Renegades!

Great Expectations

Over the last week there has been much newsprint devoted to the mending of the Trans Atlantic relationship between the US and Europe. Hurt feelings over 'Old Europe' comments and the hyperpuisse unilateralism have made cooperation on certain issues next to impossible. Terrorism, of course, suffers from a massive difference of expectations. Like many issues seperating the continents, terrorism is interpreted differently on a variety of levels.

Of course, terrorism is not the first issue to seperate the two. Sex, religion, and violence has also divided the two. While the US bristles at Janet Jackson's ridiculous nipplegate 'scandal', Europe loves the topless Page 3 girls, nude beaches, porn TV and revealing apparel. Similarly, while the US enjoys extreme violence on TV and in movies, Europe's censors work overtime to edit American TV's graphic beatdowns. These are superficial examples, but they point to a dichotomy of morals and expectations. Expectations guide policy and actions in regard to terrorism, especially.

Europe's expectations towards terrorism have been adjusted over centuries of dealing with guerilla warfare and domestic insurgencies. Prior to dealing with far off colonies on different colonies uprising against the European masters, the Europeans attempted to colonize each other. Sicily, formerly a French holding, started its own underground resistance that used harsh violence to finally kick the French off the island for good. This group of violent Sicilians spawned a criminal subculture that later morphed into the Mafia. Meanwhile, the Irish rebelled against the British in various forms and methods for over 700 years, which lead to the rise of the IRA. More recently, Moscow's bouts with Chechen terrorists are the latest incarnation of long running terrorist violence in the Russian capital. Bukanin anarchists and Bolshevik communists tore Moscow apart with ruthless suicide bombings of ministers and leaders. Similarly, Germany (Red Army Brigades) and Italy have gone through brutal communist terror campaigns. Spain, for its part, has been dealing with Basque terrorists for millenia, and the more recent 3/11 attacks. Yugoslavia, famously, suffered from the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand by a terrorist. These are only a few examples, but it is obvious to the casual observer that Europe's long experience has made it a veteran partner in the long running war on terror. Its response to the 9/11 was the sympathy of the knowledgeable older brother who had gone through the same harsh experience.

The US, by comparison, has little in the way of experience of terrorism, domestic or otherwise. Long guarded by a culture of assmilation and two large oceans, the US was shielded for centuries from the terrorist violence that plagued Europe. While the SLA, the Unibomber and Timothy McVeigh were serious local menaces, they never approached the widespread and organized attacks suffered by Europe over the last two centuries.

Europe, long a player in the anti-terrorist game, has developed its own longstanding methods to dealing with the terrorists. Realpolitik, deals with the devil, a developed sense realism, plus some measures pushing the scale of liberty and security towards security have kept the existence of the European states a reality. Mostly, these measures were made after having realized that terrorism (in their mind) was a nuisance to be dealt with, rather than a problem that could be eradicated. The US, by comparison, being the newbie to the game, comes equipped with the enthusiasm and power it displays in many endeavours. The US hasn't been fatigued by attrition and continuous failure like the Europeans in respect to terrorism, while the US keep the hope alive that they can free other nations from this menace to keep their own nation secure. In a way, it is not unlike the approach and idealism of Kennedy in the fight against communism. Where the Europeans had bunkered down in the hopes of the problem would pass it by taking remedial action and hoping they would survive, the US was relied on to do the heavy lifting.

In a sense, the US is like the new CEO at a Fortune 500 company. The company is stuck in a rut with a set culture, rigid rules, and a long history. The CEO has to steer a new course for the War On Terror, INC and that means hiring, firing, and setting a new strategy and vision for the company. Of course, CEO's often fail in their new roles. They might come into a new job with fresh enthusiasm and ideas that comes with being at a new post, but expectations will be adjusted with experience at the healm.

In one sense, the US can relate to the European experience. While the US may be new to the terrorist violence, it is no stranger to the most threatening aspect of US society: gun violence. While unorganized and sometimes completely random, the US has been dealing with high murder rates and violent crimes, and a culture that glorifies that best villians of the underworld like Capone, Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde and Gotti. Americans can expect that if they are involved in crime, or visit certain parts of town, they expect violence to occur. They have adjusted their expectations of their own society and have dealt with the fact that they live in a gun culture, with high murder rates. This is an accepted part of modern life in the US, and there is an awarenesss, but also an attitude that it is an expected nuisance that is to be handled rather than eradicated.

The Europeans, and especially the British are quite new to the phenomena of the gun culture and gang violence. Organized political violence in the form of IRA bombings is what a Briton might expect, but armed thugs in the East End of London or Birmingham are a brand new threat. Predictably, the British believed they could attack the problem with harsh action, and started banning guns altogether in some areas only to see the black market for illegal guns explode. Also predictably, the Americans laughed at this effort to rid the gangs of guns as the naive action of a novice. Funny they should think that......

The relationship between the US and Europe does not necessarily have to be antagonistic even as the two differ on their methods. The Americans could begin to at least respect the length of the struggle that Europe has endured in respect to terror, and perhaps learn from some of the European experiences. The Europeans for their part could at least appreciate that their whille their paradigm on the War on Terror is refined and ancient, it might be premised on some arguments that are simply antiquated. While at one point it may have been taken for certain that the Middle East was not ready for democracy, it now seems to be a imminent reality. At one point it might have been ridiculous to think that long term international stability would be dependent on universal freedom, it is now apparent. While at one point it would be safe to assume that simply leaving nations alone to pursue their own sovereign right to govern as they see fit (in the post-colonial era) would be acceptable, if these independent countries pursue totalitarian dictatorships, it will mean a brutalized population of discontents, motivated to commit mass destruction.

It is hoped that with the new detente in the post-election Bush-EU relationship, the two sides can start to appreciate the others' experience and expectations in this shared struggle against this old (new) foe.

posted by Shamrocks! @ 5:30 AM