The administration’s continued efforts to explain the GWOT continue to confound me (WaPo):
In his speeches, Bush has advanced several arguments, starting with the proposition that the United States is engaged in a long-term ideological struggle between forces of freedom and Islamic radicals who want to destroy freedom. Although U.S. adversaries come from different backgrounds — ranging from radical Sunnis in al-Qaeda to Shiite militants such as Hezbollah — Bush has characterized the opposition as forming a single movement, “a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those that stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology.”
To equate September 11th’s perpetrators — al Qaeda — with Hezbollah is an apples = oranges because they’re both fruits deception. Yes, they’re both radical, and they both use terrorism as a tactic… but they are not both trying to attack the United States.
There are many groups around the world who, like Hezbollah, are “fruits”. They are angry at (and attacking) many countries, for a host of different reasons… not all of them “freedom”. Trying to re-position all the angry extremists into a single frame is confusing, and deceptive.
It’s also amplifying some other problems, and Anne Applebaum’s excellent article in the Telegraph allows a little light into why Bush’s GWOT is not selling well, not just here, but elsewhere:
But perhaps Europe’s failure to enthusiastically join the “war on terrorism” was in some sense preordained. While not entirely incorrect, the notion that President Bush has wasted international post-9/11 sympathy is not entirely accurate either. As I say, at the time of the attacks, influential Europeans, and influential Britons, were already disinclined for their own reasons to sympathise with any American tragedy.
Instead of pointing fingers, the fifth anniversary of 9/11 might be a good time to reverse course. If “war on terrorism” has become an unpopular term, then call it something else. Call it a “war on fanaticism”. Or – as we used to say in the Cold War – call it a “struggle for hearts and minds” in the Islamic communities of Europe and the Middle East. For whatever it’s called, it won’t succeed without both American and European support, without American and European mutual sympathy. And whatever it’s called, if it fails, the consequences will be felt on both sides of the Atlantic.
The underlying theme (to me) is that we — as in the United States — cannot fight everyone’s battles for them… and it’s not just Europe (see Chechnya, Russia, others).
Not only that, but if the GWOT is an ideological battle between the defenders of freedom and Islamic radicals who want to destroy it, as Bush has said, then something is missing from the equation… because the US and freedom are not synonyms.
We are not “freedom”. We are the United States of America, and while our system of government certainly encompasses it, we are not the only ones. And that little semantics distinction is, in large part, the root of the problem. This is the thinking that took us into Iraq — a country that was not a threat to the United States.
We cannot continue to assume the burdens of the world; the threats from those who actually bear malevolence toward us are more than enough to keep us occupied.
Until George Bush stops trying to label everything in the produce department as a fruit –until we can distinguish between threats to us and things we really don’t like — I suspect he’ll continue to see a marked lack of support for his plans.
Whether the source of this thinking is hubris, or a sincere view of our place in the world, there’s a fundamental truth that has been lost somewhere: Freedom, by its very nature, cannot be forced upon anyone. Not even by us.
Good commonsense views which I predict will make some people angry. I’m amazed by how often in Blogsylvania people complain that there is not freedom in Europe, holding up France – one of the most free societies on Earth, just like us- as an example of living under the yoke of oppression.
Well I don’t see or think fruits when talking about Islamic extremist. I see it as
apples = oranges because they’re both monstrous murders
And I think there are a lot of people around the world that agree they are monsters
As for France, aren’t they still in the middle a time that makes our race riots of the 1960s look like a backyard barbecue?
Yep, the “blame it on the US” sentiment is strong in Europe. However, there is not as much hatred and Anti-Americanism in Europe as many Americans believe there is.
There was a lot of sympathy with the US and there still is.
Anne Applebaum admits that President Bush wasted a quite a bit of post-9/11 sympathy. The Atlantic Review discusses Applebaum’s op-ed from a German perspective. Europe and the United States need to increase all their efforts in the war on terrorism.
Have you ever been any place else? I think you should go live in Europe or maybe Latin America and then see how free you are there. Of course you should live as a common person not someone with lots of money.
Apparently we can continue to *assume* the burdens of the world. The problem is, we can’t actually *bear* them. It’s like the PTA mom who just can’t say no. Eventually, she misses one deadline, then five, then she suddenly goes from being everybody’s go-to-gal to being “the undependable person.” There’s a limit to what any one person/country can do. At some point, you have to say, “No, I’m sorry, I am already over-extended and I just can’t take on any more, no matter how cute your starving children are. My own starving children just reminded me that they are still here. Try France; I hear they are bored.”
roux , which “you” is you talking to? eh, tu roux?
(I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t pass up that sentence. I worked with 7 Cajuns for the better part of 2 fun years. I learn SO many things – like in the vernacular “de die-vis-un of a Coon*ss from a dumb*ass = De Sabine Riber” and how to correctly pronounce names and words such as Hebert) No offense intended.
I lived briefly in Latin America; I almost sisn’t exist in Southeast Asia (aka Hell); and lived too well a short time in Louisiana. That’s my extent of foreign life save a brief visit to something call Burbank.
I spent a long time on the road mostly in clubs in cities through out the mid to southwest U.S.
I’ve spent a lot of time in France this year. What anti-Americanism there is pales compared to the anti-French sentiment you hear in this country. No, they do not like our government – well, that’s not anti-Americanism, that is a political opinion (one in fact shared by many Americans).
In general I found that the French people I met like our cutture, like us, are eager to talk about their view of things and how it differs from ours (from foreign policy to business to domestic politics to cultural issues) and moreover are eager to do so respectuflly and in a spirit of understanding.
They are also are quite capable of recognizing their own problems and flaws, something that is less common here.
As for the race riots – they certainly don’t make our 1960s riots look small. Try and find burned-out neighborhoods around Paris – you won’t. I was there during some of them. They are certainly a big problem, but it’s been overplayed in the US media, probably to appeal to anti-European sentiment here.