Asymmetrical Information

I have long argued that the French and the other Old Europeans are contemptible people merely waiting for the opportunity to stab us in the back. Many of you are johnny-come-latelys to this point of view. I’ve been say this for a number of years. These folks wish to crap all over America. They are jealous of our many successes and possess a debilitating--and very justified inferiority complex. They refuse to accept responsibility for choosing foolish Socialist nostrums which have guaranteed them a second place role in world affairs.

My cynical guess that far too many liberal Americans have seen more than their share of Jean Paul Belamondo and Bridget Bardot movies and believe that France truly represents cultural and intellectual brilliance. Those of us whose ancestors left the Old Europe many decades ago should be grateful for their leaving the losers behind. Am I an Ugly American chauvinist pig? Gosh, I sure hope so!

And, as a couple of commentators have pointed out, if our diplomacy had been "successful", we would have secured a resolution setting a deadline for Saddam to disarm, which he would have disregarded, and we would be going to war, which we are anyway. So what's their problem?

Longtime readers know that I don't post on foreign policy.

Others do.

Here's a good analysis.

And another here from a well-known expert.

And, of course, Josh Marshall has reported and written extensively on the topic.

David: Now make up some shit about the other 10 countries on the Security Council who weren't with the US and Britain, and throw in something about Turkey!

As for the casting of other countries in terms of US actions... I'm afraid that that's purely a function of how a superpower like the U.S. works. Those of us in the anti-immediate-war camp have also maintained a modicum of respect for the autonomous decision-making power of sovereign countries, even those with $25 billion being waved in their face.

Jane,

Exactly. The world isn't in a fragile, happy equilibrium that is only disturbed by the clumsy American oaf. Other parties have their own motives and agendas existing outside of U.S. actions. Thanks for making what ought to be an obvious point, but one that eludes many.

And the "we have no allies because of Kyoto" trope is so delusional, it's hard not to spit every time I see it.

And the other major problem with the "we've screwed up things with our allies" analysis is that we have MORE allies in this attack than we did in the first Gulf War. 45, according to the State Department. Last I checked, troops from 6 other nations will be assisting us, with possibly more on the way, and ever more nations have pledged assistance with post-war reconstruction. Why isn't this touted as a diplomatic success?

For liberals, this all about a pervasive hatred of Bush and Republicans. They are so blinded by their hatred that they are incapable of rational thought. (When all "thought" starts from the premise that you are "good" and your political opponents are "evil", it is perhaps all too easy to succumb to smug self-righteousness and avoid the hard work of facing the real world.)

The 3d largest coalition in world history (behind WWII and Gulf I) is "unilateral". Twelve years of failed diplomacy is a "rush" to war. And on and on with arguments which ignore reality and twist logic into something unrecognizable.

The lunatic, hate-filled Democratic activists are pushing the party to a repeat of '72 and '84. They are showing the rest of America a party which is hoping that our country suffers military defeat, continued terrorist attacks and economic pain. (e.g. Candy Crowley's quote from a key Dem aide). Some Dems acknowledge that this isn't very smart, but they can't help themselves. Their hatred for Bush has overwhelmed all other considerations. They are determined to see him fail and they are willing to drag down the country if it will help accomplish that goal.

Those who accuse Bush of incompetent diplomacy because he wasn't able to get France and Germany to support us should ask themselves:

Was Churchill an incompetent diplomat because he wasn't able to get direct military support from the U.S.? (until a German declaration of war forced our hand)...

Too many people seem to be assuming that if only Dubya were eloquent (which, IMO, he's not), then other nations would have been swayed and come aboard.

That might be true in the case of the less relevant states, such as some of the African and South American ones. But, let's be blunt, they were never going to make much of a difference, neither to Saddam Hussein, nor to the balance of power, nor to any war in Iraq.

The nations that MIGHT make a difference are NOT going to be swayed by eloquence. They will make their assessments based on hard-headed calculations of national interest. Jiang Zemin (or his successor, Hu Jintao) is not going to suddenly conclude that China has an interest in toppling Saddam Hussein because Dubya got the spirit of Winston Churchill and JFK to help speech-write (or even to run diplomacy). Conversely, no matter how BADLY Dubya speaks, those who perceive their national interests at stake (Spain, Britain, Australia) will go along.

