The phrase “party thoughts” seems to be a misnomer as it insinuates a link between parties and cerebral activity at the primate level. Most political parties, as you might have noticed, do not think clearly. When the term “The Party” applies, regardless of the claimed “infallibility” of Fascists, National Socialists and Communists, it has been brainlessly wrong. Large parties of the other kind (as in “cocktail…”) are no venue to take your brain to. Therefore their consensus might not be worth serious judgment. You also know that if a party unites behind you it might get you, or for that matter the neighbor’s retriever, elected. Large birthday parties – if organized by my generation – are festive reminders that time is running out and that most of those attending will, by checking out, soon prove the validity of this truth.

Large gatherings might serve diverse purposes, such as creating business for caterers or parking attendants. What they are not suited for is thinking your thoughts and exchanging them by rising above the din. Nor is one there to seek out the smarter folks whose company one should covet.

Most readers, even if momentarily operating under their usual “Mensa-class level” will gather that the writer has been condemned to attend a party. You might add that, not having expected much, he found what he anticipated and should therefore be quiet. Actually, and if it would not be so there would be no article, there is more to the event. “Stunned concern” is the impression the shindig left behind once the effects of drinks imbibed as a surrogate for anything meaningful dissipated.

Let this commence with a sketch of the composition of the assembly. Strongly represented were the “clerks” Raymond Aron connected with his “the treason of…” Besides the media people, the majority came from the business world. As such, they were entrepreneurs or executives. Nearly everybody assembled at this “Gold Coast” neighborhood had “foreign experience.” They have done more than to travel on a “one country-a-day basis.” Most present have lived and visited extensively in the US or have studied there. One more thing! The “hard Left” was not in attendance.

Granted, the delusion of knowing “everything” about a place is quickly born. In the writer’s case, it took a decade to discover that America had facets he was unaware of when proudly graduating in Political Science. Obviously, some critical areas will not be fathomed by those who after a few months succumb to the illusion of having a full grasp of all there is to know. The point: the assembly was informed but to what depth it could penetrate is open to the reader’s judgment.

This might be the place to confess to a prejudice. Unintentionally, America is a confusing country. The inclination of her people to “tell everything” might have to do with that. While growing up under Stalin, access to reliable books was difficult as 1938 was the last year whose publications were trustworthy. A “thick one” read had to do with the travels of a physician of the Royal-Imperial Austro-Hungarian Navy. Even then that was rather dated. The critical sentence fell when the writer discussed the size of pre WW1 navies. He presented many speculations stating that the only navy that can be sized up is that of the USA. The Americans have no secrets and list “every row boat” they have. As subsequent events revealed, even by telling all, the US was good for surprises. One gathers that being able to see much, does not mean registering everything and even less does it follow that what is perceived is comprehended. America’s “secret weapon” is that her openness convinces foes that there is not much to find by penetrating to the seemingly missing layers below the transparent surface. This makes her a globally noticed and imitated, but superficially examined and often misunderstood country.

While politely “mingling,” the writer found oodles of evidence supporting the above. The confirmation of the tattered state of transatlantic affairs, however, has not been the worse of the impressions that were created. It is the shock of the denunciations of America that this, theoretically sympathetic and informed, assemblage expressed that provoked this piece. Here it is necessary to admit that America is, at this time, a pariah whose ritualistic condemnation is divorced from what she had done, is doing, will undertake – or fails to embark upon. One discerns this by examining the letters to the editor. “America is…” or “the US does…” and “like in America” score against “anything” claimed.

The position of those assembled is articulated by a lead article of a small local paper. Its editor had this to say in a piece about “The Arrogance of Power.” The US “is not only the oldest democracy but also the country that, in the last fifty years produced most of the Nobel laureates. At the same time, she has also conducted most of the epoch’s wars.” While the quantifications might limp, nasty people could interject that as the only power representing the developed world’s interests, the combination of culture, economy, a global role and projectable military power make US’ involvement a consequence of the listed qualities. Accusingly the article continues, “America thinks to be responsible for the welfare of the world.” Inadvertently this led to Fulbright’s phrase and that term “makes a better description of the current President hardly possible.” Therefore: America, mind your own business.

Indeed, here an instinctive attempt surfaces to distance oneself from whatever the US does internationally. The roots lie in a feature of the local political culture in which the welfare state rewards failure. Its ideology negates the role of input in favor of qualifying for support for what is divorced from contribution to the common weal. What could be more natural than to project this upon the realm of international relations? The result – the past’s (bipartisan) conduct of Atlantic relations by the USA shares the responsibility – is that America’s defense of the developed world is rated as fulfilling an obligation. Meanwhile, once the act requires demanding participation, America is blamed for not making the attainment of the “hard-to-get” fast and cheap.

Already in the latter phase of the confrontation with the USSR, it became difficult to ignore this inclination. The struggle against global Islamism extends the fronts so that the “secure hinterland” of the East-West row vanishes. The resulting involvement of all provokes a response fortified by habit and is enhanced by inclination. Its symptom is that those drawn into the melee prefer to blame not the challenger – who is known for his vicious revenge. Thus the complaint is directed at the country that can be blamed for the confrontation while ignoring that her role is merely to be first to step in the way of harm. Thus, not the aggressor but the response combating it is blamed for upsetting the quiet of what used to be a “green zone.”

