[Zundfolge]

The following article is one of the best explinations on the differences between American and European political thought I've read.

Its rather long (long enough that I didn't want to post the entire text here).

http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

[DadOfThree]

The United States, they argue, resorts to force more quickly and, compared with Europe, is less patient with diplomacy. Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil, between friends and enemies, while Europeans see a more complex picture. When confronting real or potential adversaries, Americans generally favor policies of coercion rather than persuasion, emphasizing punitive sanctions over inducements to better behavior, the stick over the carrot. Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs: They want problems solved, threats eliminated. And, of course, Americans increasingly tend toward unilateralism in international affairs. They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the United Nations, less inclined to work cooperatively with other nations to pursue common goals, more skeptical about international law, and more willing to operate outside its strictures when they deem it necessary, or even merely useful.1
I would generally agree. We do resort to force more quickly than Europeons, See things as right or wrong, act for ourselves in our best interests rather than hoping someone will do it for us. Perhaps these are also some of the reasons that dictators have not overrun us twice in the last hundred years. We don't put up with them.

[Mike Irwin]

"Inducements to better behavior..."

What, like giving away Czechoslovakia to the Germans?

Maybe, then, the Europeans should just give Kuwait to Saadam?

Two world wars, and still Europe hasn't learned that the only way to deal with the true freaks is not by appeasement, but by force. It's the only language they understand.

There's a line from "Remains of the Day," spoken by Christopher Reeve's character in a toast to his European counterparts.

"When it comes to diplomacy, you're all amateurs."

Only Britain seems to have learned that you don't mollycoddle the true nutcases.

[2dogs]

They want problems solved, threats eliminated. And, of course, Americans increasingly tend toward unilateralism in international affairs. They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the United Nations, less inclined to work cooperatively with other nations to pursue common goals, more skeptical about international law

And, unless your country is a slavering lap dog to the U.N., this is bad how?:neener:

[Art Eatman]

The Europeans have such a much longer history or warring among themselves--going back to the centuries before there were even the countries of their more recent history. They're understandably tired, and would rather talk than make an effort to avoid some form of Danegeld.

The behavior is much like that of our anti-gun crowd and crime, or the do-gooders and welfare: Some form of Danegeld looks good on paper and sounds good on TV, even if it leads to more problems at a later date.

StratFor had a recent political analysis as to French diplomatic/political behavior. Simplest put, Franch is dependent upon alliances, but cannot afford to have an ally become able to dictate to France. This leads to maneuverings which play off different allies against one another. For the French, then, the UN is a perfect playing field. They play a game of Realpolitik which is far more subtle than most U.S. types understand. What is said is rarely what is intended, and the only way to figure out what's their true goal is to keep in mind that the French have a different idea as to their needs than we do.

Another factor is that they've had to rebuild whole cities: Widespread and often. We have not. It's one thing to see somebody else's country blown all to pieces; your society has a different attitude when it's happened to you, numerous times.

Art

[Mike Irwin]

"Another factor is that they've had to rebuild whole cities: Widespread and often. We have not. It's one thing to
see somebody else's country blown all to pieces; your society has a different attitude when it's happened to you,
numerous times."

And pacifying madmen by coddling them maintains the structural integrity of your cities how? Would that be the "Nevill Chamberlain Memorial Urban Beautification Program," by chance?

Diplomacy is no more or less effective than it has ever been in dealing with sociopaths.

Rule of force is no more or less effective than it has ever been in dealing with sociopaths.

Knowing when to drop the carrot and pick up the stick is a fine art that the Europeans have never been able to master.

Their zeal to prevent two world wars contributed greatly to the simple fact that they happened. This is especially true of World War II.

In 1991 the world had taken the European approach to "solving" the Saadam problem, Kuwait would still be an Iraqi province, likely along with large tracts of Saudi Arabia.

Had the European solution to the Balkans conflict been followed to a T, the Balkans would be nicely and completely ethnically cleansed by now.

The American solution may not be great, but the European solution in situations such as these is, quite frankly, a lot worse.

Strongly worded letters and interminable council meetings are rarely, if ever, an effective method of dealing with a stone cold sociopath.

[Art Eatman]

No, Mike, I think it is more of a malaise, a tiredness. Vast numbers of folks over there want the illusion of being left alone. They just don't want to be bothered with "foreign entanglements" so far from home.

Look, for instance, at how close the Balkans are to France/Germany, et al, and how little interest there was in doing anything at all to end the killings there. My son's take on the Balkans, after sorta asking around in his Yuropeen travels during racing season was that most folks regard the Balkans as full of rat-crazy people; the sooner they kill each other off, the better. But, nothing done in or to the Balkan area really affects the rest of Europe.

So a lot of the Europeans see us as a bunch of do-gooders who just might mess up their flow of oil or create some other such problem.

Anyhow, that's some of my take on the thinking over there. I'm not excusing or supporting, I'm just trying to figure out the "why" of it...And I sure ain't saying I think it makes any long-haul sense. :)

Mike, I agree with the thrust of your post, but it's irrelevant to the way they think...

Art

[telewinz]

Also the United States made the decision to maintain (although downsized) a potent military force. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, most if not all of the EU made even more serious cuts in their military spending. For military spending in France, about 1% of their GNP, we spend about 3% of our GNP. We bulid tanks while Europe builds schools and hospitals, Germany is still busy re-building eastern Germany. In short Europe does not really have the options the US enjoys at this time. If the EU succeeds, there will be just one Army in Europe which will be even smaller than it is now. The European outlook has existed since before WW2, but at least then they had a potent (they thought) military just in case.

[clange]

Thats a hell of an article. Lots of stuff i've never thought about before. Europes 'no-war utopia' only exists, and only came into being, because of our force. I agree that they need to build up their force and act with a double standard, as we do. Sometimes force is neccessary to protect the peace.

I also like the analogy of us guarding the gates but not able to go in. Hit the nail on the head.

[Mike Irwin]

"But, nothing done in or to the Balkan area really affects the rest of Europe."

Given that the first great war started as a result of the Balkans, I'd say that's a good case of Europe forgetting it's history, much to its own detriment.

And, if the Europeans aren't that concerned with the situation in the Balkans, why were they screaming such bloody murder for the US to dump in peacekeeping troops in the first place?

Tiredness, fear of repeating the past, cowardice, no matter what you want to call it, it's yet another case of Europe conveniently ignoring the past in hope of a desparate future.

History shows that they'll get neither in the long run, unfortunately.

[Gary H]

Here is some intellectual fodder:

http://www.francestinks.com/http://www.victoryvillage.com/STINKS/Fjokes1.gif

[KMKeller]

I went skiing this weekend and noticed a great deal of French speaking persons. When I questioned them about their nationality, they quickly glanced at each other and said, "We're from Canada."...

[JohnBT]

"Another factor is that they've had to rebuild whole cities..."

Richmond, Atlanta...need I continue?

John

[Joe Demko]

I think Art Eatman is on to something here. If one can characterize whole nations in such a fashion, then the Yurrupeons are tired and war weary. They can, as a group, look back on centuries of warfare and have seen whole generations of their young men wiped out. They've seen cities destroyed, countries dismembered, and they lived as pawns in the cold war. If we had a comparable history here in the US, I daresay our national enthusiasm for war would be tempered somewhat. You might recall we had somewhat that attitude following the events in a certain Southeast Asian nation.