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").

Today's Op-Ed page in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a measured takedown of the "Human Shields" now fleeing Iraq that's worth a read. Excerpts:

Our service people have done a vastly superior job to these voluntary shields of thinking through their behavior toward civilians within a violent environment.


...


It is likely there will be no place more dangerous for the shields than among a newly liberated Iraqi populace, who will view them as pro-Saddam.

He manages to disassemble the human shields calmly and without apparent animosity or ridicule, which makes the article all the more effective.

A Seattle Weekly article quotes a collection of local notables on the looming war in Iraq. Andrew Sullivan cites a quote in which Tom Robbins wishes for an US defeat in Iraq. If you read to the end of the article, though, you'll find another quote that's a bit less hostile to the US:

Yahya Algarib is a family advocate at the Iraqi Community Center:

All the Iraqis�we�re so confused. We need Saddam Hussein removed, and, at the same time, we�re worried about our people. We saw a lot of people dying in the Gulf War�all civilians dying for no reason. Saddam Hussein is still in power. Now if they really want to have a second war with Iraq, where is it going to be? Just in the south of Iraq? Because last time, they could have moved to the capital, but then they stopped for political reasons. Now is it going to be same, or is it going to be real, and they will move into Baghdad?

Now who do you think has a better understanding of Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

Interesting...

This report (in German) of an anti-war demonstration in Leipzig explicitly mentions opposition to Saddam as well as Bush:

The demonstrators didn't protest against only the American war-plans, though. Signs also criticized Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In itself, not a big deal, but this is the first report I've seen of any antiwar demonstration anywhere that actually criticize Saddam as well. Is this an outlier or an leading indication of a (admittedly small) change in sentiment?

On another front, I also found Ari Fleischer's choice of words in his press conference today kind of interesting (at least in the part I caught). He didn't waste any kind words on the UN and indicated that if the UN doesn't act, then "other international institutions" will do so. Is he laying the groundwork for a post-UN world? He was certainly laying the groundwork for a giant, post-war I-told-you-so (which is the kind of thing I've been arguing the administration has to do).

Matthew Yglesias is worried about Bush's postwar plans for Iraq and the (possibly post-UN) international system. For the war itself, he says that he "favors the war that Bush says he's going to fight" but "fears that that won't be the war that's actually waged." On international issues, he fears that some within the administration want to impose a pax Americana and that the administration as a whole has shown no signs of knowing how to "fix" the international system.

I share his concerns, though to a much lesser degree, and I've actually been getting more optimistic on the issue of postwar Iraq lately. The international situation is a genuine mess right now, but I don't lay all (or even most) of the blame for that on Bush. I also see some signs of hope, despite lingering concerns that I've discussed before.

If you're absolutely convinced that Bush is driven by petty or venal motives or because he's a bloodthirsty warmonger with imperial designs, you might as well stop reading right now. As I see it, his behaviour as President is entirely consistent with a genuine dedication to protecting America and furthering American interests as he sees them coupled with an evolving notion of precisely what that means. Contrary to the common wisdom, I think he also understands the importance of a stable and workable international system. That said, he's not an idealist about it and he's not willing to sacrifice (his notion of) American security or economic interest on the altar of internationalism.

His real project is not the liberation of Iraq but the renovation of the Middle East as a whole, for the security of the United States. President Bush is truly committed to making postwar Iraq a success on the scale of postwar Europe, because anything less would place the larger project in jeopardy. Whether he'll actually pull it off or not is anyone's guess, but the commitment is genuine.

His speeches, statements and his actions have even been consistent with that notion. The reported deals with Turkey had me very seriously concerned for awhile, but a closer look gave me the impression of a three-way standoff -- neither the Turks nor the Kurds are willing to completely trust the United States to look out for their interests, and the US doesn't trust either side not to start a war. The end result would be a very delicate balance of just enough concessions to make Turkey feel secure without triggering a Kurdish rebellion, with coalition troops in the area to keep them apart. The situation will be tense as hell, which is always a risk, but I don't think the administration is planning to just hand effective control of the Kurdish areas to Turkey and I don't think either side actually wants a war.

It's fashionable in the Blogosphere right now to charge the Bush team with incomptence on the international front, but they were actually doing quite well on the until they were derailed by circumstances that nobody could predict. Bush surprised everyone when he went to the UN and stunned them when he got a suprisingly tough resolution approved unanimously by the UNSC (including Syria). It looked like things were on track for a UNSC approved war in Iraq this spring until the wheels came off when Schr�der decided to run against Bush rather than Stoiber. That gave France an opportunity to drive a wedge between the US and Germany and thereby enhance its stature in Europe and the World at the expense of the United States and (unwittingly) the UN.

