Semi-Daily Journal

Gah! Brad this was 200 years ago.

Remember the flag burning ammendment? Stem cell research? Why Dukakis rode around in a tank? The fierce budget battles that led to fiscal solvency? The Enron collapse? Campaign finance reform?

Every time I read a news magazine (rarely) I dream that at least half of it was dedicated to contextual information. You know, not just he-said she-said, but "This is what was happening 3 months ago." (Or 1 year ago, or 5 years ago.)

Thank you!

(I am crying, litterally, as I write this. My sort of of...)

As an "old european" (of the cheese-eating surrender monkey kind) currently living in the United States, I thank for elevating the debate.

That debt was long since paid in full, with interest. It's not like the French of today manned the warships off Yorktown. What have they done for us lately? Because, they are really hurting us now.

That debt was long since paid in full, with interest. It's not like the French of today manned the warships off Yorktown. What have they done for us lately? Because, they are really hurting us now.

That debt was long since paid in full, with interest. It's not like the French of today manned the warships off Yorktown. What have they done for us lately? Because, they are really hurting us now.

Sorry for the double post - I didn't think it took the first time, gave me an error screen.

If they were paid back, then we owe nothing to each other--and each one has no need to support or assist the other.
Ah,yes,realpolitik. It makes the world so much more...interesting.

In the current context of islamic terrorism, I am not sure that trying to avoid an unnecessary war would neccessarily "hurt" America.

Remember how the US military presence in Saudi Arabia created a resentment that led to the creation to Al Qaeda.

An OP-ED in the NYT by the French ambassador

A Warning on Iraq, From a Friend
By JEAN-DAVID LEVITTE

ASHINGTON — Reading the papers from both sides of the Atlantic, I sometimes wonder whether the impending war is not between France and the United States. I would like to strongly reaffirm what, in the heart of the French people, is a longstanding reality: the friendship between France and America began in the early days of your fight for independence and has endured throughout the centuries.

America rescued my country twice in the last century — something we will never forget. Today we stand side by side in many parts of the world, including Afghanistan. France is the largest contributor of troops to NATO operations. Our friendship is a treasure, and it must be maintained, protected, enhanced.

However, the polls are clear: 78 percent of French people oppose a military intervention in Iraq. Polls are similar in most other countries, including in Eastern Europe. European governments may be divided over the use of force in Iraq, but public opinion is united.

There are, in my view, three reasons the mood is so cautious. The first relates to our assessment of what is far and away the biggest threat to world peace and stability: Al Qaeda.

French intelligence is clear that not since the Algerian war 40 years ago has my country been under such an immediate threat. Last May, 11 French citizens were killed in a suicide bombing in Karachi, Pakistan. In the fall a French tanker was attacked by Al Qaeda off Yemen. And in December, near Paris, we arrested several suspects who were suspected of close links to Al Qaeda and of planning terrorist attacks in France.

Terrorist suspects have also been arrested elsewhere in Europe — in Britain, Spain and Italy — belonging to groups connected with networks active in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algeria and Bosnia. Yet we haven't seen any evidence of a direct link between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda.

A second reason for the reluctance of the French people is that Iraq is not viewed as an immediate threat. Thanks to the determination of President Bush and the international community — and to the inspections that destroyed more armaments between 1991 and 1998 than did the Persian Gulf war itself, and which have now been reinforced with stronger means and bigger teams — Saddam Hussein is in a box. And the box has been closed with the inspectors in it.

Europeans consider North Korea a greater threat. Imagine what a sense of security we all would feel if, as in Iraq, 100 inspectors were proceeding with unimpeded inspections throughout North Korea, including the president's palaces.

A third reason for the cautious mood relates to the consequences of a war in Iraq. We see Iraq as a very complex country, with many different ethnic groups, a tradition of violence and no experience of democracy. You can't create democracy with bombs — in Iraq, it would require time, a strong presence and a strong committment.

We also worry about the region — considering that no peace process is at work for the moment in the Middle East, that none of the great powers seem able to foster one, and that a war in Iraq could result in more frustration and bitterness in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

People in France and more broadly in Europe fear that a military intervention could fuel extremism and encourage Qaeda recruitment. A war could weaken the indispensable international coalition against terrorism and worsen the threat of Islamic terrorism.

The inspections should be pursued and strengthened, and Saddam Hussein must be made to cooperate actively. War must remain the very last option.

Jean-David Levitte is French ambassador to the United States.

Lafayette aside, France only entered the American Revolution to weaken its nemesis, Britain, and to gain territory in other parts of the world.

Let's remember two things: First, France never gave its North American territory to its inhabitants. France either lost its territory in war or sold it (The Louisiana Territory). Wherever French armies went they stayed. Second, American armies marched up and down France twice last century and after the fighting stopped - we handed it all back. Damn, writing that made me feel good.

Mr. Jordan has obviously forgotten a French province known as Cochin China.

Or, more likely, he never knew.

It looks to me like both sides - those for war and those against - just aren't honest about their reasons.

The French are against an attack on Iraq because: (1) they consider Iraq in their (continually diminishing) sphere of influence; (2) they are happy with the world's status quo and don't want to risk a major change; (3) they hope their position will earn them brownie points from Islamic terrorists (who will give priority to the U.S. and Britain); (4) if the U.S. were to win easily, it would lead to more hegemony for the Americans; (5) the French are slighted that the Americans don't listen to them to the degree that they think they (and their "superior brains") deserve; and yes (6) war (at least on the scale the U.S. is planning - see the Cote d'Ivoire), which can cause deaths of many innocents, should be well thought out and not entered into lightly, which may not seem to be the case.

The Americans are for the war because: (1) they need to get their troops out of Saudi Arabia, but they don't want to leave it next to a potentially hostile Iraq; (2) they are worried about Saudi Arabia's reliability, and need Iraq to be on "their" side in case Saudi Arabia is put on the "other" list; (3) Saddam Hussein is a sworn enemy of the U.S., and you don't leave enemies in power when you can get rid of them; (4) the Bush Administration promised a lot of people - Kurds and so forth - that it was going to get rid of Hussein, probably by saying "You can trust us this time," and it would have a large credibility problem should it welch; (5) the U.S. is pissed off that other countries basically went against the spirit of the U.N. embargo by trying to sign deals with Iraq which would take effect after the embargo was lifted, while its companies weren't able to; (6) the U.S. hopes that, by doing something for the Iraqi people against its tyrant (note - it can't kill too many of them), the people will be grateful, and this gratitude might give other peoples in the Mideast a more positive idea of the U.S. (rather than, as has been recently the case, as one who supports the tyrants against the people); and yes (7) if Hussein has or is close to getting W.M.D.s, it would be better to get rid of him now. And a case for war now rather than later: (8) these things take time, there are already plenty of reservists away from their families, and sending them back only to repost them again next Christmas season is not going to do wonders for their morale.

What we actually get instead is a dishonest argument. The French try to stall war, knowing (1) this hurts the Americans (but that's okay, because they don't want the Americans to win too convincingly anyway, because that would lead to greater American hegemony); and (2) this gives them credit with the Arab and Islamic world. The Americans want to barrel ahead because - well it's too late to turn back now, and they would look like real fools should they have to back down.

Sigh.

I'll take your estimate of American intentions. But I think the French ambassador is entirely sincere in the good reasons he gives against the war. Forget WW2: since then, France has fought two very long colonial wars, in Vietnam and Algeria. The Americans learnt nothing from the French experience in Vietnam. It appears now that they are determined to learn nothing from the Algerian experience either. Invading Iraq means taking on a major colonial responsibility. Nothing in the American papers or blogs that I read suggest that people understand this or want to face up to it. On the contrary, the discussion is conducted as if the only limits on American power are self-imposed.

People in favour of the war on the grounds of American national interest should honestly say how many troops they think will be in Iraq in a year's time, in ten years, and in twenty years.

>The Americans are for the war because: (1) . . .

If so, how come this news report of 18 January on American media of a recent Newsweek poll?

"Support for a military option would be strong, 81 per cent, if the United States were to act with full allied support and the backing of the United Nations Security Council. A majority would be opposed should this country act without the support of the UN and had no more than one or two allies." Source: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2003/01/18/12595-ap.html

I'd point out that the French support for the American Revolution was bracketed by the French-Indian Wars against those future rebels, and a quasi-war fought on the seas against the U.S. Support for the Revolution was, at the highest levels, a purely geopolitical maneuver - and in reality an error, as it cost the French monarchy its own existence.

Just as long as we're talking ancient history, of course ...

>>Second, American armies marched up and down France twice last century and after the fighting stopped - we handed it all back.

Should I conclude that France should be thankful to America for not annexing it after WWII???

Oh! Did somebody mentionned the Statue de la Liberte yet? I can't wait to read how irrelevant that is too.

The other night a US ambassador was making the case for war on a European network. He ran into a problem after crticizing France, Germany and Belgium for failing to show/do "allegeance"...

Americans do have one weird way of thinking of their international relatioships... Anyway, why care? we are divorsed.

Andrew, that's a rather charitable interpretation of american reasons for the war.

Andrew, that's a rather charitable interpretation of american reasons for the war.

The reason we dislike the French so intensely is that they are just like us. We don't want anyone telling us what to do. From land mine treaties to greenhouse gases, we want to maintain our sovereignty. So do the French. If we are not careful, we will set a precedent for attacking neighboring countries any time one feels threatened. Should make for exciting times on the India-Pakistan border. I vacation in France nearly every year. They share a common bond with us. The common people are good, the politicians (all parties) are basically out for themselves.
Do we owe them a debt of gratitude? Not really. Should we maintain open dialog with any and all countries? Certainly.

