"Send In Your Dead..."

The Guardian is collecting obituaries of people who died in Iraq for a "Memorial" page. I suggest that anyone who has stories about Saddam's pre-war victims send those in as well so the "memorial" isn't so one-sided.

I spent two hours arguing more-or-less this topic with four Europeans today (Spanish, German, Italian and Ukrainian - there just has to be a joke in there somewhere), and they seem to be constitutionally incapable of considering in any way, shape or form any harm that isn't caused by war. In their world, "Not War" is always better than war, even if "Not War" leads to far more death and suffering or even mass graves full of children.

It's a point of view I find incomprehensible and it was a disheartening experience -- these are genuinely nice, intelligent people who I like a lot, but they have blind spots you could sail an aircraft carrier through. Including Saddam's victims in the Guardian's "memorial" is one small way to make it harder for them to ignore the suffering caused by inaction.

Crime and Punishment

A 13-year old in Munich who lives in a home for troubled youth and is "well known to the police" stabbed a retiree with a "weaponized" kitchen fork so hard that it stuck in his skull. He was caught at the scene and has openly confessed, but (according to the S�ddeutsche Zeitung) due to his age the police were forced to release him at the scene and he has absolutely nothing to fear from the courts. He is literally unpunishable due to his age.

Unbelievable.

Send The Marines!

This graphic (from last week's Focus magazine) summarizes the ca. 1500 pieces of artwork that have gone missing in the year 2002 in Austria alone. Clearly, there aren't enough US troops patrolling the streets of Vienna.

Is this one of the entrance criteria?

10 11 things I learned from the Eurovision Song Contest:

When picking sides for Eurovision, leave the lounge singers at home.

Germans still like Groenemeyer, even when he's Polish.

The world isn't ready for an Estonian-led 80's revival.

Sweden has not exhausted its supply of Abba.

Britney Spears has a twin in Romania.

The hills of Greece are a sight to behold.

The Multi-Culti has run through all existing cultures and has to invent new ones to promote.

Teeny-bopper lesbianism still sells. Even if the music sucks and they don't kiss.

Profound-seeming pseudo-multiculturalism sells even better than teeny-bopper lesbians. Go figure.

A Eurovision-style voting system (in which people can't vote for representatives of their own country) would be much better than any of the propsals for the new EU constitution.

The continent is still sore at the UK, but they're really sorry about that whole NATO/Turkey thing

Leading Indicator

Do you find it hard to stay ahead of the tin-hat crowd? Don't have the time to wade through DU or Indymedia to find the latest paranoid conspiracy? Don't have the stomach for Ted Rall? Have I got a blog for you!

Horst Prillinger (The Aardvark Speaks) seems like a smart enough guy who reads a lot and makes lots of connections (he is a librarian, after all). He also seems to have a blatantly paranoid anti-American streak.

What that means to you, dear reader, is that you now have a bellwether for the tin-hat crowd -- a resource who will comb through the news and the nonsense to find the most spinnable pieces, from which he constructs clever and interesting conspiracy theories.

When he isn't engaged in flights of fancy, he provides an interesting window into the kind of paranoid anti-Americanism that's being spoon-fed to the European public. When his imagination kicks in, you'll be treated to some of the more interesting and superficially plausible anti-American conspiracy theories on the web.
His track record for spotting the theories with legs is pretty good:

On April 16, Horst asserted that looting at the Baghdad Museum was instigated by American troops at the behest of a shadowy cabal of American art collectors that apparently controls the Pentagon. With that, he jumped straight to step seven of the logic chain predicted by Jaed at Bitter Sanity (sadly, she's apparently on hiatus).

A full month ago, he was pimping today's hot anti-American gossip item - that the rescue of Pfc Lynch was staged. He even alluded to the possibility a week earlier. Sadly, nobody picked up on this little gem at the time.

Unfortunately for Horst, his track record for theories that, say, correspond with reality is less than stellar. The looting of the Baghdad Museum turns out to have been much less serious than originally reported and was likely conducted by members of Saddam's people. The Pfc Lynch "Wag the Dog" smear campaign is a fantastic concoction even further from the facts than the Museum story was and will likely die a quick and painless death.

But not quite quick or painless enough. Blogosphere fact-checking can kill a story within days, but a prebuttal like Jaed's can spike it before it emerges. And that's one good reason that it's useful to monitor blogs like "The Aardvark Speaks."

It's nice to see that Germany is trying to patch things up, as predicted:

I expect that sanctions will be lifted quickly," said Schr�der. "In the end, this is about the people of Iraq, who must be helped as soon as possible."

Schr�der and company seem rather put out, though, that the administration isn't friendlier. They'll just have to get over that -- Bush won't take any substantive actions against Germany (base closings are sensible, not punitive), but he's not the kind to forgive and forget. Relations will remain proper but cool for as long as Schr�der (and Bush) are in power. That said, Bush probably shouldn't be flirting quite so openly with the Union -- It's improper and it's likely to backfire.

Now we'll just have to see what France and Russia are up to. Russia is quietly belligerent but seems to be hinting that it will accept bribes. France is just freaking out, which could have several causes:

An attempt to preemptively discredit information they fear will be coming out of Iraq

An attempt to score sympathy points in preparation for a new round of strife at the security council

A sudden realization that the breach is serious and that Bush isn't going to kiss and make up ever any time soon.

Time (i.e. the next week or two) should tell.

North Korea has apparently invented Jolt.

Payback's a Bitch

It's perfectly appropriate for countries that opposed the war in Iraq to suffer some consequences now that the war is over, but it's extremely important that those consequences are reasonable and appropriate. Petty snubs or heavy-handed revenge would backfire badly.

I outlined some appropriate responses some time ago, but I have to confess that I never expected this (despite actually suggesting something similar).

It's perfect -- simultaneously unassailable and galling to the weasels, and it establishes Poland as a serious player in intra-European politics.

Broken Axis

The Franco-German Axis of Weasels is nearing its end. I expect Germany to leave the Weasel-bloc during the looming UN showdown over removing sanctions against Iraq; Unless Chirac is exceptionally clever, Bush is exceptionally clumsy and Schr�der decides he has nothing to lose, Germany will stay on the sidelines this time around.

Germany now has more to gain from mending fences with the US than from poking Bush in the eye again and Germans are waking up to that fact. It's also true that a genuine pacifism (cynically exploited) was the primary force behind German opposition to the war, and it will be much harder to incite a pacifist frenzy to leave sanctions in place, particularly if doing so means further deprivation for the Iraqi people.

Chirac, on the other hand, is as staunchly anti-American as ever and he's getting awfully chummy with Putin's Russia. For his part, Putin isn't sounding much like Bush's soulmate these days. It also seems that they're taking turns drawing attention -- when Chirac sucks up, Putin starts growling and vice-versa. Is it coincidence or coordination?

Chirac and Putin make an odd couple and I'm not sure exactly what they're up to, but their interests might align better and for longer than it first seems.

France wants to be a player but doesn't know how to function in a unipolar world while Russia nurses a bruised ego and pines for its lost empire. Chirac's project to forge Europe into a French-led opposing pole is looking doubtful (in the short term, at least, and even to me). If he had the opportunity, Chirac might just promote Russia as a counter to the United States, in the hope that France could resume its accustomed cold war role of amoral profiteer neutral "power."

If it plays out exactly right for Chirac, geography, economic ties and internal bureaucratic inertia could knock all of Europe out of America's sphere.
On the other hand, it could backfire -- cozying up to Russia could well spook already nervous "new" Europeans into even closer alignment with the United States.