The issue of diplomacy is whether one can persuade another that their interests are helped/threatened by assisting us. But if one looks at the case of Germany, for example, it seems fairly clear that the issue was never really a diplomatic one. It had everything to do with the domestic politics of Germany, which in turn has to do w/ Gerhard Schroeder's strengths (few) and weaknesses (many, including the economy, SPD's falling numbers, etc.), and this being an election year for him and his party.

Ironically, only true superpowers can base their decisions on issues BEYOND their national interests---either b/c their definition of interests is more expansive, or else because they have the resources available to think beyond survival (i.e., interests).

I guess that the state department gig fell through.

Bummer.

At a business lunch with a colleague and some fund managers today, the following line of conversation went that it is sooooooo dangerous that the United States is the only superpower and we need a counterweight. Maybe. But for France, its idea of being a counterweight is purely negative, not constructive.

GT, loved your links.

Just one question, given the Clinton's admin diplomatic strength, why didn't they obtain Security Council approval before entering Kosovo?

On the diplomatic front, Dubya 15-0 vote on UN Resolution 1441 was a resounding accomplishment. His failure was on 7 December 2002 when he should have ended the debate. Timing is everything.

We have a counterweight, actually two:

1. The Constitution.
2. The American People.

Do you really believe that we would let a President get away with empiric designs?

Oops, I forgot - I forgot about all of the "Amerikka - scourge of civilization/Bush is worse than Hitler" crowd.

My bad.

I guessed I missed this in the fog of war, so I'm confused. Who has been throwing a hissy fit because the French have pursued their own (despicable, underhanded) national self interest ? Would that be, uh, (melt down the Statue of Liberty and send it back as bullets) conservatives, or the (Freedom Fries, 'Go Back to France') liberals. Whoops, Freedom Fries and tender graffiti on Houston homes is the broadminded conservative response, too. Liberals are the ones saying, "You're either for us, or you're against us." Dang, that doesn't sound right, either.

Well, I do admire how you all can twist every little thing to reflect benignly on your point of view. If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport, you'd be the Soviet women's team. (Whoops, there I go again. Sorry, the US mens 4x100 team. A cinch for the gold - except for those nasty brain lock moments when they drop the baton.)

Oh, and Asparagirl, I must be a troll, i.e. I have views opposed to yours. But unlike LGF readers, the folks here are smart enough to figure that out by themselves.

Cheers,

Rofe, you're not a troll, you're just deluded. Thinking that any conservative would support the grievous vandalism on the poor woman's home is insane. And if you missed any of the things that provoked Megan's post above, you are truly asleep at the wheel. Good luck with the erm... cluelessness. PS - read the memo again until you understand it. Your response only shows that you don't.

Z-.

Also, Rofe, you're not on Asparagirl's blog, but Megan's. Try posting after the medicine takes effect.

Andrea-- a little too hard on Rofe. I picked up right away that he was referring to Asparagirl's calling someone a troll in the previous thread.

Enough the Ugly American. In the original book he was the only one intelligent enough to act harmoniously with the natives, treat them more or less by the Golden Rule and earn their support. Dull readers and worse thinkers have corrupted the expression since its publishing - now they think he's a caricature of a tourist.

"David: Now make up some shit about the other 10 countries on the Security Council who weren't with the US and Britain, and throw in something about Turkey!"

The Turks have every reason to be irritated at the United States. We put them into a dubious position by not taking out Saddam Hussein the first time around. Their economy suffered enormously because we listened to the idiots at the United Nations. Thankfully, Turkey is now on board with us.

What about the other countries? Many of them have their own petty grievances. Also, some of them are lead by leftist jerks. The French, however, are the only ones who truly get their jollies off by poking their finger into our eye. They have gone out of their to earn our contempt. We should therefore not hesitate to treat them in such a manner.

Jane,

It's the failure to understand the foreign policy concerns of other countries that has put where we are. Actions have effects, and letting Rummy rage like a bull in a china shop is an action that had a price.

You may read that France was not prepared to pass a resolution; my contention would be that the Administration has been cack-handed (and lacking a coherent policy) from the start, treating the UNSC like a rubber stamp, which caused resentment.

France's primary concern is the potential for an unipolar world with an unrestrained US; our mistake was to act exactly as they feared. We could have got to the same place with much less damage to our standing, and in a way that made achieving our goals less costly in blood & treasure.

Further, by allowing ourselved to be painted into a unilateral corner, other countries will fear us more. It's not inconceivable that 20 years from now there will be alliances/partnerships formed against us. If we were perceived as a benign power, speaking softly (albeit with a big stick), then we would not face the threats we are likely to face in 25 years time, once China's GDP is close enough to ours to challenge our military supremacy. Then, we might wish for a course of action that strengthened, not weakened, international law & institutions. But this administration has went for what is tactically expedient versus what is strategically sound.

Even the UK gubmint is concerned about US unilateralism. I don't know how much you read the UK media, but I do. Jack Straw made a comment in the House of Commons on exactly this point; they feel they can better influence us by being a good ally than by being an obstructionist. Check out Martin Wolf's or Gerald Baker's commentary in the FT last week for an analysis.

More pointedly, even in the UK, which is has the most pro-US gubmint, more people think Bush is a threat to world peace than Saddam. How poorly do you think the diplomacy has to be to lose a popularity contest to a neo-Stalinist like Saddam? Pretty damn bad. But pointing this out, like Daschle has, causes Republicans to start channeling the bitter spirit of Dick Nixon (remember his attacks on Dean Acheson?). Do you think Bush Senior would have been this inept? Or Reagan, for that matter?

Ackk. Makes me long for the UK, where at least we can hear parlimentarians debate points in public without cue cards. I hope I may live to see myself proven wrong in my fears, and for this to be a diplomatic hiccup much less important that Suez.

I'm disappointed, though; it's not like you to discount other points of view so cavalierly, but the 2x4 maybe is too tempting. You're one of the more intelligent & reasonable right-of-center bloggers, but this (and the Dixie Chicks stuff) puts you outside my circle of Sensible People Who Should Be Listened To Even If I Disagree With Them, but this post is too straw-mannish for me (plus you seem to be attracting more of the LGF crowd in the comments board).

Oh well. Off to tacitus.org for my required daily dose of conservatism, I guess.

Let's hope for a quick conclusion & liberation with as little harm to our troops and the Iraqi people as possible, and, in the aftermath, for Bush Junior to finally show some of that humility in Furreign Policy that he promised in the presidential debates so long ago. It would help in the rebuilding, in more ways than one. Triumphalism would be a mistake.

You left out "the populace of virtually every country on Earth disagrees with us." I don't think that's the fault of France.

Jane,

Good analysis. France really does have its own view of the world and goals all its own. That does not, however, mean that the Bush administration has done a good job in its diplomatic efforts. Chirac has made the point, himself, saying that since the US has decided not to lead the western alliance, the job falls to him. Hasn't worked out this time, but you get the vibe.

The Bush doctrine is exactly the sort of thing that France intends to counterbalance. Assertions of US exceptionalism and power, exempting the US from the limits of multilateralism and then calling on our allies to support us in international ventures - that is what Chirac means to oppose and what he thinks improves his chances of erecting another poll within the Western alliance. Having provided Russia and China cover this time may tighten diplomatic bonds between the three. The US is selectively punishing France. One reason is probably that Chirac's goals are no mystery within the Bush administration. Another is that France is still within the fold, and may not drift out if Russia, China, Germany and others can be enticed to abandon France. Russia and China, on the other hand, are still outside the fold and need to be brought in. They are allowed to watch us dirty up the French, without having to suffer that fate themselves. This ain't over by a long shot.

Tom,

Many conclusions. No facts. Weak arguments.

All this diplomacy was a "popularity contest"? Is this supposed to be a clever line? Or does something that ridiculous pass for insight in lefty circles?

We could have gotten to the same place with less cost in blood and treasure? Perhaps in your looking glass world, but not in any logical argument that I have seen presented. Only force will dislodge Saddam and only his removal will lessen the threat. Smoke, mirrors and intense wishing with closed eyes won't get the job done.

David Thomson: Just for the sake of clarity in terms of current events (which will change on a moment by moment basis, I grant you), Turkey is still debating whether to even let the US use its airspace. It's almost categorically ruled out us stationing troops there or even using its airbases for refueling (which won't matter for the big ass bombers). In addition, the following report seems to indicate that Turkey's already gearing up to blast them some Kurds:

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/03/19032003170357.asp

As to your second point... I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll ask. Given the objectively leftist-jerk nature of those objectively petty, pissant countries on the Security Council, your position would be not that diplomacy failed, but that it should have never been tried in the first place?

"You left out "the populace of virtually every country on Earth disagrees with us." I don't think that's the fault of France."

The moral vice of jealousy is indeed not limited to the French. Most of these folks are similar to France in that they are also embittered by our wealth and power. The latter nation, however, has gone out of its way to stab us in the back. It is time for us to tell the Old Europeans to go to hell. There are plenty of other countries who truly desire friendship with the United States.

Tom,

A few points. First let’s get rid of the unilaterlist nonsense. Three countries in Europe oppose us: Germany because of Schroeder’s tactics in a sleazy re-election campaign; Belguim (?); and France. That leaves nineteen that are with us comprising about two thirds of the population of Europe. Why aren’t their armies lined up with us in Kuwait? Because they are small and they haven’t got any of any significance or usefulness. Remember the US military is bigger than the next fifteen combined. The Europeans, France and Germany in particular, have chosen to disarm themselves and put the money into social programs. It hasn’t worked, danger hasn’t gone away and their socialist economies are slowly sinking into the sunset.

Now, why are the French behaving so badly? It’s the OOOOIIIIIILLLLL, that anti-war crowd smear against the US. They got the answer right, they just got the question wrong. Twenty percent of all Iraqi imports are from France. France has contracts to develop 30% of the Iraqi oil fields, about 300 billion barrels, with 20% ROI in contrast with the usual 5% ROI. France has been selling weapons to the Iraqi’s in violation of the UN embargo. And as many have thought, and as Sen. McCain stated this morning on Imus, they have been getting bribes from the Iraqi’s. As a Belgium friend told me almost thirty years ago, “France is the whore of Europe, they will do anything for money.”

Oh yes, the Iraqi’s do have WMD. Blix confirmed this in an interview yesterday when he said he didn’t think Saddam Hussein would use them. And I’m willing to bet that he has a nuclear weapons program too.

Well said Jane although its amusing to see here in the comments evidence of people who don't want to get it since it would undermine their juvenile namecalling of President Bush.

Jane,

I absolutely agree with you 100%. As I've written on my blog several times, it is entirely ludicrous to think that the French opposed the US in recent months because the Bush Administration "acted like bullies" or "didn't consult with the French first."

All one has to do is read the deliberations of Resolution 1284 (1998) to get a full understanding of where the French are coming from then and now.

Excerpts here:

http://yourword.blogspot.com/2003_03_09_yourword_archive.html#90577808

Full Text here:

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N99/867/71/PDF/N9986771.pdf?OpenElement

Of course what is ironic is that 1284 created UNMOVIC and France, Russia and China abstained because they felt that inspections were not needed. How interesting it is that today they're singing a different tune about the need for UNMOVIC.

Given that the French failed in their committment to Powell, I'd say 1284 is evidence that they acted in bad faith from the start (since their position hasn't changed one bit).

Nevermind that "unilateral" was a charge that the French levied against Clinton well before Bush was even a nominee for President.

Jason McCullough -- You made the comment that "the populace of virtually every country on earth disagrees with us."

Uh...except the populace of the United States of America, of course.

My copy of the Constitution seems to be missing the line where my government should care more about what the Namibians want than what I want. Could I see your copy? Maybe I've got an old version.

>Tom,

>Many conclusions. No facts. Weak arguments.

Hey, the post was long enough as it was.

>All this diplomacy was a "popularity contest"? >Is this supposed to be a clever line? Or does >something that ridiculous pass for insight in >lefty circles?

Nah, this is what passes for insight in lefty circles (from an email I got today, which, well, satires itself: I think you'll enjoy it):

(cringes)

YOGIS UNITE!

This is an emergency message from the Underground
Yoga Parlour for Self-Knowledge and Social
Justice.

(snip)

Bush has planned to wage war on the Vernal Equinox. The patriarchy has historically used Pagan rites-of- passage to inflict mass destruction. We must take the new dawn back. Wear flowers in your hair. Give flowers to random strangers in the streets. Plant flowers in your yard or window box as an act of compassionate defiance. Say no to war and yes to the SANCTITY OF SENTIENCY.

