Unintended, most of my articles posted here and elsewhere appear at first sight to be “anti-European.” A reader put his impression this way “what are you doing in Europe”? As in many other cases, the substance hiding below the surface differs from what meets the eye. In actual fact the writer is committed to the defense of what college courses used to call “Western Civilization.” To help you find your bearings: that was during the Ice Age. Before faculties committed to appreciating non-western civilizations felt compelled to attack our culture’s core. Ultimately they managed to eliminate the courses and turned the term into a dirty word.

It so happens, that I am committed to rendering Western Civilization’s European component safe and therefore strong. The crucial issue of our time is whether this civilization and the rest of the modern world – which is not necessarily “western” in the ethnic or geographical sense of the term – will prevail. Will the modern world hold out against the external onslaught of Islamists? Will it overcome the storm of the Reds, Greens and the apologists-of-anything-if-it-is-hostile movement’s troopers massing from within? In this struggle continental and national identities do not matter. What counts is the understanding of, and commitment to, shared values. It also pre-supposes an awareness that the solutions are embedded in a future we can structure. To cope we need not opt for an impossible return to an idealized past’s fake bliss.

From where I am based – this is penned in Central Europe – the Continent’s future appears to be an open issue. Unless, of course, one stipulates that the USA will, ultimately, again muster its forces to save the region from the consequences of its failings. This hinges on the hope that when the buck stops and America still has the ability to do so, it will appear to be in America’s interest to act. Admittedly, once Washington has to face a scenario of Europe sinking, it might be forced to say “to save ourselves we have to rescue those fools.” It would not be the first time. However, allowing ultimate security to depend on the good will of an outsider, when there are alternatives, is more than risky. It is foolish.

Alas, foolishness has not had its price in the past. Worse, the experiences of the last six decades generated an impression that created a fool’s paradise. In the case of the world wars it was (belated) American intervention that saved the day once Europe had collapsed politically and then also militarily. During the Cold War the balance of power and the – for the West disadvantageous – border between the blocks dissecting the Continent, was held by the extra-continental USA.

Our contemporary problem in Europe derives from a badly learned lesson that is distilled from undigested Cold War experiences. It is far from my intention to recite here a knee-jerk “blame America” thesis. Nevertheless, one must admit that US policy has contributed to the confusion that makes Europe now unified in its determination to risk separation from America. “Risk” might be a misnomer here: Europe is smugly confident to stake its future security on putting plenty of light between itself and the US. This is especially true regarding anything pertaining to nuclear proliferation and the Jihad against modernity. The question then is, how the mind-set that is becoming a liability in the war between cultures, has come about.

For one thing, cultural-moral relativism and the fad of “multi-culti” with indigenous roots, makes theorizing that there might be a clash of cultures, unacceptable. The fact-denying prejudice is strong: even the evidence indicating that multi-culturalism, on its current basis does not work for it is based on the misapplication of the principle of tolerance, is beyond the pale. This practice of tolerance for the intolerant in order to appear to be progressive and non-racist is for individuals, neighborhoods and nations, a security threat. A significant minority and an unconcerned majority, refuse to call the spade a spade. This is so because in Europe a fundamental assumption has now gained acceptance. It is that whatever is declared to be desirable must be makeable. If at first you do not succeed, throw more money at it. Ask for forgiveness. Try to find something to blame. The handling of terrorism and terrorists serves as an excellent case study. The upshot of this way of thinking is a reluctance to defend oneself because even reacting to threats is construed to be of doubtful legitimacy.

The philosophical-psychological mindset alleged to operate in the foregoing not only produces weakness but it also preaches surrender as an act of atonement. Europe’s weakness (shared by several groups State side) has, besides guilt felt for all the inadequacies of human existence, an additional driving force. It is, as already mentioned, the result of the Cold War experience.