This theory fits Chirac's pattern of raising the stakes after each loss, and his clear obsessesion with constraining the United States. On the other hand, it seems like a dangerous (hence unlikely) proposition for Chirac. I don't have a better explanation for Franco-Russian amity and their continuing opposition at the UN right now, but the next few days should be ... illuminating.

Chirac is a diplomat

And diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.

France just adores NATO according to Chirac. So I'm sure there's a nice innocent reason that France is seeking close military cooperation with Russia.

Sick Thought Of The Day
Stephen Pollard wonders why Scott Ritter is rushing to defend George Galloway and speculates indirectly that Ritter might be on the take as well. I've had a similar but more distressing thought:

Given Ritter's known proclivities, what are the odds that his "reward" wound up sharing a cell with one of Uday's discards in the Children's prison?

It would certainly provide a more plausible motive for Ritter's five years of silence then "it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace."

Don't count your chickens

This sort of thing is why I think it's premature and dangerous to declare the Franco-German alliance dead. Blair seems to be betting that he can link up with like-minded leaders from both old and new Europe to contain the Franco-German axis, but that's a very dangerous bet.

For one thing, the Franco-German stance is pretty much in line with European public opinion, which places limits on how far leaders who genuinely value the transatlantic relationship will go. Berlusconi has already retreated to the sidelines and Aznar's party looks to be in trouble in Spain, which leaves only Denmark and the Netherlands in "old" Europe. The picture is perhaps a bit better among the accession countries, but none of them sees any alternative to joining the EU. If they were forced to choose between Europe and the US, they would almost certainly choose Europe - even at the cost of ceding their foreign policy to France.

Perhaps even more dangerous is the fact that the EU is undemocratic in the extreme. Real power rests with an unaccountable bureaucracy and a byzantine committee system, both of which are populated by the very EUrocrats and activists that have been gleefully fanning the flames of European anti-Americanism for the past year.

And it's only going to get worse. The large and small countries don't trust each other, so the constitutional convention is constructing a system with competing organs of power, each controlled by one of the warring factions (at last count, there's a council, a commission, a presidium and a parliament, if I'm not mistaken) and given, for the most part, vaguely defined powers. The obvious outcome will be perpetual gridlock, which hands even more control to bureaucrats and unelected committees. A system like that will grind to a halt if it attempts to take any significant action, but it'll be very effective at preventing members from acting "unilaterally."

The US needs to build real, lasting ties to its friends in Europe. Reconstruction contracts are getting all of the attention right now, but they're fundamentally short term and politically charged. Long-term structural commitments like TAFTA are far more important, even in the short term, as they provide a counterweight to the "EU membership at any cost" mentality that currently prevails among the accession and candidate countries. They will (and probably should) eventually join, but they are far more likely to fight Franco-German domination of the EU if they don't feel backed into a corner.

Update: Somebody give this man an alternative!

My, but that Lileks fellow sure turns a pretty phrase:

France is like someone who�s been given a glimpse of the future, sees himself committing suicide, and resolves to spend his remaining days making it look like murder.

It's All About The...Art?
Jaed at Bitter Sanity predicts the anti-American/anti-Bush left will soon be accusing the US of being behind the looting of the Baghdad Museum. She paints a plausible progression of seven steps that will take them from an innocuous comment by a British officer to the full-blown accusation against the US.

The "Aardvark" went directly to Go without passing the first six steps. Apparently, we're supposed to believe that a shadowy and sinister cabal of art collectors controls Pentagon war planning. Does "Big Oil" know it's been pushed aside?

Update: Here's an interesting counter-meme in the making. Given the embarassment this incident is causing the US, Chirac's obvious desire to embarass the US and the fact that the first of the looted antiquities have turned up in Paris, this hypothesis that France was behind the looting of the Baghdad museum certainly seems to fit the facts better than art collectors calling the shots at the Pentagon.

In fact, it would take far less paranoia than the Aardvark displays to wonder if, perhaps, French agents were instigating looting throughout Baghdad. The looting benefited France as it was embarassing to the United States and provided them perfect cover to spirit out not just antiquities but also any troublesome secret files they didn't want coalition forces to discover. According to the standard rules of tin-foil hat logic, whoever benefits from an action must secretly have instigated it, so this one is pretty much a slam dunk.

An alert reader points out that it looks like the looters had inside help and that setting up the sort of targeted looting that is being alleged would have required a pretty good pre-war network within Baghdad. Which France had and America did not. Draw your own conclusions.

The Blogosphere is alight with quotable quotes today.

If you hear of Spontaneous Human Combustion amongst the anti-war left, check to see if they've been reading Stephen Pollard:

That is the thing about Donald Rumsfeld: he is right, you are wrong and you are just going to have come to terms with it.

The Radical cites this lovely quote from a Thomas Friedman article:

French-style constructive engagement, which is just
a cover for dancing with dictators, is a fraud...
Mr. de Villepin has become my moral compass:
whatever he is for, I am against. And whatever he is against, I am for.

Big Arm Woman has found a protest group I long to join (permalinks busted, look for "True Colors"):

A local group called People Against Ridiculous Protests carried out the day's most tasteful protest. Founder Deke Wiggins appeared at his designated protest site in the morning, planted a sign, then departed. The sign read: "Look at all these ridiculous people."

What Are They Thinking?

Everybody has their panties in a bunch about Bush administration saber-rattling in the direction of Syria. It just confirms Europe's worst fears about the bloodthirsty cowboy in the White House and the press is wondering just what's going on. I can tell you two things that are definitely not going on: It's not preparation for an invasion of Syria and it's not a spillover of some internal strife in the administration. So of course those are the two lead theories in the press.

As for what is actually going on, it's likely some combination of the following:

A warning shot. The Bush administration is about to engage in some serious arm-twisting of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority and they really don't want Syria and Iran encouraging recidivism amongst the Palestinians. This certainly lets Syria know that its support for Iraq has not gone unnoticed and that similar behavior will not be tolerated in the future.

A setup. In response to US criticism, the Syrian ambassador is on record insisting that it is the coalition's responsibility to police the border. Don't be surprised if the coalition takes Syria up on its kind offer to put lots of troops on the Syrian border. And don't be too surprised if they end up occasionally crossing the border in hot pursuit of terrorists.

An attempt to spook the bad guys into moving. Terrorists or wanted Iraqi officials will be much easier to catch if they're on the move than if they're hunkered down in Syria. This tactic seems to have been used against Al Qaeda with reasonable success.

A genuine attempt to get something from Syria. The real goal would be seriously confidential, but it could be a person or a policy change.

A political diversion. A strong defense of Syria will clearly require weeks or months of UN discussion. Any time and effort the weasel-bloc nations spend defending Syria is time and effort they can't spend attempting to undermine the reconstruction of Iraq. This would probably be pretty effective, since the Bush administration has demonstrated the ability to maintain a laser-sharp focus, where its opponents seem to be easily knocked off balance.

Political theater. Old Europe is preoccupied with the question of whose side Tony Blair is on, and it would benefit both the US and the UK if he could demonstrate his European credentials by standing up to the US on a side-issue like Syria.

A test. Part of the "domino" theory is that if the US is threatening enough to the bad guys it won't actually have to fight them to bring about change. The psychological impact of the victory in Iraq will only decrease over time, and getting belligerent even before the fighting in Iraq has ended has just the whiff of aggressive madness that makes for such effective intimidation. If a relatively soft target like Syria can't be scared (sort of) straight under those conditions, we probably have at least one more multiyear "rush to war" in our future. If this is what's going on, let's hope Syria blinks.

