(Reprinted from my previous blog with permission from the author, me.)
March, 2008
Americans, at best, probably can reach a consensus that the Europeans are our distant cousins and then can be surprised at how much of a divide there is between the two sides of the Atlantic. To me the largest component of these differences stem from our disparate responses to the World Wars.
Twice in the 20th century Europe basically tried to commit suicide. Both of the wars did not go according to plan and both of them drew in the United States. At the end of WWII the Europeans could look back on the last forty years (or even the last 150) and say in a near unison chorus that "War doesn't work."
The response to this revelation was to create the supranational agencies that have been instrumental in keeping peace to this day. The ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) attempted to remove the possibility of a third major war between France and Germany by agreeing to share the energy and building resources that they had been fighting over. It was proposed in 1950 and signed in 1951. In one year more had been accomplished to satisfy both nation's economic and security needs than in 12 years of 20th century warfare.
A turning point had been reached. The Europeans, out of the mutual revulsion to the extremes of the wars, became dedicated to diplomacy as a means to answer all their problems. And it worked. A continent that had almost joyfully been at war with itself since the Roman Empire's collapse has entered a period of peace that will last into the indefinite future... as long as it's up to them.
The experience of the sixty years has shown the Europeans what can be accomplished through diplomacy. Compare that to six centuries of ineffectual warfare and Europe's near grating dedication to being a pacifist community makes perfect sense.
The American response to WWII is very different. The US had little desire to become involved in the wider world until WWII. It was quintessentially isolationist and when one compares its economic potential to its actual armed forces it had the most unrealized amount of military force in history. When Americans think of the World Wars we see our country being dragged into a conflict that we had no hand in starting and little to gain by an all out effort to end. The second thought is of a near religious crusade to completely destroy the perceived aggressors. The second time America got involved it had the benefit of moral clarity. No one could argue that our opponents were acting in self defense. We didn't want to be involved but after we were we unleashed a complete and total and final judgment upon our enemies. (Note: I'm not mentioning the massive Soviet contribution because I'm writing about perception rather than reality.)
At the end of the war the United States found itself convinced that its continued participation was necessary in Europe to prevent a third war or a devastated continent's capitulation to concentrated and determined Soviet aggression. America found itself in the one position it had never desired to be in: a superpower that could never disentangle itself from the world. Through a combination of threats, proxy wars, bluster, and mutually assured destruction the Americans contained the perceived threat from a monolithic communist revolution, something that may never have actually threatened America itself. America paid for European reconstruction out of generosity and based massive armies on the continent to ensure the West's security. By the end of WWII and the Cold War America had risen to be more powerful than any nation had been since the Roman Empire. We learned the opposite lesson from the Europeans: War CAN work. (The Vietnam war, while traumatic, only reversed this belief for a short period of time.)
This nearly brings us to the present day. Despite having more commonalities than any other two distant parts of the world the Europeans and Americans can have profound disagreements on international politics. They can call Americans warmongers and we can call Europeans naive cowards and everyone can feel perfectly comfortable within those judgments.
The different responses to Iraq war followed these beliefs perfectly.
The Europeans can sigh at American willingness to believe that violence, applied correctly, can solve any problem. It's because of they're long history of violence failing to solve very much that the Europeans believe this. Americans can say, on the other hand, "Violence, correctly applied, has a good track record in our history." Both perceptions are correct under the different histories.
The legacy of the 2nd Gulf War, and I don't think the final chapter is by any means known, will be which belief about war is regarded as correct by the succeeding generation of Europeans and most Americans. The Europeans could almost be forgiven for hoping that the Americans withdraw less than victoriously because that would mean America's arguments in favor of the effectiveness of violence had been given a serious setback. If the American goals are met before a general withdrawal it will mean that violence worked... and that will likely beget more violence. That being said, even in the face of a catastrophic American withdrawal there will still be a large number of Americans who, instead of saying that violence doesn't work, will believe that the Bush administration's ham handedness in prosecuting the war is the primary reason for failure. (This administration has had so many major screw ups in Iraq that this will be a difficult argument to silence.)
I dislike dumbing down a current conflict, wherein my own countrymen are still dying, to a dry cultural discussion. Regardless, this how I see it.
This entry is long enough as it is but I should mention an excellent article I just read about Europe's choosing to be irrelevant in global politics. The gist of it is that Europe is enjoying the good life right now and enjoying it on the cheap. It can't be invaded but neither can it be asked to shoulder the burdens that the Anglo-American alliance does. Even though the combined economies of the EU countries is slightly larger than the United States economy their lack of political unity or will means that the massive economic strength will not translate into political or military muscle for the foreseeable future. After all, why would they want to?
With no direct military threat the only danger to Europe is an upset the international trade that it prospers from. The same trading forces that propel their living standards upwards do the same for the Americans, who can be counted on to use their military to enforce freedom of the seas. If the Iranians mine the Straights of Hormuz for short term political gain who will go to bat to remove the mines and enforce free passage? The American (and possibly British) navy. Why should Denmark be concerned? American participation is a given. The US has even gone so far to suggest placing anti-missile systems on European soil to protect against a Iranian threat to its allies. This is the single greatest current resentment that Americans have towards the Europeans: we seem more interested in their security than they do.
The European answer is that American bellicosity is just as likely to help create an apocalyptic threat as to deter it. Who's right? The Europeans can argue that they were more right about Iraq but Americans can cynically make all sorts of points about the world still be here thanks to American brinksmanship and hardheadedness. (That's actually one word!)
I don't know who will win in the long term argument between the Americans and our cousins. I know that I hope the Europeans are right. I'd prefer to live in a world that is like Europe as I've described it here. A community that has found reasonable ways to accommodate different country's desires and created a political framework to ensure peace for the foreseeable future. But I'm not that optimistic. I think there are plainly evil people in the world who can not be accommodated and the best answer to them is our ability to deter them or neutralize them if necessary. I don't like having to believe that and perhaps that makes me a part of the world's problems. Maybe I am as much to blame as aggressors throughout the centuries. But I doubt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment