| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| We Ain’t Got No Steenkin’ Friends |
| 2003-03-13 |
| Phil Brennan The villains of the moment are 1) La Belle France and 2) Hollywood celebrities. In the case of France, my e-mailbox is crammed with such anti-French jokes as the one about the French government banning fireworks displays at the Disneyland park outside Paris because the other night 5,000 French soldiers at a nearby army base threw down their arms and surrendered when they saw the Disney pyrotechnic display light up the skies. I haven't heard any jokes about that sad confederacy of fools who inhabit the sound stages in Hollywood when they aren't divorcing one another or demonstrating for some Marxist cause, but that's probably because there's nothing funny about them or their sick delusions. Observing the wave of anti-Gallic sentiment now sweeping the nation leads me to think about certain delusions aided and abetted by the U.S. mainstream media and most American politicians who prate on and on about our "friends" abroad as if foreign nations are capable of the kind of friendship that exists between individuals. That kind of friendship implies a kind of thick-or-thin relationship — the "I'm with you all the way, no matter what it costs me" kind of friendship. Nations are not capable of that sort of relationship. Nation states exist to protect their national interests. That's rule No. 1, and the country that ignores it ceases to be a meaningful state. Nations can act out of selfless motives, but only when altruism costs them nothing. When one nation's interests conflict with those of a so-called friend and ally, friendship moves to the back of the bus, or goes out the window. This is what George Washington was getting at when he warned his new nation about getting involved in entangling alliances. They inevitably cost something, and that something is often one's national interest. Thinking about world affairs in that sense should lead us never to be surprised when one of America's "friends" refuses to go along with us and make common cause with whatever our cause happens to be. If it costs them nothing, they'll probably go along with us, but if it conflicts with their national interests it's so long, pal, you're on your own. Why, then, are we not only surprised but also enraged when the government of France decides that backing the U.S. in the case of Iraq is not in the national interest of France? They may be dead wrong, their national interest in this case may be based on totally corrupt reasoning, but they are only doing what comes naturally to any nation state: looking out for themselves. Don't get me wrong — I think the French government is badly mistaken. But that opinion is based on what happens to be our national interest, not the national interest of France. One reason why we have this furor about France is the fact that the French are not easy to like. They have this absurd notion that they are the world's most superior race, while they see us as a bunch of backward cowboys and all-around ignorant yahoos who don't even know what wines should go with what entrées. This infuriates them because they can't accept the fact that this bunch of backward cowboys and all-around ignorant yahoos have somehow managed to become the world's only superpower. That really galls the Gauls. America needs to learn a lesson from all of this: We have no friends. None. Not a one. No nation has friends – all they have are allies of convenience. Eliminate convenience and you're on your own, or at each other's throats. A case in point: Turkey. When we started negotiating with them, there was a dispute about how much money it was going to cost us to get permission to launch an attack on Iraq from the north. The Turks seemed not to have much to say about the idea of hosting a U.S. invasion force one way or another. They appeared to be more concerned about doing what they really want to do — do to the Kurds in Northern Iraq what Kemal Ataturk did to the Armenians almost a century ago. (When a friend of mine asked the legendary head of the Young Turks why he was slaughtering the Armenians, Ataturk replied somewhat pragmatically, "Because if I didn't, who would?") Turkey's national interest suddenly came into play after the legislature turned thumbs down on the U.S. request. With all those billions the U.S. was offering in return for Turkey's hospitality seemingly no longer in the offing, Turkey's economy got basted like a Thanksgiving gobbler, and the Turks suddenly recognized what was really in their best interest. In this case Turkey's national interest was in concert with America's national interest. It's a different story with France. Their national interest, they believe, conflicts with ours — and for the first time in many years, we finally have a president who acts on and protects what he sees as our national interest. Clash inevitably follows. Better to be friendless than to live under a delusion that we have any real friends in the world. They're with us as long as it suits their interests to be. When it doesn't ... well, take a look at France, Germany and Belgium for the answer. As for those Hollywood dolts – well, let's just do to them what they seem to spend a lot of time doing to each other 
screw 'em. * * * * * * Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute.He can be reached at phil@newsmax.com |
