Following on the same theme as yesterday's post, I wanted to address something that has always bothered me about the perception of Europe shared by far too many Americans. Specifically, I am referring to this notion, or perhaps it is better, more appropriately called a label, of Europe as "Old Europe".
Such a label suggests that old would imply outdated, stuck in their ways, and also largely irrelevant, meaning that Europe should just get out of the way of new, young, vibrant and relevant America.
Of course, those claims became especially prominent during the height of the build up towards war with Iraq, when Americans felt absolutely outraged that so many "old" and irrelevant European nations should dare oppose the United States.in it's desire for war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Anyone who lived through that might remember that the Presidential Administration and it's loud supporters claimed that it was absolutely urgent to initiate a preemptive strike immediately on Iraq, that it was part of the so-called "Axis of Evil" (a term borrowed from World War II, with the Axis powers of Germany, Japan, and Italy), that Iraq had a mass arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's), that Saddam Hussein had forty five minute response time, and it was almost implied that he had terrorist links, that he there Iraq was harboring terrorists, and so on and so forth.
Of course, all of these claims were greatly exaggerated, and although bush's approval ratings dipped, they did not dip enough that he got voted out of office in 2004. Also, the war became increasingly unpopular among Americans, but not enough to pull the troops out and end the war, as happened in Vietnam, and certainly not enough for Americans to actually apologize for any mistakes on their part. In fact, i do not recall President Bush even taking responsibility for any of it, because it seemed he was always too busy pointing the finger elsewhere, at the CIA or other internal intelligence bodies, or at the British, or whoever else he could find. The Administration acted with shocked outrage and indignation any time the most obvious scenario was actually voiced: that the Bush Administration, with so many who had vested interests in oil, were aggressively pining for the war in order to rake in all of the cash, and to keep the empire alive and well, and that not finding a legitimate reason to initiate what had been planned all along, since before the Administration actually took office (see the signatures affixed to the oath given by the Project for the New American Century - PNAC), then falsified reasons and "proofs" had to do. An ill-informed majority of the American public approved gullible, and perhaps even bloodthirsty, enough to be in favor of the war. Just as the Administration had hoped for. every possible piece of the puzzle fell in place for them, and the result is that we are still paying the price to this day.
The opposition domestically, which was actually surprisingly large (although still a minority, seemingly) was largely silenced, and certainly not strong enough to actually prevent the war, or stop it once it was being fought. That left the main opposition outside of American borders, and again, many Americans felt so superior to the rest of the world, that such opposition was automatically eyed with suspicion. Countries such as France became the butt of jokes, and a topic that should have been very serious, literally life and death, was made a mockery of, as the jingoistic drum beat of war resounded loudly. When Saddam Hussein fell, predictably, Americans celebrated the "liberation" of Iraq. Only when the war continued long after Bush unofficially declared victory, only when American soldiers continued to die in growing numbers, and the world saw that the "proof" of WMD's simply did not exist, and that corrupt corporations with ties to the Bush Administration were continually being rewarded no-bid contracts, (an obvious conflict of interest), did the majority of Americans really even begin to voice their displeasure at how the war had been conducted.
So, why mention all of this? Because that drum beat is beginning to sound again. We hear it in reference to iran, and we may even hear it in reference to Syria.
Yes, Americans have begun to scrutinize the Administration more carefully, but now Obama is in office, and largely being held responsible for the errors that occurred on his predecessor's watch. Bush and Cheney and many of the other prominent figures of that administration cannot travel freely about the world, because they are viewed as a war criminals. But here in the United States, where they were rewarded for their incompetence with another four years in office, people place poster's of Bush's face with the caption "Miss me yet?", and it is not some kind of a joke. Many people are serious. They dislike Obama so much, that they still wish Bush was in office!
So, here's the thing about "Old Europe". It has been around far longer than the United States, and seen many more wars than America has. Even among the wars that the United States has fought in, many were fought far away from American shores. Other than the Revolutionary War hundreds of years ago; the War of 1812 a couple of hundred years ago, maybe; and the Civil War, which was also a very long time ago and fought mostly in one region, the South, of the nation, the country has barely been touched physically by war. Oh, yes, it got attacked, during Pearl harbor and again during September 11th. But those were limited to one instance in each.