A media diversion. All this talk scares people, but it could also knock images of chaos and looting off the front page for the few crucial days needed to restore order. Sure, all of this talk about Syria scares people but it doesn't have the emotional impact of the images coming out of Iraq and will blow over much more quickly. That last seems unlikely to me, but I threw it in for the tinfoil-hat brigades.

In any case, the Bush team is neither stupid nor undisciplined enough to allow this sort of thing to happen accidentally. Whatever is really behind it will emerge in due course, probably sometime over the next few days or weeks. That isn't to say that Syria is off the radar, just that no invasion is imminent.

Update: Reader Rob Robertson points to an interesting and optimistic alternate theory, that tough talk from Washington will give Assad the leverage he needs to clean out the Baathist old guard. To be honest, I don't know what to make of this theory. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Regardless of your sympathies towards [Ll]ibertarianism (and I'm moderately sympathetic), this is pretty funny:

Some libertarians think that a free market and small government (or no government) are the sole criteria of a free society (and so many of them blithely force their children to go to school, do chores, and generally obey their every whim). Such people are best described as libertarian statists, partly because it annoys them, but mainly because they are convinced that it is the malevolent State, rather than bad authoritarian ideas and lack of knowledge, that is the basic obstacle to human progress.

The whole article is well worth a read.

Der Spiegel seems seems to accept as fact Steven Den Beste's "treachery" theory. They make the obligatory effort at preemptive spin control, but it's half-hearted at best.

This article is apparently two weeks old already but I don't recall reading about it anywhere else (I've stopped reading der Spiegel myself).

Update: This article in the same issue is worth a read, too. The combined arrogance and cluelessness of the dynamic duo is truly breathtaking:

For the first time, Schr�der and Fischer ... have taken the bold step of formulating policy that extends into the future. (ed: a stunning innovation, that)

Chirac: "They thought they would be greeted as liberators and that the regime would collapse like a house of cards. But they underestimated Iraqi patriotism. They would have been better off listening to us." ... Nonetheless, the French president explained to his advisors in the Elys�e Palace that France cannot descend into an I-told-you-so attitude.

The US military appears to be stuck in its tracks in the desert, and civilian casualties are multiplying. It has never been so painful to have been in the right, murmurs the foreign minister [Fischer], with a worried look on his face.

According to French diplomats, Blair, unlike Bush, is a true moralist, one who places great faith in the law, justice and international consensus. (emphasis mine - life imitates Scrappleface)

The Chancellor guides the fate of the country, negotiates with the French and Russians, and tells the stubborn George W. Bush exactly what he thinks...

At a recent internal meeting, a Fischer confidante spoke of a "Tour de France approach": "Always make sure you lag just a little behind."

That last is my favorite. It amounts to a blunt admission that Schr�der is Chirac's poodle, albeit with a forlorn attempt to paint a happy face on it.

Comments are broken for the moment. Field circus has been summoned but there's no ETA just yet. Feel free to send email instead.

I'm not the only one who worries that Old Europe will retain or even expand control over the levers of power in the EU. Over at Samizdata, David Carr cites a Telegraph article by Conservative MEP David Hannan that makes esssentially the same argument. Excerpts:

A false and dangerous idea is taking hold in Britain, especially among Euro-sceptics. It goes something like this. The Iraq war has wrecked plans for closer European integration. It has set Old Europeans against New ones, driven Britain back on the Anglo-Saxon world, reminded everyone of how much they rely on the Americans, and made the idea of a European Army seem laughable...

The trouble is that Euro-fanatics are prone to the same impulse. For them, the war is the strongest demonstration to date of why Brussels needs a unified foreign policy. Never again, they say, should the EU be enfeebled by internal divisions. Never again should Europeans be forced to watch in frustration as the Americans give some tinpot dictator a good kicking. Never again should London be allowed to behave in so non-communautaire a fashion....

My point is not that either interpretation is right or wrong. Rather, it is that the Euro-zealots, unlike the sceptics, are in a position to act on their concerns...

This battle can still be won, but it isn't over yet. Be very careful about declaring victory prematurely.

Update: More fuel for the fire ("Fischer eyes EU foreign minister post").

True Colors
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's true colors were inadvertently displayed by a Danish documentary which followed Anders Fogh Rasmussen during the four months he held the rotating EU presidency.

"I am a good friend of Joschka, and he tells me, that Turkey will never join", says the Danish foreign minister Per Stig M�ller in a corridor passage which was taped and used in the film.

Can we get moving on TAFTA already?

Rope-a-dope

Get ready for the next Bush rope-a-dope, folks. I'm listening to the Al-Jazeera shill on CNN now. She's figured out that they won't be able to milk the looting much longer, so she's ramping up for the next crisis and ranting about Chalabi being installed as a US puppet. I predict that about the time the Arab and European press get themselves worked into a lather about the evil treachery they're absolutely certain is coming, the Bush team will cut their legs out from under them with a surprising announcement of some kind.

I don't have a clear idea at the moment what that announcement might be, but I seriously doubt that the US would just install Chalabi (or anyone) in a position of actual authority (he might have some sort of advisory role).

Update: Actually, Chalabi might be the second upcoming rope-a-dope. All the noise about Syria seems to be building up a head of steam much faster, so that might well be where we'll see the first surprise.

Huge News

This is huge news:

Israel will hand over some Jewish settlements in the West Bank for peace, but the Palestinians must give up on their key demand for refugees to be allowed to return to their former homes in Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in an interview published Sunday.


...


The US-led war on Iraq "generated a shock through the Middle East and it brings with it a prospect of great changes," Sharon told Haaretz.


"The Arab world in general, and the Palestinians in particular, have been shaken. There is therefore a chance to reach an agreement faster than people think," Sharon said.


However, whether peace is reached depends on the Palestinians, he said, adding they must first change their leadership and battle terrorism.


Viewed by Israel as a moderate, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister-designate, could be the key to a possible peace deal, he said.

I also view this as evidence that the, um, conversation I predicted has already taken place. I'll wager that Bush gave Sharon an ultimatum to make this offer, and Abbas an ultimatum to make and enforce a similar as-yet-unknown concession. This is a test for both of them and Bush will be tough on both of them to play ball.

Update: The Guardian's "diplomatic editor" disagrees with me.

Here's an interesting little tidbit tucked in a doom-and-gloom MSNBC article about unrest in Baghdad:

Last week the pro-Saddam thugs turned their weapons against crowds of local residents in a final assault against civic order. They were instructed to kill and bomb civilians in Saddam City to create chaos, says the hospital�s director general, Moafaq Gorea. Now the hospital is the only refuge from the anarchy outside.

I haven't seen this particular incident reported elsewhere. Can anyone cite details?

Also: Can we get a clear statement from the Iraqi Body Count folks as to whether they place this incident of cold-blooded murder by Saddam's thugs on the coalition side of the ledger or not?

I'm with Aziz Poonwalla on this one. Anti-semitic paranoia notwithstanding, President Bush's primary goal is to ensure the security of the United States, and it is clear that peace between Israel and Palestinians is essential to that.

To date, Bush has little or no pressure on Israel because it would have been pointless or even counterproductive to do so. Yasser Arafat has made it abundantly clear that real concessions by Israel would not be reciprocated -- that they would, in fact, be interpreted as a sign of weakness. Pointless concessions made in such an environment just take bargaining chips off the table for the future.

I'm not at all certain that Abbas is any more trustworthy than Arafat, but it appears that Bush is going to give him a chance. If Abbas demonstrates that he can deliver on his promises, Israel had better be prepared to negotiate for peace in earnest and make some serious concessions. The moment that Bush believes that Israeli concessions will do some good, he'll come down on Sharon like a ton of bricks. If Sharon lets him down, he'll discover that Bush can be every bit as hard on Israel as on the Palestinians. Syria and Iran are also in for some surprises if they continue stirring up trouble, and the administration's recent growling in their direction is first and foremost a warning for them to stand down.