France, Russia and Germany have made it clear that they view the UN as an instrument they can use to restrain the United States. The sad result of that is to convince Bush that the UN in its current form is essentially an anti-American institution. That makes it a threat, which means that he won't rest until it is restructured or replaced. Scroll down or click here on the impending threat to the UN.

The design of whatever rises from the ashes of the UN will be directed by people who take a pragmatic rather than an idealistic view of the whole enterprise. They will recognize the value of the institution but will be skeptical of investing it with too much power, which places them in stark contrast to the earnest idealists who constructed the bizarre world of the UN or the suffocating mound of eurocracy in Brussels. The result should be an institution with clearly defined responsibilities which is controlled by innate checks and balances. In short, we just might get a system that will work this time.

Update: Lexington Green is also feeling more optimistic about the Bush administration's commitment to truly getting Iraq back on its feet.

Update: But nobody says it'll be easy. Salam Pax describes the reaction in Iraq to news that Barbara Bodine would administer Baghdad ("you know it is their intention to destroy the pride of the muslim man"). Salam's points (many of them, read the whole thing) are well taken -- commitment is necessary but not sufficient. However happy the Iraqi people might be to be out from under Saddam, trust is another matter and the administration will need a very deft touch.

Naked protestors are one thing but now they're mentally undressing other people. From an MSNBC article about weekend protests:

�Imagine President Bush nude addressing the state of the union. Imagine Saddam Hussein nude.�

I really didn't need either of those images, thank you very much.

On the other hand, the description of that particular rally makes it sound pretty, um, interesting:

�Women are most affected by war,� [Danny] Glover said, also acknowledging International Women�s Day. �It is the real caregivers of this mother Earth who are most devastated.�


Joining them on federal grounds were four women followers of the Raelian sect who stripped down to their thong underwear as a sign of opposition to war. The sect believes life on Earth was created by space aliens and claims to have produced human clones.


�Whenever everybody undresses, the ego goes away and then we can make decisions,� said Nadine Gary.

Perhaps the most thorough and insightful treatment of the complex geopolitical difficulties posed by the situation in Iraq that I've ever seen. Nothing but top-tier intellectuals in that group.

I'd say more, but Russel Working has already written the final word on the topic of these sorts of "protests."

The UN Follies

Dean Esmay does a very nice job of putting the UN follies in perspective. His characterization of President Bush is spot on, too.

The End of the UN is coming. And it'll be much sooner and much more brutal than most people expect.

Even those who've been predicting the demise of the UN seem to expect that it will fade into irrelevance. The weasel-bloc nations are betting that Bush willl just ignore the UN for the remainder of his current term, and that his replacement (in two years) will be eager to get back in the good graces of the UN. Even if Bush "temporarily" withdraws, they'll spin it as a fit of pique, batten down the hatches, and wait for his replacement. Two years of irrelevance is a small price to pay for the glory they've received, and the light at the end of a tunnel is an American President who will suck up to Europe like no one ever has.

They've seriously misread the situation.

Bush will not simply ignore the UN for the remainder of his term. He's a bit focused on Iraq at the moment, but once he turns his attention to the UN, he will systematically discredit and dismantle it to the best of his ability. And he'll be turning his attention to the UN very soon.

France and her followers have worked very hard to wring the maximum benefit out of the standoff at the UN. In the process, they've placed the credibility of the UN in direct opposition to that of the US, which means that the only way for President Bush to regain credibility is to trash the UN.

But that's actually secondary. Their real mistake was to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that the UN in its current form is a clear and present threat to the security of the United States as Bush sees it, and President Bush has made it very clear that he sees it as his duty to eliminate threats to the United States. Dominique de Villepin might as well have painted a giant bullseye on the side of the UN building.

The attack on the UN will begin at about the same time as the attack on Iraq, on the theory that its better to take the worst of the PR damage all at once. In the first salvo, Bush will publicly flay the UN and directly take on the weasels in the statesmanlike speech his supporters have been waiting for (which might be the speech that announces the start of hostilities in Iraq). He may well also "temporarily" withdraw from the UN but I don't think we'll see a joint walkout just yet, and Bush will probably offer to work with other nations to "reform the UN into an effective body." This last bit is primarily for Tony Blair's domestic benefit, and the UK will take the lead on proposing ways to reform the UN. None of them will work, but it's a PR exercise so that's beside the point.

In the medium to long term, the best and most effective weapon Bush will have against the UN any time soon is Iraq itself. Handled properly, his greatest liability can become his strongest asset. The war will be waged with exquisite concern for civilian casualties and the postwar peace should be managed cleanly, transparently and with extraordinary generosity toward the people of Iraq. And look for a PR campaign emanating from Iraq itself, aimed directly at those who supported Saddam - every hidden weapon and every atrocity that is uncovered in Iraq will be laid directly on France's doorstep.

