Why do they hate us?

I agree with the article. Anti americanism worldwide is starting to creep up, but it only becomes anti americanism when it is aimed at the people of America. Until now, this is not the case, it is a matter of disapproving of its foreign policy, no more no less. Things will change if America starts taking these positions as being anti american and starts the tough talk again by pointing fingers and accusing right and left.

But until today, anti americanism in France and western Europe is tame.
 
Quote from swoop[TR]:

I agree with the article. Anti americanism worldwide is starting to creep up, but it only becomes anti americanism when it is aimed at the people of America. Until now, this is not the case, it is a matter of disapproving of its foreign policy, no more no less. Things will change if America starts taking these positions as being anti american and starts the tough talk again by pointing fingers and accusing right and left.

But until today, anti americanism in France and western Europe is tame.

First, you agree with De Villepin's blanket denial of the existence of any anti-Americanism in France. Now, you admit its existence, but deny that it's very significant, cling to some peculiar personal definition (it only really counts if everyone feels it very strongly and passionately against all Americans personally?), and argue that, anyway, it's really all America's fault.
 
I'll beat the skeptics to the punch, and point out that this article appeared in a pro-Administration weekly. All the same, the article reads to me like credible reporting, however, especially where it describes how "mainstream" journalists operate. I would be more skeptical if the anti-American/anti-war alarmism being discussed was isolated, rather than a continuation of the same material - much of it laughably where not disgustingly off-base - that accompanied the build-up ("unilateralist adventure") to and the execution ("quagmire") of the war.

A very typical example is the "looting of the National Museum" story that was temporarily one of the top stories during the immediate aftermath of the taking of Baghdad, and that was turned into an excuse for full-throated denunciations of the US military. Have follow-ups revealing how exaggerated and poorly reported the original stories were gotten anywhere near the same play as the first, typically inaccurate headlines?

Anyway:

You have no idea how well things are going.
by Jonathan Foreman
05/12/2003

EXCERPTS:
IT'S ENDLESSLY FASCINATING to watch the interactions between U.S. patrols and the residents of Baghdad. It's not just the love bombing the troops continue to receive from all classes of Baghdadi--though the intensity of the population's pro-American enthusiasm is astonishing, even to an early believer in the liberation of Iraq, and continues unabated despite delays in restoring power and water to the city. It's things like the reaction of the locals to black troops. They seem to be amazed by their presence in the American army. One group of kids in a poor neighborhood shouted "Mike Tyson, Mike Tyson" at Staff Sergeant Darren Swain; the daughter of a diplomat on the other hand informed him, "One of my maids has the same skin as you."

It's things like the way the women old and young flirt outrageously with GIs, lifting their veils to smile, waving from high windows, and shyly calling hello from half-opened doors. Or the way the little girls seem to speak much better English than the little boys who are always elbowing them out of the way....
***

But you won't see much of this on TV or read about it in the papers. To an amazing degree, the Baghdad-based press corps avoids writing about or filming the friendly dealings between U.S. forces here and the local population--most likely because to do so would require them to report the extravagant expressions of gratitude that accompany every such encounter. Instead you read story after story about the supposed fury of Baghdadis at the Americans for allowing the breakdown of law and order in their city.

Well, I've met hundreds of Iraqis as I accompanied army patrols all over the city during the past two weeks and I've never encountered any such fury (even in areas that were formerly controlled by the Marines, who as the premier warrior force were never expected to carry out peacekeeping or policing functions). There is understandable frustration about the continuing failure of the Americans to get the water supply and the electricity turned back on, though the ubiquity of generators indicates that the latter was always a problem. And there are appeals for more protection (difficult to provide with only 12,000 troops in a city of 6 million that has not been placed under strick martial law). But there is no fury.
***
The Associated Press's Hamza Hendawi, for instance, massively exaggerated and misrepresented the nature of the looting in Baghdad in the first days after the U.S. armored forces took key points in the city. Like so many Baghdad-based reporters, she described an "unchecked frenzy" that did not exist at that time (the looting was targeted and nonviolent, in the sense that the looters attacked neither persons nor inhabited dwellings).
***
Then there were those exaggerated reports of April 18 claiming (as Reuters' Hassan Hafidh put it) that "Tens of thousands of protesters demanded on Friday that the United States get out of Iraq. . . . In the biggest protest since U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein's iron-fisted, 24-year-long rule nine days ago, Muslims poured out of mosques and into the streets of Baghdad, calling for an Islamic state to be established." Demonstrators did come out of one mosque, but reporters seem to have confused them with the large numbers of Shia Muslims gathering for the pilgrimage to Karbala--a pilgrimage long forbidden by the Saddam regime.