Between 1945 and 1948 it became impossible to deny what carefully ignored trends in the latter phase of the conflict foreshadowed: the victorious alliance was, in Europe as well as in Asia, disintegrating. More than that, the devolving parts were, following their political explosion, rearranging themselves after their landing into hostile camps. At that stage there was no alternative to the opening of the American umbrella over what was left of Europe and Asia so as to protect these zones from Communist aggression. At that moment the western rim of Europe was, as befits a battle field, devastated, exhausted and economically weakened. The USA, not having waged war on its territory and with an economy tuned to perform at an unprecedented efficiency, was the logical protector of the exposed democracies. America’s global monopoly of nuclear weapons (notably and mistakenly unexploited politically or militarily) made the role America assumed even more logical.

The mistake of giving the wrong signals came piecemeal. As intended, the protected countries used the security and economic aid extended to rehabilitate themselves. With this the era of the “economic miracles” dawned. (Actually, these were no “miracles” but remarkable achievements considering that generally the endeavor to trigger development through aid has written a dismal record.) While Europe strengthened America kept its protective wing extended over it. In time the arrangement clearly outlived its justification. Not the weak was being shielded but those unwilling to act in their own behalf according to their abilities were guaranteed security regardless of their own inertia. Getting something for nothing does not trigger appreciation. Its reward is contempt at worst and being taken for granted at best. With France’s de Gaulle who evicted NATO, Europe began to rely on ultimate American protection while using its sheltered position to strike deals with the enemies of freedom. Being covered for nothing and nibbling at the hand of the protector for small rewards amounted to a favorable arrangement. Washington failed to react to the trend on time. Therefore the irresponsible game, according to which from under US protection one could strike deals with the enemy, produced rewards while not leading to retaliation by the “Amis.” In summary, no military contribution according to the rising ability to do so in the defense of the common cause was insisted upon. Meanwhile, rounding out the picture, political-diplomatic disloyalty was graciously accepted as a consequence of independence.

Consequently, Europe was educated to expect fully utilized ultimate protection from the US that widely surpassed its own defense efforts. From this securely protected fortress, forays in search of the good will of the “hostiles” became tolerated by the protector. If the endeavor led to positive results the harvest was Europe’s, while the loss was assumed by the “Alliance” (meaning the US). Meanwhile the attempt to act to the detriment of Washington was never tagged with a meaningful price to pay as a cost of the transaction.

With the emergence of the new, Jihadist challenge, the iniquitous system that, in spite of everything, stumbled to Cold War victory, has reached the boundaries of its (always limited) usefulness. Handling much of Europe as if it were 1945 and not 2005 makes no moral, material or political sense. In a clash of cultures it is madness to confer immunity on the otherwise capable components of one’s own “camp.” America’s chances to win this one, too, without the succor of its equally affected likes, is limited by their comportment. America’s moral obligation to do the job alone is hard to detect. A material need to “go it alone” is long since non existent. This situation – for the sake of Europe and America – demands that conclusions be drawn.

One is that political dependency abroad, just as welfare dependency at home, is not the soil out of which responsible self-assertion can arise. Second, what America needs now is not a dependent – irrespectively of whether it is obedient or uppity. What is required are genuine allies who share, commensurate to their abilities, the common cause’s burdens and its risks. Unconditional forgiveness is unsuited to achieving this goal. What it earns is not ultimate good will but scorn. Third, if one likes Europe – as the writer does – one wishes for its emancipation. What Europe needs is a Europe that is, by its own right, a global factor. A strong European component of Western civilization and of the modern world, presupposes that it be made aware of its responsibilities. Only this awareness will enable the Continent to carry the burden implicit in the challenge we face. Fourth, the qualification for the job presupposes that that Europe shall become (albeit belatedly) as strong militarily and politically as it is by virtue of its size and economy. Fifth, coddling and exempting Europeans from the consequences of their errors will not achieve this. In order to make Europe strong and assertive not only against its American friends (easy) but also against its declared enemies (difficult), demands that Washington leans on Europe. This can be done by making it clear that in the coming major crisis facing our civilization and way of life nothing should be regarded as automatic. Help will flow according to American interests and European merits. Does this sound brutal? Before crying out, remember that in order to learn how to swim you need to get wet by going into the water.