(cringes again)

Can you take them? Please? We don't want them. They're embarrassing.

>We could have gotten to the same place with less >cost in blood and treasure?

Sure. Blowing the vote in the Turkish parliment for support will probably cost us. It certainly

> Perhaps in your
>looking glass world, but not in any logical >argument that I have seen presented. Only force >will dislodge Saddam and only his removal will >lessen the threat.

Don't put words into my mouth. That is not what I said. What I said was: we didn't have to get here (to war) with as much damage to our alliances as we did: and that damage will cost, in terms of troop casualties and in being unable less able to share the cost of the war with others, and may have longer term consequences. I believe that, 'cos of the administration's rhetoric (in August of last year of not needing to consult with the UNSC or congress), the subject got shifted from compliance with 1441 to other's fears of a unipolar world dominated by the US. If you don't like how I made (or failed to make) my point, try Josh Marshall at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/march0302.html#030803214pm, who puts it better than I can.

Perhaps with a united UNSC (as we had for the passage of 1441), we could have got disarmament without war. But we won't know now. Who knows: Bush is lucky. My fears could be wrong, and you be right.

Any, this sort of stuff is why I prefer Tacitus, who maintains a better level of civility in his boards.

> Smoke, mirrors and intense
>wishing with closed eyes won't get the job done.

Which wasn't what I was doing; I'm sorry that you can't see that.

Why must we assume that nations opposing us must be "bad", or for those on the opposing side that our disagreeing with them means we are bad. As Megan stated, each nation has an idea of what is in their interest and what isn't, sometimes our interests overlap, sometimes they don't.

Also, what is with the assumption that Rummy's or Bush's statements make a huge difference. Their comments are the end result of plenty of negotiations. The majority of diplomacy goes on out of the spotlight, not on the evening news.

How did it mislead Colin Powell if the UN inspection process did not find Iraq to be in Material Breach?

How is that a deception if the United States doesn't even bother to put it to a vote?

The whole "France will veto" argument doesn't fly given how favorable a veto would have been for the United States: a Security Council majority without the dictates of a Security Council rule.

What is France's foreign policy self-interest? If they were truly self-interested, they would kowtow to the United States, as Azerbaijan and El Salvador do, and keep their mouths shut. If they were only interested in the oil, they would join the war coalition to pick up the spoils.

No, France would be leading the charge for war... if we had backed up our claims and found an imminent threat to global stability in Iraq.

Unfortunately, that's been the BIG LIE all along and I commend France for pointing it out to the world.

Speaking of the French. I just found the following on Instapundit:

"PARIS Six decades after his parents were arrested and deported from German-occupied France, an Austrian-born French Jew went to court here Wednesday to demand that France's national railroad company accept its responsibility and express remorse for transporting Jews to Nazi death camps. . . .

This case dates back to 1991 when Schaechter, a retired musical instruments salesman, was searching in France's National Archives in Toulouse for information about his parents, both of whom were killed by the Nazis. Shocked by the evidence he found of French cooperation with the Germans, he violated regulations by removing documents to be photocopied, then returning them to their files. Over nine months, he copied more than 12,000 documents.

Among these was a letter written by the SNCF and dated Aug. 12, 1944, nine weeks after Allied troops landed in Normandy, demanding payment of 200,000 francs from the regional government of the Haute-Garonne Department in southern France for transporting Jewish detainees from concentration camps to the French border with Germany. In the letter, the SNCF warned that interest would be charged if the payment were not made on time.

This was just one of the myriad documents that Schaechter used in his long, and to date unsuccessful, campaign to have France open up its wartime archives, most of which remain sealed."

Thumper,

Have you been paying attention?

It isn't about them being an immediate threat, if they posed an immediate threat we would already be way too late.

Also how do you figure that the French are acting out of idealism? It isn't idealism, the French are playing for large stakes, they would like to limit our influence internationally. They have profitted from the current Iraqi regime, and they would lose plenty of contracts and some serious oil rights as a result of regime change. Granted they may have been better off in the long run had they worked with us, but you can't win big unless you gamble big.