***
More irritating is the myth constantly repeated by antiwar columnists that the military let the city be destroyed--in particular the hospitals and the national museum--while guarding the Ministry of Oil. The museum looting is turning out to have been grotesquely exaggerated. And there is no evidence for the ministry of oil story. Depending on the article, the Marines had either a tank or a machine gun nest outside the ministry. Look for a photo of that tank or that machine gun nest and you'll look in vain. And even if the Marines had briefly guarded the oil ministry it would have been by accident: The Marines defended only the streets around their own headquarters and so-called Areas of Operation. Again, though, given the pro-regime sources favored by so many of the press corps huddled in the Palestine Hotel, it's not surprising that this rumor became gospel.
***
But my favorite mad media moment was when an AP journalist turned up in a car heading to the Ministry of Information, the top floor of which was on fire. "Why aren't you putting out the fire?" she angrily demanded of Sgt. William Moore. He looked at her with astonishment and asked, "How the hell am I supposed to do that?" Turning away, he muttered, "Piss on it?"

***

Things may yet go horribly wrong here in American-occupied Baghdad. But it is bizarre and sad that so few journalists are able or willing to recognize this honeymoon period for what it is.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/629xnqei.asp
 
Typically excellent "boring rightwing crap" and "nonsense" from Victor Davis Hanson:

May 2, 2003 8:15 a.m.
Geriatric Teenagers
The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis needs some tough love.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson050203.asp

EXCERPTS:

Imagine a continent that collectively budgets very little on its own defense, instead finding protection in a distant and democratic superpower that pays rent for the privilege of basing troops, planes, and ships to stop hooligans — sometimes, as in the case of an embarrassingly impolite Mr. Milosevic, right on Europe’s doorstop.

In return, many European elites ridicule American values, naïveté, and insularity — even as their countries have raked in billions of American dollars in trade surpluses and tourism from mostly oblivious, aw-shucks Americans. We self-absorbed, parochial yokels laughed and paid little attention to the fact that some in Europe had forsaken Christianity for this weird, emerging boutique religion of anti-Americanism.

Who could take their ankle-biting seriously? Who, after all, would give up all that they had gotten so cheaply — that dream of all spoiled teenagers: to snap at and ridicule their patient and paying parents, even as they call on them in extremis for help whenever the car stalls or the rent is short?

Yet suddenly many Europeans are not talking of “Europe,” but telling us instead: “You Americans must be careful in lumping us all together as if there are not real differences among us.” Thank the crazed Chirac and his infantile Talleyrand for this new, more nationalist and “non-European” identity, now growing among Europeans in the wake of the Iraqi war.

The unease with the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis is just beginning. In the coming year alone, troves of archives — economic, political, and military — will reveal France to have been more an enemy than a friend of the United States in the present war, and that a legion of German, French, and Russian businessmen, journalists, and politicians were on the Iraqi take, or worse. The duplicity of our so-called friends will make their deceit during the Balkan fiasco look like child’s play.

***

Yet polls continue to show that at least a third of Frenchmen, Belgians, and Germans don’t like Americans, and another third don’t trust us. Eight years of Clinton’s lip-biting and apologies du jour earned no sympathy, but did win us plenty of contempt. The problems are fundamental and transcend American presidencies.

Let us face reality at least once: We are living in the most precipitous moment of change of the last half century as we witness a tectonic shift in Europe, one that is realigning the way an entire continent operates.

***

Nor are fits of continental craziness, both real and abstract, even new. Napoleon was willing to risk the lives of millions for the idea of a pan-European dream, its scary, pretentious adages not unlike those now emanating from Brussels or from the mad M. Villepin. The rise of German Nazism, Italian fascism, and continental Marxism at times turned Europeans away from the liberal tradition and drew them to darker and more authoritarian promises, with roots from Plato’s Laws to Oswald Spengler. Too many Europeans still cherish the belief that they are close to an end to war, hunger, want, and meanness — ideals inseparable from a light work week, cradle-to-grave care, protection by an uncouth American military, and a steady stream of fertile, darker, unassimilated peoples to take out their trash and clean their toilets.

