Those who count in ”Euromerica” reassure us that the (Iraq) “war is lost.” Whether this is true unless Washington acts on the basis of the allegation, is a good question. Just think of what “they” said when the military campaign against Hussein begun. It was to be an endless conflict. The wager on defeat will pay dividends only if US politics let it happen. Currently the trounce has many willing mothers, such as the folks who welcome any reverse of advanced societies. While failure is welcome news, it is not the official enemy who deserves the credit for prevailing. Like good cakes, the rout is home made. The country that invented instant food (add water) and instant gratification fails when it stumbles into its own trap. Whatever takes more than five minutes before the pay-out is a failure as “it does not work”. And that assessment suffices to bring about another defeat abroad.

Indeed, Iraq is a policy failure because it is an emotional disappointment. Naively it was widely assumed that the opportunity to enjoy liberty will stimulate society to exploit its fallen-from-heaven chance. In retrospect it appears that Iraqi society – not unlike ones that are either history or ongoing affairs – craved freedom only if it could be divorced of its price – the struggle to attain what one covets. This means accepting that in freedom there are no free lunches. (OK, in serfdom there is often no lunch.) Freedom offers fasting, a meager meal, or a feast. Dictatorship might, if in a good mood – unlike North Korea’s which dispenses health-club dieting – offer a free basic meal in exchange for total surrender. (Not too much and not too often is handed out –unless you ask really nice-like.)

With this, the essay transcended its planned limits. The essential matter is not the cause or the degree of America’s rout. The issue to be brought up here is the consequence of the reverse. Addressed are those who cheer defeat.

Even if not explicitly stated, US reverses are handled between the lines by “official” Europe with a smirk and some glee. Bad news are good news. It is here that the problem arises. Europe’s anti-Americanism is, unfortunately, not the Schadenfreude (pleasure caused by the misfortune of others) of a competitor intent to impose its own interests. Europe does not wish to clip America’s wings to become thereby a better flyer. If this would be the case the question would be reduced to which representative of the modern world will put his mark on the global order. The outcome would not undermine the chances of survival of the second-placed – and the modernized systems of numerous non Western participants, such as Japan – in a race to exercise global leadership.

When Europe acts against the USA it does not really wish to compete with her or anyone else. What Europe wants is not primacy but a world in which, in the spirit of brotherhood and “we-are-all-alike,” conflicts are subdued enough to be treated by transfer payments. The unstated cause of the resentment is that it is felt here that America fuels the conflict with Islamism. By this logic, if only the USA would not provoke Prophet’s partisans, there would be no tension, no confrontation and mankind would coexist while sharing goodies in brotherhood and all that.

After two world wars, a cold war – it did not get hot because, dissuasively, USA power made aggression too costly – what Europe desires is a free-of-conflict-world. This sentiment is amplified by the pop-psych suggestion that if you communicate, all conflicts can be solved. The underlying assumption: discords are the upshot of misunderstandings. Differences are in this light only “seeming” and can be overcome by deferring, good will, respect and finding a middle ground while giving up something to attain tolerance. That this school of thought ignores the lessons of numerous global conflicts and the behavior of ideologically founded dictatorships is hard to overlook. The more so since it should not be overlooked by the sane.

The foregoing could be taken to indicate that Europe’s position is caused by the fatigue brought about by the conflicts that defined the last century. This is convenient and pleasing. It not only sounds good, but is also plausible. It is also wrong. Europe is not tired. No wonder. Those who lived in the world wars are either dead or, like the author, looking around for a discounted cremation. So the fitting adjective is not “tiredness” but “decadence.” It is the product of about seven decades of physical security and the luck of enjoying it at a discount. Rising living standards were embellished by a material prosperity that came from security-for-free. The derivate is a distorted perception of international politics, of the sinews of any world order as well as the man-made causes of wealth and poverty.

However, once the progressives of Eurica achieve victory by making America fail they get trapped by the dilemma of “what next?” Their strength issued from being able to prevent US success. While this might have tied Gulliver down, it is no proof of strength. Nor is this ability of much worth once the giant is KO-d. If the Islamists that profess to wage war against the West and the modern world and Judeo-Christian culture can be believed, eliminating the US from the fight will not end their struggle. The Eurican Left, her multi-cultural relativists might be able to block and thereby even to bring about the defeat America. On their own, the Jihadists could not achieve this much. However, once they had delivered, the internal detractors of modern society become dispensable. Their work is unlikely to elicit a pay-back by the militant opponents of the system whose democratic restraints were used to create its paralysis. “Useful idiots” are exploited up to the point where their blindness is of use. After that their usefulness is gone and they remain idiots. As fools without a role they are of no further value.

What the appeasers of the day before yesterday (Nazis), or of yesterday (the Communists), and the Jihadists (of our time) have in common is that they try to buy immunity in exchange for surrendering whatever conferred a value on their original position. Appeasement might postpone the conflict momentarily but it also makes its likely outcome more rewarding to the aggressor. Consequently, the clash is more likely and is entered into with raised expectations and reduced concerns. As you know, the greater the rewards, the more likely that ripe fruit will by plucked.

Defeating America might be an attractive proposition in many places and several political camps. Even so, a problem arises once the desired goal is achieved. The game of politics is, unlike chess, one which is never over with a check-mate. “The age of…” is always followed by a new one as historical development knows no terminal point. Bonaparte, Wilhelm II, Hitler, Stalin & Co. and Mao might fall. Yet the game that knows no end and no essential figure continues. So, after the decisive move one must ask: “what next?“ With the success in the endeavor to topple “The American Empire“ a new challenge emerges. Who will replace it? Who will protect those who tore ajar the doors of the fortress? Defending modern societies and their value-system but without the US is not part of the anti-American agenda of the consensus. This leaves the good will of the winners-by-default as the foundation of security. Considering the historical record of the designated victors in regions where they have prevailed, the perspectives appear to be dismal. The consequences will be the punishment of the moment’s victors. Now to the losers. For a consoling American Schadenfreude there is likely to be plenty of opportunity. However, whether her people would survive long enough to enjoy the satisfaction that comes from the “we told you so” remains an open question.