Stardate 20020218.0619

(Captain's log): Tom Coates writes:

Frankly I think your latest post is mad.

The bit I really don't get is this bit: "We do not respond well to scolding (which is what recent utterances from Europe's leaders have amounted to). It tends to make us stubborn. If we're incessantly lectured about multilateralism, our tendency is to stick our middle finger in the air and to become even more unilateral. It won't convince us that we're wrong; it will just convince us that Europe's leaders are assholes and that we can't rely on them. And I don't think that is what they intend."

if this is true, surely it's a ridiculous way to run a country!? Surely you can't base your policy to the world on doing exactly the opposite of what the countries you're casting as Mummy and Daddy are asking you to think about!?

You want my opinion? America is so ridiculously powerful that everything it does affects the rest of the world. And yet America itself is far enough away from the rest of the world to not feel the consequences of its actions. Is it any wonder that the WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD tries desperately to make the US think through all its actions more than they ask of each other? It's like Godzilla roaming through a city - you may make mistakes no larger than one of the people on the ground would make, but the consequences if you DO make that mistake are so much huger. And not for you... For everyone else...

It's not the fact of the message which is the problem, it's the way in which it is being delivered. Being told "You're making a mistake" is one thing, especially if the mistake is explained in a convincing fashion. Being told "You are stupid, unsophisticated morons" is not the same. No-one likes to hear that; it doesn't make someone reexamine their own acts, it just discredits the speaker.

There's a strong suspicion here that those messages aren't actually being delivered by European politicians because they expect to influence American policy. In actuality, they're doing it so that they can be seen by their own people doing so; it's chic to despise America and lecture it like a small child. Maybe that's a good way to get reelected, but it's also a good way to alienate the American people and do permanent damage to France's those nations's political relationships with the US. Individual Americans do care about these things, and despite what you all might think, our government really does work for us and carry out our wishes. If you anger the majority of Americans, then US foreign policy will reflect that. There's a price to be paid for being snooty towards the US.

The problem with the multilateralist message is that Americans think it's a con-job. It's based on a lie. The fundamental concept behind multilateralism is that everyone shoulders the burden and everyone shares in the decision making process. Only everyone isn't shouldering the burden. (Perhaps the risk, but not the burden.)

Tom sends this link to a discussion on his own forum. In it, he himself points out that the US defense budget is 40% of the entire world's defense spending. He's horrified about that. So am I. But when Americans see that number, our reaction is that it is not that the US is spending too much, but rather that the Europeans are spending too little.

Quick example - the UK is something like the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world, despite it's tiny geographical size. But compare that with the US:

US - purchasing power parity - $9.963 trillion (2000 est.), per capita: $36,200

UK - purchasing power parity - $1.36 trillion (2000 est.), per capita - $22,800 (2000 est.)

I mean, the US is absurdly powerful. The world SHOULD be scared. You have too much power!

The way to solve that is not to try to drag us down to your level, but for you to pull yourselves up to ours. Don't bitch to us because you are weak and ineffective. Get off your asses and start working.

For the last thirty years, the Europeans have been neglecting their militaries because they were certain that the US would pick up the slack for them. They didn't have to have strong armies and navies because they knew that if their interests were attacked that they would be defended by ours. There's long been an undercurrent of resentment here about that; we feel used.

Resentment or not, if it had been necessary, we would have used our military on Europe's behalf. If the September attacks had been on Rome or Berlin or Paris or London, our military would have been committed. We would have let the aggrieved party lead. But we would have fought beside them, not just in their own nation but overseas as well. We take that responsibility seriously.

But it was us who were attacked; and we do have a decent military. We are the aggrieved party, and we're going to lead the show. We're going to use that military on our own behalf; that's the reward we get (if reward it be) for being the only nation who is willing to make the sacrifice to create a decent military capability.

If a mistake was made by Europe, it was made over the course of that thirty year period. Part of why our military is as strong as it is because it needed to be precisely because Europe dropped the ball. If they had been pulling the