Ground Zero here is a just a couple of hundred yards north of the spot where Lafayette landed in NY to accept the nation's gratitude. I have a hard time believing he'd have anything but contempt for the govenrnment now installed in Paris.

“The reason we dislike the French so intensely is that they are just like us. We don't want anyone telling us what to do.”

The major difference is that the leadership of the United States values rational thought far more than do its French counterparts. France is paying a severe price for the nefarious intellectual influences of such folks as Jean Paul Sartre, Michael Foucault, and Jacques Derrida. One should never underestimate the damage resulting from the failed French Revolution. This was one of the most evil events in the history of humankind. The American Revolution was successful because it embraced the principle of check and balances.

America thankfully is “anti-intellectual.” Richard Hofstadter was right on target to criticize the hostility of the red neck variety towards knowledge. However, a nation must also equally fear its white wine and brie cheese intellectual class. William F. Buckley brilliantly stated that he would rather be governed by the first thousand names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard University. Sadly, it seems that the French pay far too much attention to its academic weirdoes.

I see someone has read Lafayette's mind. As someone who has published unpublished letters of Lafayette's, I suggest he is, ah, mistaken. He might try reading some Lafayette, there's plenty of it.
Also: no, no, no! The French have to thank us for WW II, we DON'T have to thank them for Independence. It's that simple.

I believe the people running France today regard themselves as the heirs not of the government which helped us in our Revolution-- that of Louis XVI-- but rather of the revolutionaries who overthrew it. Should we start thinking of repaying our debt to Louis by avenging him?

Jason: Andrew, that's a rather charitable interpretation of american reasons for the war.Whoops! I left out: (0) The Americans hope to increase their world hegemony, and profit therefrom.

David: The major difference is that the leadership of the United States values rational thought far more than do its French counterparts. France is paying a severe price for the nefarious intellectual influences of such folks as Jean Paul Sartre, Michael Foucault, and Jacques Derrida.
I don't think Sartre or Foucault have anything to do with it. The French are calculating what is in their national interest and trying to achieve it by "war by other means", that is diplomacy. I don't think Sartre, Foucault, or Derrida gave a hoot about France's national interest.

"The French are calculating what is in their national interest and trying to achieve it by "war by other means", that is diplomacy"

Diplomacy, like all forms of negotiations, only works if both sides are trying to be honest with each other. Thus, it is foolish to seek a purely diplomatic solution with Saddam Hussein. He is a moral monster who does not hesitate to violate agreements. The Iraqi dictator only respects the use of power. The French were mealy mouthers during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. If it was up to them, the Communists would still be in power.

The intellectual traditions of the French are mostly banal and bordering on the ridiculous. Geniuses like Raymond Aron and Frederick Bastiat are the exception and unfortunately not the norm. The second raters dominate their universities and political institutions. We should feel sorry for them.

Yeah sure its all Foucoult, Derrida, and Sartre's fault. How dare those postmodern moral savages try to stop our imperial ambitions...

What a foolish canard. France is responding the way they are because of their history with colonialism and the lessons they have learned. They are also clearly acting in thier national interest. How could we expect them to act otherwise? No one in the French government is against the war because there is no truth. They are agaist the war because the US government is demonstraby lying.

DT is against postmodernism, the French Revolution, Harvard, and the Catholic Church. I hope soon we will hear his views on how the Enlightenment was overrated.

France, beneath all the bold assertions of being America's "friend" and how "concerned" they are about terrorism is playing the same lowlife games of cowardice and very narrow self-interest they have played since about the 1930s. A dangerous and aggressive dictator trying to acquire major league weapons? Well, just appease the poor upset deary, sell out another democracy, then sit back and let the problem continue to boil. And when it eventually boils over cry out how they honestly had no idea the situation was that bad. Shortly thereafter surrender to the enemy and cry for the "anglosphere" nations to save their cowardly, lazy, butts--AGAIN.
At this point I am willing to let, if it comes to that, France/Paris enjoy a long holiday under Shari' Law. If their Muslum population continues to grow by high immigration and birthrates while the Gaulic peoples age and do not replace themselves the above scenario is possible in a few decades. Enjoy a lonely and bleak future Frenchie.
Count me among the American's who are heartily sick of your snobbery and stupidity pretending to be "noble" thoughts and values.
I am a Texan, an American, a (reserve) soldier, a "cowboy", a gun owner, and a "warmonger". Let the French cower in fear of the future and western freedom's enemys. The US is gearing up to meet it and them head on! Let the enemy beware the rage of an America "Locked and Loaded", and on the hunt!

France, beneath all the bold assertions of being America's "friend" and how "concerned" they are about terrorism is playing the same lowlife games of cowardice and very narrow self-interest they have played since about the 1930s. A dangerous and aggressive dictator trying to acquire major league weapons? Well, just appease the poor upset deary, sell out another democracy, then sit back and let the problem continue to boil. And when it eventually boils over cry out how they honestly had no idea the situation was that bad. Shortly thereafter surrender to the enemy and cry for the "anglosphere" nations to save their cowardly, lazy, butts--AGAIN.
At this point I am willing to let, if it comes to that, France/Paris enjoy a long holiday under Shari' Law. If their Muslum population continues to grow by high immigration and birthrates while the Gaulic peoples age and do not replace themselves the above scenario is possible in a few decades. Enjoy a lonely and bleak future Frenchie.
Count me among the American's who are heartily sick of your snobbery and stupidity pretending to be "noble" thoughts and values.
I am a Texan, an American, a (reserve) soldier, a "cowboy", a gun owner, and a "warmonger". Let the French cower in fear of the future and western freedom's enemys. The US is gearing up to meet it and them head on! Let the enemy beware the rage of an America "Locked and Loaded", and on the hunt!

France, beneath all the bold assertions of being America's "friend" and how "concerned" they are about terrorism is playing the same lowlife games of cowardice and very narrow self-interest they have played since about the 1930s. A dangerous and aggressive dictator trying to acquire major league weapons? Well, just appease the poor upset deary, sell out another democracy, then sit back and let the problem continue to boil. And when it eventually boils over cry out how they honestly had no idea the situation was that bad. Shortly thereafter surrender to the enemy and cry for the "anglosphere" nations to save their cowardly, lazy, butts--AGAIN.
At this point I am willing to let, if it comes to that, France/Paris enjoy a long holiday under Shari' Law. If their Muslum population continues to grow by high immigration and birthrates while the Gaulic peoples age and do not replace themselves the above scenario is possible in a few decades. Enjoy a lonely and bleak future Frenchie.
Count me among the American's who are heartily sick of your snobbery and stupidity pretending to be "noble" thoughts and values.
I am a Texan, an American, a (reserve) soldier, a "cowboy", a gun owner, and a "warmonger". Let the French cower in fear of the future and western freedom's enemys. The US is gearing up to meet it and them head on! Let the enemy beware the rage of an America "Locked and Loaded", and on the hunt!

France, beneath all the bold assertions of being America's "friend" and how "concerned" they are about terrorism is playing the same lowlife games of cowardice and very narrow self-interest they have played since about the 1930s. A dangerous and aggressive dictator trying to acquire major league weapons? Well, just appease the poor upset deary, sell out another democracy, then sit back and let the problem continue to boil. And when it eventually boils over cry out how they honestly had no idea the situation was that bad. Shortly thereafter surrender to the enemy and cry for the "anglosphere" nations to save their cowardly, lazy, butts--AGAIN.
At this point I am willing to let, if it comes to that, France/Paris enjoy a long holiday under Shari' Law. If their Muslum population continues to grow by high immigration and birthrates while the Gaulic peoples age and do not replace themselves the above scenario is possible in a few decades. Enjoy a lonely and bleak future Frenchie.
Count me among the American's who are heartily sick of your snobbery and stupidity pretending to be "noble" thoughts and values.
I am a Texan, an American, a (reserve) soldier, a "cowboy", a gun owner, and a "warmonger". Let the French cower in fear of the future and western freedom's enemys. The US is gearing up to meet it and them head on! Let the enemy beware the rage of an America "Locked and Loaded", and on the hunt!

France, beneath all the bold assertions of being America's "friend" and how "concerned" they are about terrorism is playing the same lowlife games of cowardice and very narrow self-interest they have played since about the 1930s. A dangerous and aggressive dictator trying to acquire major league weapons? Well, just appease the poor upset deary, sell out another democracy, then sit back and let the problem continue to boil. And when it eventually boils over cry out how they honestly had no idea the situation was that bad. Shortly thereafter surrender to the enemy and cry for the "anglosphere" nations to save their cowardly, lazy, butts--AGAIN.
At this point I am willing to let, if it comes to that, France/Paris enjoy a long holiday under Shari' Law. If their Muslum population continues to grow by high immigration and birthrates while the Gaulic peoples age and do not replace themselves the above scenario is possible in a few decades. Enjoy a lonely and bleak future Frenchie.
Count me among the American's who are heartily sick of your snobbery and stupidity pretending to be "noble" thoughts and values.
I am a Texan, an American, a (reserve) soldier, a "cowboy", a gun owner, and a "warmonger". Let the French cower in fear of the future and western freedom's enemys. The US is gearing up to meet it and them head on! Let the enemy beware the rage of an America "Locked and Loaded", and on the hunt!

"No one in the French government is against the war because there is no truth. They are agaist the war because the US government is demonstraby lying."

Yep, the French are indeed calling our national leaders liars. Every American needs to face up to this fact: the French are not our allies.

"Well, just appease the poor upset deary, sell out another democracy, then sit back and let the problem continue to boil. And when it eventually boils over cry out how they (the French) honestly had no idea the situation was that bad. Shortly thereafter surrender to the enemy and cry for the "anglosphere" nations to save their cowardly, lazy, butts--AGAIN."

