Oops...maybe not.
In his recent article in the German daily WELT, Mathias Doepfner (Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG) calls anti-Americanism the "Comme il faut" (standard) of the Left and the Conservatives in Germany - a thesis that has often been stated in this blog. And he criticizes the predominance of appeasement policies in Europe - a critique we wholeheartedly subscribe to. And as to his appreciation of President Bush... well, just read Doepfner's article!
"Bush is Stupid and Evil"
The worldview of the average German in 2004 in seven sentences: Bush is stupid and evil. Iraq is the new Vietnam. America is doing virtually everything wrong. Sharon has himself to blame for the Palestinian terror. Israel has gotten us into this whole quagmire. Germany has thank God stayed out of it. Now we just have to be careful that our nice democracy isn’t turned into a police state by unnecessary security fears.
You think I’m exaggerating? A little! But when you listen in on the conversations at the watering holes of the leftist establishment – and much worse still – at the salons of the so-called bourgeois camp, you will rediscover these elements.
Above all, anti-Americanism has become a "Comme il faut" of intelligent conversation. But – and this is new – not just on the side of the Left. Even in nationally conservative and culturally conservative circles a sense of relief predominates that one can once again finally be open about the Americans. …
Only when two things come together can the network of self-declared holy warriors really be weakened: Tough resistance from the outside through the Western democracies and a clear distancing of the moderates in the Moslem world, especially among the clerics, from such extremists. George Bush has realized that from the beginning and made that excessively clear with his visits to mosques: The terrorists can only be stopped together with Islam.
When one takes seriously the challenge of this war of religion, which in reality is one of culture and capital, when one is convinced that “there can be no compromises reached with Jihadis,” when one prepares oneself to take on such a long-term and desperately aggressive threat, then the question has to be asked why the non-Islamic world apparently has little willpower to complete its part of the job.
Who is really protecting himself? Who is defending us effectively?
Since September 11, the day that Islamic terrorists declared a world war, there have been above all two nations who have done something and believed in themselves: America and England. And since that day three nations above all have been grilled morally: America, England and Israel again and again. …
Naively, and from the comfortable and seemingly secure gallery of the European observer, tips are being given out as to how Israel, surrounded by an anti-Semitism of the most bloodthirsty sort, should carry out the fight against suicide commandos and those madly seeking to destroy Israel and drive the Jews out: More compromises, more allowances, more negotiations please! I ask myself how the German government would behave when on virtually every weekend a bus full of German school children would be blown apart in downtown Berlin.
He who acts, makes mistakes. Case in point Bush and Blair: For example in their reasoning and communication regarding their Afghanistan and Iraq policy, in the concept and the management of expectations the key question is how fast the region can be pacified and democratized. But despite all of the mistakes regarding the details (or often just in public relations) their policy and politics are at their core right. It is a policy of clear and tough resistance against the enemies of the free world.
One can truly see that the leaders of the governments in London and Washington are doing exactly that which the general public is supposedly increasingly demanding from politicians: They are following their convictions against the general spirit of the times, against resistance, in part within their own parties, and they are doing that which an international alliance of cowardice is not prepared to do.
In that sense it is not about downplaying war and violence as long as they serve a good purpose. On the contrary: Morality and good intentions as arguments to defend violence are always suspect. But it is about weighing the balance as to when tolerance for intolerance has to stop. And when doing nothing is worse than defending the Western system with military means. …
In broad sections of Europe and in less threatened parts of Asia an appeasement is spreading that is frightening. If the consequence, for example, of the terror in Madrid is that Poland comes to the conclusion that it would be better to stay out of the matter, then the strategy of Al-Qaeda will soon succeed: Short-term in that the alliance of opponents collapses demoralized and discouraged. And long-term in that a demographic bomb is ticking whose explosion will be more damaging than any explosive.
The illusion that the aggressor can be soothed by good behavior reminds of 1936: Had the Allies not waited, negotiated, formed pacts and maneuvered back then and instead intervened, than millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, millions of soldiers, millions of people who thought differently could have been saved.
We are the ones who think differently. Maybe we need more toughness and vigilance to secure our democracy. Maybe it is wrong that Germany has refused to join the coalition of the willing. Maybe Israel is one of our most important allies. Maybe we should help this ally and not give them advice. Maybe America is doing more right than we think. Maybe more people in Iraq are better off today than they were one year ago. Maybe George Bush is not as stupid and evil, maybe one day, looking back on the developments that have just begun – we might even be thankful to him because he was one of the few who acted in accordance with the maxim: These things must be nipped in the bud. (A phrase often used in Germany to refer to stopping the re-emergence of Nazism.)
And maybe we Germans need more than seven sentences for our worldview.