This is not to suggest that Bush will sell out Israel or place it in jeopardy, just that he won't allow any of the participants to sabotage the process.

Hear, Hear!

What he said!

I'd like to see a searchable central repository for "van Hoffman" quotes and a blogospheric commitment to challenge these people whenever and wherever possible. If they're on TV or radio, call in and confront them with their prognostications. If you hear of an interview, send a message to the interviewer. Don't let them get away with denial or changing the topic!

Oh, yeah. And somebody needs to follow Michael Moore around with a camera day and night. I nominate Evan Coyne Maloney.

Over at Sofia Sideshow, jkrank has a idea that's similar to something I've been kicking around. He suggests that the US allows the UN to operate humanitarian services in Iraq in parallel to services operated by the United States. Along the lines of my similar facetious suggestion a few weeks ago, on the theory that the comparison would be... instructive. The downside is that it's essentially a challenge to the UN, which won't go over well in most of the world.

But... it looks like Iraq will be partitioned into zones of control, with the British controlling from the Kuwaiti border to Basra, and the US controlling the rest. What if the level of UN participation in a zone is the responsibility of the controlling authority? The UN could run most of the humanitarian services in the British sector, while the US would run (and fund) most of the services in the American zone.

This approach might give Blair cover against charges of undermining the UN, without forcing him to take sides in a showdown at the security council. This is just a rough hewn idea at this point, so please feel free to point out why it's broken.

James Bennett grapples with the question of how to proceed from here. He considers three possible courses and ultimately recommends giving up on the EU in its current form.

Regardless of whether the EU in its current form is hopeless or not, neither the politicians nor the public in the UK or on the continent are ready to take that enormous step, and an American attempt to force it would backfire badly. That means his second course (attempt to fix the EU from within) is the only realistic choice at this point, and the transatlantic relationship will suffer if the US just ignores the discussion.

That said, his suggestion that the US immediately push forward with TAFTA (Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Authority) is excellent, and one I've made before, but It need not and should not be presented as weapon against European integration.

In the Washington Post, Robert Kagan neatly summarizes my feelings about postwar diplomatic posture. We're entering what will be, at best, a period of intense manuvering for diplomatic advantage and world public opinion and the United States must focus on keeping and winning friends. That doesn't mean sacrificing essential goals, but it will probably lead to some compromises. The important things are to stay focused, pay attention to how actions will be perceived, and use the carrot more than the stick.

Things to avoid: retribution, the appearance of profiteering, and getting into another pissing contest. That last is probably unavoidable, but Bush and Blair should make them work for it by staying resolutely calm, focused and reasonable for as long as possible in the face of belligerence from the weasel bloc.

Several readers have asked why I don't think the accession countries will tip the balance of power in the EU towards the United States. The declarations from the Gang of Eight and the Vilnius 10 were hugely significant, but they signal the start of a struggle for the soul of European institutions, not the end of one. The outcome is far from a foregone conclusion, and prematurely assuming a battle is won is the easiest way to lose it.

That more than 15 heads of state would come out in support of the United States despite overwhelming popular opposition at home is a spectacular but singular event. It would be folly to build foreign policy around the notion that the UK and "new Europe" will remain united and in synch with US policy forever. This sort of unity happens only around big issues like the Iraq war -- in everyday life, countries will pursue their own interests and will "go along to get along."

Which means that a real danger arises from the tendency of the EU towards largely unaccountable institutions that restrict the freedom of member countries to act independently. When the old European political elite promote a "common" foreign policy, they aren't talking about a show of hands amongst the leaders of member nations. They envision a European Foreign Service, populated by bureaucrats and led by an appointed commissioner who is selected from the ranks of the politically acceptable. In their EU, such an institution would be accountable to nobody and have the legal authority to muzzle dissent. In their EU, the Gang of Eight could have faced legal action for their declaration.

The smaller countries understand the danger and are now making an effort to retain autonomy and gain some measure of control over the Eurocracy (thanks at least in part to both Donald Rumsfeld and Jacques Chirac). This is an important development and one whose success is important to the United States, which is why it would be a huge mistake to undermine friendly leaders with a blatant assault on the UN or heavy-handed attempt to "punish" France, Russia or Germany.

Chirac and his minions have been jockeying for position in Europe for some time now, and their policy toward Iraq is designed to undermine European leaders who don't toe the French line. Popular discontent makes it much harder for European leaders to appear to side with the United States, so look for Chirac et al to exploit European devotion to the UN and fear of the American bogeyman to stoke the fires of anti-American passion already enflamed by the war itself.

In particular, they will keep trying to frame discussion about the future of Iraq as a "United States vs. the United Nations" issue. Bush and Blair struck the right tone in their Northern Ireland press conference by setting Iraqi self-determination as the centerpiece, but the weasel-bloc will use their upcoming St. Petersburg conference to once again attempt to force the issue.

Update: They won't be quite this bold, especially since Annan has decided not to attend, but don't think for a second that they've stopped scheming.

Better a caveman than a dinosaur. How do you suppose the European press would react if Donald Rumsfeld displayed the same kind of diplomatic finesse as Javier Solana?

Matthew Yglesias goes a bit too far with his claim that transnational progressivism doesn't exist as a coherent ideology. I'll concede that fears of the Vast Tranzi Conspiracy might be overwrought, but Yglesias' assertion that the ideology of transnationalism doesn't exist is demonstrably false. See:

The Transnational Institute

The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research

transnationale.org

Or just google for "transnational" or "transnationalism." You'll find plenty of sites, journals, academic papers etc. that discuss transnationalism, and even a cursory glance shows that they're talking about pretty much the same ideology and a movement that espouses it.

Interesting links

It's been hectic lately, so I haven't had time to properly respond to of the excellent questions I've been getting. That post is brewing, and will go up as soon as I have an uninterrupted hour or two.

In the meantime, here are some interesting links:

Dilacerator scores another direct hit. Excerpt:

Of course, the French only act in the best interests of the European Union as a whole, that great organization that is making the nation state and national allegiances obsolete. In the French view of the world, the best interests of the EU coincide with surprising frequency with the narrow national interests of France. Funny, that.

InstaPundit links to an encouraging article in die Zeit, and Andrew Sullivan to another in the Times of London.

Colin Powell pushes back hard during a ZDF interview.

On the other hand, articles like this illustrate the mentality that infests the halls of power and the ranks of the political activists in Europe. This kind of deeply flawed thinking is pervasive enough that it still poses a risk.

The Radical highlights another risk. The tricky part is to head off this sort of skullduggery without coming across as the arrogant superpower trying to kill the UN.

It's a bit stale (pre-war), but this Washington Post article does a good job of describing the battlefield. (hat tip: Andrew Hagen)

Overall, I'm encouraged by most of what I see. Both content and tone of statements by the US & UK governments are about right, and press coverage in Germany (and, apparently, France) is even getting less one-sided. That said, there's a long way yet to go and one blunder could still slow or reverse the trend.

Hearts and Minds?

A survey of the articles in the EU Observer over the past few days shows that the risk of a serious long-term breach between the US and Europe is very high, and that a significant segment of the European political establishment is actively working to encourage and prepare for that breach, and that the challenge will only grow over time. See:

US leadership �not viable� - Irish conventioneer

Verheugen: Candidates backing US was 'momentary'

The hope of young people

European and British responses to my earlier post universally confirmed that Bush cannot "just ignore" the UN without either alienating or destroying Tony Blair, and a slew of articles like this indicate that alienation is the more likely outcome.