No truer words were ever spoken about the French. How does a citizen of France look into a mirror? That must be an extremely dificult task to perform. The French intellectual tradition of "everything is relative" hinders them from reaching validly moral conclusions. I find it hard to believe that Bill "I didn't have sex with that woman" Clinton didn't go to school in France.

>biz: France is ... acting in thier [sic] national interest.

To put a fine point on this, the current government is acting in what it believes to be in its own interest.

Cozying up to foreign mass murderers who are paying customers, quietly experiencing a rash of anti-semitic violence at home, overtly and comically screwing other European nations with its support for the Common Agriculture Policy, all make sense from the point of view of "a government".

But to say such short-term oriented damn-the-rest-of-the-world antics by a nation whose population is doomed to contract and whose economy is mired in socialist quicksand constitute a rational long-term agenda is, I think, misguided.

The French are free to screw *themselves*. The rest of us may feel differently about being on the receiving end of their nostrums. And we too have very long memories.

Bucky: Maybe the French are doomed, who knows? But I don't think you can underestimate their capacities for diplomacy. You mention the Common Agriculture Policy. A few months back the French made Germany eat dirt by not agreeing to any immediate reforms (Germany is the nation paying for it all). You would rationally think the Germans would promise to get even. The contrary has happened: Schroder went out on the limb against the Americans and Iraq, and it is the French who rode to his rescue. The French are just very good at diplomacy; they spend money on it and they are pretty single-minded about it. The U.S. deprives its State Department of financing, and uses it as a dumping ground for unqualified political contributors. Punching people in the nose is not always the most cost-efficient way of getting your way; sometimes a little subtlety would help.
You mention the French population is contracting; it has one of the highest birthrates in Europe, simply because you get enormous benefits for having a kid. (My wife is off for a year after having a fourth.)"Cozying up to foreign mass murderers" is a great line, except of course the U.S. was doing the same with Hussein until Koweit.
What the Bush Administration failed to do, was figure out and explain what attacking Iraq now was all about. If it's about W.M.D.s, then why on Earth are we not able to find any? I know, I know, they could be in little vans crisscrossing the Iraqi desert. But I'm afraid there's an incoherence between the huge numbers set forth on what the Iraqis possess in terms of chemical W.M.D.s - meant to show the world what a great danger they are - and the fact that the Inspectors haven't come up with anything. I mean, if there's that much stuff there, then something should turn up, no? There's also an incoherence with the idea that Iraq has chemical or nuclear W.M.D.s now and the willingness for America to invade. It would seem you're putting the lives of 150000 American troops at risk if you really believe Iraq has these W.M.D.s, and it seems hardly likely that the U.S. would do this. (40000 Americans in the danger zone in South Korea is enough apparently to make the U.S. pause before doing anything about North Korea.) So what it seems is, at best (or rather, at worst): the Iraqis are developing chemical, nuclear, or biological W.M.Ds. and may have them soon; *or* maybe they have biological W.M.D.s now. But that wasn't the message coming from the Bush Administration. Or from Blair, whose release of intelligence information about Saddam Hussein was a clownish cut-and-paste from old public sources. When you're trying to corral supporters for a war, you need to be able to express and explain, with laser-like clarity, and reasonable honesty, why. The Anglo-Saxons have failed miserably so far in this.

>>
A third reason for the cautious mood relates to the consequences of a war in Iraq. We see Iraq as a very complex country, with many different ethnic groups, a tradition of violence and no experience of democracy. You can't create democracy with bombs — in Iraq, it would require time, a strong presence and a strong committment.
>>
Next time I'm in Tokyo or Berlin, I'll bring that up.

>>
A third reason for the cautious mood relates to the consequences of a war in Iraq. We see Iraq as a very complex country, with many different ethnic groups, a tradition of violence and no experience of democracy. You can't create democracy with bombs — in Iraq, it would require time, a strong presence and a strong committment.
>>
Next time I'm in Tokyo or Berlin, I'll bring that up.

>>
You can't create democracy with bombs
>>
Next time I'm in Tokyo or Berlin, I'll bring that up.

>I don't think you can underestimate their capacities for diplomacy.

True. They've managed to piss off most of peripheral Europe, as well as the populace of the world's most powerful economic and military power.

>The U.S. deprives its State Department of financing, and uses it as a dumping ground for unqualified political contributors.

You're confusing State with Commerce. :)

>You mention the French population is contracting; it has one of the highest birthrates in Europe...

CIA factbook: "France 1.74 children born/woman (2002 est.)" Fertility of 2.1 is replacement. That France will contract slower than, say, Italy (1.19) doesn't alter the fact that they're contracting.

It is astonishing to read this patronising, ignorant gibberish about French history, from a country which never declared war on Germany and stood to one side, profiteering, throughout 1939, 1940, and all but three weeks of 1941.

It is absurd to criticise the French collapse in 1940 without reference to its sufferings in 1914-18. I can only assume that this rash of Francophobia across the warhard constituency is an expression of a thoroughly rotten conscience.

>It is absurd to criticise the French collapse in 1940 without reference to its sufferings in 1914-18. I can only assume that this rash of Francophobia across the warhard constituency is an expression of a thoroughly rotten conscience.

You mean because France, who was rescued by us nasty Anglo-Saxons in 1918, is being so ungrateful?

So many comments to make. First it seems the hotheads are out today, but we should remember that France is a long-term ally despite our disagreements. Countries with secure, established democracies are still a rarity in this world and we need to stick together. I am partly to blame for my earlier post.

I do think that on a day when thousands are calling America imperialists and terrorists, America's good acts should be remembered. I bet the Poles wish America had been in their country rather than the Soviets.

I would like to apologise, on behalf of those of us from the other 49 states, for Texas.

And Mr. Bono, we still have soldiers in Japan and Germany. Are you saying that we will have soldiers in Iraq in 50 years to promote democracy there? If so, I am against the war.

Speaking as someone who believes it is in the interests of the U.S. to remove Hussein, and shatter the fascist status quo of the Middle East, it might be time to consider taking whatever means available to divide the EU, and thereby harm French and German interests as much as possible. If one is the most powerful entity, it does well to provide occasional instruction to other entities as to how payback is an absolute bitch. Formenting divisions in the EU, and thereby inflicting costs upon France and Germany, may be a useful way to do this. Of course, this would require a President who was willing to take political risks on matters of trade, an area in which this President has so far been absolutely deficient. In any case, if France and Germany perceive that their interests lie in opposition to stated U.S. goals, then the U.S. should maximize the cost to France and Germany of pursuing those interests. Nothing, short of violence, should be forsaken.

If the cost of having non-fascist governments in a region of the world that contains needed energy supplies that cannot be replaced for decades is to have American troops stationed there for those decades, it may be a reasonable cost to pay. This isn't to say that the task is easy or that it it doesn't carry with it grave risks. Maintaining the status quo, however, also carries grave risk.

"It is absurd to criticise the French collapse in 1940 without reference to its sufferings in 1914-18."

I hope that Andrew Brown does a better job defending Charles Darwin than he does the French. Let's get something straight right here and now: the French military was stronger than the Nazis when it capitulated. It might behoove Mr. brown to read Ernest May's "Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France."

The French pacifists discouraged any real opposition to Adolph Hitler. Those who fail to learn from history must repeat it. I’ve already learned from the French on what not to do about Saddam Hussein! Appeasement only emboldens the tyrant.

Will: As much as I loathe what the French and German governments are doing, I'd put trade sanctions in the same category as war - beyond the pale of action except in extremis.

The Great Depression arguably arose from a trade war, and there is no reason to threaten the world with such a possibility over a relative trifle such as a nation [Iraq] whose GDP is 1/5 the size of last year's AOL loss.

Besides, France and Germany are not that exposed to US trade. And it is a good bet that with long borders and canny traders, any sanctions could be outflanked anyway.

So we'd be doing the world far more harm by starting a trade war, than any evil we'd be doing by liberating Iraq.

Finally, US citizens are already openly discussing boycotting French and German products, even without the US govt formally encouraging such action.

The smothering inefficiencies of Old Europe will continue to drag the Continent along its path of relative decline for the foreseeable future. Accelerating the process for spite, for now, doesn't seem worth the bother.

I was unclear, and a litle contradictory. I was not speaking of the U.S. instituting trade sanctions against the EU, or France and Germany specifically. I agree it would harm us as much as those upon whom we intend to inflict costs. There may be measures, however, that the U.S. could undertake that help forment division within the EU, and thus inflict cost upon France and Germany, which do not involve the U.S. erecting trade barriers. The President, however, would have to risk offending some consituencies, so it is unlikely to happen.

In any case, it must be recognized that although France and Germany are not outright enemies, they are not allies, and they will ruthlessly pursue their interests, no matter the cost to U.S. goals. The U.S. should endeavor to be more ruthless in pursuit of it's goals, and part of that endeavor is to administer an extremely harsh lesson as to the cost of opposing the U.S. when it is in pursuit of an extremely important strategy, and strategies pertaining to war and peace are the most important of all. If an actor attempts to thwart U.S. policy regarding the administration of foreign aid to East Africa, it does not carry much import. To attempt to thwart U.S. policy regarding the Persian Gulf, however, must carry as high a cost as can be devised. Undoubtedly, the cost should be inflicted as subtly as possible, with a minimum of fanfare. For the United States to fail to do so, however, will only engender contempt from parties around the globe, and further harm U.S. interests. Utter and complete, although quiet, ruthlessness should be the order of the day. After a brief lull since the collapse of the Soviet Empire, history is restarting, except that this chapter will be more complex, and perhaps even more dangerous. Many assumptions regarding alliances and shared interests will be proven false, and it will require an unsentimental, cold-eyed, wisdom by the most powerful entity, the United States, to steer a course which maximizes peace and prosperity.