In his recent article in the German daily WELT, Mathias Doepfner (Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG) calls anti-Americanism the "Comme il faut" (standard) of the Left and the Conservatives in Germany - a thesis that has often been stated in this blog. And he criticizes the predominance of appeasement policies in Europe - a critique we wholeheartedly subscribe to. And as to his appreciation of President Bush... well, just read Doepfner's article!
"Bush is Stupid and Evil"
The worldview of the average German in 2004 in seven sentences: Bush is stupid and evil. Iraq is the new Vietnam. America is doing virtually everything wrong. Sharon has himself to blame for the Palestinian terror. Israel has gotten us into this whole quagmire. Germany has thank God stayed out of it. Now we just have to be careful that our nice democracy isn’t turned into a police state by unnecessary security fears.
You think I’m exaggerating? A little! But when you listen in on the conversations at the watering holes of the leftist establishment – and much worse still – at the salons of the so-called bourgeois camp, you will rediscover these elements.
Above all, anti-Americanism has become a "Comme il faut" of intelligent conversation. But – and this is new – not just on the side of the Left. Even in nationally conservative and culturally conservative circles a sense of relief predominates that one can once again finally be open about the Americans. …
Only when two things come together can the network of self-declared holy warriors really be weakened: Tough resistance from the outside through the Western democracies and a clear distancing of the moderates in the Moslem world, especially among the clerics, from such extremists. George Bush has realized that from the beginning and made that excessively clear with his visits to mosques: The terrorists can only be stopped together with Islam.
When one takes seriously the challenge of this war of religion, which in reality is one of culture and capital, when one is convinced that “there can be no compromises reached with Jihadis,” when one prepares oneself to take on such a long-term and desperately aggressive threat, then the question has to be asked why the non-Islamic world apparently has little willpower to complete its part of the job.
Who is really protecting himself? Who is defending us effectively?
Since September 11, the day that Islamic terrorists declared a world war, there have been above all two nations who have done something and believed in themselves: America and England. And since that day three nations above all have been grilled morally: America, England and Israel again and again. …
Naively, and from the comfortable and seemingly secure gallery of the European observer, tips are being given out as to how Israel, surrounded by an anti-Semitism of the most bloodthirsty sort, should carry out the fight against suicide commandos and those madly seeking to destroy Israel and drive the Jews out: More compromises, more allowances, more negotiations please! I ask myself how the German government would behave when on virtually every weekend a bus full of German school children would be blown apart in downtown Berlin.
He who acts, makes mistakes. Case in point Bush and Blair: For example in their reasoning and communication regarding their Afghanistan and Iraq policy, in the concept and the management of expectations the key question is how fast the region can be pacified and democratized. But despite all of the mistakes regarding the details (or often just in public relations) their policy and politics are at their core right. It is a policy of clear and tough resistance against the enemies of the free world.
One can truly see that the leaders of the governments in London and Washington are doing exactly that which the general public is supposedly increasingly demanding from politicians: They are following their convictions against the general spirit of the times, against resistance, in part within their own parties, and they are doing that which an international alliance of cowardice is not prepared to do.
In that sense it is not about downplaying war and violence as long as they serve a good purpose. On the contrary: Morality and good intentions as arguments to defend violence are always suspect. But it is about weighing the balance as to when tolerance for intolerance has to stop. And when doing nothing is worse than defending the Western system with military means. …
In broad sections of Europe and in less threatened parts of Asia an appeasement is spreading that is frightening. If the consequence, for example, of the terror in Madrid is that Poland comes to the conclusion that it would be better to stay out of the matter, then the strategy of Al-Qaeda will soon succeed: Short-term in that the alliance of opponents collapses demoralized and discouraged. And long-term in that a demographic bomb is ticking whose explosion will be more damaging than any explosive.
The illusion that the aggressor can be soothed by good behavior reminds of 1936: Had the Allies not waited, negotiated, formed pacts and maneuvered back then and instead intervened, than millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, millions of soldiers, millions of people who thought differently could have been saved.
We are the ones who think differently. Maybe we need more toughness and vigilance to secure our democracy. Maybe it is wrong that Germany has refused to join the coalition of the willing. Maybe Israel is one of our most important allies. Maybe we should help this ally and not give them advice. Maybe America is doing more right than we think. Maybe more people in Iraq are better off today than they were one year ago. Maybe George Bush is not as stupid and evil, maybe one day, looking back on the developments that have just begun – we might even be thankful to him because he was one of the few who acted in accordance with the maxim: These things must be nipped in the bud. (A phrase often used in Germany to refer to stopping the re-emergence of Nazism.)
And maybe we Germans need more than seven sentences for our worldview.