That would be a disaster. The Eurocrats and politicians are busily trying to construct a constitution which is designed to stifle dissent and which invests so much power in barely accountable "pan-European" (i.e. Franco-German) bureaucracy that it is effectively undemocratic. If anything approaching the current constitution is adopted, enormous power will be consolidated into a Brussels bureaucracy that is institutionally as well as emotionally anti-American. Emotions heal, but institutions endure.

The US needs to be win back old allies and firm up support from "new" Europe in preparation for the looming showdown, and a serious breach with the UK would destroy any hope of opposition at the constitutional convention. Blind anti-Americanism isn't universal and the odds are good if we recognize and respond appropriately to the risks. If we coast around the track on a premature victory lap and cackle about Chirac's demise, we could wake up to find ourselves facing a new cold war.

We have to pay attention to European hearts and minds, too.

On the Road Again

I'll be on the road all week, so blogging will be intermittent.

Another kind of Ugly American

The Radical warns against entering political discussions with Expat Americans, on the grounds that you might get a stream of anti-American vitriol in response. He points to a real problem, but one that exists even in New York. I'd say you just have to choose your conversation partners carefully. Sound them out with a few softball comments before you really discuss anything significant.

There's a certain category of expat (quite common in Amsterdam) with whom political conversation should be avoided. They're in Europe because they essentially hate America (though they'll pay lip service to American ideals) and if they were still stateside they'd be holding naked barf-in's and carrying "Bush == Hitler" signs. They aren't stateside, though, so they have even less contact with or understanding of America and they're railing against an imagined dystopia that has little to do with contemporary America; in particular, they have absolutely no comprehension of how 9/11 affected many Americans.

The expats who left in the sixties and seventies are the worst - they literally can't imagine that anything has changed in the past 30 years and their rants have almost no point of contact with reality.

You do encounter the occasional pro-American/anti-European Expat who is just as obnoxious and out-of-touch, but they don't seem to last very long before they repatriate.

Girding for Battle

In the comments section of this post, Jaed from Bitter Sanity asks about a Times article which predicts the death of NATO and a slide into irrelevance for the UN Security council. Nothing new to Americans but, as she notes, somewhat startling to see in the UK press.

Blair was also very careful in his choice of words in this press conference:

Secondly in relation to the UN, there are two issues here. The first is in respect of humanitarian assistance we need a resolution through on that and I am confident that we should be able to secure that. There is going to be a debate about the UN resolution that then governs the post-Saddam civil administration in Iraq. We are quite clear that any such administration has to be endorsed by the United Nations, it is important, and that is exactly what we said at the summit in the Azores. Now the details of that we will discuss with allies within the UN and with others. There may be certain diplomatic difficulties but I think in the end people will come together and realise that it is important that any post-Saddam Iraqi government has the broadest possible representation, is respectful of human rights, is careful to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq, and the important thing after all the diplomatic divisions that there have been is that the international community comes back together, and I hope that it will.

In contrast, Colin Powell has bluntly stated that the coalition won't be handing the keys over to the UN any time soon.

Taken together, this indicates that both the US & UK recognize the danger and are girding for battle - both at the UN and for public opinion at home. They'll try to delay the confrontation at the UN for as long as possible, but they know it is inevitable and are laying the groundwork for when it comes. At first glance, it looks like a good cop-bad cop scenario in which Powell plays the heavy and Blair passionately defends the "international order" but it could evolve into a struggle between Blair and De Villepin for the "soul" of the UN, with the US at arms length.

Blair's defense of the UN is and will be genuine, but his careful choice of words above suggests that he doesn't expect to win the next round. Articles like the Times editorials cited above can start softening public opinion for that possibility now.

Update: Another surprising editorial, this time in the Telegraph.

Call me contrarian but I don't object so much to allowing France to occupy part of Iraq - say, Tikrit. One lesson from postwar Germany is that few things make people appreciate America more than being occupied by the French.

Don't let them near anything vital, of course, but France could play a valuable role as a counter-example.

The Red-Green coalition has given up on the transatlantic relationship, if Joschka Fischer's latest interview with der Spiegel is any indication. He pays lip service to rebuilding the relationship, but his attention is clearly focused on manuvering to block and/or punish the US and bring wayward Europeans back into line. It's not quite as bad as this EU Observer summary suggests, but it's not good -- Fischer was the last German official to make any attempt to salvage the relationship. Schr�der may have blundered into this conflict unaware, but his government now seems to be willfully widening the rift.

As someone with deep ties to both countries, this makes me very sad.

A couple of dangerously false assumptions seem to underlie most of responses to my warning that the UN is not dead and that French manuvering at the UN poses a serious risk to US-UK relations if left unchecked. At the risk of generalization, most of that feedback is from Americans and the common thread throughout these assumptions is that they project American attitudes and world view onto Europeans in general and Tony Blair in particular. Therefore, I'd particularly welcome feedback from European readers as to my perception of the "European" mindset.

Bad Assumption #1: Video of happy Iraqi's and other revelations from Iraq will quickly turn opinion in favor of the war

This might be true for the "American street" but it just isn't going to happen among Europeans (or activist Americans). Best case, you'll see a swing of ten percent or so - possibly significant but far from decisive. Even ordinary Europeans "have their blood up" now and are likely to resist the notion that the war was justified. Worse yet, accepting the war, even after the fact, clashes with fundamental pillars of the European world view ("War bad, UN good"). Finally, the fact that every picture of happy liberated Iraqi's will be matched in the press by a picture of dead or injured children means the upside for the pro-war view is pretty limited. That's not to say that opinions can't be changed over time, but it will take years of patient and careful work rather than one big PR "shock and awe" assault.

Bad Assumption #2: Tony Blair has had an epiphany and is ready to give up on the UN completely

Tony Blair is frustrated, disappointed and angry at the UN Security Council and especially at France. Despite that frustration, he is deeply committed to the concept of the international law and institutions and is not ready to give up the UN as a whole. He will likely try to reform the UN, but he won't throw it overboard. Blair might be persuaded to switch horses if France continues to wield the UN as a political instrument and an acceptable alternative gains some kind of political momentum, but that's about as far as he (or British voters) will go.

Bad Assumption #3: Revelations from Iraq will cause Europeans in general to share Tony Blair's epiphany and abandon the UN completely. Soon.
This non-starter just compounds the two other bad assumptions into something even more disastrously off-base. The concept of the UN and other international institutions is fundamental to European views of a peaceful world, and they're deeply suspicions of an activist America especially one that's led by the idiot cowboy Bush. Nothing will galvanize European and world opinion against the US faster than a perceived attempt by the superpower to destroy the UN, and no politician in Europe could stand against that. Not that even the most stalwart ally would even try (see bad assumption 2).

Bush can probably get away with just ignoring the UN, but Blair simply cannot. France is pushing the issue at the UN now to force Blair to choose between backing the US (which would be political suicide) or backing the UN (which would damage US-UK relations). Chirac may have overplayed his hand by being so trigger happy with the veto threat -- his belligerence allows Blair to treat the whole question as a dispute with Chirac rather than a dispute with the UN. The reprieve is temporary, though -- Chirac will tune his message and if Russia and China join in it will get harder for Blair to avoid the issue.

Update: In the comments on the original thread, Rob Robertson points to another danger. France is reported to be mediating an attempt to get Iraq to "surrender" to the UN, which would also put Blair in a tough position.