If Iraq plays out as expected and world opinion calms down enough that Blair (and Bush) are feeling secure again, they'll decide that the UN is beyond hope and propose a complete replacement -- one built from the ground up to promote freedom in a unipolar world (Evan Coyne Mahoney's Alliance of Liberty is a pretty good template). The new entity might even arise from the reconstruction of Iraq itself, which will be run by (mostly) non-UN multinational entities and via non-UN multilateral agreements (ad-hoc coalitions of the willing, able and trustworthy).

Bush might surprise me and go straight to a replacement for the UN, but it seems like that would be too much for Tony Blair to survive right now and Bush won't sacrifice him. Bush values loyalty and knows that it goes both ways, and he understands that Tony Blair is essential for the next stages in Bush's project to make the world a safer place.

Update: I really have to remember to read USS Clueless before I sit down to write. Steven Den Beste is on the same wavelength.

Update: Andrew at Pathetic Earthlings wrote about possible non-UN multilateral administration of Iraq several weeks ago. I'll admit that the notion of France lobbying Poland has a certain appeal, but it's unlikely -- effectiveness is primary, and whatever structures emerge can't even appear to have been designed to retaliate against France. The new Iraqi government, on the other hand, can do whatever it wants.

I think I've figured out why Saddam confidently predicts victory, should America attack. He's seen this video.

Peace in Our Time

I was listening to the UN presentations on the radio this morning, and the Russian foreign minister just said that the security council was "laying the foundation for peace in our time."

Yeah, that worked so well the first time. It's bad enough for peace protestors to be historically illiterate, but the Russian foreign minister?

The more the merrier?

President Bush made it clear this evening that he will push ahead with a new UN resolution, regardless of whether he thinks it will be approved. He also made it clear that plans for Iraq will be largely affected by the outcome -- he has already made the determination that Saddam is not complying and the second resolution is reallly a challenge to the UN to prove that its words actually mean anything.

This is a pretty good approach. Anyone who's paying attention understands the real contents of resolution 1441 and the meaning of a no vote or a veto. Unfortunately, most people aren't paying very close attention and most media coverage leaves the impression that the full text of resolution 1441 is "Bomb Iraq." The end result is that forcing a vote will deliver the message that the President intends, but only to people who already understand it.

I think I have a better idea. Submit two resolutions for consideration.

The first resolution would affirm that Iraq is in full compliance with resolution 1441 -- that the WMD declaration was accurate and that Iraq has complied with and cooperated fully in implementing the requirements of that resolution.

After that resolution is defeated, the US et all would submit proposed resolution 1442, with no changes.

Even if both resolutions fail, forcing a vote on two resolutions would achieve several things:

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."

It 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.

The fact that it is so completely unexpected 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."

As with many ideas, I can't tell at first if it's clever or stupid.

Update: As it turns out, the proposed amendment goes in sort of this direction by attempting to force a second vote which positively affirms that Iraq has fully and completely. The fact that it has a trigger date makes it a non-starter, though. If they want to force the council to affirm (or deny) that Iraq is in full compliance, they should stop playing games and just do so.

Next question?

Citing news reports that the UN is drawing up plans for the postwar administration of Iraq, Mark at Web.Kafe asks the question "UN Control of Iraq - Good or Bad?"

Let me ponder this for a second. Okay, I'm done. The answer is:

BAD!

It's true that the world will be watching for signs that America is "stealing Iraqi oil" or building an empire and is predisposed to believe the worst. Handing control to the UN has a superficial appeal as a simple and ostentatious way for the administration to keep its hands clean. In the medium- to long-term, though, it would be a disaster.

Just consider the sterling job that the UNHCR has done for the Palestinians and the blue helmet's heroic defense of Srebenica. The UN will set up a permanent aid bureaucracy while France and Russia graciously offer to patrol Iraq's oilfields. Outside of Baghdad and the oilfields, tentative peacekeepers and ethnic tensions will lead everyone to arm themselves to the teeth.

In the best case, one of the thugs hits on the right combination of toadying and blackmail, and the UN hands over control of everything but the oilfields before internal strife gets out of hand. The new strongman keeps things calm in the short term but setting up another thugocracy feeds the cynicism and fear of neocolonialism that is a real root cause of Arab discontent.

In the worst case, the UN "powers" can't find one thug who is willing to suck up to all of the players simultaneously, so they back different factions. Turkey and Iran get involved "to ensure security" and pretty soon we're looking at Afghanistan all over again but with guns and money galore.

The postwar administration of Iraq absolutely must be transparent, squeaky clean and temporary. Other nations should participate in specific aspects of the reconstruction (individually or under UN auspices), but the UN must not get overall administrative control.

So much for my prediction that the worst of the diplomatic head-butting was over. At the time it seemed that Tony Blair and "new" Europe had held steady while Chirac had flinched. Alas, the dynamic trio are at it again, with Russia and France stopping just short of promising a veto.

