August 19, 2004
OF PARODY AND POWER:
Troop Movement (David L. Englin, 08.18.04, New Republic)
[T]hough the plan seems like a good move on the surface, it is in fact a terrible idea. First and foremost, it would end probably the best thing America has had going in public diplomacy during the past 50 years--and at a time when public diplomacy is vital to U.S. security. Easily recognized by their jeans and baseball hats, military families have for decades been front-line ambassadors of American values and culture to the nations in which they have been stationed. Military personnel and their families come from every part of America; and they live, work, worship, and learn among citizens of the nations where they are stationed. Some live on base in military housing, while others live off base in whatever kinds of homes and neighborhoods the locals inhabit. But all spend time in the communities where they are stationed. Mandatory briefings, military public service announcements, and admonishments from commanders and teachers constantly remind them--even the children--that they are ambassadors of all things American. Locals and their American guests develop relationships and get to know each other as friends, neighbors, customers, tenants, and even congregants.And the diplomacy works both ways. When those same military families return to the United States, they become, in effect, ambassadors to their fellow Americans of the countries in which they have lived.
Bad enough these guys have to go into combat, why should we make them live in Europe? Is there any evidence whatsoever for this nitwits core argument, that France and Germany have been better allies to us because we had troops there for fifty years? I seem to recall them stabbing us in the back repeatedly. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 19, 2004 11:03 AM
I wonder what the reaction from the left would be under a different scenario. Lets imagine if there were no US troops in Europe and an American President proposed putting in American bases throughout Europe? Do you think the New Republic would be calling them ambassadors of goodwill?
Posted by: pchuck at August 19, 2004 11:13 AMSo the left sees the American military as
missionaries?
What a silly argument. The primary purpose of military deployments overseas are to secure and defend American interests. It is not a cultural exchange program. We can do that a lot cheaper by funding scholarships to send US students abroad.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 19, 2004 11:41 AMIs there any evidence whatsoever for this nitwits core argument, that France and Germany have been better allies to us because we had troops there for fifty years?
Well the Europeans haven't been causing any major wars for the last fifty years. That's a better record than they had managed for the 150 years before we put troops there.
Posted by: Brandon at August 19, 2004 11:52 AMThe New Republic should move its headquarters to Nancy. They can evangelize from there.
Posted by: jim hamlen at August 19, 2004 11:55 AM"Bad enough these guys have to go into combat, why should we make them live in Europe?"
There is no need to allow bile to detract from an otherwise crebible argument.
Everyone I knew enjoyed the time they spent stationed in Europe.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at August 19, 2004 12:07 PMFunny how the shock troops of the imperialist, war-mongering, capitalist, oil-sucking, racist, enslaving hyperpower suddenly become members of Up With People when someone wants to bring them home.
Posted by: Peter B at August 19, 2004 12:33 PMJ.H.
It just shows that with enough effort, even hard power can be converted in to soft power.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at August 19, 2004 12:49 PMMy best friend spent a couple years guarding an ammo dump from the Secret Army in Bar-le-Duc in the early '60s.
As Jeff says, he loved it. He traveled through Scandinavia in an old VW and no money. The locals put him up in the jails, which were otherwise empty.
He did marvel, though, that in the center of the greatest wine region in the world, his first sergeant was a drunk on Thunderbird from the PX.
I imagine that the cultural transfer effect has been mixed.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 19, 2004 1:26 PMoj - When they die out naturally, it reduces the collateral damage.
Posted by: pj at August 19, 2004 3:35 PMNot to be nitpicky, but I believe the US hasn't had any bases in France since the mid '60s.
Posted by: PapayaSF at August 19, 2004 4:32 PMPapaya:
Yes, when DeGaulle ordered all American troops off French soil and LBJ asked: Including the dead ones?
Posted by: oj at August 19, 2004 4:41 PMYou guys are forgetting something else our ambassador's are providing. Every tree damaged is worth it's weight in gold. Every rut cut in the road is priceless, Every chicken killed by a US vehicle (or anyone in a green car is close enough) cost's hundreds, every dog accidentally killed is worth a fortune. The list goes on and it makes the US a good sucker for the local's retirement plan.
Posted by: Tom Wall at August 19, 2004 4:47 PMEurope is the ultimate "Nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there." I've been to France a couple of times. Great country, beautiful scenery and I didn't find the people at all rude. In fact, they went out of their way to be nice to Americans. Would I want to move there? No freaking way! It'd be too much like living in Bizarro World
Posted by: Governor Breck at August 19, 2004 7:41 PM>Or suppose Clinton had said he was removing
>them...
BUT SYSTEM-LORD CLINTON IS A GOD! A GOD CAN DO NO WRONG! SO SAY ALL HIS LOYAL JEFFAH!
(And I've got to stop watching those Stargate SG-1 marathons...)
Posted by: Ken at August 20, 2004 8:00 PMSearch Engine Cloaker - Cloaking Software
Posted by: Search Engine Cloaker at October 24, 2004 1:02 AM