The fact is that the absence of Russian divisions has meant an end to both a common threat and unity with the United States. It is not just that Europeans have forgotten two World Wars, the Berlin Airlift, America’s willingness to expose its cities to Soviet nuclear attack to protect the continent, or our support for German reunification. They resent even the mention of past beneficence and, if history is to be contemplated, prefer to bring up Hamburg and Dresden rather than Auschwitz.

(Even on ET!)

***
Abroad, good luck to M. Villepin in his efforts to convince the Arabs his country is either principled or strong. I do not think a Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan cares much for French-German diplomacy to keep their neighborhood safe from nukes. M. Villepin, who claims he knows something of the latter career of his hero, Napoleon, should remember that nations can survive impotence or immorality — but not both. And that “both” is exactly the dividend of his recent pathetic gambit.

***

The world is not as it was: 3,000 Americans are dead. We took casualties in Iraq as a result of Turkish-French-German duplicity, and the French government had stronger military associations with Iraq than it did with us. The saner and safer, not the more precipitous, course is quietly but resolutely to change business as usual — and sooner rather than later.

In the rest of the essay, in addition to further observations on history and the current scene, Hanson offers policy prescriptions that include re-organization and democratization of the UN, as well as bluff-calling in NATO and in regard to European affairs.
 
The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis needs some tough love


Typically boring cut & paste rightwing crap and nonsense from Freddie N.
 
Quote from KymarFye:



anti-Americanism in France.

Apart from doing a great job in cutting and pasting this thread that we get green in the face, you are a filthy and hardcore anti-European.
Get off it, idjit, you don't make sense.

And I commiserate those poor Iraqis whom the Dubyah administration will condemn into the Polish sector. Poland, of all countries! Get real
 
Another piece from Collin May:

Thursday, May 01, 2003

France, Shocked and Awed

EXCERPTS:

***
Throughout the events leading up to the war the French media was largely unanimous in its opposition to military action and in support of Chirac’s willingness to use France’s veto at the UN. During the campaign this same media was full of dire warning and forebodings at every step. The specters of Vietnam and Somalia were raised and each day seemed to provide the assurance of a military quagmire just around the corner. The French reveled in the failure of “shock and awe” and affirmed with superior wisdom that the countless deaths of civilians in Baghdad would produce a bitterly hostile population. Defeat and disaster awaited this coalition of hubris.

Then a funny thing happened: within four weeks from its outset, the war was more or less finished. Suddenly there was shock and awe, but this shock and awe occurred worked its magic on a cynical French media left dazed by the sudden fall of cities like Baghdad and Tikrit.

The rest of this post observes French media and elite intellectual reaction to the war and early reconstruction efforts - noting something approaching an embarrassed silence, followed by a shift in tone (partly as a reaction to the unexpected ease of victory), and more frequent appearances of some hitherto underrepresented pro-American or non-anti-American voices, including Bernard Henri-Levy (BHL), whose recent Le Point piece I linked above.

http://innocentsabroad.blogspot.com/2003_04_27_innocentsabroad_archive.html#200227715

(For reference - partly my own - here's a link to an earlier piece of his, "Europe, Anti-Europe," that parallels Bennett's, but emphasizes different, more recent historical and social forces that he believes contributed to contemporary European, especially French, attitudes toward the US:

http://innocentsabroad.blogspot.com/2003_03_30_innocentsabroad_archive.html)
 
May and others appear to believe that European anti-Americanism may have peaked during the lead-up to the war, at least temporarily, and that a natural counterreaction has set in, accelerated by multiple factors that go far beyond embarrassment over mis-calling the war's play-by-play. In this way, it seems to parallel reactions in the Arab and Muslim world (beginning with the extreme case of Iraq itself).

The critical issue to be decided is whether and to what extent the "New European" tendency (more pro-American, less statist/socialist) and moderate (relatively pro-Western) Arab and Muslim tendencies can exploit whatever new opportunities the post-war environment offers them.

I'm not quite ready to give up on prospects for a meeting of minds and interests. On the other hand, I recognize that Victor Davis Hanson's pessimism on this score is well-founded, and I was as surprised and dismayed as anyone to witness the depth of hostility and extremity of division that was revealed especially last Winter. Like other observers, I had thought that Germany, Russia, and France would recognize and affirm their mutual interests with the US much earlier. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush - the "cowboy" himself - making triumphant, widely acclaimed visits to Europe and to the Middle East as well before his term in office is over. That's not a prediction: Much can still go very wrong, and, even if wildly successful, American policies may need much more time, but betting against Bush has so far not paid off very well for his many detractors.
 
Back
Top