed forces. The US benefits generally, but also militarily, from the rest of the western world.
And that’s why it’s important that Europe and the US don’t get to hate each other too much. The sneering EU lefty and the equally sneering US neocon don’t actually help either of their causes. If Kerry can heal some of the diplomatic disaster wrought by Bush and Chirac (I apportion blame more or less equally) that’s a big win for the US, I think.
Remember that throughout the cold war, Europe contributed something very important – lives on the line. If the shit had ever hit the fan, loss of European lives and property would have far outstripped anything the US would have suffered. The US might have been providing the bulk of the materiel, and maybe even the bulk of the soldiers (unlikely, in fact), but they would have had the luxury of turning someone elses country into a cursed earth to save their own. America forgets that, I think.
France lost 250,000 soldiers in WW2 out of a population of 42m. US lost 300,000 out of a population of 129m. France lost 270,000 civilians. US lost almost none.
99% of French and German citizens oppose getting militarily involved in Iraq. It is ludicrous to suggest that joy over Kerry’s victory would change this. Find me a German or Frenchman who says he’d support joining the Coalition if Kerry becomes president, and I’ll reconsider my opinion.
I agree with lucklucky who says “you’re being naif to the extreme.”
Seems to me that the only thing that can change if Kerry wins (which, btw, I seriously doubt, debate or no) is our own resolution. The Euros have been AWOL from keeping the Free World free for a while now: even Mr. Clinton–whom the Euros supposedly loved–discovered this in Bosnia, Kosovo, and–yes–even Iraq. I remember that Mr. Clinton couldn’t get the Euros to contemplate serious military action against Iraq–even when they richly deserved it–except for a brief moment in 1998. At the time I thought it terrible that he had managed to fritter away our allies since Desert Shield/Desert Storm: now I see that we were already on the path we are on now, away from collective action by all NATO allies.
Given that we are going to be doing the heavy lifting pretty much regardless (Kerry is right in pointing out that we are incurring 90 percent of the casualties and funding: that’s a natural consequence of providing 90 percent of the troops and materiel), I’d rather do it with a strong hand on the helm, and not go back to the ineffectual ways of the Clinton era.
MDP
Isn’t it the case that the _reason_ 99% of French and Germans* oppose the war in Iraq is because of Bush’s approach to diplomacy, exacerbated by their own leaders’ attempt to capitalise on the situation?
I certainly agree that Europeans (esp. Germans) tend to be less interventionist, but the extreme differences of opinion over Iraq are certainly caused by Bush. So yes, I do think Kerry could actually swing it all the way back to maybe a 50-50 stance over the war – easily enough for the leaders in Europe to start backing effective action overseas without having to worry about their next election.
*The worst figure I can find is 87% of Germans against the war, a poll from 11/2/03
VeryRetired:
“The same argument can be made for the Japanese, Chinese, Russians, and any other significant possible economic or military antagonist. If your first act is to shoot yourself in the foot, why should we object?)”
This is a serious error. It a fallacy to regard trade as a war or zero-sum game. It is nothing of the sort. I would have thought that libertarians, of all people, would appreciate this.
It seems obvious to me that boogeyman Bush has been used as a scapegoat to explain away vast differences in European and American attitudes towards the war. The “Bush approach to diplomacy” argument is a canard. Are we supposed to believe that France and Germany would have joined the war if:
– Bush hadn’t explicitly repudiated Kyoto (which was a dead letter even under Clinton).
– Bush hadn’t exercised America’s right under the ABM treaty to withdraw with notice.
– Bush had spent another six months attempting to sway a French government which Colin Powell concluded had betrayed the US at the UN?
IMO, the extreme differences of opinion over Iraq are certainly caused by fundamentally divergent attitudes about the use of force, the notion of “preemptive war,” the threat of Islamist terrorism, the causes of Middle Eastern unrest, and the preeminence of American power.
Evidence for the proposition that “the extreme differences of opinion over Iraq are certainly caused by Bush” is practically nil. Like I said, find me a German or Frenchman who says he’d support joining the Coalition if Kerry becomes president, and I’ll reconsider my opinion.
Brian,
You say Kerry may have a different approach to WINNING the war in Iraq, namely: using more devious and undercover methods, dirty tricks, nuanced dealings, etc. This seems to me wishful thinking or, pure imagination, out of character. Kerry is the 60ies peacenik, he opposes all things military, all operations, all armament systems, everything, and his record in Senate proves this. Kerry wants only to bring the troops back as soon as possible, and to hell with Iraq, which “was never a threat to the US”.
