My blog about talking about the world as it is. No mincing of words.
USA & European perspectives
Published on February 19, 2005 By Mmrnmhrm In War on Terror
The war in Iraq brought the lingering difference between Americans and Europeans into stark relief. Europeans were against the war, for the most part and Americans were for it, for the most part. It is, ironically, a reversal of world views. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the Americans were the ones espousing the importance of international law and the need for subtle diplomacy while the Europeans who made use of raw power on the international stage.

In the late 20th century, with the Soviet Union no longer a threat, the weakness of Europe forced it to take the old American strategy while the unchallenged might of the United States made it take on a different view.

This culminated with Iraq. As Robert Kagan put it, a man armed only with a knife may come to a different decision on what to do about the bear than the man armed with a rifle. From Europe's point of view, Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, was a threat but not an intolerable one. Removing Saddam was beyond the ability of the European military powers without great sacrifice.

By contrast, the Americans made a different calculation. Saddam could be likely removed with only a couple thousand American casualties. So why should this lingering threat be allowed to continue, especially after 9/11? And events bore this out. The United States was able to march into Baghad and remove Saddam with only a few hundred combat deaths. The 2 years since had brought on several hundred more deaths due to the "insurgency". A number that is pretty unimpressive when one considers that America's drunk drivers are more effective killers than the armed guerilla's that make up Iraq's insurgency.

This essay isn't to argue that the Americans were right to go into Iraq. Only that from the American perspective, if a significant thorn in the side and lingering threat to its security can be removed so easily, then why not do it? The Europeans, by contrast, really didn't have such an option. Realistically, they had to put up with Saddam no matter what. It is far easier to rationalize his existence than to simply admit that there is nothing they could do about it.

Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Feb 27, 2005
Caring why a blood thirsty murder wants to kill you is pointless. One doesn't try to psychoanalyse the thief who breaks into your house. One stops the thief, one way or the other.

Besides, many people have looked into this and the answer is - they're nasty bloody murderers who want to inflict their own form of fascism on the world. It's not due to some trivial foreign policy decision. The 9/11 attack was planned on Clinton's watch. If Bill Clinton, the savior of Kosovo and Bosnia and defender of Kurds and humanitarian relief provider to Aghanistan wasn't benevolent enough, then fuck 'em.
on Feb 27, 2005
The fact is that at the time Bush attacked Iraq, about half of the Americans did not support the war.


Huh? What world do you live in? Various polls had the support for removing Saddam by military force at or around 70% prior to the invasion (I'm not bothering to link them because if you'd wanted actual info you'd have no trouble finding it). In July thru September 2002 time frame, even liberal polls had the support for military action at and around 60 - 65%. Even the LA Times (Dec 2002) poll has 58% in support with only 35% opposing.

Going to war without the support (and I do not mean by a few %) of the American people was the error we made in Vietnam


No it wasn't. The error made in Nam was John McNamara's and his wonder boy Les Aspin (who then repeated it in Somalia, under Clinton, with Blackhawk down). Nam is their debacle, whether or not it was viewed favorably has nothing to do with the outcome. McNamara/Aspin not giving the armed forces what they asked for and playing politics with it has far more to do with the Nam tragedy than civilian support numbers. Give it a rest.

4 PagesFirst 2 3 4