Whoa! Just heard missles are flying!

Tom,

I find your observations on Resolution 1441 interesting. If the UNSC had followed through (that is reacted with utter distain on 7 December) on Resolution 1441, we may have avoided war, but it did not. No one should have been suprised because the UNSC was acting in the same fashion as it had over the last 12 years.

With respect to alliances, it is the French who have not acted in good faith (not an unsual situation for the French). Was the Bush administration naive, more than likely, but then again being naive in the pursuit of peace, may not be bad idea.

Tom,

>I find your observations on Resolution 1441
>interesting.

Thanks for your politeness.

(snip)

>With respect to alliances, it is the French who
>have not acted in good faith (not an unsual
>situation for the French).

Yup, rejecting the British compromise last week was a huge mistake.

I think Blair and Chirac wanted the same thing: to avoid the US going to war unilaterally; it's unfortunate that Chirac hasn't the foresight of Blair.

> Was the Bush administration naive, more than
>likely, but then again being naive in the
>pursuit of peace, may not be bad idea.

I think it may be inaccurate to say that the administration spoke with one voice on this; that'll be for the historians to analyze.

Jane wrote:

"Longtime readers know that I don't post on foreign policy."

I believe it was all about whether we go back to a world where - as in the 19th century - power politics rule (that is where Bush is leading us) or where international bodies more or less balance and constrain all the players - especially the big ones. If I look back at how Machtpolitik worked (it tends to produce notoriously unstable balances of power, this leads to conflicts, conflicts tend to get out of control) and where it got the world back then, I clearly prefer 100 years of boring and mostly senseless UN blather than just one more major conflict, as this would be a WW-type of conflict. Idealists looking for a better solution can keep dreaming.

P.S.: FYI it's not just France opposing, so for those indulging into the blame game, I suggest spreading the blame to more nations.

Good article from Tim Garton Ash:

http://nytimes.com/2003/03/20/opinion/20GART.html

Norbiz: Turkey of course graned overflight rights today.

Norbiz: Turkey of course granted overflight rights today.

Turkey will play things out to convince their popluace that they actually have a representative government, but if their military ultimately says jump, the civilian government already knows how high.

As for "Old Europe"...for better or worse alienating them is not our highest priority concern right now, and what future alliances they make are nearly irrelevant. They are expected to be well into population decline by that point, which will only do further violence to their economic situation. The real future power players are going to be China and maybe India.

Unless Europe makes a significant turn-around in the next twenty years, they will never be a challenge to US power. Their neighbors to the east will, though.

I forgot to add "and Russia," whenever they finally get their economy turned around. Maybe not like the former USSR but formidable anyway.

You know, I've been consistently, if cautiously and trepeditiously, pro-war. But this: "45, according to the State Department" is inane. Some of these are real countries. But counting mighty Palau and the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia and so on as "we have MORE allies in this attack than we did in the first Gulf War," well, I gather that Alex Knapp is an enthusiastic watcher of Fox News.

On your general point, I'm afraid I have to say, Jane/Megan, that while I happen to quite agree that France and Germany and the overwhelming majorities of the people and governments of most countries of the world are quite wrong in not supporting the prompt overthrowing of the hideous Saddam Hussein regime, it is, um, a mistaken perception that some -- not all, of course, but some -- of that rejection of American policy is not, in fact, specifically -- however rightfully or wrongfully -- a rejection, specificially, of George Bush. You are welcome to consider that as as wrongheaded as you wish. But it's as much a fact as the fact that some of the rejection of the war by some Democrats is based on the fact -- for various reasons, some better, some worse -- that it is, due to events, George Bush's war, as opposed to, say, Al Gore's war (or Bill Clinton's, or some other Democrats').

I have to confess that I'm a bit baffled to see this denied. Do you really think people -- whether American or not -- are lying when they have this, that, or the other, objection to George Bush or his administration? (As opposed to those who are motivated by other causes, such as pacificism or generic anti-Americanism, or sincere doubt about the necessity of immediate war, or any of a dozen other possible and existing motivations.) (Repeat emphasis: this is not a question of how right or wrong said objections are.)

Do you really think people -- whether American or not -- are lying when they have this, that, or the other, objection to George Bush or his administration?