For Europe, the experience of war was much different. Wars were fought over and over again between competing rivals for power. At different times, many European empires fought bloody wars and occupied other lands in order to get ahead in advancing their imperial desires and claims. Greece rose, and fought wars to expand their territory. The Roman Empire did the same, until barbarians eventually overran the empire. The Dark Ages that followed were filled with violence and quick strikes, most famously perhaps by the Vikings, but Charlemagne fought some wars to expand his empire, as did the Byzantines. When Britain, France, and Spain rose in power, wars were the natural outcome between these rival powers. Other countries got into the act, as well. France was invaded by Britain and occupied for a Hundred Years, before Joan of Arc, who was burned at the stake, largely propelled the liberation of France. There was the "Thirty Years War" fought over religion. Louis XIV fought wars against allied nations that tried to keep France in check, and then the same happened during the days of Napoleon. Then Prussia rose in power, largely through their strong ability to fight wars effectively and efficiently, and eventually secured it's place as the dominant state in a newly unified Germany, but particularly after defeating the crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire in war, and then crushing the Second French Empire of Napoleon III, after an incident when one statesmen allegedly disrespected the other. Italy unified after numerous regional wars. There was a holocaust in Turkey with the Armenians there as the instability of the old Ottoman Empire was becoming more evident. Then the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire, and the necessity of this empire to ally itself to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the rising German power, helped strongly contribute to the outbreak of World War I, which was the most devastating war ever fought to that period. Europe had barely recovered as a new round of wars were initiated. Germany rose to power, and Italy began to swagger, as well. A bloody Civil War was fought in Spain, with countries taking different sides in a prelude to another huge and global war. Russia invaded Finland. And, of course, World War II, particularly in this case the European aspect of the war, which far surpassed World War I for deadliness and devastation. All of this was on European soil, and I did not even mention the conflicts between European powers outside of Europe itself.
Europe knows war. It has fought many, many wars over the course of centuries, even millenniums. These wars were largely the product of arrogance and short-sighted stupidity. Over time, the effects of the war got increasingly more extreme, and the powers that fought them were greatly weakened. the nations themselves had to focus on rebuilding afterwards, more and more, as the level of devastation grew. Millions died in the process, many more were also injured, physically and/or mentally. When clips of the idiotic leaders of these nations with marching armies during World War I or World War II are shown today, it causes much discomfort and embarrassment, because the result is well known. Europeans know the folly of war first hand. Their relatively weakened position in the world is reflective of this new humility, and it came at a great cost.
By contrast, what was the American experience of war? To sweep on in to Europe during the two wars, and act as liberating heroes. Many Americans also died and suffered, but the nation as a whole was not destroyed or damaged, and in fact largely benefitted from the war, economically. It helped Europe to rebuild, and also played up the part of liberating heroes. Americans had been wiser about war going in, but since they had been so triumphant, it seems that American attitudes towards war changed, and they began to feel it was their responsibility to protect and police the world.
In the meantime, America became the most prosperous of all nations, and people here lived a privileged life, while Europe (as well as Japan and China) focused largely on rebuilding, their cities and towns, their reputations, and their lives. That was the cost of war. They finally had learned their lesson.
By contrast, Americans seemed to believe in war, and the isolationism that had been their traditional stance was replaced with an increasingly war hunger. Korea, Vietnam, became the next big conflicts, and down the road, Iraq and Afghanistan. That makes no mention of other American involvement in other nations, including outright invasions of Grenada and Panama. American military bases spanned the globe, and many Americans portrayed themselves as "the good guys with the white hats" (those words belonged to my 8th grade history teacher, who also advocated racial segregation. War was good, was was profitable, and Americans seemed to get more into the spirit of trying to display their supremacy and might through war. Spending went through the roof, to the point that even President Eisenhower, formerly a leading general during the European aspect of World War II, warned Americans to beware the "military industrial complex" - a warning that was not heeded nearly enough.
Now, America finds itself entangled in wars that cost lives, cost money, and increasingly, are costing Americans much of the goo reputation they once had. Instead of liberators, Americans are increasingly viewed as unwelcome occupiers. And for what? To keep oil prices down? To maintain the illusion of power, to maintain the empire that America has clearly become?
On top of it, the United States was warned that this might happen. France warned the United States thatit was a bad idea to get involved in Vietnam. Most of Europe, and indeed, much of the rest of the world, warned the United States that there were no WMD's, and that war against Iraq would be a mistake. perhaps more importantly, history serves as a lesson, the strongest warning off all, against excessive militancy and false patriotism, marching to the drum beat of war. This history is particularly relevant with the example of "Old Europe".
The thing is that "Old Europe" seems to have finally, finally learned some valuable lessons with all of this, and they know the cost of war. The people approach it with wariness, and know to proceed with caution. War might happen, but it needs to be a last resort. many Europeans have learned this lesson (although maybe not the governments, who always have their own, secret designs). The wars of "Old Europe" actually produced a new mindset, and a new approach towards war. Changes have come, however many problems might still exist with these. Europe tried to unify more than ever before with the European Union, and the war in the former Yugoslavia was the first war on European soil in decades, and truly shocked Europe to the core. Finally, progress has been made, and a new mindset seems to be taking hold.
Although the United States has much more modern weapons and speaks in official language, claiming not to be war hungry, the old mindset of war, however, seems alive and well in the United States. Many American leaders claim that they, and the country as a whole, are "peace loving". History shows otherwise, and the disingenuous nature of their doublespeak and the inconsistencies with the language that they employ versus the actions that they still take shows a certain strand of arrogance and an overall lack of maturity by these Administrations, the corporations that hold these political leaders in their pocket, and by an American populace too comfortable and too accustomed to being fed these comfortable lies and illusions to believe in to actually think on their own two feet about issues of life and death, all of it seems to suggest that it is America, and not "Old Europe", that is stuck with an old and outdated, largely discredited mindset.
No comments:
Post a Comment