C’MON! 2005 WASN’T SO BAD AFTER ALL ~Amir Taheri
Michael Hiteshew
The Transatlantic Rift
In September of last year, I posted on the efforts of Germany, Japan and Brazil to gain a seat on the UNSC. I wasn’t impressed. Neither, apparently, is David Frum. In his piece, The End of the Transatlantic Affair, he writes:
Over lunch at a Washington think-tank some time ago, a high-ranking German official told the room about his country’s determination to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council. The reaction? From the Americans present, indifference verging on boredom. For the Europeans, though, it was as if the official had dropped a concrete block on their toes.
It was a fascinating moment of culture clash that demonstrates some ominous truths about American-European relations. The first truth is the traditionalism of American policy elites. Even when the evidence is thrust into American faces, it is hard for them to accept that things have changed in the old alliance. From 1947 until 1991, US-European relations were guided by the rule that America would provide the protection and Europe the deference.
With the collapse of Soviet military power, the deal became obsolete. Yet this large geopolitical change has made little impression on American policy elites. Indeed, John Kerry won the backing of almost all of this elite by running a presidential campaign that promised that the alliance could be restored with just a few sweet words.
EH101 Variant Chosen As New ‘Marine Corps One’
A variant of the venerable EH101 (EuroHelicopter 101) medium-lift helicopter, dubbed the US101, has been chosen by the US Navy for it’s next generation presidential transport, traditionally referred to as Marine Corps One. The EH101 was designed in the 1980’s by the British/Italian consortium AgustaWestland and is currently in service with several NATO nations.
Lockheed Martin and Bell Helicopter teamed with AgustaWestland to offer the US101 against a Sikorsky/Boeing team, which was offering a variant of Sikorsky’s S-92, a similar helicopter. The US101 will be partially manufactured in the US by Bell, will incorporate GE engines, a European manufactured drive train and transmission, and British manufactured blades. Various custom avionics will be purchased in the US and integrated by Lockheed Martin.
What a coup for AgustaWestland! You can bet your last Euro-dollar that photos of the EH101 in Marine Corps livery majestically taking flight from the White House lawn are going into their sales brochures tomorrow.
Sikorsky Helicopter had been manufacturing the presidential helicopter fleet since the Eisenhower administration. Losing that prestigious spot had to really, really hurt.
But I can’t say I’m surprised.
US Strikes Against Syria?
I’m never sure what to make of things I read at Debka. Some of the time, it appears to be little more than rumor mongering. At other times, it’s been accurate. That said, this is interesting:
Richard Armitage performed his last major mission before stepping down… This mission took Armitage to Damascus with nine American demands:
1. Start repealing Syria’s 40-years old emergency laws.
2. Free all political prisoners from jail.
3. Abolish media censorship.
4. Initiate democratic reform.
5. Speed up economic development
6. Cut down relations with Iran.
7. Announce publicly that the disputed Shebaa Farms at the base of Mt. Hermon are former Syrian territory.
8. Hand over to US or Iraqi authorities 55 top officials and military officers of the former Saddam regime, who are confirmed by intelligence to be established in Syria and running the guerrilla war in Iraq out of their homes and offices.
Then Bush lays the big stick on the table:
9. Syria had better make sure that none of the Kornet AT-14 anti-tank missiles which it recently purchased in large quantities from East Europe turn up in Iraq. US intelligence has recorded their serial numbers to identify their source.
Just in case any are found in Iraq, General Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq has already received orders from the commander-in-chief in the White House to pursue military action inside Syria according to his best military judgment.
This is fascinating and probably necessary. Bashir Assad learned much from his father Hafez. Chief among the lessons learned at daddy’s knee was the value of a skillfully executed proxy war. The Syrians have been waging a proxy war against Israel, via hamas, for over 20 years. Of course, they’ve also occupied Lebanon for 30 years, but since they’re not Americans or Jews, the UN and EU don’t really seem to mind. Move along, nothing to see here.
Proxy wars have two chief advantages for the sponsor:
1. Plausible deniability.
A) You’re being attacked by guerrillas and terrorists? Why that’s terrible!
B) Where could they be getting those rockets and mines? We have no idea.