"Whoops! I left out: (0) The Americans hope to increase their world hegemony, and profit therefrom."

Cmon, be serious. How about "ensure stability of oil supply?" How about "increase influence in region at expense of Russia, China, and yes, Europe?" That list you have there puts the worst possible spin on France, while gosh darn it, the US is just too idealistic!

"You can't create democracy with bombs
>>
Next time I'm in Tokyo or Berlin, I'll bring that up."

Can you create democracy out of whole cloth? Berlin had a signficant democratic tradition before Hitler, and Tokyo had something of one. I don't think it's impossible in Iraq, but its going to be a nation building exercise unlike any the US has ever undertaken.

'Cozying up to foreign mass murderers who are paying customers, quietly experiencing a rash of anti-semitic violence at home, overtly and comically screwing other European nations with its support for the Common Agriculture Policy, all make sense from the point of view of "a government".

Well, we don't have anti-semitic violence, but the US is still cozying up to mass murders and subsidizing its agricultural products. 1/3, I guess.

>Berlin had a signficant democratic tradition before Hitler, and Tokyo had something of one.

This is like your Saddam - Ben-Gurion parallel on another thread.

I strongly urge you to either a) study history, or , b) not post in areas outside your expertise.

>subsidizing its agricultural products.

We, wrongly in my opinion, subsidize OUR OWN FARMERS. The CAP the French support forces citizens in OTHER nations to pay into French pockets.

"Berlin had a signficant democratic tradition before Hitler, and Tokyo had something of one."

Jason McCullough's post is actually providing further ammunition to those who disagree with him. Being half right is simply not good enough. Germany's nascent democracy did not have check and balance constitutional mechanisms to prevent Hitler's takeover. The country’s long standing tradition of handing power over to a strong leader instead held sway. This is likewise true regarding pre-WWII Japanese society. A virtual religious belief in the supremacy of the Emperor was vastly more dominant than Japan’s flirtations with citizens voting to determine their political preferences. It indeed took American occupation of both countries to get them to truly become democratic. I see no way that we can do anything different with the Iraqis.

"If the cost of having non-fascist governments in a region of the world that contains needed energy supplies that cannot be replaced for decades is to have American troops stationed there for those decades, it may be a reasonable cost to pay"

Or how about replacing gaz guzzling, U.S. government subsidized, SUV's with hybrid cars and get 5x more gas efficiency instantly. There are too many monied-interests in this country which keep us from doing just that.

Those of you who support spreading hostilities with France and Germany and sidling up with small, infant democracies are really putting American foreign policy in a precarious situation. Without broad international support for the war on terror, we will lose that war to Al Qaeda, in terms of reduced trade and security.

"Countries with secure, established democracies are still a rarity in this world and we need to stick together."

Wouldn't this insight be better directed to the legion of Israel-bashers over in Europe?

I would dearly, dearly like an explanation of why many conservatives (particulary DT and BD) continually refer to the US intervention in WW1 and 2 as some sort of policy they inherit out of conservative american nationalism? Woodrow Wilson would be absolutely disgusted by that sort of thought. As would Roosevelt (though for most conservatives, the feeling would likely be mutual). To take credit for the successes of your ideological enemies is a particularly inane recent habit of the conservatives.

The liberals who lead the US through ww1 and 2, and the aftermath, understood that unilateral self interest isn't a very useful strategy in the long term. That is the lesson behind creating the EU--remember, to keep germany deeply emeshed in Europe, rather than attempting to dominate? That was the lesson behind the League of Nations, and later the UN. A lesson which is profoundly and completely rejected by the pro-war groups today.

For all those who make the claim that europe misunderstands the lessons of its own tyrants, it would be useful, perhaps, to ask the europeans what lessons they drew. And it would be good for the US to admit to its long, long history (particularly in recent times) of happily supporting tyrants, and overthrowing democracies. Or perhaps history doesn't matter in that respect, adn the argument shouldn't be made? Which is it?

For France and Germany--they are still good and important allies. Allies can and will disagree. And should. Sycophants are worthless in the long term. We can politely say we don't trust in their advice in this matter. If they reply that this little experiment risks european relationships with Turkey and the Arab world, we could try to be a bit accomodating.

Finally, why does american diplocacy look like the essential worldview of a 6-year old mind. Friends and enemies, and nary a shade of grey in sight? Every slight nursed and remembered, every favor called for. Why live that way?

Brennan

Ah, the pipe dream of magically doing without Persian Gulf oil will never die. It is the predecessor of the "magic business pixie dust" commercials that IBM currently runs. Yes, there are things that can be done, at varying degrees of cost, to increase energy efficiency. However, to believe that these measures will greatly reduce the world's need for Persian Gulf oil, assuming we want to avoid crushing economic dislocations, is fantasy. Having fascists control the oil of the Middle East is no longer tenable, because of the money it provides to entities which desire to slaughter American civilians, if for no other reason. To maintain the status quo guarantees disaster, and the longer it is delayed, the more disastrous the scenario will be.

As for the remarks of Mr. Peterson, it is typical of the type of condescension that will ultimately prove so costly to some Europeans. Have no fear, Mr. Peterson; a good many Americans are capable of a completely businesslike, ruthless, and unsentimental approach to foreign relations. They will recognize some Europeans' pursuit of self interest for what it is, not be offended in the least, and will subsequently decide to behave similarly. Part of that pursuit will involve providing an education as to the cost of thwarting the goals of the United States pertaining to a region it considers of vital importance.

I should add that if the France and Germany had been forthright in their opposition to U.S. goals from the onset, a workable accomadation may have been possible. Instead, the Germans and French have been entirely cynical and duplicitous in their behavior, particularly in regards to UN Security Counsel resolutions. This is not said in a moralistic fashion, but merely as a statement of fact. They have done so because they believed it was in their interests to do so. The U.S. must now recognize them as potentially hostile entities, and treat them as such. This does not necessarily mean any grand public pronouncement, but more likely should mean the pursuit of a subtle, quiet, and equally duplicitous strategy which seeks to isolate and marginalize them, and to thwart their own pursuit of self interest where it conflicts with ours.

Will: Ah, the pipe dream of magically doing without Persian Gulf oil will never die.
I don't know about magic, but I do know that Persian Gulf oil doesn't lie within our (America's) boundaries, so by most considerations, it is not ours. If we need the oil to keep our economy moving, that's our problem, not the rest of the world's. It does not justify war, and you can hardly expect other countries to support an attack on Iraq for reasons of oil.
How about this? We begin to tax oil the way the Europeans do, not pennies a gallon, but dollars. Lower payroll taxes and bring back the estate tax, etc., to make sure progressivity isn't lost. And then let the invisible hand take care of the rest.

>BD) continually refer to the US intervention in WW1 and 2 as some sort of policy they inherit out of conservative american nationalism

I've never made such an assertion.

>The liberals who lead the US through ww1 and 2, and the aftermath, understood that unilateral self interest isn't a very useful strategy in the long term.

>Counter-example: Truman/Cold War

>We begin to tax oil the way the Europeans do, not pennies a gallon, but dollars. Lower payroll taxes and bring back the estate tax, etc., to make sure progressivity isn't lost. And then let the invisible hand take care of the rest.

Raising taxes is ALWAYS the answer, of course. The estate tax still exists, and raises a tiny fraction of the total tax take. It is irrelevant, but useful as a bloody shirt.

Increasing the production of US energy sources isn't mentioned, because then the Greens drop out of the coalition.

And dropping spanners into the works before invoking the invisible hand completes the statist case.

The point about French suffering in WW1 is not weakened by the idea that they had a notionally stronger army than the Germans in 1939. It's strengthened by it, since it suggest that the roots of their collapse were psychological. This has nothing to do with national character, and a great deal to do with the experience of Verdun.

Anyone who thinks that the Cold War strategy was one of the unilateral pursuit of national interest must have a hard time explaining the existence of Nato.

Bucky: You do see that I'm suggesting that we lower the payroll tax. If you want, with a wave of my hand, I'll suggest we make the whole thing "revenue neutral" - overall taxes don't increase. Oil taxes go up, though (and other taxes - except the Estate Tax !) go down. Is that okay then? Or do you believe the right to free oil is part of the Second Amendment? (Just kidding...)
And then if the invisible hand increases production of US energy sources, then, sure why not. But, as I understand it, the invisible hand won't do that - in fact, U.S. production should go down as well. (Increase in price makes demand go down, which means the price-before-tax of oil should go down, which means less U.S. production. But maybe I have that wrong.)

I must admit, I am feeling extremly hurt by France's position these days. I do remember our shared history, and it is high on my mind that we share so many common values together. So, why do I suddenly have this aggressive urge to go on a French flag burning binge and eschew French products with demonstrative flair? I do because I see that France has made a conscious decision to eschew trust in us. It seems as though more trust is given by France to the Butcher of Bagdad than to the United States. Of course I feel hurt. I feel like someone whose has just found her husband in the arms of a woman of the evening and confesses that he feels more for her than for me. I want a divorce, I want you out of the house, and I am keeping the kids.

I must admit, I am feeling extremely hurt by France's position these days. I do remember our shared history, and it is high on my mind that we share so many common values together. So, why do I suddenly have this aggressive urge to go on a French flag burning binge and eschew French products with demonstrative flair? I do because I see that France has made a conscious decision to eschew trust in us. It seems as though more trust is given by France to the Butcher of Baghdad than to the United States. Of course I feel hurt. I feel like someone whose has just found her husband in the arms of a woman of the evening and confesses that he feels more for her than for me. I want a divorce, I want you out of the house, and I am keeping the kids.

Did I say "Germany was a perfect democracy before Hitler screwed everything up?" No, but they did have something of a democratic tradition, unlike Iraq, which has none. Christ.

"The CAP the French support forces citizens in OTHER nations to pay into French pockets."