At the party, the writer encountered all the symptoms of the above. Naturally the professions that, one likes America while heroically resisting Bush, being politically correct, dominated. In such situations, the writer’s tactic is to absorb sponge-like while letting the talkers babble freely. Passively confirming the speaker’s assumption that his unassailable position enjoys approval will make him to speak his mind beyond the point at which he would like to be quoted. These blurt-outs of honesty provide un-tinted insights into what is really being thought. In one case, an objection camouflaged as a meek question proved to be irrepressible. To someone, whose background should have made him wiser than his words were, went something like this “do you not think that the implication is the dissolution of the transatlantic alliance? If so, what local means do you see replacing its protection?” Then came a stunning “I see no danger” anywhere. The proper reaction to that one was to grab a refill of bubbly and to seek the company of a respected guest. He fit the category of being a desirable associate by virtue of being higher classed as a public thinker than this author will ever be.

His mental dexterity unimpaired – while bound to a limiting body – made it worthwhile to tell him, discreetly in a language that few could understand about the surprising consensus of the gathering. We quickly agreed that we are witnesses to the unfolding of a form of collective suicide through the amnesiac denial of the facts. Old mistakes, if repeated, are more than twice as foolish as they were originally. Defeat –as in the unfolding case of contemporary America – is often born in the mind of the vanquished. Those chattering around us lacked the perspective to assess what they had to lose and, unwilling to peek around the corner, were devoid of the guts to admit that someone had declared war on them.

The implications for America’s foreign policy appears to be this:
(1) pursue the closely defined national interest.
(2) In doing so seek the support of the like-minded.
(3) Do not sacrifice defensible positions to purchase the ambivalent approval of those who lack the resolve to protect themselves. Remember that, counting on America once everything fails is “nice“ but also inadequate.
(4) Learn that few enemies can cause as much damage as can friends can who stand on your brake when flooring the gas pedal is called for.
(5) Once the coming crisis of the future materializes, make sure that for those who had knowingly ignored it, the price-tag is attached.
(6) Be certain that you do not reward those who had insisted on wearing dark glasses while the lights were dimming.
(7) Learn a French proverb. Memorize: “Trop bon fait bête” [to be too good means being too stupid].

These recommendations are not meant as “revenge.” The goal of the plea is to make a break with an unequal relationship. In it the USA promised to counter act whatever damage came to her European allies making these know that they are freed from having to pay the price of failure. Unlike generally assumed, blanc checks have a way of undermining security. They remove the inhibitions that prevent irresponsible moves and so provoke frivolity. A tendency is created to put up the farm and the pension fund as collateral in the game and it is coupled to disrespect towards the “bank“. The final culmination is negligence in the matter of ones own survival.

Appearing prepared to “pick up the tab” since 1949 (the foundation of NATO) the US, once Europe recovered, sent the wrong signals. Unconditional commitment being assured, she failed to demand an equivalent local dedication. Contrary to popular assumptions, under this umbrella’s protection it was not maturity that flourished. Commitment became a one-way-street. While the Soviet threat prevailed the extent to which this was true was not apparent. Currently, with the front being everywhere, we face a new situation. Not in the least as the EU has a larger population than the US and enjoys a GNP that is comparable to the “guardian’s.” Under these conditions protection, while justified in the 50s and 60s, is uncalled for.

Europe has outgrown the need for protection and it does not need the tutelage which America hardly ever exercised. By implication, the transatlantic relationship needs to be put on the basis of equality. Fewer one-sided US-guarantees are called for on the leveled playing field. The immediate result will unlikely to be the kind of support Americans, disappointed by Europe’s ingratitude, might wish for. On the long run, however, by attaching conditions to what is taken for granted might have a sobering effect. At any rate, those who exclaim (such as about the NATO’s role in Afghanistan) “this is not our war,” will at least not be doing it inside walls Washington protects. Nor is it likely that the project to place missile defenses for Europe along her east will continue be alleged to have been “agreed only under great-power pressure” and that we “have nothing to do” with what happens with Iran’s nuked missiles. What the US needs is not being liked at any price but useful partners. This means relying on those who know their interests and stand up for them. Such states will be useful associates to achieve goals that are identified as being shared. As things stand, America’s policy of alliances has produced weak and parasitic fiends and correspondingly effective enemies. Senator Kerry, attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, announced that the US is “isolated” in the world. He would obviously not agree with this essay’s allegations regarding the causes of the US’ current rejection. Nevertheless, while Kerry ignores his and his ilk’s contribution, he does state a fact.

Europe is ready to be fully emancipated. Release here means not only being free to do as one pleases – a decades-long fact – but also implies accountability for the course steered. The Continent neither needs nor deserves further unconditional and unilateral protection and support. Remember when your kid was learning to ride that first bike? At the first opportunity you dismounted the supporting wheels. Next in the growing up process you were running behind the vehicle. Then you took your hands off it. After that, you knew that the kid was on its own. Inevitably, all you could do for it from then on was to hope that it will know where to maneuver and how fast to proceed. So, let Europe be on its own, therefore, let the Editor have his wish, hands off, and hope that there will be no broken bones.