C) Where are they getting their funding? Swiss bank accounts? Got us.
2. It’s highly effective. For minimal cost, your opponent can be attacked relentlessly. Each attack may be, in itself, militarily insignificant. But it erodes morale and political support. Death by a thousand cuts.
Clearly this is the strategy, the proxy war, that the Syrian Ba’athists have pursued against the US in Iraq. Having pursued it virtually without cost against the Israelis for decades, it was natural the method would present itself as first choice to confront, hamstring and confound those damned Yankees next door. We’ll make their life a living hell, and if accused, we’ll dust off our halos and feign outrage that our unassailable moral character could be questioned. Perfect!
Except for one little flaw. One tiny little oversight in Bashir & Co.’s perfect plan. The US is not Israel. Whatever level of escalation the Syrians can threaten in Iraq pales – no, dwindles to nothing – in comparison to the punishment the US can inflict on Damascus and its surrounds in a single night of conventional high intensity bombing. A couple of weeks of it might just give them a whole new outlook on things.
Anti-French Backlash
Andrew Boucher at Volatility from Paris has a short post, entitled Christmas Shopping Lesson, on the large drop in Americans’ spending in Paris stores. He wrote:
Reuters had an interesting article on the Galeries Lafayette store in Paris today. Because of the weak dollar, boycott, or just lack of energy, the American consumer isn’t much of a force any more in Paris.
Chinese tourists have climbed from 20th position 10 years ago to the number one spot in terms of visitor numbers to the Galeries today – overtaking the Japanese, British, Russians and in fifth place, the Americans.
Big spenders are customers from the Middle East, Japan, Russia and the United States. But while Americans spend more than the Chinese, it’s the force of numbers that counts.
“An American spends twice as much as a Chinese customer, but … the Chinese are at least 10 times more numerous…,” the general manager at the flagship Boulevard Haussmann store said.
It’s followed by a similar post, entitled The New Hollywood Villain, in which he says:
“I don’t go to as many new films as I would like, but in those that I have seen, I’ve noticed a tendency which has become a trend. I’m speaking of the Frenchman as villain. ”
I’ve noticed it too. Last night I caught part of program on the History Channel on the French Revolution. The commercial they were running to promote the program, both before it aired and during the program itself, ends with this little jab:
“Now, for 2 hours, it won’t kill you to love the French.”
I had to laugh every time I heard that. Whoever wrote that certainly has their finger on the pulse of the American public. Say the words ‘France’ or ‘French’ to an American these days and the reaction you’ll get is one of outright disgust.
One fairly accurate measure of the enmity Americans feel towards the French can seen in the degree to which the French have become the butt of jokes. Tell a French joke and not only will everyone laugh, some caustic remarks will be added to boot; not to mention much head shaking and mock spitting.
(After writing this post, I checked the spelling of ‘enmity’ at Merriam-Webster Online and found this:
Etymology: Middle English enmite, from Middle French enemité, from Old French enemisté, from enemi enemy
: positive, active, and typically mutual hatred or ill will
I think that sums up feelings on both sides the Atlantic pretty well, don’t you? I also laughed when I saw that the word is from French.)
All this begs the question, Why? After all, the Russians opposed the war in Iraq, as did the Chinese and the Germans and many others. So why is all this animosity focussed on the French? I’d offer three reasons:
1. A sense of betrayal. Russians and Chinese have never been considered as allies. The French have been. There’s a sense among Americans that an agreement had been made prior to war, that we were led into a UNSC vote believing in that agreement, and were betrayed by a French led counter-stroke.
2. A sense among Americans that the French owe us something for WWII.
3. A widening discussion and understanding of the degree of anti-Americanism in France. Many people were shocked by what they read. Much of it appears little different than Soviet-style propaganda.
An interesting, related question is this: Why haven’t the Germans experienced the same backlash? Their media is certainly as anti-American. Schroeder is no different in his actions than Chirac. Is it because so many Americans are of German descent? Or possibly because so many Americans have been stationed in Germany in the last fifty years and feel connected to Germans on a level they don’t feel towards the French? Or maybe the Germans aren’t seen as a traditional American ally. I don’t know.