I guess it's a question of degree then.

"Counter-example: Truman/Cold War"

Truman, a democrat, was one of the great multi-lateralists. NATO started under Truman and the Marshall Plan was implemented by him. He created the policy that eventually won the Cold War. That of America and its allies blocking communism at every point.

Oil dependence would be greatly reduced if we would use some conservation. The greens don't like to talk about increasing domestic production, but how come the Administration won't talk about real conservation? It seems to me a perfect compromise would be conservation and opening up Alaska to drilling. But the Administration would never do it because their cronies would lose so much money (see Boucher's economic analysis). Don't talk to me about the need for war when we have not tried conservation. War should be a last resort.

“The point about French suffering in WW1 is not weakened by the idea that they had a notionally stronger army than the Germans in 1939. It's strengthened by it, since it suggest that the roots of their collapse were psychological. This has nothing to do with national character, and a great deal to do with the experience of Verdun.”

Gosh darn it, the wonderful Mr. Andrew Brown is strengthening my central argument for me. He claims that the French quickly surrendered to the Nazis due to “psychological” reasons. The main point is that an aggressor was emboldened by their actions. That’s all that matters. We should learn from history and not allow the French to make a same mistake with the current tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

"Don't talk to me about the need for war when we have not tried conservation. War should be a last resort."

It appears that a few people are regretfully visiting the Indymedia website a little too often. The imminent war has nothing to do with oil. Any benefits of this sort will be an indirect result.

"I do because I see that France has made a conscious decision to eschew trust in us. It seems as though more trust is given by France to the Butcher of Baghdad than to the United States."

You are not sufficiently cynical. Trust has little to do with anything. The odds are overwhelming that both the Germans and the French possess abundant evidence via their own intelligence agencies concerning Saddam Hussein's threat to the world. Their reluctance has more to do with greed---and the fear that we will uncover the records implicating them in the selling of these weapons of mass destruction to the butcher of Baghdad.

>"The CAP the French support forces citizens in OTHER nations to pay into French pockets."

>I guess it's a question of degree then.

The thread is discussing diplomacy/foreign policy. There is no American analogue for *taxing* foreigners to provide a transfer payment going into the pockets of US farmers.

Not a question of degree at all.

And to say Germany and Japan had pre-WW2 "significant democratic traditions" is just silly. They may have aped some superficialities for a very short historical span, but nothing that would constitute a "tradition". It may be fair to say they were attempting to create a base for such a tradition, when things spun out of control.

>I'll suggest we make the whole thing "revenue neutral" - overall taxes don't increase.

Is there the slightest possiblity that a self-interested legislature/bureaucracy can undertake such a massive overhaul of the tax code without, shall we say, erring on the side of "caution"? I don't believe in the tooth fairy.

And how do you control for differenes in energy use patterns, with truckers getting the fuel/payroll tax balance but walk-to-work waitresses getting a "free ride" tax wise?

It's a lovely notion in the abstract, to be sure, but the political and administrative realities make it a total non-starter.

>Truman, a democrat, was one of the great multi-lateralists. NATO started under Truman and the Marshall Plan was implemented by him.

The US stood alone in the post WW2 world, opposite the Soviet Union. Our allies were militarily, economically, and diplomatically like ants next to an elephant.

I do understand the nature, history and the incentive behind the Great EU Project. However I strongly believe that the EU is the right idea being executed badly. First of all, EU growth has become a cause of spite against the Americans. Like an adolescent rebelling against her beloved parents, so it seems, the EU is apparently bending over backwards to hurt the Americans in every way possible, especially at the moment she is down (I will never forget the "Americans got what they deserve!" crap that emanated from the European street after 9/11). Spite. Second, the EU is not a democratic institution in as much as it has become a standards body--a European penchant for bureaucracy run amok. It appears to me, and someone please correct me if I am way off base, that EUism is similar to National Socialism in that the give and take of democratic politics is being thwarted for the seeming rational stability of state-as-corporation and bureaucratic rule. I do believe that the coming decades will show the EU structure to be deeply flawed, as to be evidenced by its inability to rapidly accommodate macroeconomic trends. Why? In the EU, legislation is becoming too great a determinant factor in economic dynamics. Legislation is only liquid when being created. Right now the creation of the EU bureaucracy is being accompanied by the rampant creation of legislation merely provides an illusion of market liquidity. Once the cement hardens, the ratchet-down will begin. The EU bureaucracy is also fertile ground for corruption scandle that will make Enron look like a child's piggy bank raid.

Quoth Will Allen:

"a good many Americans are capable of a completely businesslike, ruthless, and unsentimental approach to foreign relations"

I think this approach is doomed, in the long term, to failure. I think any ethic of interpersonal interaction should also be applied to international relations. Hard hearted realists took over the end of WW1--and failed grotesquely. In contrast, the end of ww2 was taken with a fairly liberal midset.

The hard hearted realists installed the shah in Iran, the Ba'athists in Iraq, the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, Chang Kai-Shek in China, Pinochet in Chile, traded arms to a decidedly terrorist Iran...the list goes on. I find that the hard-hearted realists have an extraordinarily poor hostory in international relations.

And the reason for this is a pretty simple lesson is how people view each other--and nations as well. Having an ethic of interaction, a goal and motive that goes beyond the crassly commercial, is rarely useful in the short term. In the long term, however, it fosters trust and a sense of mutual goals. Seeing everything through the lenses of null-sum win loss isn't, ultilmately, a productive way of running a personal life or international policy.

I do understand (and even appreciate) that people think differently. When you assume your neighbor acts without principles, it is hard to do so yourself. But I am very, very bothered when I see a group of selfish conservatives take credit (and when you say "france and germany owe us for ww2," you are by definition taking credit) for some of the greatest examples of liberal, international humanism of this century.

I still have yet to hear a convincing version of why international interaction should require an ethic that is cruder, simpler, and dumber than the minimum we accept for personal interaction. And indeed, why it shouldn't be more complex. I would like to hear a good argument on that nature.

Finally, perhaps it is just me, but I disagree, even substantially, with my friends all of the time. And I respect them for it--they don't become my enemies for it.

Brennan

>the end of ww2 was taken with a fairly liberal midset

Mutually assured destruction, long-trigger nuclear submarines, proxy wars from Central America to Vietnam to Africa, massive aid toward the reconstruction of Europe...I don't know how the word "liberal" applies here.

The oil in the Persian Gulf does not "belong" to the facist dictators, either. If the region was governed by the people who lived there, instead of the fascists which oppress the populace, in relatively short order, the people who live there would do what free people always do, in the long run; they would sell what other people valued, in return for what they themselves value. Getting from here to there ain't easy (understatement intended), but it's gonna have to happen eventually, all dreams of of an oil-free world economy aside.

Mr. Peterson, for every failure of an unsentimental approach to international relations, I can name a worse, more gigantic failure due to a overly idealistic approach. Furthermore, I expressly stated that France and Germany were not enemies, but neither are they allies. Their dupicitous behavior has revealed them to be potentially hostile, and potential hostiles need to be made aware that hostility carries a price, unless one wishes to encourage more hostile behavior. Tell, me if your neighbors stood by while vandals made preparations to damage your home, or worse, sold the spray paint at a profit, while assuring you that things would be just fine while you were away, and furthemore, it was discovered that the neighbor had an ongoing contract to supply the vandals with spraypaint, wouldya' stroll over to the neighbor, slap'em on the back, and exclaim "Great ta' see ya' again!"?

"Tell, me if your neighbors stood by while vandals made preparations to damage your home, or worse, sold the spray paint at a profit, while assuring you that things would be just fine while you were away, and furthemore, it was discovered that the neighbor had an ongoing contract to supply the vandals with spraypaint, wouldya' stroll over to the neighbor, slap'em on the back, and exclaim "Great ta' see ya' again!"? "

....
And if I were irritated at a neighbor who I was sure had vandalized my house, and decided to burn theirs down, I wouldn't ask my friends for their support. A war of poor analogies will get no where. You and I will not agree, even in the interpretation of history (in all likelihood) and I doubt minds will change.

I do, however, wish to make note that your moral view holds the following as true. 1) countries are responsible for the sales decisions of companies involved. 2) Alliances require never saying no, 3) Business decisions imply moral agreement on the principles and policies of both parties and 4) Disagreement is the same as active hostility. Do you hold that these things are true in the case of the US as well.

You will likely disagree with me that this position is ultimately self defeating. And you can argue (with lots of support) that ethical standards and consistency are themselves a weakness, especially in the case of international relations. And we will disagree. But I would still ike the argument as to why this sort of behavior creates a better world.

What is the great failure of idealist policy? As I can argue pretty well that ww1,2, and vietnam represented the failures of realism and success of idealism, I am very curious what major human conflicts you will come up with. I personally always thought that like democracy, humanist idealism always is too patient with those who would subvert it, but that is a risk required of those who believe in it.

Have a good Sunday,

Brennan

"I do, however, wish to make note that your moral view holds the following as true. 1) countries are responsible for the sales decisions of companies involved."

Most western countries have strict laws regarding sales of certain products and services. And yes, it's often fair to blame a nation for the sales made by some of their corporations.

"2) Alliances require never saying no"

"3)Business decisions imply moral agreement on the principles and policies of both parties.."

"4) Disagreement is the same as active hostility."

The viable relationship always demand a good reason for saying no. This is definitely not the case with the Germans and French. Their justification is due to financial considerations, pacifist appeasement, and the fear of what we will find out about their behavior.

Lastly, we are the good guys. The Iraqi people are suffering a tremendous amount of abuse, and the United States and its allies will free them from tyranny. The Germans and French have basically told the victims of Saddam Hussein to go screw themselves. They should be ashamed of themselves.

