M
MAJOR_Baker
Guest
European Ingrates
by Fred Gedrich
April 8, 2004
Thrice during the 20th century, Americans came to the defense of their brethren in Europe to rescue and protect them from evil conquest. Today, many Americans are appalled that some European governments, led by the French/German axis, have turned their backs on the U.S. as it attempts to defeat the scourge of global terrorism threatening humanity and western civilization.
Elitists, radical leftists and political opportunists like France's Chirac, Germany's Schroeder and America's Kerry are trying to exploit this circumstance for their own selfish reasons by ridiculing President Bush's aggressive policy of carrying the fight to terrorists and nations supporting them. Their main gripe is that the U.S.-led war on terror is illegitimate because it doesn't have UN approval or French and German support.
For more than three decades, global terrorists have engaged in unrelenting attacks on the civilized world. Innocent men, women and children are their prime targets. Killings in New York, Virginia, Nairobi, Dar es Salem, Bali, Beirut, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombassa, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and Baghdad illustrate the scope of the problem and depth of depravity. Recent bombings in Madrid killing 200 and injuring 1,500 innocent more proves European countries are not immune from these heinous attacks.
President Bush's critics have mounted a misdirected international campaign against him, instead of against the terrorists. They complain about his foreign policy naiveté and how the world is much more dangerous now that he has confronted this evil without the support of the international community (e.g., the UN and them), which was not forthcoming anyway. They suggest that Free states can bargain and contain terrorist groups and states without taking military action. In another era, Winston Churchill correctly described such behavior as appeasement.
A March 2004 Pew Research Center Survey reported that overwhelming majorities in France and Germany believe â Å“the U.S.-led war on terror is not a sincere effort and they are not confident the U.S. wants to promote democracy around the world.â ? The study also revealed â Å“no international military action should be taken without UN approval.â ? In short, many of them actually believe the U.S. is a greater threat to world peace than the terrorists.
It is ironic that they would harbor such anti-U.S. and pro-UN sentiments. The U.S. rescued the French from German tyranny in WW I and II, and protected them from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is largely because of U.S. efforts and American goodwill, that Germany was able to overcome its Nazi past and confrontation with communism by evolving into a free self-governing unified country. And one mustn't forget there are still 150,000 U.S. troops deployed in Europe to protect those countries from foreign attack.
As for the UN, it is not and will not be, an effective partner in the war on terror. It serves as a mouthpiece and haven for terrorist states (and groups they support) because it places them on the same moral plane as free nations. Most of the UN's 191 members consider terrorists like Cuba's Castro, Libya's Gadhafi, and Zimbabwe's Mugabe heroes. The UN failed to stop the slaughter of over two million in Rwanda and Iraq. And it hasn't even been able to define the meaning of terrorism, let alone combat it.
As the UN continued to stalemate, the U.S.-led coalition routed terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and have placed those countries on a path to democratic self-governance â “ in the process liberating more than 50 million people from oppressors. These actions provide a glimmer of hope to 2 billion others around the globe who also live under oppression. European elitists and UN leadership deserve no credit for these accomplishments.
At a recent Capitol symposium on U.S./Europe relations, Gunter Burghardt, spokesperson for the European Commission, suggested American selfishness is the primary cause of the transatlantic rift. He boasted that Europeans are concerned about peace, prosperity, and partnership while Americans are consumed with prevention, preemption, and preeminence. He opined that it is necessary for Europe to contain U.S. military adventurism. And he ignored the fact the most European countries â “21 of them â “ are allied with the U.S. in the war on terror. Nonetheless, Burghardt's comments drew applause from the audience and approving nods from the French and German ambassadors.
The most poignant speaker at that event was Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), the lone Holocaust survivor serving in the U.S. Congress. Lantos offered a sober appraisal of the current relationship. He sternly told the audience that as a former European â “ he is very concerned about the concept of appeasement engulfing Europe. And he reminded them of American sacrifices in the 20th century to save Europe from evil domination. He challenged Europe's leaders to visit the graves of Americans at Normandy and noted there are no such European graveyards in the United States. His compelling comments brought much needed levity to a one-sided discussion.
History will be very kind to people like Lantos, President Bush, UK's Blair and others in the â Å“Coalition of the Willingâ ? who courageously recognize the clear and present danger of global terrorism and who are attempting to do something about it. Sadly, those who oppose them and argue for peace at any price will find their names alongside the likes of Neville Chamberlain who foolishly thought that cutting deals with evil forces would bring â Å“peace in our time.â ?