Steven Den Beste thinks we're seeing another game of diplomatic chicken and that the goal is to prevent the resolution from ever coming to a vote. I don't think they really care whether it comes to a vote or not -- the name of the game now is to hurt the US and Britain as much as possible. Chirac's ultimate dream of toppling Blair might even be within reach, and Chirac probably thinks that would be enough to stop the war. As an added bonus, Blair's fall would pressure those upstarts who had the temerity to challenge Franco-German stewardship of Europe.

Here are the various scenarios, as I see them and in probability order (most likely first):

The coalition attacks Iraq without UN approval
This would enrage pretty much everyone except the "American Street" (with a solid assist from France et al, no doubt). Blair's position is secure during the fighting, but he'd be at risk again as soon as the situation stabilizes. It doesn't matter much whether they drop the new resolution or if they try and fail. The least damaging (but still bad) scenario is if France is forced to veto. This looks a lot like a new cold war, but there's enough support left for the US that Europe doesn't harden into a solid anti-American bloc.

UN haggling takes long enough that Blair falls -- The US attacks anyway
The British pull out of the coalition but Bush presses on regardless. The consequences for US-European relations are disastrous. A domino effect clears out most of the leaders who stood up to Chirac, and the growing gulf between the US and Europe becomes a chasm. From this point on, it would truly be the US against (most of) the world in a new cold war.

The coalition attacks Iraq with grudging UN approval
This is the best outcome Bush and Blair can hope for. The politicking is open enough that many voters would still be disgruntled, but they wouldn't be outraged. Blair probably survives in this case, and the tensions between the US and Europe ebb (very) slowly.

UN haggling takes long enough that Blair falls -- The US backs off
Bush and the US become a laughingstock. The security council makes noises about Iraq until the public stops paying attention, declares victory, and France and Russia get to form their "counterweight" to the now severely weakened hyperpower. Whoever wins the 2004 presidential election (not Bush) busily sets about trying to "fix things" with Europe by immediately surrendering American sovereignty, security and economic interests to any organization or agreement that claims to be multilateral.

So if you're France, what's not to like?

Update: Andrew at Pathetic Earthlings comments. If scenario 4 plays out, I'll be in the rubber room next door.

Update: Looks like option 1, folks. The President made it clear that he's going to force a vote at the UNSC and then go ahead, win or lose.

If Angela Merkel's trip to the US was actually a cynical ploy for domestic political advantage, it didn't work. I'll grant that Schr�der took a few shots at Karneval, too, but this parade float featuring Merkel is mighty harsh. And eye-catching.

I still give her the benefit of the doubt and think that it was an honest (and risky) attempt to mend fences a bit.

From a bit further north, Pravda weighs in:

Iraq has a right to use the same instruments of war that Israel and the USA do. It is enough to compare words of Saddam Hussein said at the above-mentioned meeting with Russian parliamentarians and texts of Bush� hysterics in order to make sure that the Iraqi leader deserves much more trust than America�s president. The advantage of the latter is based upon military force, not intellect. In this case it is more immoral to indulge in �the right of the strong� than in the times when Japan attacked China and when Germany occupied Czechoslovakia.

Got that? Saddam deserves trust and Bush is worse than Hitler.

This Just In......from the KCNA (North Korean) newswire:

Delegates of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the Bulgarian Communist Party (Marxist), the Workers' Party of Bulgaria (communist), the Bulgarian Communist Party (bolshevik), the Bulgarian Communists Union, the Bulgarian Movement for Justice and Humanism, the Romanian Working Party and the Socialist Party of Romania released a joint statement on February 13, denouncing the U.S. moves to stifle the DPRK.

Is it just me or does it sound like this announcement came from eight guys in black sitting in a Sofia cafe?

Backpedaling, off message or something else?
According to this report in the German Press, Colin Powell gave a radio interview in France (to air on Saturday) in which he disavowed most of the speech that President Bush gave earlier this week and stated that the administration's goal is to disarm Saddam.

This doesn't make sense to me, at first blush. I can't believe that Powell is that much of a loose cannon, but I can't see how it fits any sort of coordinated strategy. It's late where I am (Seattle), so I'll sleep on it and maybe have a theory in the morning. I suppose it's possible that the report is false -- I haven't found it anywhere else yet (in either the German- or English-language press).

Update: The interview is getting pretty much the same response from Der Spiegel and FAZ

Update: Thanks to blogger Amiland, who sent along a link to the audio of the interview (and the FAZ article cited above). Listen for yourself, but it seems to me like ordinary diplomatic positioning on Powell's part that's being overinterpreted by the German press.

The wages of sin, redux.

A few days ago, Merde in France made suggested punishing France with more than a boycott, with policies that encourage corporations to move from France to "new" Europe.

Today, Charles Krauthammer outlines a much more comprehensive approach. He suggests:

Adding Japan and India as new permanent members of the security council.

