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: 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: (Even on ET!) 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.
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: 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.