David,
Your friend Will Allen said the following: "Having fascists control the oil of the Middle East is no longer tenable, because of the money it provides to entities which desire to slaughter American civilians, if for no other reason. To maintain the status quo guarantees disaster, and the longer it is delayed, the more disastrous the scenario will be." So it was your ideological ally who raised the issue of fighting this war for oil in this conversation, not some indy website.

And Bucky, when you say the U.S. stood alone after WWII, that makes our efforts at coalition building all the more admirable. Who would I trust more as a statesmen, Bush or Truman? I'll need all of a microsecond to answer that one.

And finally, how can anyone talk about the reasons for France's failure in WWII without mentioning terrible strategy and military leadership. In WWI the Germans went through Belgium and stopped just outside Paris. So after WWI France builds the Maginot Line on the Franco-German border and ignores the tank. WWII opens and the Germans go through Belgium again and enter Paris. Somehow that military stupidity must be due to the leftists.

Let's try to remember that Bush is NOT the US even if he does represent it right now.

Long after he is gone we will have to live with the consequences of what he has done.

I generally support the war against Iraq but Bush's know-nothing "my way or the highway" approach to international relations is simply dumb. It provides no long term benefits.

The US is the most powerful nation in the world but it cannot do whatever it pleases forever. It is likely that in the lifetime of many of us China will surpass the US economically and even if it just ended with a GDP per capita of 2/3 that of the US it will eventually be 3 to 4 times BIGGER than us. It's simply a question of time.

Who will our allies be then?

After World War 2 for a few years we had the means and capacity to take out all our enemies (ie the Soviet Union) in one swoop. We wisely decliend from any preemtive strike and the politcal, military and economic framework put in place at the time led us to victory decades later in a much better way for all of us.

>victory decades later in a much better way for all of us.

The folks who lived (and died) behind the Iron Curtain might disagree with this.

Well, I wasn't referring to them.

Unless we fully move to a "policeman of the world" role what happens to those caught on the other side is not something we can do much about.

> Well, I wasn't referring to them....what happens to those caught on the other side is not something we can do much about.

Your candor is refreshing.

"Multilateralism" in of itself is fine, but what I believe I have been witnessing over the last year has been a deliberate attempt on the part of the French and the British to take advantage of the US at this time in order to gain political leverage for themselves--to become the giants that "tamed the simplistic American beast." This is the only hypothesis that makes sense at this time. Everyone knows that inspections in Iraq are useless, but France and Germany are loutishly refusing to do anything about it. Fear is my second hypothesis, but that would be too simplistic, wouldn't it?

I really do want a divorce. But no, you can't have the dog, either.

>Fear is my second hypothesis, but that would be too simplistic, wouldn't it?

Occam's razor, or, the old cliche that stupidity and malice can't be distinguished from a distance, should be borne in mind.

Jean-Phillippe asks "Should I conclude that France should be thankful to America for not annexing it after WWII???"

You may conclude that the present Administration (and its apologists) feels that the French should be not merely grateful but perfectly supine.

____________________

Rifle308 states that "Let the French cower in fear of the future and western freedom's enemys. The US is gearing up to meet it and them head on! Let the enemy beware the rage of an America "Locked and Loaded", and on the hunt!"

The rest of the world should be very clear about what this sentiment means. After Iraq and Iran and North Korea... you.

It's time for Europe and Asia to develop alliances to contain the United States.

_____________

John Bono evidently lacks the historical knowledge to understand that both Japan and Germany had elected governments before they were taken over by military dictatorships. The attempts of apologists here to deny this obvious fact notwithstanding.

______________

Andrew Brown says "It is astonishing to read this patronising, ignorant gibberish about French history, from a country which never declared war on Germany and stood to one side, profiteering, throughout 1939, 1940, and all but three weeks of 1941.... I can only assume that this rash of Francophobia across the warhard constituency is an expression of a thoroughly rotten conscience."

There's a far simpler explanation for the Francophobia, Mr. Brown: substandard education plus pampering.

____________

Dan Jordan makes an excellent comment by stating that "I would like to apologise, on behalf of those of us from the other 49 states, for Texas."

____________

Mr. Allen states that "In any case, if France and Germany perceive that their interests lie in opposition to stated U.S. goals, then the U.S. should maximize the cost to France and Germany of pursuing those interests. Nothing, short of violence, should be forsaken. "

Once again, I remark that it's time for Europe and Asia to develop alliances to contain the United States.

_____________________

Andrew Boucher states that "I do know that Persian Gulf oil doesn't lie within our (America's) boundaries, so by most considerations, it is not ours."

Obviously you haven't been following recent developments in American governance, Mr. Boucher. At present, the doctrine is "If we want it, it's ours".

____________________

Nicole Tedesco says "I feel like someone whose has just found her husband in the arms of a woman of the evening and confesses that he feels more for her than for me. I want a divorce, I want you out of the house, and I am keeping the kids."

If the kids are the Bush twins, it's a deal.

She adds, "The EU bureaucracy is also fertile ground for corruption scandle that will make Enron look like a child's piggy bank raid."

Ah, but the American government is so riddled with corruption that it dwarfs anything the EU is up to. Sadly, the last thing that any nation wants is genuine honesty in business.

Ah, here's one Lafayette would surely love:

"he US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region.

The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but largely retain the government in Baghdad. The only changes would be the replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with senior US military officers. "

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060

And so the feckless blustering of the Bush apologists dwindles to a voiceless splutter. The war is not about terrorism; Colin Powell's "evidence" of an Al Qaida link has been debunked. It is not about weapons of mass destruction; as has been pointed out, the inspectors destroyed vastly more weapons in the 1990s than the military did. It is not about democracy; the Kurds have let the cat out of the bag?

What, possibly, could this war be about?

Ah, here's one Lafayette would surely love:

"he US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region.

The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but largely retain the government in Baghdad. The only changes would be the replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with senior US military officers. "

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060

And so the feckless blustering of the Bush apologists dwindles to a voiceless splutter. The war is not about terrorism; Colin Powell's "evidence" of an Al Qaida link has been debunked. It is not about weapons of mass destruction; as has been pointed out, the inspectors destroyed vastly more weapons in the 1990s than the military did. It is not about democracy; the Kurds have let the cat out of the bag?

What, possibly, could this war be about?

I can't help thinking that Brad deliberately put in the post about Lafayette so as to measure the number of francophobe postings vs. everyone else. Sad, but I can't help thinking that Lafayette would weep at all the anti-French nastiness in evidence in this thread. Lafayette would probably think that the U.S. government had been taken over by the Mountain and the Jacobins that he spent the last part of his life fighting against--people whose rigid callousness towards human life led to led to thousands of deaths in France, as might well be the case in Iraq.

For all of the war party reading this thread, let's get one thing straight: just because France and Germany happen to have a majority of public opinion against an invasion does not make these countries anything special--majority opinion is also against the invasion in Spain, Italy, and Britain. In fact, if New York and Vermont were independent countries, it's probable to say that the usual suspects on this thread would probably shower both with the same amount of hateful abuse that is being launched against France.

And just so you are _fully aware_ of what is at stake here, there is no shortage of U.S. citizens who are accusing the Bush adm. of _lying_ and of launching the war for ulterior motives that are only tangentially related, if at all, to the war on terrorism. So many U.S. citizens who think like the French--we have met the enemy and he is us. Stop abusing the French, Germans, etc., and please get down to the business of calling the rest of your fellow citizens cowards and even traitors.

"The oil in the Persian Gulf does not "belong" to the facist dictators, either. If the region was governed by the people who lived there, instead of the fascists which oppress the populace, in relatively short order, the people who live there would do what free people always do, in the long run; they would sell what other people....."

So, Will Allen, do we invade Saudi Arabia next? Overthrow that king/dictator and give that oil to those people as well?

And gee, what if "the people" decide to sell at too high a price for our taste? Or make contracts with someone else? Re-invade and give the oil to a new friendly king?

It still sounds as if we are behaving like we always have; thinking the oil is ours. But, back to this idea of oil and kings and people......what the hell are you talking about?

Whoever controls the oil in Iraq (or any other OPEC) is king and that part of the world kings behave not as wise philosophers. After all, you aren't really talking about some sort of state ownership/socialist oil production program, are you?

No, you mean that a new oil producing entity will be established that trades on favorable terms with the US regardless of what market forces may be operating. In fact, you are probably talking about a US based multi national conglomerate controlling oil production for an indefinite period of time with a few Iraqi front men transparently attempting to make the whole thing look like an Iraqi grass roots kind of thing.

I wonder what the French don't see to like in all this?

The more I think about this arguement of liberating the Iraqi people the less valid it seems. Often when I see these people on t.v. , or where ever, they are out parading about shooting automatic weapons in the air.

If they would take those same weapons and start a revolution on their own - like France and the US did (or for that matter the soviets, Chinese, ......) - I would feel a lot better about moving in to intervene on the people's behalf.

If they want "liberation" then let them show it! No, any action of the Kurds doesn't count. They are not Iraqi citizens. They are roaming bandits that happen to be semi-trapped inside artificial boundries. And the few Iraqis living here that are whispering sweet nothings into Bush's ear cannot be trusted. They are simply making their own bids for power.

France is definitely making the more sober assessment this time.

Charles Utwater II, I should have read the link you provided before I posted. I hope that one makes the front pages in the US. Guess we'll see how free the press really is here. Anyhow, as I was saying....

What do you think Will A?

I'm well aware of Lafayette and the permanent honor that we Americans owe him. I'm proud of that debt of honor, and don't like hearing it dismissed with comments like 'we paid it off'. Paying it off is not the point of remembering a great man who stood by our Republic while it was being born. It only dishonors Americans, if we forget to honor him. Lafayette was Washington's comrade in arms. We will (I hope) never forget Washington; how can we forget his allies?