No role for France in Iraq - no peacekeeping, no oil contracts, and France should be last on the list for debt repayment.

Begin laying the ground for a new alliance to replace obsolete cold war alliances

I agree and have said so before, but it has to be done "right." First off, heavy handed or inappropriate retaliation will just give Chirac yet another excuse to complain about the big bad hyperpower. Secondly, it has to be part of a comprehensive policy designed to reward and strengthen the bonds between like-minded allies.

Krauthammer's suggestions mostly fit the bill. I'd add:

Expand existing free trade zones or create new zones to encompass allies (e.g. Turkey, New Europe, selected parts of Old Europe).

Locking France out of Iraq is appropriate but has to be handled carefully:

Reconstruction contracts and peacekeeping duties are properly the responsibility of the provisional authorities (presumably a military administration at first) who would be fully within their rights to lock France out.

The administration would be wise to get administration of the oil fields under some form of nominally independent (civilian Iraqi or multi-nation) control as soon as possible; direct American control of Iraqi oil for any length of time will just feed the blood for oil crowd. The degree of French involvement during reconstruction is up to those authorities to decide. In the long term, it will be up to the government of Iraq to decide who gets contracts.

Decisions about which debts take priority will also be the responsibility of the US government. The US can't just move France to the bottom of the list on their own.

Now, I wouldn't expect the new government of Iraq to be terribly well disposed towards France, but the US can't dictate or even openly encourage that they punish France. They have to decide that on their own.

The US can craft policies that aren't good for France, but they can't be too direct or obvious and they'll have to be presented carefully. For example:

Instead of just paying for the reconstruction of Iraq, the US could structure it as debt and then campaign for all industrial nations to forgive debt on humanitarian grounds. Net cost to the US: Nothing they didn't expect to pay. Net cost to France and Russia: billions

Encouraging companies to move out of France is a possibility, but it has to be presented as "encouraging investment in developing Europe" rather than "discouraging investment in France."

The hard part starts after the shooting stops.

Steven Den Beste has a nice analysis and overview of the big picture in Iraq. He also enumerates and refutes some of the conspiracy theories I discuss in this post.

The importance of world public opinion is on the menu at Matthew Yglesias.

Winning back the respect and support of the world is an important goal, but now is not the time -- there just isn't enough common ground for a discussion right now. Both sides argue from deeply held beliefs and richly imagined scenarios:

The anti-war imagination conjures up a brutal war with carpet bombing of cities and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, followed by military occupation of Iraqi oil fields, haphazard and minimal reconstruction elsewhere and an eventual transition to a brutal new thug on the American payroll. The pro-liberation imagination yields a short, surgical war with minimal harm to civilians, followed by a reconstruction effort along the lines of the Marshall plan and an eventual transition to a modern, multi-ethnic democracy. Each side thinks the other is being ridiculous, and cynicism leads to a search for ulterior motives.

The only antidote to this mutual cynicism is counterexample. By making the moral case for regime change and outlining a positive vision for the reconstruction of Iraq, President Bush has laid a solid foundation. If the administration follows through on those words, a postwar campaign to win back world (or at least western) opinion should bear fruit. If it proves to have been posturing and empty rhetoric, cynicism will be validated and the damage will multiply.

So what does this all mean? For the administration it means a serious commitment to a scrupulously fair and ethical reconstruction program, and those who support regime change in Iraq will have to hold the administration's feet to the fire to make sure that happens. It also means that we all should keep the conversation as civil as possible -- when the shooting stops and it's time to build the consensus notion of what just happened, the last thing anyone wants is to have already alienated people who might otherwise have been convinced.

President Bush said all the right things as he outlined his vision for the reconstruction of Iraq. Voters are cynical enough these days that words alone won't win many people over, but by presenting a strong moral vision for postwar Iraq, he laid the foundation for a campaign to win back public support after the war.

If his words represent a genuine commitment to helping Iraq rebuild as a modern, multiethnic democracy, then this could mark a turning point for public attitudes. Decades of cold war Realpolitik have eroded postwar goodwill and left the majority deeply cynical -- cynical to the point that the idea that any nation can behave morally and responsibility gets less consideration than some truly absurd conspiracy theories.

If words are matched by action and the Bush administration comes through with a comprehensive, popular and fair plan for postwar reconstruction and executes that plan effectively and ethically, that might start to change. One good turn won't erase decades of distrust or usher in a new era of peace, love and understanding, but it could win back some self-respect for the west and help positive idealism stage a comeback.

If this is all spin, on the other hand -- if Bush is merely constructing a cheerful facade for lackluster, unfair or unethical postwar plans, he'll strike a mortal blow to any remaining credibility, respect or affection for America throughout the west. Cynicism, already rampant, will triumph and the nations of the world will line up to either support or oppose the US in earnest, driven by cool calculations of national self-interest. In short, we'll enter a new Cold War and an era of realpolitik.