| Posted by:FOTSGreg |
| #9 11A5S : I've read that account, which wasn't persuasive, as well as biographies of the man and what bits and pieces are available on the web. To be charitable, tieing Ataturk to the genocide with those facts will be a weak case at best. One important fact IIRC is he was out of the country during the worst period of massacre, serving in Tunisia and Palestine while the CUP directed the killing before its collapse. |
| Posted by: Mr.X 2003-03-13 17:27:38 |
| #8 Mr. X: Here is an account (http://www.armenian-genocide.org/encyclopedia/kemal.htm) of Ataturk's participation in ethnic cleansing of Armenians in the early 20's. Not exactly from an unbiased source, but when it comes to genocide such sources are scarce. All of this happened during the attempted French "mandate" of much of Turkey and the subsequent Greco-Turkish War. This was a bloody, confusing time which is barely documented. There is much we will never know. Nevertheless, the ethnic cleansing of Greeks and Armenians is well attested, including the eyewitness newspaper accounts of Ernest Hemingway. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-03-13 17:06:33 |
| #7 As the guy who posted this article this morning I thought I'd chime in a bit. While I disagree with Brennan's basic contention that the US has no real friends anywhere (Britain, Australia, Japan, and about 18 countries in eastern Europe by last count), I think his main point might be somewhat valid - that being that countries do what is best for them at the moment and not what is "altruistic". With politics being a game and diplomacy being "the Great Game" the point has some validity it would seem to me. Case in point - France is being obstructionist because, in the end, Chirac & Co. hate America's power and see it as a root cause for France's decline in the eyes of the West. In the long run this is certainly going to be harmful to France's position vis-a-vis the rest of the world - and Chirac & Co. must certainly see this. I can't believe they're that blind. However, in the short run, Chirac & Co. probably believe that it is in their best interests to block a display of American power - any display of American power because that would further diminish France and their perception of French power in the eyes of the rest of the world and in the EU even further. That they're stupid cheese-eating surrender monkeys doesn;t enter into it as in Chirac & Co's world view they are the world and anything that gives them an edge over the USA is a good thing. We see things differently, of course. And rightly so IMO. Thanks, Greg |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2003-03-13 15:29:50 |
| #6 They appeared to be more concerned about doing what they really want to do — do to the Kurds in Northern Iraq what Kemal Ataturk did to the Armenians almost a century ago. Fact Check - Ataturk came into power well after the Armenian genocide; he had nothing to do with that sickness. What he DID want to do, was forge a national "Turk" identity and bring the Kurds into that fold, thus setting up years of Kurdish conflict. This guy lost all credibility for me with that sentence |
| Posted by: Mr.X 2003-03-13 15:11:09 |
| #5 How freakin' old is this guy to have buddies who rapped with Kemal Attaturk? |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-03-13 15:03:25 |
| #4 Even with Eastern Europe it is their best interest to align with US at this time but to depend on this is in the future is not a good idea. As somebody in the Financial Times pointed out that the US maybe positioning itself like the British did in earlier time as the maritime power and align ourselves with our nations which have the same interest to represent us on said continent with land forces. We would supply the naval and other firepower including land forces to help our allies. |
| Posted by: pj 2003-03-13 14:48:42 |
| #3 Phil doesn't get it... Case in Point:"Why, then, are we not only surprised but also enraged when the government of France decides that backing the U.S. in the case of Iraq is not in the national interest of France? " France did not step aside and say "sorry, boys, looks like I'm on the sidelines for this one...happy hunting!" They have actively and strenuously sought to reverse our planned course of action. There's a difference between non-involvement and opposition... |
| Posted by: mjh 2003-03-13 14:46:13 |
| #2 Even with Eastern Europe it is their best interest to align with US at this time but to depend on this is in the future is not a good idea. As somebody in the Financial Times pointed out that the US maybe positioning itself like the British did in earlier time as the maritime power and align ourselves with our nations which have the same interest to represent us on said continent with land forces. We would supply the naval and other firepower including land forces to help our allies. |
| Posted by: pj 2003-03-13 14:43:11 |
| #1 America needs to learn a lesson from all of this: We have no friends. None. Not a one This is the kind of thinking that I hope that doesn't pervade Washington, now and in the future. From the other side, there's nothing worse than helping out a friend, only to be absolutely forgotten later on. The US does have friends (Eastern Europe is an example). Please never forget that. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-13 13:55:43 |