I would also argue that , Europe as a whole misjudged how the 9/11 attacks affected the psyche of the United States. For some Europeans, it appeared that neo-conservatism had hijacked the Bush administration’s foreign policy in the wake of 9/11, through deft maneuvering and appeals to nationalism.
The trouble really started when the 9/11 attacks were followed up almost immediately by anthrax attacks. Among Americans it became apparent that the old international order of limiting weapons of mass destruction had failed
as completely as a system can fail. Even though it was later discovered that the anthrax probably came from improperly secured/disposed of domestic storage, the specter of North Korea, Iran or Iraq simply handing over fissile materials to suicidal terrorists, like a load of dirty socks from one neighbor to another on laundry day.... changed everything.
It's not accurate to say that the Bush administration was hijacked by neoconservatism so much as the fact that the neoconservatives were the first to move into, the gigantic void left over from traditional weapons of mass destruction containment policies. In other words when you're trying to replace nothing, even when the something you have is risky, it's likely to be adopted out of sheer expediency.
It should be remembered that up until and including the death Saddam Hussein, things appeared to be quite a great success.
Libya had given over its WMD storage and Syria had become extraordinarily passive and easy to deal with. Had America left the Middle East at the moment Saddam died and allowed the Iraqis to simply succeed or fail on their own from their on.... American policy probably would've been judged as a success. Instead America's stayed in the Middle East, until is was entirely exhausted, both in finances and political will.
While it could be said that the Bush administration tried to hijack civil liberties you cannot say that the conservatives were hijacking American foreign-policy. American foreign-policy was simply a void at that point, that any plausible idea could step into.
It only became apparent to the Europeans in late 2002 that there was a shift in US policy from being a guardian of the peace and stability, to that of a potentially destabilizing nation, something that is not expected out of friends and allies.
To be a "destabilizing nation" you really have to be the primary cause of the destabilization. America was simply reacting to the fact that some countries were creating WMD as political leverage. The ultimate first cause of America's reaction is the unfortunate tendency of human beings to put up with and even support evil unstable dictatorships. For the longest time, America and the West ignored this because unstable dictatorships were normally a local phenomenon.
Weapons of mass destruction turned unstable dictatorships into a world phenomenon and thus one in need of extraordinary remedy.... at least, this was American thinking at the time.
Changing the culture of the Middle East at its roots seems the only viable solution. I'm sure many an American foreign-policy circles, people such as myself, suggested a Harry Truman style policy of containment of the Arab and Persian portions of the Middle East. Unfortunately at the present time, large quantities of energy are needed from the those same political dysfunctional political entities. When Truman tried to contain the Soviet Union, the Russians had no mission-critical exports, but today's Middle East has an export no nation can do with without.
The Americans however, saw themselves as vulnerable, as the 9/11 attacks were the first attacks on the United States of this significant magnitude and damage since the War of 1812. They saw themselves as being under mortal threat and any deviations or concerns that the European allies had about how the United States conducted itself was irrelevant, and even more disappointingly, ingratitude for the decades during the Cold War where the United States protected Europe from the Soviet hordes so that Europe would not have to worry about the threat.
The question is not so much why the Americans see themselves as vulnerable. The question is why the Europeans see themselves as secure, when any slide the Middle East makes into the dark ages, hold the potential to gravely effect the European economy. Of even greater concern is why the Europeans allow so much immigration from Muslim states, when Middle Eastern culture and European culture are fully incompatible.
Americans are amazed at the Europeans would ignore such blatant threats to their continued existence. After all it may be many years before the United States completely replaces Middle Eastern oil, with energy alternatives. The Europeans are even more dependent on Middle Eastern oil with a longer period till European energy independence. Why are the Europeans insensitive to the possibility of terrorists with "backpack" nuclear weapons, or middle eastern oil supply shocks?