The talk about involving the UN or Europe is something that he may beleive in but knows it is a long term goal, and irrelevant to Iraq, where the UN and the French do not want to get involved and are totally incapable of doing anything even if they wanted. The only way he can align himself with France (and Spain and Kofi) is to heed their advice about Iraq, which is: leave immediately.
So I cannot imagine Kerry doing anything but leaving Iraq, cut and run, one way or another, within a relatively short time.
Schroeder and Chirac have made it clear that they are not going to send any troops to Iraq under any circumstances.
European honeymoon won’t happen for Kerry
http://www.iht.com/articles/540813.html
J
The US can get along quite nicely without French military technology, the British have in the past done very well and if things go on as they have been by the end of the next decade 100% of US artilillery will be of British origin.
In the cold war EVERYBODY in NATO put their survival on the line. It was always a silly fantasy that Nuclear war could be confined to the battlefield or to the theater of operations. In the early fifties when NATO’s nuclear doctrine evolved these idea were regarded by Montgomery as “Balderdash”
I always thougt the Europeans hated Bush because of his moral absolutism.
I made no assertion that competition between economic units was a zero sum game. I simply said that if a competitor wants to engage with one hand tied behind his back, it’s there problem, and they have to figure it out. (See Japanese financial collapse, better known as the implosion of the Japanese miracle).
If Kerry and his intellectual policy peers had been in charge of US foriegn policy since 1988, Iraq would not only still be under Saddam, but Kuwait would still be occupied as well.
Kerry is a new leftist, straight out of the McGovern-SDS-Hayden-Fonda et al school of retreat at all costs, since the US is an evil imperialist power anyway. He has the potential, if elected, to make Jimmy Carter look muscular and decisive.
“Remember that throughout the cold war, Europe contributed something very important – lives on the line. If the shit had ever hit the fan, loss of European lives and property would have far outstripped anything the US would have suffered. The US might have been providing the bulk of the materiel, and maybe even the bulk of the soldiers (unlikely, in fact), but they would have had the luxury of turning someone elses country into a cursed earth to save their own.”
If the shit had hit the fan in Europe, we were pledged to engage in a nuclear exchange with Russia. In short, we had publicly declared our willingness to embark upon a war that would with near-certainly kill practically everyone in the United States rather than let Europe be invaded.
Here’s a working link to the IHT article cited by kid charlemagne:
link
I am origianally form Scandinavia.
I am also libertarian.
And unlike most Europeans (of which 90% are leftist of some kind, that includes most of the so-called “conservatives” in Europe), I dearly hope that Bush wins re-election.
Kerry would be a disaster. Kerry reminds me so much of the spineless, cultural leftist snob that has made Europe an impontent collectivst continent.
Regardless of what you think of Bush, he is American to the core and not apologetic about it.
Reagan was right, America is the last best hope for mankind. And Kerry is as far away from that ideal as you can get.
Brian, have you seen this quote by France’s PM?
“The head of the Figaro press group went to see [French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin] about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, ‘The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies.'”
link
How plausible is that we can “make serious common cause against Islamo-fascism” with someone who thinks like that?
Excepting GB just how many mobile divisions does Europe have?
Even if “Europe” wanted to help the got zip. Nada. Bupkiss.
In addition Europe has no plans to change the situation.
BTW we are getting away from French avionics and going towards the Israeli. As an avionics professional I can tell you it is a move in the right direction.
True, trade is not zero sum. But it is competitive. If the French prefer to take themselves out of a market then it will tend to help those competing for that market. I frequently see complaints about American hypercapitalism. Why? Is American capitalism strangling the poor Euro socialists? I was under the impression that the Euro was supposed to make the Europeans unbeatable.
Too bad you only watched the debate, and didn’t read the transcript. To summarize Kerry’s position:
Those helping in Iraq right now are pissants.
Kerry will show more respect for our foreign friends.
The Iraq war is wrongheaded, and we must pull our troops out withing four months.
But Iraq stability is important.
So Kerry will get Germany and France to step up with troops by holding a multinational summit.
The only real threat to the U.S. is Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida. Our total defense focus should be on finding bin Laden. [The fact that bin Laden hasn’t been seen in a few years is irrelevant].
The way to neutralize the Iranian threat is by shipping them nuclear fuel and see what they do with it. If they build bombs, then we need to get serious, and by serious, that means pursuing UN Sanctions (which would have worked in Iraq had we just given them another chance. [The 12 year’s chance just prior to the war not being sufficient, apparently.]