An Iranian friend still living in Europe has this to say about the war:

Right now the only thing people here are talking about is the war. Almost everybody here in Europe is against the war. I for myself try not to get involved in the discussions but sometimes I lose it and tell them my opinion. I have the dreadful experience of living in a dictatorship for some years and Saddam is the reason why I was separated from my parents, not to mention all the people he killed in the war. Unfortunately it's hard to make the people here to understand what I have seen and experienced. Most of them had an easy life and are so naive. I sometimes get the impression that form them the evil exists only in movies and novels. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for war but if it's the only way to get of this guy then let it be. I just hope the war will be over soon, with minimal casualties. Maybe this war will also change something in Iran.

When you read things like this ("Slow Aid and Other Concerns Fuel Iraqi Discontent Toward United States"), try to remember the context.

Danger, Will Robinson!

I've seen a bunch of posts lately that are dismissive of France's actions at the UN. Some regard it as a failed attempt to muscle in on lucrative reconstruction work while others think that Chirac is marginalizing France by hammering the last nails in the coffin of the UN and wonder how they could be so blind. Steven Den Beste describes a rather detailed scenario in which France is humbled and powerless. The consensus seems to be that the UN is a dead man walking which can safely be more-or-less ignored from here on out.

I think the consensus is wrong. The reality is much more volatile than most seem to believe, and Chirac is operating according to a plan and it's dangerous to just dismiss him.

While everyone else is glued to their TV sets, France is busily setting up for the next battle in Cold War II, and those preparations are dangerous. Although Chirac et al would like to muscle in on reconstruction, their primary goal is to force a wedge between Blair and Bush. Postwar UN participation in Iraq is the perfect opportunity.

The first important thing to note is that most of the participants in the second cold war are democracies, which means that public opinion is the deadliest weapon. On that front, Chirac has an arsenal while Bush is practically unarmed -- most of his allies are going against strong domestic opinion. The news from Iraq will certainly give them a boost, but it would be a fatal mistake to assume that it will be enough to instantly reverse the tide of public opinion. That will take time and patience and is only possible if the reconstruction of Iraq is handled and presented properly. If it starts out as a fight with the UN, it'll be perceived badly no matter the real outcome.

The next thing to understand is that so many people have such a strong attachment to the theory of the UN that they are all but blind to the ugly reality. I stand by my assertion that Bush will regard the UN in its current form as a danger to the United States, but the response to that post has convinced me that he will have to be extremely careful in how he handles that. The "street" in most countries is predisposed to distrust Bush and anything short of immediate capitulation to (France in its capacity as defender of) the UN will be easy to spin into bullying. Bush needs time to get some positive results in Iraq to help restore his credibility before he can deal with the UN, and France isn't going to allow him that time.

So here's the game:

Chirac is pushing at the UN now because it puts Bush and Blair in a bind before they have a chance to recover any popularity. Bush doesn't trust the UN and doesn't particularly want it to be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq and most of his constituents would probably be okay with that. Blair likes the theory of the UN but is fed up enough with France that he would probably go along with Bush if he could, but he can't. British voters would be outraged (especially Labour voters) and he'd be out of office in a week.

Forcing the issue now leaves Bush and Blair with a bunch of mostly unpalatable scenarios:

If they go ahead and ignore the UN, Blair (and probably other allies) fall. The transatlantic rift widens and France assumes effective leadership of an EU that sees itself in opposition to the US, and we're into a variant of scenario four; if Chirac is really lucky, Bush falls too and the his replacement returns to the UN as a supplicant.

If they go the UN, France will try to stick the US and UK with most of the bills while depriving them of all authority and claiming the credit for any postwar success.

If they get into an ugly fight, Chirac gets to play the noble defender of the international order, which will nullify or reverse any gains in public opinion and could end up toppling Blair or other allies.

All in all, it will be an ugly mess if Bush and Blair are distracted long enough for France to dictate the terms of the looming fight at the UN. To prevail, Bush and Blair will need to react soon an they'll have to be clever, subtle and diplomatically astute. I sincerely hope they let Tony Blair take the lead on this one.

I have a couple of ideas on this percolating and will try to get them posted over the weekend.

Update: Jaed at Bitter Sanity comments. She also has a bad feeling about the activity at the UN but disagrees with the notion that it's intended to drive the allies apart, on the grounds that the same thing was said about the pre-war manuvering. I'll have a longer post on this tonight or tomorrow, but the short answer to that objection is "exactly." It almost worked this first time and Chirac is trying again.

And this time is much, much more dangerous for Blair. The question of whether to remove Saddam is a moral no-brainer and Blair was clearly fully committed to the goal and he still faced an unprecedented revolt from the backbenches. The question of whether to let the UN distribute food just isn't going to light anyone on fire, and actually attacking the UN is (still) political suicide. Blair understands this, which is why he's so publicly pissed at Chirac -- as long as it's "Tony vs. Jacques" the people (and the politicians) will back him. Everything changes if it becomes "Bush vs. the UN," which is exactly what Chirac is manuvering for. If it comes to that, it is not at all clear that Blair could or would side with Bush.

Update: This is exactly what I'm talking about and why it isn't possible to just write off the UN. Europeans, including the British public and probably even Tony Blair himself are not prepared to do so, and if Washington forces the issue, Blair will either fall or bolt. If that happens, it will become the United States against literally the entire world.

Update: More here.

Russell Working has some suggestions for people looking for new and interesting ways to protest (and achieve inner peace).

Update: His words were, sadly, prophetic (4th paragraph).

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung ran an opinion piece (article is in German) which amounts to a call to arms for Old Europe to rise up and oppose the brutal American Hegemony (okay, I'm exaggerating a bit). It also pretty much confirms the world view I attributed to Chirac here:

The European political classes are busily constructing the mythology of a "wise" Europe, a narrative in which European nations have moved on to the next stage of (trans)national evolution and set aside the animosities of the past to create a harmonious brave new world. In this view, the cold war wasn't really Europe's affair -- Europe was the plucky mammal evolving in the shadows while prehistoric titans clashed overhead, oblivious.

Found via Perlen Taucher (Thanks, Heike!), a handy site for keeping up with the German press and events.

For the most part I plan to leave the military, technology and blow-by-blow reports to more qualified bloggers. That said...

I've seen a couple of reports that Iraq is firing Scuds at Kuwait. They're firing something alright, but the missile described by the CNN correspondent doesn't sound like a Scud to me.

As I understand it, the Scud is a ballistic missle, which means it boosts to altitude and then falls back to the ground. The CNN correspondent describes a missle that flew noisily about 300 ft overhead at high speed and landed quite far away. Sounds like it was still under propulsion, which makes it something other than a Scud. It's probably not a big deal, but I wonder if these were a Al-Samoud 2 missiles or something else that Iraq isn't supposed to have. Maybe an Exocet:-)? This is hardly my area of expertise, so I could well be wrong.

CNN is also reporting that they were given the all-clear with respect to chemicals but that were casualties (no details yet). What is Iraq up to? Are these ranging shots for something nastier? If so, the something nastier will probably be coming very soon, as I'd expect the life expectancy of an Iraqi missile launcher to be pretty short. Given that "Chemical Ali" is in charge in the south, I think the odds are good that it'll be getting ugly very soon.

Update: CNN is no reporting a second and maybe a third wave of missiles, including one likely hit in downtown Kuwait city. They're identifying the missles as Scuds. Sanjay Gupta is with the Marines in the restricted area of Northern Kuwait -- they've had four bunker calls and the last flight seems to have come pretty close. Another reporter with a different group of marines also heard several nearby thuds and was told to put on his chemical suit. There are also reports that Patriots took down at least one incoming missile.

Update: Kevin Sites just reported that Iraq fired at least one artillery shell at Kurds in the North.