That being said, I think it's fair of me to wonder what the Marquis would think of Chirac's choosing to side against the U.S. and with Hussein. Because that is what Chirac is currently doing, and it's hard for me to believe that Lafayette -- who risked his life and honor to fight in a war with Americans -- would be happy to see 'peace at any price' as a French slogan now.

I'm well aware of Lafayette and the permanent honor that we Americans owe him. I'm proud of that debt of honor, and don't like hearing it dismissed with comments like 'we paid it off'. Paying it off is not the point of remembering a great man who stood by our Republic while it was being born. It only dishonors Americans, if we forget to honor him. Lafayette was Washington's comrade in arms. We will (I hope) never forget Washington; how can we forget his allies?

That being said, I think it's fair of me to wonder what the Marquis would think of Chirac's choosing to side against the U.S. and with Hussein. Because that is what Chirac is currently doing, and it's hard for me to believe that Lafayette -- who risked his life and honor to fight in a war with Americans -- would be happy to see 'peace at any price' as a French slogan now.

I'm well aware of Lafayette and the permanent honor that we Americans owe him. I'm proud of that debt of honor, and don't like hearing it dismissed with comments like 'we paid it off'. Paying it off is not the point of remembering a great man who stood by our Republic while it was being born.

That being said, I think it's fair of me to wonder what the Marquis would think of Chirac's choosing to side against the U.S. and with Hussein. Because that is what Chirac is currently doing, and it's hard for me to believe that Lafayette -- who risked his life and honor to fight in a war with Americans -- would be happy to see 'peace at any price' as a French slogan now.

I'm well aware of Lafayette and the permanent honor that we Americans owe him. I'm proud of that debt of honor, and don't like hearing it dismissed with comments like 'we paid it off'. Paying it off is not the point of remembering a great man who stood by our Republic while it was being born.

That being said, I think it's fair of me to wonder what the Marquis would think of Chirac's choosing to side against the U.S. and with Hussein. Because that is what Chirac is currently doing, and it's hard for me to believe that Lafayette -- who risked his life and honor to fight in a war with Americans -- would be happy to see 'peace at any price' as a French slogan now.

Sheesh. Sorry about the quadruplicate comments. But, dude, you have *got* to fix that silly "error" message on your Website that made me keep 'trying again'! >:^}

>>France is paying a severe price for the nefarious intellectual influences of such folks as Jean Paul Sartre, Michael Foucault, and Jacques Derrida<<

Backsliding again, Thomson? I thought it was your New Year's Resolution not to make blanket statements about books or authors you haven't read?

“Backsliding again, Thomson? I thought it was your New Year's Resolution not to make blanket statements about books or authors you haven't read?”

I am simply telling the truth about the French “elite” and the other members of the Old Europe. These folks are abysmally poorly educated and never learned how to think and follow a logical argument. We are sometimes too easily impressed by their multilingual talents. In many respects, the typical French intellectual is an utter moron possessing the ability to spout their nonsense in at least three different languages.

Many French have been seduced by a banal utopian Liberalism that has resulted in much horror throughout this world. The French student riots of 1968 perhaps made an already bad situation even worse. Anyone who take the previously mentioned authors seriously---are idiots deserving ridicule and marginalization. Jacques Derrida, for instance, is an intellectual clown. It is a scandal that such a pathetic mediocrity is a dominant academic figure. Do I seem unduly harsh? Oh well, there’s little that I can do about that. These jerks, who have so much blood on their hands, are not worthy of our respect. The French have a long tradition of kissing the rear ends of dictators. Saddam Hussein is not the first monster to take advantage of their moral failings.

Uh, Reverend Thomson, the United States has "a long tradition of kissing the rear ends of dictators" and used to pucker up to Saddam's throughout the Reagan administration and the early years of Bush 1.

And it seems that when Saddam was gassing some kurds in the late eighties he was able to to do so by taking "advantage of their moral failings" *Their* being the Reaganites.

This is common knowledge. How come you don't know it? If you do know it how can you criticize the splinter in the French eye when there's a board in your own?

I enjoyed that bit about the French: "Geniuses like Raymond Aron and Frederick Bastiat are the exception and unfortunately not the norm."

Does that mean Descartes, Voltaire, Pascal, Fermat, Lavoisier, Pasteur, Dupuit, Fourier, Galois, Cournot, Cauchy, Comte, Walras, Durkheim, Bachelier, Poincare, Balzac, Hugo, Zola, Proust, . . . and all their works are definitively beyond the pale?

At least that should cut down on the reading.

Mr. Thomson, you are clearly not a student of mathematics. Serre, Thom, Grothendieck, Deligne, Connes are all French and all deserve to be taken seriously. In other areas they have far more people than Derrida, Barthhes, Foucault, Levi Strauss, Sartre and Weil to worry themselves about. Not that these people are unpopular in the US in any case. As for relativism, Mr. Rorty is I believe one of your own.
If the French are now kissing Mr. Hussein's rear end they are following a well trodden path. Maybe you don't like people playing with your exes?

"I enjoyed that bit about the French: "Geniuses like Raymond Aron and Frederick Bastiat are the exception and unfortunately not the norm."

Does that mean Descartes, Voltaire, Pascal, Fermat, Lavoisier, Pasteur, Dupuit, Fourier, Galois, Cournot, Cauchy, Comte, Walras, Durkheim, Bachelier, Poincare, Balzac, Hugo, Zola, Proust, . . . and all their works are definitively beyond the pale?"

I'm sure that there are a number of names that can be added to the list. After all, not every French person is a loser---perhaps just most of them. Also, why do you mention only those who have long been dead? Aren’t there a few living French thinkers who are not complete idiots? Is Catherine Millet the very best that France has to offer?

"And it seems that when Saddam was gassing some kurds in the late eighties he was able to to do so by taking "advantage of their moral failings" *Their* being the Reaganites.

This is common knowledge. How come you don't know it? If you do know it how can you criticize the splinter in the French eye when there's a board in your own?"

You fail to make the distinction between pragmatic accommodation and adulation. It is one thing to partner with a Joseph Stalin during WWII---and totally another to idolizing the monster. Have we already forgotten Jean Paul Sartre’s disgusting boot licking of the Stalinist regime?

The French Revolution brought forth the evils of Nazism and Communism. We can no longer afford to allow the nihilistic French--and German intellectual “elite” to continue to cause enormous suffering and death. It’s time to forge stronger bonds with the “New” Europeans and tell the “Old” to go to hell.

Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton might have been our first "French" President. This immoral man enjoys employing relativist gobbledegook rhetoric to try getting himself out of trouble.

>>You fail to make the distinction between pragmatic accommodation and adulation. It is one thing to partner with a Joseph Stalin during WWII---and totally another to idolizing the monster. <<

A quick google search for the words "moral equivalent of the founding fathers" turns up a few larfs, I must say.

It's settled then: Any time a conservative brings up Clinton and women it is a silent admission they have no further logic to present. It is therefore agreed, the inspections should continue.

But I do like this quote, "The French Revolution brought forth the evils of Nazism and Communism." You forgot to mention the French are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Mongol hordes, and the sacking of Rome.

Not to mention events in Paris on 24 August 1572 as reported at: http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/StBart.html

"Backsliding again, Thomson? I thought it was your New Year's Resolution not to make blanket statements about books or authors you haven't read?

Say, how's your reading of Coase coming along?

I will judge U.S. actions regarding post-Saddam Iraq when that circumstance comes about, and no I don't consider news reports to be perfect, or even near-perfect oracles. Unlike many in this thread, I am not motivated either by animosity nor favorable feeling regarding Georege Bush. I dislike much about this administration's policies but consider the current status quo of fascism/Stalinism dominating the Persian Gulf to be untenable, and yes, that also means the theocratic fascists of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The staus quo is untenable because the oil in the region is critical to global prosperity, and an actor like Saddam, if he were to come to dominate the region, and possess nuclear capability, would not trade like free people usually do, and would not have the pressure to trade as the Saudi fascists do, since Saddam has no inhibition against massively slaughtering his slaves. Saddam only needs to trade enough to keep his military equipped sufficiently to terrorize his slaves, acquire a nuclear stockpile with which to deter outside intervention, and keep his palaces stocked. The amount of trade needed to accomplish these tasks is far less than what is needed to avoid severe global economic dislocations, which would have huge negative consequences, on all continents.

The theocratic fascism of Saudi Arabia and Iran is intolerable because their oil revenues are channeled to entities which seek to slaughter civilian Westerners, for reasons as arcane as being unhappy regarding the outcome of the Battle of Vienna, or the end of Moorish rule on the Iberian peninsula. There is no satisfying this mind-set, and as long as fascists control Iran and Saudi Arabia, people with this mind-set will have access to the funds needed to execute their plans of mass murder. Thankfully, there is a chance that the large number of Persians who are sick of mullah-led fascism can gain the upper hand. The House of Saud, in it's present form, is a house of cards, but what will follow in it's wake no doubt will be every bit as challenging as Iraq. It ain't gonna be easy, but the maintainence of the status quo would be worse, and to simply conclude beforehand that Arabs or Kurds are incapable of representative government is a self-fufilling prophecy, along with being possibly an example of irrational racial categorization. Again, this will be very hard, but sometmes the very hard must be attempted, since to forgo the attempt is to guarantee unacceptable consequences.

