"Ils Ne Sont Pas Serieux"

It is interesting to see the Europeans getting worried about what they see as a growing anti-Europeanism in America. Many authors, like Mr. Ash have attempted to dissect the problem for their European audiences, but they have all failed to truly recognize the true reasoning behind the growing gulf between us.

Mr. Ash fairly quickly shows off his agenda as he tries to pigeonhole the "anti-European" trend as a conservative versus liberal phenomenon. He actually correctly identifies two of the main undercurrents in American society today that appear the anti-European: the resurgence of the Jacksonian influence and the difference in the belief of a common enemy. But rather than to delve more deeply into these issues, he tends to dismiss them as irrelevant as he searches for a liberal vs. conservative or an "American inferiority complex" answer to the rising anti-Europeanism he feels exists.

Most every aspect of the change in the American psyche recently can be boiled down, in essence, to a single word: terrorism.

Terrorism has brought out the Jacksonian influence in us. The gauntlet has been thrown down in a dirty fight and it is our intention to see that fight through. Appeasement is not an option for us. We cannot and will not back down, even though we know the road ahead is difficult and painful.

The Europeans, on the other hand, negotiate with and make concessions to the terrorists. They buy peace through appeasement.

Europeans have done something that no one has ever done before: create a zone of peace where war is ruled out, absolutely out. Europeans are convinced that this model is valid for other parts of the world. - Karl Kaiser

Neville Chamberlain declared at Munich that he had secured "peace in our time." Hitler used the time he was given through the appeasement to plan and prepare for the next phase of the fight he knew was coming. Do the European governments really think that the terrorists aren't using what peace they can find to plan and prepare their next attacks? Do they really believe that if the terrorists choose to make the next battlefield Paris or Berlin that the EU Constitution will stop them? In 1938, there was talk about concessions averting war, how Hitler was a reasonable man, and how appeasement was the true path to peace. Those who fail to learn from history....

But why are the Europeans so willing to sacrifice the unity of the "West" to appease the terrorists? After all a unified "West" was part of what helped to bring down the Soviet Union.

In the Soviet Union we had a clear and common enemy. They were ideologically opposed to the "West" and militarily they were potentially a world-ending (literally) threat. The military confrontation never came, but the ideological confrontation went on for nearly 40 years.

Part of the growing gulf between the US and Europe is due to the fact that there isn't, in Europe at least, the same feeling of ideological opposition as there was during the Soviet Union years.

This is partially due to the fact that while the Soviet Union lost the battle of the Cold War, much of its idealogical foundation is winning the war for various world governments.

Both the EU and the terrorists are yearning for a totalitarianistic form of government. To an extent, one could even argue that both are religiously based totalitarianism. The terrorists find justification in their cause from a sense of religious supremacy in which the Muslim religion is superior to all others; the EU is founded on an almost religious ideal of equality, no matter what the cost of achieving it. It is this similarity in goals that has "fractured" the unity of the West.

But there is also a difference of opinion about the threat posed by the terrorists. European tourists are gunned down in Egypt or blown up in suicide bombings in Israel and the best that the EU can come up with is a menacing scowl of disapproval. No real action has been taken to hold anyone to account for these deaths; they are viewed as an unfortunate tragedy that must be mourned and forgotten in the name of appeasement.

It is part of the reason why they don't understand our need to bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11. It's part of the reason why they don't understand our "fixation" on finding the party responsible for Danny Pearl. It's why they can't understand that we still remember Beirut.

They work to forget about their losses, not because they're unimportant, but because to remember would rock the boat and might expose them to more challenges. And each challenge to their security would demonstrate to the citizens of the EU the fact that their governments have failed them in providing for a common or national defense.

Ils ne sont pas serieux: they are not serious. Instead of making the tough decisions a government has to make, they have chosen to hide behind a facade of "internationalism." They have risked their citizens through appeasement and a desire to not make waves. They have not been serious in their job of protecting the national interests.

As we move forward on these different paths: the US following our Jacksonian instincts and Europeans following their Chamberlainistic tendencies, we will see more and more accusations of anti-Europeanism as the appeasers are fearful of being called out for being what they are.

American anti-Europeanism isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue; it is not an issue of perceived inferiority. Instead it is recognition of a fundamental difference in approach to the new global threats that face us both.

The Europeans don't understand what our motivations are. Mr. Ash has come closest, at least recognizing that the Jacksonian influence in America is significant and real. But until they understand that "nous sommes serieux" we will remain at loggerheads.

And the recriminations from both sides of anti-Otherism will continue.