President Bush has set forth a clear, strong and moral case; now he has to live up to his words. We can all only hope that he understands what's at stake.

Methinks he doth protest too much:The Wall Street Journal ran an article (subscription required) critical of the Belgian military last week. It pointed out that the high cost of labor reduces capital expenditures, with the result that the Belgian military (and European militaries in general) are underequipped. Although critical, the article is hardly inflammatory.

To normal humans, that is. The Belgian minister of defense responded with a sputtering tirade (subscription required) that has to be read to be believed. He starts out by (somewhat incoherently) accusing the Journal of being unprofessional, vulgar, unfair and of prostituting itself. And of, er, "deriding the concept of objectivity." He then proceeds to demonstrate what apparently passes for professionalism, civil discourse and objectivity in the Belgian government:

Yes, the primary mission of our armed forces is to maintain the peace and to help the civilian population (Belgian or foreign), without being belligerent or being convinced of having been elected by a higher authority to keep watch over the world order.

...

Yes, we spend a reasonable budget that corresponds to our bilateral and international obligations, but we refuse to squander our public funds for the sole purpose of national glory, since we prefer to spend them on social affairs, health care and pensions for our fellow citizens. In none of these fields do we have lessons to receive from anyone else, to whatever extent this may annoy them.
...

For the quality of information of your fellow citizens, for the honor of American journalism, for the respect toward the men and women of my department, I sincerely hope you will cease to believe yourselves the keeper of universal wisdom.
...

Repeating my sympathy for the entire American people, which, I am convinced, is able to distinguish between truth and lies, I hereby transmit you a series of objective facts you have denied to take into account with such blindness. Or could it be stupidity, for which I'll grant you credit.

[ skipping ahead to "objective fact" #8: ]

8. Americans may spend 22% on equipment, but they have a global strategy and must support a large nuclear strategic posture (that is oversized for the defense of their territory but undersized to control the entire planet) which has repercussions on working and investment expenses and consequently reduces proportionally the part of personnel expenses.

Sneering anti-Americanism is conduct unbecoming of a high official of a supposed ally, and it's oddly out of place in a response to a newspaper article.

I know and have worked with (ex-) Belgian military people. They were decent and honorable to a fault and I'm certain they'd be mortified at this undignified outburst ostensibly in their name. If he has a shred of dignity, decency, or respect for his government or military, Mr. Flahaut should resign.

It's not about Iraq anymore at the UN. Oh, sure, all of the discussion is about Iraq, but the die is already cast - the "Coalition of the Willing" will attack Saddam with or without UN support. All of the current activity is either for the domestic benefit of one of the participants, or jockeying for position in the post-war diplomatic and political landscape.

In the end, all politics are local. Tony Blair and leaders of other Coalition nations must turn public opinion in their favor before they face next have to face elections, which means that they have to consider not just the results but how they're perceived by voters. That makes it absolutely necessary for them to exhaust every opportunity at the UN and to make it absolutely unmistakably clear that the UNSC is at fault. The new resolution does exactly that.

The actual content of the resolution is lost in the press reports (which incorrectly describe it as a resolution to authorize war on Iraq) right now, but it lays the groundwork for a coordinated campaign to reclaim the moral high ground after the war, when the voters will hopefully be a bit more receptive. An active PR campaign will be absolutely necessary because those who opposed the war will pounce on every opportunity to declare it a failure. This also means that the effort to reconstruct Iraq must committed, sincere and scrupulously ethical (no sweetheart deals for old oil buddies) or cynical voters will buy into every oddball conspiracy theory.

I originally had a lot more to say on this topic, but work intruded long enough that pretty much everybody else beat me to it.

See the Opinion Journal, Porphyrogenitus or Arkat Kingtroll for more on the resolution itself and the situation at the UN. Steven Den Beste's latest has a ton of links and an analysis that contradicts his gloomy tone.

Andrew Sullivan emphasizes the importance of winning hearts and minds after the war and the importance of commitment to and good conduct in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Perhaps I'm not as cynical as should be, but I have no real problem with Angela Merkel's WaPo op-ed piece or her upcoming visit to Washington.

Fellow blogger Amiland sees it as a cynical ploy for domestic consumption. I can sympathize with that position to some extent, but it seems to be a curious choice for a self-serving political move since, as the Spiegel Online hit piece ("Angela Merkel: Kow-tow before the US administration") and (admittedly predictable) SPD attacks demonstrate, it is hardly without risk.

In fact, it looks to me like a relatively courageous attempt at damage control. Merkel might just have sacrificed herself to clean up some of Schr�der's mess.

The reality is that somebody has to tend to the German-American relationship or the ever widening rift will become permanent. Somehow, I don't see Schr�der leaping into action and newspaper ads by trade groups just aren't enough. That leaves Angela Merkel.

