After writing last week about the anti-American agenda of the organizers of the anti-war movement I received a letter from an intelligent Frenchman who says that he loves America. To his way of thinking George W. Bush is the problem. I also received an email from the chief pro-American voice in the Brazilian media, Olavo de Carvalho. He is exasperated with American conservatives for failing to see that Latin America is being taken over by communists who dream of destroying the United States. The two missives are interrelated and deserve to be considered together.
My French correspondent took me to task for lumping all anti-war protestors together, as if they were uniformly opposed to the United States. According to him, "Last week's protests in Europe gathered a wide variety of viewpoints spanning from crypto-communists bent on weakening America to concerned citizens who rightfully or not consider that war is the last of solutions."
The readers of this column probably do not realize that I was initially (though privately) opposed to attacking Iraq. But the rhetoric and the affiliations of those opposed to the war changed my thinking. If an American is to take sides in a debate, he cannot in conscience side with those who talk hatefully and maliciously of American power. He cannot, in conscience, argue on the side of communists and anti-Semites against America's commander-in-chief. As soon as the old Nazi and communist slanders began to appear, as soon as the vicious personal attacks on President Bush were pronounced, the anti-war argument began to stink. And this was no ordinary stench. To adopt the rhetoric of America's enemies, or to stand alongside those who hate the United States, is inexcusable.
But my French correspondent protests. He is the friend of America and does not prefer evil. He cares what happens to us. "The problem that the world perceives," he wrote, "is not the fact that America is the only military economic superpower, but what George W. Bush is and what he wants to do with that power."
The argument against the war is simple. Attacking a country armed with mass destruction weapons is a reckless adventure. "George W. Bush is by all accounts armed with a very mediocre knowledge of the world beyond America's borders," explained the Frenchman. "George Bush and his administration appear as a team of ignorant and arrogant people who have no intention of embarrassing themselves with details. Yes, Bin laden is a criminal for what he did, but also [he is responsible] for unleashing this mediocre administration's contempt for the outside world. It's the story of how Bin Laden opened George's Pandora's box if you will."
How disappointing it is to find a statement against the war that begins so well yet ends in a vicious attack on the character of President Bush, on the competency of the U.S. military, and on the judgment of the American people. Now maybe the American people are wrong and the French are right. But it cannot be right to publicly show such naked contempt for America. Contempt so expressed is a two way street. If you want others to feel contempt for you, express contempt for them. If the French want to know why Americans are angry with them at this point, it is the exasperation we feel at being insulted after all that we have done to keep the world - to keep France - free from totalitarianism. The thanks we get, the thanks we have too often received, is to be derided for stupidity and arrogance.
My French correspondent, not remembering his history, asks the following rhetorical question: "Do Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld think that the Iraqi population will become pro-American once the dust has blown over and ... they can ... eat at McDonalds?"
Turkish truckers making trips into Iraq recently reported that Saddam's soldiers are desperately hoping for an American victory. In public Iraqi soldiers talk as if they are loyal to Saddam Hussein's regime. But to the Turkish drivers they show their true feelings. They want to know if the American forces are already staged on the Turkish side of the border. "What is taking so long? Saddam is starving us. Tell the Americans to hurry." Even the Iraqi army wants the Americans to come. It only makes sense. In public all Iraqis must denounce the United States while pledging loyalty to Saddam on pain of death. Everyone in Iraq knows this is the case. Are we to think that people so terrorized are happy with their government and resentful - as they are in France - against the golden arches of a fast-food empire?
My French correspondent is deeply worried about the future. "What about the consequences of the new regional power structure that will appear? What would the Iranians think, for example?"
In 1944 the French were not anxious about the consequences of "the new regional power structure" that would be established in central Europe after Hitler's fall. They simply wanted to be free from Nazi oppression. Did the United States make a mess of Europe after our victory in World War II? Not at all! American policy enabled German, Japanese and Italian democracy to flourish. So why would the establishment of an Iraqi democracy be any different? As for the Iranians, they also want freedom. They are tired of religious tyranny. Yet my French correspondent doesn't seem to know these most basic facts. Instead, he berates the American president for having a mediocre knowledge of the world.