Update: Now they're reporting that a small plane (a "cessna") just flew out of Iraq and crashed within view of a Marine position. They're also reporting that Iraq is supposed to have modified small planes to deliver chemical weapons and for remote piloting.

Update: In response to a question at a press conference, the Iraqi Information Minister denied that Iraq has Scud missles.

Update: The CNN talking heads are confused by the Information Minister's claim that Iraq has no Scuds. I think I might've called this one but time will tell. Oh, well. Off to bed.

Don't Kiss That Frog!

Jacques Chirac seems to want to kiss and make up. He has announced that if Iraq uses chemical weapons, everything changes and France will of course send specialist soldiers to clean up evidence of French collusion.
That offer seems redundant, considering that coalition members from "new" Europe have sent or are sending highly regarded chemical specialist units to the Gulf. IIRC, even Germany has left a chemical weapons team in Kuwait under UN auspices (this is all based on recollection, so corrections and/or citations are more than welcome).

Is it just me, or does this seem like the perfect setup for another Rumsfeld moment:

Reporter: Mr Rumsfeld, can you comment on the French offer to send troops if Saddam uses chemical weapons?

Rumsfeld: We don't really need French troops, we have Poland.

Update: I've found articles confirming that Poland, Spain, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and, yes, Germany are all providing specialists in dealing with chemical (and, in some cases, nuclear and biological) weapons and that the Ukraine is thinking about doing the same.

Update: In fact, Germany is sending 170 additional specialists to join the 90 soldiers and an unspecified number of "Fuchspanzer" (tanks which function as mobile chemical, biological and nuclear detection and cleanup labs) that are already in Kuwait.

Chirac's efforts are starting to bear fruit. The cherished French goal of a "unified" European foreign policy (dictated by France, of course) is receding from view, thanks in large part to Chirac's polished diplomatic tact.

Don't confuse happiness with gratitude, or gratitude with trust.

The people of Iraq will undoubtedly be happy to be free of Saddam, but don't expect instant gratitude. Gratitude might come someday, if the reconstruction of Iraq is just and proper and the occupation forces tread very lightly. Trust is another matter entirely -- the people of Iraq have suffered and been lied to enough over the last century that it will take generations for the absolute certainty of imminent betrayal to recede.

If you don't understand why this is true and justified, read Salam's post one more time.

No matter how you feel about the coming war, you should read Salam Pax's latest post.

There's nothing to say, really. He's absolutely right that it shouldn't have come to this.

I can just hope that Salam and the people of Iraq wake up one morning a week or two from now and say: "It's over? That was it?!" I'm not naive enough to believe that it'll really be that quick or painless, but I hope against hope that it will be much less bad than they fear.

I also hope that the US will do the right thing after the war and truly stand by Iraq -- no distractions and no quick fixes for the sake of "stability" or public opinion. I don't exactly have a lot of influence, but I'll certainly do what I can to hold the administration's feet to the fire.

Stay safe, Salam.

Silly me

And here I thought the "main problem" to be solved was Saddam's possession of WMD. Apparently I was mistaken. According to this article, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov says:

The British proposal on Iraq is not constructive and does not solve the main problem: the prevention of a plan to use force with regard to Baghdad.

It's kind of amazing to see both France and Russia come right out and admit that they're carrying water for Saddam. And they're not the only ones.

I don't think it was part of a planned strategy, but Steven Den Beste just might have identified a opportunity for Bush.

If the administration just points the finger at France and moves on, or if they come across as arrogant or petulant, France wins.

But... if they mount a serious, broad-based and long term assault on the credibility of the UN then France has just handed them a whole lot of ammo. Hopefully they'll find the rest of the ammo they need in Iraq.

Chirac has been manuvering to embarass the US at the UN for quite some time now and his position is frankly pretty good. If things don't go absolutely perfectly in Iraq, or if there's an upsurge in terrorism, Chirac gets a big "I told you so." If they go well for the US, he doesn't lose any capital.

Unless Bush takes the fight to him. Steven might have put his finger on the fact that Chirac is vulnerable to a well-executed calculated assault on France and on the UN. Perhaps because he literally can't conceive of a leader attacking the UN in earnest. He probably expects that Bush will, at worst, pull out "temporarily" and that he'll be able to spin it as petulance.

I'm not so sure Chirac is right -- the UNSC seems to conceive its primary role to be opposing the United States. If I'm right about Bush, he'll see it as a threat to the security of the United States and look for ways to neutralize or eliminate it. I'll admit that it's a very tall order, and that it would require very deft and patient work on the part of a Bush team that hasn't been noted for either of those traits.

I don't know how this is all going to fall, but I'm more convinced than ever that big change is coming.

Now that the combatants at the UN are just trying to avoid taking the blame for the upcoming train wreck, I'm once again starting to think that something like this would be clever idea. It would certainly force France into a corner and lead the "discussion" in new and interesting directions.

To recap, submit two resolutions for consideration:

The first resolution would affirm that Iraq is in full compliance with resolution 1441 -- that the December WMD declaration was complete and accurate and that Iraq has complied with and cooperated fully in implementing the requirements of that resolution. Given that Hans Blix has clearly said those things are not true, voting Yes would require France to go on the record contradicting him. Voting No would set them up for...

The second resolution. The original version of 1442, declaring that Iraq is not in compliance with 1441. Full stop.

This approach has a few interesting consequences, it:

Forces the burden of explanation onto France et al. If they vote no on both resolutions, they'll have to explain the difference between "not yes" and "no."

Underlines the fact that the proposed 1442 is not a resolution to "authorize war" but a judgement on Saddam's compliance with previous resolutions that already authorize war.

Would be so completely unexpected that it would prompt lots of media discussion about the real contents of the proposed resolutions and smash the notion that the proposed resolution 1442 "authorizes war."

The whole thing is farce, anyway, so I can't see how it would do any harm.

It's About (Russian) Oiiiiill
Now this is rich:

There is only one plausible way. Both countries need to pass legislation stating something like this: "In order to demonstrate our good faith, and confirm that our overriding motivation lies in defending peace and security, the governments of the United States and Britain hereby prohibit, for a period of two years, all U.S. and British oil companies (and their subsidiaries) from entering into contracts in, or in relation to, Iraq."

Oh, it's about oil, alright, but not for Bush and Blair.

He must be so proud

From the Times Online article cited below:

Capping French glory was the news yesterday that babies in the Arab world were being named �Chirac�, in tribute to the �peace-warrior President�. In 1990, they were being called Saddam, and more recently Osama.

Chirac sure spends a lot of time in the company of giants, doesn't he. I'm with Porphyrogenitus on this one -- I like the look of our team a whole lot better.

Cold War II
This Times Online article seems to confirm that Chirac is intentionally instigating a new cold war for the glory of France, as I've been speculating since January:

France is convinced that, although the US will win the war, it has established itself as champion of an alternative world order to US domination. The resort to crude French-bashing in the US and Britain adds to France�s conviction that it has won the argument.

Cold War II is now a fact -- France wants to be a foe, and Washington has to start treating it as one. The world is on the cusp of change, and this cold war will be very different than the first, though. Once the shooting in Iraq stops, the US and its true allies have to start taking steps to take the wind out of French sails, and to build a new world order with sensible new international institutions.

I've seen some speculation that North Korea's next provocation might be a test-firing of a medium range missile into international waters near Japan. It's probably a long shot, but are any of the star wars technologies ready for a live test? It'd be one hell of a smackdown if they actually managed to bring the thing down, and there's total deniability if they miss. Just a thought.

Chirac's Woldview?