Gary

When someone yells to the point where they're literally foaming at the mouth: "Blood for oil!" I think that person is either:

A. An Idiot.
B. Lying.
C. Incredibly uninformed.
D. Motivated by something other than compassion for the Iraqi people.
E. All of the above.

What do you think?

Gary,

Well, I, for one, agree w/ you. Many who oppose this war (including friends from overseas) oppose it, not because of the US, but because it is George W. Bush who's heading up the US.

What is less clear to me is the relevancy of this, in several ways.

1. If you believe that you'd support this war if only Bill Clinton were in charge, then what you are saying is that the use of force against Saddam Hussein is justified, and the toppling of his government is justified. What you don't like is the man in the White House. But, for Americans especially, the issue is whether this war is in our interest, not whether it would be a feather in his cap, reelect him, etc. Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that his appointment of judges in 2004-2008 is more important than whether we go to war now.

2. For EUropeans, etc., almost the same applies: Do you oppose us on STRATEGIC grounds? Then say so. But French and German officials pretty much said the same thing, "It's Bush we can't stand." Then justify to me why your dislike of a leader (for no more than 8 years) is worth jeopardizing an alliance relationship of 55 years standing. Opposition, mind you, not just in words, but to the point of vetoing BRITISH resolutions, and rejecting them before Baghdad does.

3. But it really ISN'T about George W. Bush, in many cases. He serves as a lightning rod, a symbol, in the same way that WWI was sparked by the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but not caused by it. For if the French are truly worried about American hyperpower, then nothing short of American rejection of it (through a commitment to resolve everything multilaterally, to never move unilaterally, to never seek to counter other states' opinions by creating counter-coalitions) will mollify that concern.

Put differently, do we think that China's opposition to this is based on Dubya? Or based on its calculation of its own interests, and fears of what America, regardless of President, will be able to do in Asia? If the latter, is not likely that the French have a scapegoat in Dubya, but a real fear elsewhere?

Similarly, could the Left, and Democrats (who are different), and protestors have other issues at stake than simply Dubya, who merely captures a particular image? Put differently, if Ronald Reagan were doing this, would the words we'd hear be that different? Cowboy, war for oil, unilateral arrogance, stupid, napping, etc.? Perhaps not chimp, but that's about the only separation.

And Reagan, by most accounts, was not stupid.

I mention Reagan, b/c the decision to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles brought out almost the identical responses, down to the words. And that was most certainly not unilateral (since the missiles had been requested by the Europeans), yet by the time the protests were done, that was the impression.

So, forgive some of us our skepticism that it's Dubya at fault....

Two thoughts...

(1) France is giving us overflight rights. They are as much of an ally in this thing as Turkey is...

(2) The problem I see is not that France (or Russia) are not onboard: it is that Mexico and Chile (both of which have every reason to try to make us as happy as possible) wouldn't vote for us on the Security Council, and that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are not in the coalition. We diminish blowback by acting as agents for a world near-consensus. We maximize likely blowback by acting on our own.

I think this is overwhelmingly likely to be a good thing for Iraqis in the long run. I suspect it is not a good thing for Americans.

In 1995, when there was an effort to pass a resolution, the Security Council finding Saddam Hussein in material breach, France opposed it.

In 1996, when there was an effort to pass a resolution condemning Saddam Hussein for his slaughter of the Kurds, France opposed it.

In 1997, when there was an effort to block travel by Saddam Hussein's intelligence and military officials, France opposed it.

In 1998, France announced Saddam Hussein was free of all weapons of mass destruction ... something nobody, including France, believed.

And in 1999, of course, they opposed the creation UNMOVIC, the existing inspection regime, that they now want to place their total faith in with respect to trying to disarm Saddam Hussein.

1995 to 1999 were years in which that paragon of Presidential perfection, nuance, multilateralism and diplomacy was President: Bill Clinton. Yet France still opposed his efforts. So what the heck makes anybody think that a Gore administration, even if Gore had French-kissed Chirac a la Tipper, would have resulted in a result that was any different?

Amen Martin. How many times has this been said in this post? And those who oppose the premise of the argument still choose to ignore facts like these.

Actually, a Gore kiss to Chirac might have been just thing to shut the latter up for a while. Hmm, possibilities...

Comments are Closed.