Weakness

The dichotomy between how Americans and Europeans think has been something many have discussed for years on end. Why do we act the way we do?

Most Europeans do not see the great paradox: their development, their passage into post-History (as Fukayama would discuss) has been dependent on the US not making that passage itself. What I mean to say is that over the last 60 years, Europe has transformed from a continent ravaged by constant warfare, in need of a Marshall plan of 23 BILLION dollars, to a social welfare union that has blossomed with the growth of a European Union community, soaring standards of living, and technologies on par or if not greater than their overseas ally, the US. But much of that has been predicated on the US' security blanket throughout the Cold War. When the US saw Europe as the battle field of capitalism versus communism, they not only boosted exports, but simultaneously boosted the European states. While Europe was left to spawn and develop beautiful, America has remained to fend off much of the monsters we deal with today.

So in 2003, with the Iraqi War pending, we saw a rift between the US and other European nations larger and more furious than ever. Regardless of how one views our reasons for war, the war has occurred, much to the chagrin of many Europeans. To better understand the differences in our opinions, we must look at what has developed overtime in terms of security and force.

The psychology of weakness, as Robert Kagan once wrote, is fairly easy to understand. If a man is walking in a forest armed with a knife, and a bear approaches, the man will most undoubtedly leave the bear alone; the only other option is to attack the bear, and most certainly, die. But that same man armed with a rifle might view that particular bear as an irritant that can be done away with easily. Flip back to 2003 when the US was arguing that Iraq, a nation more of a threat to the Saudis and Israelis, a nation thousands of a miles away, should be 'calmed', and most Europeans were arguing, "not worth it, shit's gonna go down". Whether or not (long term), Europeans have predicted the calamities of the invasion has yet to be determined, but they certainly proved that we would have a much harder time taming a bitter and divided Iraq than initially assumed. I'm not here to argue how the war could have been won or not lost, but rather to paint a better picture of why we thought the way we did, and why they thought the way they did.

To think that if a more cultural, global Barack Obama or a liberal democrat wins the presidency, he'll be more willing to hand over power to other institutions and engage with dictators and despots the world over would be naive. Just as would a citizen who believes Obama or Clinton can actually pull out of Iraq during their time as a President. People unfortunately need to get used to the idea as the US as an aggressive, lingering presence that comes with very good (economics, social ideas) and very bad (preemption, unilateralism) traits. As Robert Cooper wrote, "the challenge to the post-modern world is to get used to the idea of double standards". Europeans may operate "on the basis of laws and open cooperative security" but when dealing with the world outside of Europe, the US tends to revert to an earlier, European 19th century-esqe era, where force, deception, and realism are the ruling principles. Among ourselves, we keep the law, but when walking in the jungle, we use the laws of the jungle too. The hope is that eventually, someday, the US can enter a world, a paradise much like the EU (and let's be honest, it ain't that great :), but for now, the US, with all its vast power, remains stuck in history, left to deal with the tigers in the jungle.

These two opposing opinions: Europe loves rules, the US breaks rules is not the problem itself. The problem is the mentalities. American power is most assuredly used all of the time to better itself and subsequently advance human progress. Often, such pressure creates more problems that it solves. But the intentions are good. Regardless, many in Europe have come to consider the United States to be the outlaw, to be a rogue empire, a great satan in many ways. The same people who have since benefited from our engagement and deaths in WWII have now scorned our existence. Should I be a little ticked off: yes. Should I also understand why they consider us this bad giant: yes. How can we reconcile these notions?

Understanding is key. Through public diplomacy and continual engagement, our western bretheren can come to understand us and likewise, us them. PD can be a lifesaver, a way to bring people in contact with not just governments, but other people, helping to strategically preserve and perpetuate friendship. On the same token, while we have ALOT of work to do, so do many Europeans in changing their mindsets. To think that you've seen America is a simple as going to a BBQ, hitting up a ghetto, and then traveling and visiting an Evangelical Church is just as ludicrous as if I were to say that I know all about Canada cuz I watch hockey. Europeans need to realize our mindset too and realize our own history, warts and all.

The next time a European points to "US advocacy of massive torture" as they like to assume, remind them politely of the fact that the US freed more people than another other country in the history of the world, is attempting to do something revolutionary in the Middle East and Persia (WE NEED TO MOVE PAST OUR DISAGREEMENTS ON THE WAR 2003-2005 and begin to cooperate more), and has still included the EU on almost every major policy decision in the last decade, from visas to NATO in Afghanistan. Don't go walk away then, rather begin a discourse, start a debate, prolong a conversation. I guess a better way to understand this is think of it as if the US and Europe were once really best friends and they got into a fight over a girl. For weeks on end they were silent about their feelings, until one day, all those bottled up emotions was released, and Europe and the US went at it, kicking the crap out of each other. The US won, for now physically, but the fact is, the fight was never truly settled, because E and US never actually talked out their problems, they only fought. This might be productive if US had to beat up DPRK or Janjaweed Militias, but between another Western friend, doesn't do much to help the situation. In reality, our "kicking the crap of our each other" stage was the Iraq war debates, the freedom fries ridiculousness, and Schroeder's "I hate America" rantings. Now it's time to really get down to business. Rather than making fun of the fact that the EU can barely get a mission in Serbia or Africa started (I know you want to), we can help them as they can help us. This is a democratic team.

To understand force and power in the 21st century is to understand how both the US and Europe have grown, developed, and been dependent on each other. Some argue that the US is currently falling as a power, and this may be true. On the other hand, we've increased our strength on many industries, have the dominant status as an educational giant, and continue to bolster our already incredible military. Regardless, both peoples have a way to go before truly being friends, and hopefully, my ramblings have helped us take a step forward. Or maybe they confused the shit out of you. Either way, thanks for coming.