Nor do I think she's out of line to do it (at least not much). The unfortunate fact is that German domestic politics are intertwined with German-American relations in a very visible way right now. It's hardly fair to blame the Union for the current state of affairs -- the true "crass break in the local political culture" happened on the campaign trail last year.

We'll see pretty soon what the domestic political fallout of Merkel's article and visit turns out to be, but I'm guessing that it won't be a huge boost for her domestically and that it could even be a liability (especially in the short term). If she survives and her agenda shapes up as rumored, the trip won't be wasted.

Saddam suddenly less cooperative. I'm sure that this will come as a shock to the people who marched last weekend.

The Wages of Sin and Stupidity. Dilacerator gets it right, as usual, when he attributes Germany's role in the ongoing Iraq melodrama to stupidity rather than malice. Schr�der is a politician rather than a statesman, and it shows.

Faced with trouble, Schr�der chooses the easiest and safest course out of whatever predicament he's in, with little apparent regard for the big picture or the long-term consequences of his actions. That's also true for his domestic politics, and is one of the reasons he's been lurching from crisis to crisis for years.
Sadly, much of the damage to German-American relations won't be easy to repair, and Germany will likely pay the economic price for years to come.

And it's not all petty payback, despite reports to the contrary. American military planners have been forced to face the fact that a populist politician could deny them the use of troops and materials based in Germany, and no sane planner would put very many eggs in such a fragile basket. Some further base closures were inevitable, but Schr�der's recklessness will accelerate and deepen the cuts.

I share Dilacerator's opinion that France is the villain in this little set piece and that Germany has played the hapless assistant -- Schr�der cast as Igor to Chirac's Frankenstein -- but the consequences for France aren't so obvious or immediately dire. Direct action (e.g. tariffs) would come across as heavyhanded and/or petty and would almost certainly backfire.

That argues for isolating France through indirect means -- by strengthening US ties to the rest of Europe (both old and new), Turkey and probably to the German opposition. The message should be "partnership, not payoffs" and the policy should be to build or expand on concrete and enduring ties (e.g. trade and mutual defense pacts) rather than handing out one time payoffs such as aid or loan guarantees. Reliable partners are always preferable to well-paid lackeys, especially in difficult times. Witness Turkey, which is currently demanding a raise.

The administration's focus is clearly (and properly) on the impending war and its immediate aftermath right now, but I sincerely hope that they're also thinking about what comes next. A new Cold War is looming but can still be avoided. The slow and careful work of tending friendships and building alliances isn't as exciting as smiting the evildoer, but it is every bit as important. Let's all hope the administration understands that.

Cold War II Redux.
It looks like new Europe sees another cold war brewing, too.

Dilacerator cites a Czech newspaper editorial which sees the danger of a new cold war, with France and Germany leading the ideological successor of the Warsaw Pact. InstaPundit then turned up a Romanian editorial that very bluntly says pretty much the same thing.

The idea that a new Cold War is brewing has been rattling around the blogosphere for some time, see this post and this one for some of my earlier thoughts on the topic and links to other bloggers who were thinking along the same lines.

Ironically, I'm now less worried about a new Cold War than I was in January or even last week. We're not out of the woods yet, but the Monday's EU meeting was a watershed moment -- most of the rest of Europe made an emphatic choice not to fall into line behind France. Chirac's diatribe served only to underline the wisdom of that decision.

The current situation in Europe is favorable but it isn't stable for the long term -- popular pressure is strong and it will continue to build as long as the cloud of impending war hangs over the continent. President Bush and the leaders of Europe still have time to act deliberately, but they can't let it drag on forever.

If the war against Saddam gets underway fairly soon and is successful, the worst danger is probably past. The US and her allies will have to stay vigilant, but they should be able to prevail. That assumes a US policy of active and positive engagement with allies -- trade pacts, defensive alliances, etc. to hem in and weaken those who favor opposition for its own sake. If the war against Saddam goes badly (gets bogged down or results in heavy civilian casualties) or if the US doesn't follow through with support for her allies, all bets are off.

Did anyone notice that this New York Times article somehow manages to avoid mentioning Chirac's outburst at the EU meeting? I haven't seen the print edition, so maybe it was in another article.

The Seattle PI ran the Times article and not much else. The Seattle Times ran an article (not online but credited to Reuters and the Christian Science Monitor) which ignored Chirac's tantrum and left the impression that the EU joint statement was a blow to Bush and his allies.

Just to add a bit of irony, the Seattle Times also ran an opinion piece (also not online) which talked about the Blogosphere's ability to cover stories that are ignored by the print media.

If I can find a copy (I was reading someone else's paper) I'll post some excerpts from all of the above.

I'm with Glenn on this one. Inviting "new" Europe, Turkey and other allies into a free trade alliance with the US would be a good strategic move, geopolitically speaking. And it's good policy, to boot.