According to my French correspondent, "Bush wants to 'protect America' but he will end up fueling further anti-American sentiments throughout the world." Yes, indeed, that is how it works. If we defend ourselves then we are evil and deserve the world's ill opinion. It should surprise no one that communists and the enemies of America invented this argument and others like it. They are fueling and financing today's anti-American propaganda on a huge scale. It is a replay of the Vietnam War protests. And as Col. Stanislav Lunev once explained to me, the Soviet Union fed more cash to the anti-war movement in America during the 1960s than they fed to the communist war machine in Southeast Asia. So why does a French friend of America take up an argument meant to paralyze America's will to resist?
According to my French correspondent, "Nobody except America and Britain wants to see Washington dominate the Persian Gulf. In these matters we all know where things begin but no one knows where and how they will end. As for the ending Bush inspires absolutely no trust in the rest of the world. Would you entrust a china shop to an elephant and then let him play poker with your money and your home mortgage?"
But my dear friend, your insults are off the mark. An overwhelming majority of Americans trust in the leadership of George W. Bush. In the crisis and aftermath of Sept. 11 we saw his tears and his determination to wage war on the perpetrators and their overseas supporters. Despite the slanders of the left, despite the president's human frailties, he is very unlike his predecessor in office. George W. Bush is a sincere man and sincerity is the coin of trust. Furthermore, President Bush did not take counsel of his fears. Against the advice of his bodyguards he insisted on returning to Washington on Sept. 11. Against the protests of his vice president, he insisted on governing from the White House and not from a bunker. President Bush follows the way of that great America general, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, who said, "Never take counsel of your fears." The French would do well to study Jackson's example. Instead, it seems, they have attended too long the George B. McClellan School of Politics and War.
My French correspondent is also worried about the U.S. economy. "That is our main interest isn't it, after all?" he noted. "It is quite clear that America's economic situation is precarious. How is Washington going to foot the bill if it goes at it alone?"
This may sound like blasphemy to some, but economic interests - important as they are - should not be placed above security interests. Unless we are secure from attack any prosperity we might enjoy would be precarious and false. Furthermore, if anyone thinks that Bush's actions tend to hasten an economic crisis they should think again. We have just experienced an unprecedented inflation of credit. This is what triggers economic crises. If you recklessly inflate credit you will eventually produce a crash. It is as simple as that. The outcome will be the same whether we invade Iraq or not.
My French correspondent, however, is already prepared to blame a global economic crisis on President Bush. He has already embraced the argument prepared by the communists. And this Frenchman should know better. "I was brought up in New York," he explained, "and I lived there 15 years so I can understand, better than those who have never been to America, that the assassination of more than 3,000 people is in the hearts and minds of practically all Americans an act of war. But it isn't a visa for reckless endangerment on a worldwide scale. Don't fuel further anti-Americanisms. Stifle Iraq if you will, but don't stain your hands in the name of 'freedom and democracy.'"
My French correspondent disdains "a naïve vision of things." A disagreement between friends need not make them enemies. "If certain Americans think that way then it just reveals the contempt they have for what they call 'friends.'"
In America we do not like war. So we can readily understand those who are against an attack that may be reckless. What we object to is not the anti-war stance itself, but the disrespect shown to the person of our president, to our flag and to our culture. It is not friendly to insult people or burn their flag - or march with those who do. And how friendly is this "advice" offered by the French, salted as it is with so many insults?
The Frenchman wrote: "I, like many in Europe, refuse to let some mediocre politician at the helm tarnish my hopes for America's role in the future and my belief in the values that it should truly stand for. God bless America and may it come out of this folly unscathed."
I would say "amen" except for the insults that came before. Accusing the American leadership of a contemptuous and arrogant attitude, my French friend revealed his own contempt and arrogance. Here we find a classic projection of the Jungian shadow - a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black!
