Sophisticated
I've been thinking some more about Michael Kelly's memorable slogan, "simplisme works," mentioned below. Of course, as amusing as the notion may be, "simplisme" alone won't meet the case here. We face a complex strategic situation, and we need to be clever and wily enough to navigate these treacherous waters, remain afloat, and launch successful attacks when necessary. But can anyone doubt that that is essentially what the US is doing? In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, European columnists were quick to criticize America in advance for what they assumed was going to be a precipitous, rash, and ineffective retaliation; when this did not in fact occur, they continued to write as though it had. The Euro-crats and -press have begun to engage in the same game with the "axis of evil" speech. They correctly deduce that it is probably a prelude to some sort of vigorous action against some enemy. They just don't know which enemy.
They like to present this as proof of an incoherent and "unsophisticated" understanding of strategic realities. But clear moral principles (in this case, that those who continue to threaten the United States may face preemptive strikes) do not, almost by definition, bear the markings of particular "sophisticated" strategies for achieving specific goals. Moral clarity; a degree of public bluster, backed by a credible threat; perhaps even a deliberate program of inducing the unwitting cooperation of the anti-American press in placing red herrings in the media "flow"-- this seems pretty "sophisticated" to me. (And, it arguably has already had at least one result other than spurring a grand European hand-wringing party, to the extent that spooking the Iraqis into a purported softening of their stance on weapons inspections is a "result.") Anyway you slice it, I'd say preserving the vital element of surprise on the particular question of "who's next" is pretty sound and smart, as such things go. I, like the Euro-columnists, have no earthly idea who the next target will be, which is as it should be.
Andrew Sullivan commented yesterday on the widespread use of the word "sophisticated" by Europeans and British to describe the sort of foreign policy they wish the US would adopt. I've noticed this as well, in my many visits to London. It's hard to pin down exactly what they mean by this as a practical matter, but it's certainly intended as the opposite of "simplisme." Despite pretensions to highmindedness and intellectual rigor, I think a great deal of it boils down to an objection to GWB's personal style and manner of speaking. (Ironically, as with the American left, the "sophisticated" critique of US policy often fails to rise above the "Bush is a moron" level of analysis.) Yet it's also difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is moral clarity itself with which they are uncomfortable (and here they are, of course, also in complete harmony with the moral relativism boosters of American intellectual culture.) In the realm of deeds, and at the risk, perhaps, of over-simplifying the anti-simplisme ethos, a "sophisticated" policy is one that eschews vigorous action at nearly any cost. That does seem to be the European way.
Sullivan writes of an "anger gap" between the US and the Europeans when it comes to the 9/11 attacks, which is, as he says, "perfectly understandable." But it's not just anger at issue. Even those Brits who support the war on terror (apparently still the majority-- though you'd never know it if you run with the "educated classes") seem to be in the grips of a profound denial, a refusal to grasp that they are also threatened by these terrible foes. Several al-Qaeda attacks on European targets have been thwarted, and many more were planned. Still, the dangers of Islamo-fascist terrorism tend to be seen as an American problem. Even among those who acknowledge these dangers, there is an often unspoken article of faith that Britain only faces them because of her association with the US. It may simply be the familiar dream of isolationism, where you imagine that you render yourself invulnerable to a threat by retreating from it. I hope Sullivan is wrong (but I suspect he may be right) that "it will take an unthinkable terrorist atrocity in a European city for this psychological gap to narrow." Sophistication is a pretense you can't really afford when someone is trying to blow you up. It seems as though the Euro-elites are as yet too sophisticated to grasp this "simplistic" truth.
Posted by Dr. Frank at February 13, 2002 01:06 PM | TrackBack