I know, I know, I’m not being fair. Bush doesn’t speak well and doesn’t observe the pieties that all right-minded people are supposed to observe, so you and all similarly intelligent people need a good reason to despise him. Kerry sounded good enough, and scored enough points with his non sequiturs to carry the debate, at least on form. So go ahead, pull for Kerry. We’ll all be frigging sorry about it in the end, but hey, what the hell, it isn’t London that’s going to get nuked. So if it makes marginal middle eastern dictatorships and Le Monde feel better about the U.S., or at least despise us pigshite ignorant hicks a trifle less, then by all means, let’s go for it.
@M.Simon…and the maintenance of mobile divisions (however you care to define THAT) helps in combating terrorism, how?
It helps you to invade countries and depose regimes, sure. But as Iraq showed, that hardly REDUCES terrorism against the west….
(And aa matter of interest, GB could summon one, maybe two “mobile” divisions, I guess…)
John Ellis: “the maintenance of mobile divisions (however you care to define THAT) … helps you to invade countries and depose regimes, sure. But as Iraq showed, that hardly REDUCES terrorism against the west….”
I don’t know precisely what a “mobile division” is, but it obviously helps to have military forces sufficient to knock over a terrorism-sponsoring regime like Afghanistan.
Exactly what French avionics are used in which American jets, and how did that come to pass? I have hard time believing the US would source such things for fighter jets from the French.
I’m pleased Bush stayed on message in contrast to Kerry’s spin and turgid message. Kerry is in favor of multilaterialism but proposes bilateral talks with North Korea? Kerry iis concerned about nuclear arms spread but will provide Iran with nuclear fuel? He wants to build coalitions but describes British contributions as “coerced and bribed?” The contradictions in Kerry’s positions are too numerous to list but topping the list is declaring US national security depends on the moral sanction of world leaders like Syria, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Russia and France! How many Brits would trust their national security to a leader who advocated a similar strategy?
I am heartened to note not one state Bush won in 2000 appears to be shifting to Kerry (perhaps except for New Hampshire) while Michigan, Pennsylvannia, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico have shifted and NJ, Michigan, and even Oregon appear to be in play. The nastier the campaign gets the better the indication of the desperation of the Democrats.
Kerry may be the better debater, but leadership is not displayed in debates nor character. Kerry’s thirty years has produced a record that few would urge their children to emulate.
As a veteran of Vietnam I would rather vote for Gen. Giap than Kerry.
Many people think Bush is a Texas cowboy. He was born in Connecticut (where Martha Stewart makes her main home), his family vacations in Maine (one of my favorite states, and the site of another of Martha’s residences as well as a big Rockefeller compound), family has been in public life for 3 or 4 generations, lots of money, part of the Northeastern establishment, etc. etc. So, he might have the accent and the hat, but I don’t think he’s echt Texas.
You say Kerry may have a different approach to WINNING the war in Iraq, namely: using more devious and undercover methods, dirty tricks, nuanced dealings, etc.
It’d be nice if the Bush administration’s approach to the WOT only *looked* like a slicker variant of Beavis & Butthead or “that blowed up real good.” (SCTV reference) It’d be nice if they were doing those devious, undercover methods like, say, discrediting anti-U.S. imams or, say, putting pressure on Egypt to stop the anti-U.S. propaganda. Unfortunately, somehow the simpler explanation that they favor muscle over mind seems to be correct.
Will Kerry do better? Maybe personally he would not. However, remember that the government would be divided, and presumably Kerry would need to reach out to the other side. And, Kerry would have advisors who might a bit more nuanced than the ones Bush has. And, given his Bush-inspired reputation for being weak, he might be forced to show that he isn’t weak.
“And, given his Bush-inspired reputation for being weak, he might be forced to show that he isn’t weak.”
This is called “psychobabble”. He “might”, then he might not. These are just guesses, unsupported by any evidence from Kerry’s record or utterances.
Those who hate Bush use their imagination on overtime, trying to produce some positive elements in Kerry.
Couple of observations:
Kerry is not an ex-lefty. He’s still left.
If Beslan and Madrid have not convinced the “Europeans” to take islamic terrorism seriously, I can’t imagine that Kerry can.
Looking at the debate I am still confused over Kerry’s policies.
More troops in Afganistan would have been better he claims. Didn’t both the Brits and the Russians try the heavy troop approach there and lose BIG TIME? The terrain is apparently not conducive. Kerry knows little military history apparently despite his lauded four months.
He voted for the war, but says it was Bush’s mistake and not at all his mistake?