The French are behaving in the manner they are because of the money to be made by extracting oil for Saddam, which of course helps Saddam accomplish his goals. The French government believes it serves French interests to assist fascism/Stalinism, thereby making profits, while weakening the United States. Mr. Utwater seems to concur with this strategy. The Germans are a little more conflicted at this time. Happily, not all governments around the globe are as enthusiastic as the French government about forming alliances with fascists and Stalinists, or concur with others that the United States is worse than fascism. It will thus be the task of Bush Administration to strengthen alliances with those nations that differ with those that think that fascism/Stalinism is preferable than the United States. Will it succeed? Who knows? This Administration's past performance in selling out to small domestic consituencies, like South Carolinians in the textile industry, to the detriment of what would best serve the country's foreign policy, is not encouraging. Once again, however, to cast one's lot with the fascist status quo in the Persian Gulf is to guarantee disaster.

Mr. Allen I don't think there is anybody here who is an apologist for Saddam Hussein.

What is not clear is what rule governs when you can deal with him. Is it just when it is convenient for the US? It often looks that way.

Mr Squared has provided a clear explanation of why with his google query "moral equivalent of the founding fathers".

Iraq must be disarmed. Were the United States not to disarm Iraq, there will be an affirmation among terrorist regimes and terrorist bands that we are not able to defend our strategic interests. This will lead to continual terrorist probing from Iraq to North Korea in a way that will truly increasingly threaten the peace of the world.

Iraq's government has terrorized its neighbors and the bulk of its own people and fostered terrorism against the strategic interests of the United States.

There are more than 200,000 American, Brisish and Australian troops ready to disarm Iraq. Should these troops be withdrawn before the task is accomplished, we allies will have weakened ourselves terribly. Iraq must be disarmed.

>>Say, how's your reading of Coase coming along?<<

Finished, thankyou, what do you want to know?

jd in a way, you're right. The U.S. has put in 150000 troops, and to take them out now, without giving comfort to Saddam Hussein and others, will require more diplomatic finesse than the U.S. is capable of. (We could always say, "The U.N. has not approved the invasion, and since we are a law-abiding people, we will not invade. Therefore we withdraw our troops." Which part will other peoples not believe?) But what that is saying is, the current U.S. administration should have been more sure of other nations' support before pouring so many troops in. France and Russia were very clear after the first U.N. resolution that they absolutely, positively did not approve of force without a second resolution - so I think the egg belongs properly on our face.

Why does jd use the term terrorist in a post discussing the disarmament of an autocratic dictator? Has al-Qaeda taken over Iraq while I was watching Joe Millionaire? Or is terrorism a red herring in the pursuit of Saddam?

I mean, the pursuit of democracy for the people of Iraq. I can just hear the Aerosmith soundtrack anthem now....

The past behavior of the US government has exactly zero bearing on what would be the best course of action today. To engage in these sorts of non sequiturs is illustrative of either stupidity or a deliberate desire to ignore the matter at hand. Does the past actions of the U.S. Government (which is often deliberately distorted, by the way) have impact on our credibility with other actors, or how they perceive our actions? No doubt, but the reverse is also true, of course. News flash; notify the BBC: nations lie and propagandize more often than not. The reason I hold anti-statist beliefs is because states are inevitably deceitful and abusive of power. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Having said that, states are a necessary evil in this Vale of Tears, so we are constantly left with choosing among bad options, and past bad behavior or foolish strategy doesn't obviate that reality. Today we are faced with the option of maintaining the status quo of a Persian Gulf dominated by secular and theocratic fascists/Stalinists, ot taking action to rapidly change it. Some have made a reasonable case, although one with which I disagree, that changing the status quo is too dangerous. Others, like the French Government, actually prefer the status quo, since they profit from it, and they favor fascism/Stalinism in the region, if the maitainence of that status quo will weaken the United States. For the French Government, supporting fascism/Stalinism is a reasonable price to pay to weaken the United States. Do not misunderstand; all nations make these calculations all the time. The U.S. has supported all manner of odious governments, particularly when everything was seen through the prism of competition with the Soviet Empire. Again, for the French, supporting fascism and Stalinism in the Persian Gulf is desirable, because it weakens the U.S., which they now consider one of their primary goals. The French Government is hostile to U.S. goals in an area of vital interest to the U.S.. To believe otherwise is to deny simple reality.

The past behavior of the US government has exactly zero bearing on what would be the best course of action today.

That's ridiculous, Will. Would you say that the past actions of the US in the Vietnam region have "exactly zero bearing" on what should be done now?

It was Colin Powell (I think) who asked the Palestinians a simple question - "Does Sharon want more suicide bombers?". The obvious answer is yes (What wonderful recruitment opportunities for Likud! What a way to make my enemies hated!). And if the Palestinian's toughest enemy wants more, how can these bombings possibly be in the Palestinian's interest?

I've got a simple question for all you warbloggers. Does Osama Bin Laden want a US invasion and occupation of Iraq or not? The obvious answer is yes (What wonderful recruitment opportunities for al Quaeda! What a way to make my enemies hated!). And if he wants it, how can it be in the US' interest?

Their motives may not be pure, but I think the French are saving you people from yourselves.

Yes, but I guess I was speaking in the sense of how the morality of past actions should affect present strategy. That the U.S. poorly executed a poorly thought-out, and perhaps (in some ways) morally faulty strategy in Indochina has no bearing on what the course of action should be now. The results of that strategy can be useful in informing us as to what is more likely to work in today's situation, as long as caution is employed in drawing analogies; they often can lead one astray as well. The same could be said about the employment of the 1930s appeasement analogy. The fact is that failing to militarily confront Hitler earlier was morally faulty, and can be used to help inform us about today's situation, but that faulty morality tells us nothing as to what the course of action today should be.

I speak in the moral sense, since so often people will proclaim that we cannot remove Hussein, for instance, becasue we helped supply him with chemical weapons, which may be a bit of a distortion. Some said the Taliban couldn't be removed by force by the U.S. because the U.S. had previously provided aid to the Taliban. Even if both statements were completely undistorted assertions of fact, however, it is the employment of a non sequitur to state that those previous actions meant that removing Hussein or the Taliban is the wrong thing to do. One does not follow from the other. In fact, a case could be made that such aid meant that the aid-giver had a larger responsibility to remove such fascists/Stalinists.

Similalry, d-sqaured suggested a google search above, showing fatuous statements made regarding the character of Afghans fighting the Soviet Army, as if such fatuous statements could inform us logically as to what would be the best course of action today. Well, high American officials made all sorts of fatuous statements regarding Stalin's nature during WWII, and then just a few years later were engaged in a furious strategy to counter Stalin. The fatuous statements of 1944 had zero logical impact as to what the best strategy towards Stalin was in 1948.

"Speaking as someone who believes it is in the interests of the U.S. to remove Hussein, and shatter the fascist status quo of the Middle East, it might be time to consider taking whatever means available to divide the EU, and thereby harm French and German interests as much as possible. "

Actually, I think this is and has been the approach taken by the administration, and one reason the French and Germans are reacting the way they are. For example, in the cases of Kyoto, ICC, etc, the administration was not satisfied in simply torpedoing the treaties, they had to make a show of ripping them up. And the strongarm tactics to get the EU to offer early membership to Turkey, when Turkey is clearly not prepared to enter and the EU not prepared to absorb them, was an attempt to derail the EU process.

(Speaking of Turkey, why are all the France-bashers giving Turkey a free pass? These guys are holding out permission to station US troops in Turkey in order to get more aid, i.e., a bigger bribe. Talk about cynical diplomacy to further narrow interests. Not that I blame them, but why the double standard?)

Regardless of whether one agrees with the military attack on Iraq or not, the US diplomatic approach has been abysmal. The sympathy toward the US in the aftermath of 9/11 has been squandered. In the past, one always heard lefty Euros talking about "American imperialism", but now even conservatives are talking like that, people who used to be instinctively pro American. This is new.

Aside from the gratuitous insults to the 'Old' Europeans, look at the way the 'allies' are treated, Blair, Berlusconi, et al. They are, politically speaking, stretching their neck out on the chopping block, alienating both antiwar leftists as well as rightists who are embarrased at their countries' subservience to a foreign power. Why can't the US let them take the time to make the case and prepare the public for war, give them some political cover? Do you think W would similarly stretch his neck out for them? Yeah, right.

Maybe there's a method to the madness, but it looks like amateur hour to me.

Will, though I completely disagree with most everything you say related to war in Iraq, I must say that you do make an effort to be reasonable and well balanced in your assessments and arguements.

But, I think that one effect of "fatuous statements" is to make the public cynical and generally distrusting of the government's motives. I- and I believe most Americans - are willing to fight when we know we are in the right and doing so for a noble cause. We like to feel that we are walking the moral high ground, always. Realpolitik and the fatuous statements that flow from it are not appreciated as being a necessary evil by most folks.

I can accept that the French are, at least in part, doing what they are doing to serve their own interests. However, it is easy for many folks to see their current position as being morally superior in light of previous fatuous statements and our track record regarding support of dictators and failures to promote democracy when we said we would.

Again, cognitive dissonance is disturbing and it arises from people realizing that they have acted contrary to their stated morality.

One reaction to cognitive dissonance is to identify with an entity that appears to be adhering to a desired moral position........the French? Also, while past morally deficient decisions don't have much bearing on present decisions in a factual sense, they do make us distrusting of our own ability to make appropriate decisions in the present. I think much of the public rallying against the war is due to this phenomenon.

Yes, Will, which merely shows that we should refrain from eulogizing our allies du jour and anathematizing our enemies du jour. But it sems to me that by and large it is the war party that is practising this sort of rhetoric.

To me, much of what the French are saying is simply cold, clear reason.

I don't think you Americans realise how isolated you have made yourselves on this. Without exception, governments which are supporting you (Turkey, Spain, Italy, eastern Europe, Britain, that fine democracy Kuwait and - my own country - Australia) are doing it in clear defiance of their public's opinion. With the exception of Britain (the home of 'conviction politicians' - ie ones which can use the lack of checks and balances to defy public opinion for y