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.