Just a few comments, both overall and in addition to those of Susan. “The only thing I care about are all the great artworks and cathedrals which are part of our American-Western heritage also. Those I’d be up for saving; the people, let them lie in the bed they made for themselves.”. I agree wholeheartedly on that point, but would add something else to be concerned about. If we are serious about prosecuting the war, we have to think rationally and not emotionally. Yes, as has been noted here, we are functionally alone, with the exception of Britain, Australia, and the liberated Warsaw Pact. Britain is well into the process of disarming itself and soon will not be a conventional military power. We have to watch out for a problem that has been faced before in Europe. What do you do when a powerful putative ally gives every sign of becoming a former ally and going over to the enemy; and there is a major risk of strategic military assets being turned on us?
That happened in WW II. The French Fleet was large enough, and modern enough, that in German hands it would have made the war at sea impossible to win for the Allies in Europe. After the fall of France there was a very real risk that the French Fleet would be turned over to the Nazis, and there were strong voices in the collaborationist French Vichy regime who were advocating just that. I will note, there were opposing voices also. The modern French equivalents that threatens us are the missile silos on the Plateau D’ Albion, the mobile missile force, the aircraft of the Force Aerienne Stratigique, the nuclear capable strike aircraft of the Force Aerienne Tactique, and the 4 nuclear missile submarines based at Brest [with a 5th due for delivery next year]. There is also the matter of the French nuclear infrastructure that will have to be considered. One hundred or so critical assets.
The answer in 1940 was that the British struck the French Fleet, seizing French vessels in English held ports, and attacking and sinking or disabling the French Fleet in North African ports. This is a war for survival. We may have to get very serious, very quickly. Oran, Dakar, and Algiers may be historical lessons we need to be studying. I certainly hope that there are some very serious people in the Washington, DC area doing that now.
–Subotai–
I fail to follow the logic whereby a change in U.S. presidents, from forceful to ineffective, would transform European attitudes about their own defense forces. I don’t pretend to know what inspires the Europeans’ hatred of Bush, but I personally suspect that they hate him because he embodies the rise of American self-confidence. We are not going to develop into Europeans one day. We are not going to be ruled by the European elites’ desires. That is just fine by me. I personally could care less whether or not a French Burgher has a warm spot in his heart for the U.S.A., or its elected representatives.
In the future, Europeans may rue the day their leaders chose to hasten the end of their free ride, in exchange for votes and –allegedly link— money from Saddam.
Wait a second, let’s sort out this EU/US thing: Bad blood between major powers is not something I want to see being encouraged when my children are nearing draft age.
It’s true that some Europeans (ie the ruling elites) rue their demotion from Emperors 1st class to Emperor’s gofers. From 45 to 91, they just had to pucker up and be good. Without the Soviet Steamroller on their doorsteps, they’re finding it harder to maintain that discipline. IMHO, reunified Germany’s play for influence in northern Yugoslavia, and America’s masterly response, is all about this post-Cold War atmosphere of rebelliousness among EU elites, which America must engage with, more or less diplomatically.
As a no-compromise advocate of US interests, Bush might make an easier ‘hate-figure’ in the EU than a sweet-talking, noblesse-oblige Kerry might, but so what? It was Clinton, after all, who really smacked EU pretensions down in the Balkans. When you carry a big stick, you can wave it around or talk softly – either one gets the desired response.
The issue for lovers of liberty is whether business rivalry between the two regional powers shades over into crude political antagonism. There’s no need for it to, so long as citizens keep their heads and refuse to get agitated by the more rabid elements on either side. Especially when they squabble over international affairs, we all have to keep our heads.
Adhib
Lonewacko,
“Many people think Bush is a Texas cowboy. He was born in Connecticut (where Martha Stewart makes her main home), his family vacations in Maine (one of my favorite states, and the site of another of Martha’s residences as well as a big Rockefeller compound), family has been in public life for 3 or 4 generations, lots of money, part of the Northeastern establishment, etc. etc. So, he might have the accent and the hat, but I don’t think he’s echt Texas.”
Lonewacko,
May I present you with a set of random facts?
1. Billy the Kid was born in New York. Did that make him less of a westerner when he moved out that way? o_O
2. Wyatt Earp was born in Illinois. Does that mean that he wasn’t a real Kansan at the time he was sheriff of Dodge City nor a real Arizonan when he was Marshall at Tombstone? O_o
3. Speaking of Illinois, does the fact that Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky and raised in Indiana mean that he wasn’t really a part of the Land of Lincoln? o_O
4. While we’re at it how about Jim Bowie? The fact that Jim Bowie came from Alabama and maintained kinship connections there and had a family involved in public life there for 3 or 4 generations means that he wasn’t a part of Texas in your mind, right? O_o
No?
Then maybe you should open your mind to the possibility that immigration exists and is legitimate, ne? ^_~
Mr. Bush is indeed a Texan. If you don’t like it that’s your problem rather than his.