Over at ChicagoBoyz, Lexington Green responds to my backhanded semi-defense of France. I think we're actually pretty close now, and I'm sure we agree on the posture the US should take towards France in the short- to medium-term (as is Jonathan Gewirtz on the same site). One point does deserve a bit more discussion, though. Lexington writes:

Well. First, I think it is easier to think that Chirac and Villepin are smart and can at least anticipate the consequences of their actions than to impute a "vast underestimation" to them. They are bright guys. They can see how the world works, and they can foresee the more obvious likely consequences of their actions. And they know perfectly well how much America does to create "world stability." Ending the "world stability" which has been imposed by the United States and which exists on American terms is what they want to happen.

Chirac is a smart guy, but so is Noam Chomsky. So, for that matter, is Paul Wolfowitz. We are all prisoners of our worldview and we all have blind spots. One huge blind spot in the European world view is over the contribution of the America (and especially the military) to postwar stability.

The European political classes are busily constructing the mythology of a "wise" Europe, a narrative in which European nations have moved on to the next stage of (trans)national evolution and has set aside the animosities of the past to create a harmonious brave new world. In this view, the cold war wasn't really Europe's affair -- Europe was the plucky mammal evolving in the shadows while prehistoric titans clashed overhead, oblivious.

To acknowledge America's (military) contribution to stability, even to themselves, would force them to confront the uncomfortable possibility that the European experiment is a hothouse flower which can only survive when sheltered from the harsh climate of the real world.

This accounts for the ferocious reaction from at least some of the European protestors, as the only role for America in this world view is lumbering prehistoric beast, no longer preoccupied and looking for a snack. Which is why they react (emotionally, at least) as if America might attack Holland next.

This view is also behind the disconnect on the topic of gratitude for WW II (see here).
For some other good takes on the "European" world view, see Vinod or bitter sanity.

Update: I also should point out that none of this is intended to excuse Chirac's behaviour and I'm not suggesting that we "agree to disagree." If anything, it's a call to action -- this world view is inherently hostile and dangerous to the United States (and, in my opinion, to the safety of the entire world) and must be checked. Understanding one of the root causes (sorry) of the struggle at the UN makes it possible to respond appropriately and effectively.

Freedom Fries

Glenn Reynolds and Cato the Youngest are sort of defending Freedom Fries, on the grounds that its very silliness makes it a harmless way to signal displeasure.

I actually think the symbolic renaming is less of a problem than the new names they chose. "Freedom" Fries and "Liberty" Toast sound so... earnest. That leaves the impression that the people doing the renaming are very earnest about something that is undeniably silly, which leads to the conclusion that they're foolish and petty. Would we be having this discussion if they'd chosen "Weasel Toast" and "Frog Fries"?

How's that for sitting on the fence?

Everything's fine when it comes to Franco-American relations. There's no strain whatsoever in the EU, NATO or the UN. Oh, yes and "so far as their strategy for disarming Iraq goes, the Americans have already reached their objective. They've won."

Jacques Chirac gives a television interview, apparently from some alternate universe.

Take a deep breath, everybody...
Bomb-throwing leftist subversive Mrs. T thinks some prominent bloggers are losing it, and tells them so with a firehose blast of cold water directed at the conspiracy theorists (and a lovely rant it is, indeed).

In this case at least, she's right, and PapaScott agrees. The profiteering described in the Die Zeit article that has everyone atwitter is unfortunate, but the players seem to be unconnected small fish and the German government is prosecuting them -- hardly evidence in support of collusion. This might (or might not) signal a lack of ethics and/or oversight, but there's absolutely no connection to Schr�der's Iraq policy and no smoking gun for the "something to hide" theory.

Everybody's a bit tense right now, and it's making people silly, so let's all try to take a deep breath and calm down a bit before posting. And I'll start by updating my post immediately below.

Lexington Green is fed up and lets France have it with both barrels, over at ChicagoBoyz.

Now I've been sounding the "The French Are Coming" alarm for months (see here, here, here, here or here or just poke around the archives - there are one or two on every page) and even I'm not willing to go quite this far:

Why would the French be willing to take steps which logically and practically could very well lead to the destruction of American cities with nuclear weapons? Why are they willing to push things in that direction? Why are they willing to take that risk? Because they see the world as a zero sum game in which what is bad for America is good for France.

Now the French foreign policy mandarins are deeply cynical and they are willing to let Americans die in large numbers for the glory of France, but not to the extent that Lexington fears. In particular, I don't think they consider a nuclear attack on the United States a serious possibility. If they did, they'd be more cooperative -- they'd still demand their pound of flesh and they'd still make extracting it as painful as possible, but in the end they'd come along.

I also don't think they see it as a purely zero-sum game in which America's loss is France's gain. They vastly underestimate the contribution that America makes to world stability and overestimate the stabilizing effect of their beloved multilateral institutions, which leads them to be reckless in their attempts to launch a new cold war.

France became pretty adept at gaming the system during the first cold war, but they've been losing influence since the iron curtain fell. Their foreign policy establishment just doesn't understand how to function in a world with just one "Hyperpower" so they yearn for the good old days and do everything they can to bring them back. And if they suceed in goading Russia and/or China into forming an opposing bloc, France will immediately (attempt to) resume its accustomed position as a semi-neutral, able to mediate between (and profit from) either of the great powers and their assorted pawns.

So... I'll grant you shortsighted, arrogant, aggressive, self-centered and venal (and maybe malicious) but I'd stop somewhere short of calling them calculating mass murderers.

Update: In response to some... unhappy... email, let me clarify a bit. I do think that French policy makers place greater weight on the good (or glory) of France as they see it than on the lives of American soldiers. That leads to decisions that place Americans at risk, but I'm aghast at the suggestion that they're actively trying to get Americans killed.

Okay, the "Freedom Fries" thing is stupid, but the "pro-ICC" activists in this article demonstrate that stupid and pointless "symbolic" acts aren't exclusive to Congress:

Pro-court activists raised the flags of the member states on a beach outside The Hague, each flag surrounded by a 3-foot-high sandbag bunker to symbolize a determination to ward off a U.S. landing.

The stuff about a US landing is a reference to the "Invasion of the Hague" act and has nothing to do with Iraq. It's too bad they didn't publicize the symbolic bunkers ahead of time -- they'd have passed fluids if a landing craft full of Marines actually turned up.

A new world order? (for real this time)

Jaed at Bitter Sanity writes up his thoughts about the differences between European and American perceptions of the UN and its proper role. Jaed thinks there's a fundamental disconnect and that all parties to the discussion are pretty much talking past each other. Jaed's theory does do a pretty good job of accounting for the rapidly deteriorating tone of the discussion.

Over at the Guardian, Peter Mandelson writes that the struggle in the UN is about the shape of an emergent new world order (where have we heard that before?). He sees a struggle between advocates of multipolarity and multilateralism, with American unilateralism waiting in the wings.

Meanwhile, Lee Harris writes that we're on the cusp of an even more fundamental change in world view. If Lee is correct, the very concepts underlying the Jaed's theory and the struggle between multipolarity and multilateralism are about to be swept away.

I don't have a grand unifying theory for all of this (yet), but these articles all point to something I've been feeling for a while now -- that we're poised on the brink of a momentous change and that nobody really has any idea what comes next. We can speculate and debate and imagine, but in the end it's all theory until it happens and I think we all sense that we really aren't equipped to understand what's about to happen and won't be until it's over. And then the outcome will seem obvious and foreordained.

In the meantime, we wait and we worry and we hope for the best.

Update: David Warren also writes about changes in the world order and the cold war that's brewing.

Update: David Adesnik disagrees (if the permalink goes to the wrong article, just go to OxBlog and look for the post that starts "Wishful Thinking").