Jacques Chirac was on a roll last weekend. Flush from a tour de force at the UN Security council and basking in the glow of a weekend just packed with anti-American protests, he dispensed nuggets of wisdom upon the hapless President Bush and even magnanimously him a slightly face-saving way to climb down. Monday's emergency meeting of the EU would be his victory lap, where the wayward children of Europe fell into line behind the wise and benevolent leadership of France. Except maybe that Blair kid - he's trouble.

Oops.

Chirac's outrageous temper tantrum is not the act of a sophisticated and wise world leader at the pinnacle of his powers. This is the act of a man who is way off-balance and incredibly angry. Clearly, Chirac was taken completely by surprise by the resistance he faced at the meeting. Even Kofi Annan warned Chirac that the charade couldn't go on much longer.

So what happened? I keep coming back to the theory that Chirac was blinded by his world view. He believed that he had won the UN game and honestly couldn't imagine that Bush would act without UN approval. He was expecting to coast to the finish line, as Bush backed away from war, the rest of the world sang the praises of France and the European fence sitters disappeared quietly into the night. If he was in a good mood, he might even let those upstart peasants in the East off the hook -- at least for long enough to drag them out of the American orbit.

The other European leaders understand just what's at stake in the game that Chirac is playing, and they aren't willing to sacrifice the UN, NATO and the whole transatlantic partnership. They made it clear that the Gang of 8 letter wasn't a one time event and that they wouldn't just hand over the keys to Europe without a struggle. Even Schr�der went along in the end, which shows that the message has finally gotten through that he has to worry about more than staying in office.

Speaking of Schr�der: The German press reports I've seen have him loudly patting himself on the back for removing the words "time is running out" from the final joint declaration. That suggests that he'll now go along quietly with the rest, as long as he gets to crow about what a committed pacifist he is.

I think we're through the worst of the diplomatic strife now. Unless Chirac has another trick up his sleeve, is truly clueless or is willing to bet everything (and I mean everything) on going another round against the rest of Europe and the US, the rhetoric should subside and the diplomats will get together to draft a new resolution that gives everyone enough cover to claim they stood by their principles. Germany will be more-or-less forgiven, but Schr�der is probably doomed. NATO will survive, but with an updated charter and possibly without France. The new Iraqi government will throw out the TotalFinaElf deal, but I'm not sure what else will happen to France.

So that's what I see in my crystal ball. Comments?

Steven den Beste is puzzled by a TIME magazine interview with Chirac, in which he praises the American military buildup in the Persian Gulf. Some excerpts:

And if we do that, there can be no doubt that it will be due in large part to the presence of American forces on the spot. If there hadn't been U.S. soldiers present, Saddam might not have agreed to play the game.
...

If Iraq is stripped of its weapons of mass destruction and that's been verified by the inspectors, then Mr. Bush can say two things: first, "Thanks to my intervention, Iraq has been disarmed," and second, "I achieved all that without spilling any blood." In the life of a statesman, that counts�no blood spilled.

I was puzzled too, at first, but that puzzlement has been percolating long enough that a hypothesis is emerging:
Chirac thinks that he has won the struggle in the Security Council and that the demonstrations this weekend clinched the deal. By praising Bush in an interview, Chirac thinks he's offering the President an honorable way to climb down.

Seen in this light, France's actions over the past few weeks are a bit less incomprehensible. Chirac wasn't worried about damaging the UN because he was confident that he could manage the situation to play out pretty much as it has. Now Bush is in the box and Chirac has racked up the points, so he can magnanimously offer a (somewhat) face-saving exit.

After all, that's how the game is played, isn't it? Sorry you lost this round, old chap. Better luck next time.

I fear that Chirac has made a fatal miscalculation. Bush isn't playing a game; he sincerely believes that Saddam has to go and he won't flinch if he has to damage or even destroy the UN in the process of removing him. For all the rhetoric about cowboys and simplistic Americans, Chirac didn't truly believe that he was facing one.

The consequences of that mistake will be staggering.

Update: Steven responds that he doesn't think Chirac could be that stupid. I agree that Chirac is no idiot, but I'm starting to wonder about how his view of the world differs from America's (see the previous two posts for more no the topic of world views). I no longer completely discount the notion that Chirac's world-view simply doesn't accomodate the notion that Bush will go ahead anyway. I'm far from certain of this hypothesis myself, but it should become obvious fairly soon. If this is what's going on, look for Chirac to change tone and direction sharply the second he realizes that he's not playing for Monopoly money.

Update: Does Chirac's tirade count as a change in tone and direction?

Update: Welcome InstaPundit readers -- come on in and have a look around. Here is another post with further thoughts about the EU meeting and what comes next.

If you haven't seen it yet, go read Vinod's excellent analysis of some of the major differences between the American and European points-of-view.