Americans need to know about the kind of propaganda, the kind of thinking, that has been spread across the Latin world. One might say that France is the cultural center of this world. Americans are often impressed by these French arguments. We therefore talk among ourselves. "We must be sensitive to the Latin countries. Perhaps we have run roughshod over them. Perhaps we have hurt their dignity. Let us be careful. Let us be courteous and humble." This is the logic that has often made America into a timid, paper tiger. It is the logic of our current policy in Latin America. And this brings me to the statement of the Brazilian philosopher, Olavo de Carvalho.
In a missive with the title "Brazilian anti-Americanism is dangerous," Olavo writes: "Brazilian anti-Americanism is turning into a furious rage, and nobody in Washington seems to be conscious of it. I am tired of being the ONLY pro-American columnist in the main Brazilian media and suffering attacks and death threats for it, while Americans themselves don't care in the least what is happening here."
I should like to explain to our Brazilian friend that we have been likened to an elephant in the world's china shop. While studying politics at the university of California I was taught, as all educated Americans are taught, that past American interference in Latin America was a grave sin. Yankee imperialism must come to an end. That is the lesson we were forced to memorize. Olavo needs to understand the extent to which we have been intimidated by words similar to those of my French correspondent. While America is willing to act around the world, it is afraid to act in the Western Hemisphere, in Latin America. The United States is afraid to take notice of Brazil's anti-American hysteria. We were taught to feel guilty before those in South America who hate us. Just as Brazil is the victim of anti-American propaganda, Americans have themselves absorbed the poison.
According to Olavo, "Every big Brazilian newspaper says Americans are only fighting for oil, and nobody contradicts them. Pictures showing George W. Bush with a Hitler-style mustache reach every Brazilian mailbox, but no message against Saddam Hussein is seen anywhere except in my own electronic newspaper Midiasemmascara.org and a few other sites owned by my friends. Any anti-American lie, even an absurd one, is immediately taken for granted as pure truth. Any pro-American word I write is at once explained as the work of a professional liar 'sponsored by Wall Street.' My personal situation is the best symbol of the Brazilian state of affairs. Hundreds of powerful NGOs have millions of dollars (even from the Ford Foundation) to spend on anti-American propaganda, but the only Brazilian journalist that fights against them, with his own personal resources, with no American or local support, is accused of being "sponsored" by Wall Street, the CIA or the Pentagon. My life is turning into a Franz Kafka novel. If I believed in reincarnation I would choose to be born again as a communist or radical anti-Zionist. That is the best of lives for a Brazilian."
Here is a true friend of America, and he suffers for his friendship. He also knows the enemy we are facing. It is the enemy of all mankind and of civilization. He knows what is happening. He knows that civilization is losing. He cannot understand why America remains paralyzed in the face of this mounting danger. It is the simple fact that anti-American propaganda, reaching a crescendo, can work wonders. It can stop the superpower from attacking its enemy. It can purchase precious time for the terrorists to plot their next strike. It can also prevent America from assisting the people of Venezuela against the emerging tyranny of Hugo Chavez.
"Is it really IMPOSSIBLE for American conservatives to take into account what is happening here?" Olavo de Carvalho asks. "Is the Latin American 'Little Axis of Evil' so unimportant for you?"
I know for a fact that American conservatives, in general, do not understand that the communist threat is a continuing one. They have given way to victory sickness, imagining that communism is dead. There is no threat, you see. The KGB colonel in the Kremlin is George W. Bush's friend. Sadly, America has been seduced. Europe has been seduced. Brazil has been seduced. We are living in a Kafka novel. Olavo, you are NOT ALONE. Destruction is written across the heavens. But despair is a sin. We must not despair. Whatever the insults offered us we must have faith. We must do our duty. And that duty is to see things clearly, without hate or rancor. We must follow the words of Gen. Jackson. "Never take counsel of your fears." While others flee we must remain and take the brunt. We must even take the "friendly" fire of deluded friends.
It is not easy.
