Bill Schneider on CNN just justified the US defying the UN on Iraq by showing a list of other wars that were fought without UN approval. He summed up by saying something like It may be better to defy the UN than to seek its approval. The list?
France invading Algeria
Vietnam
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
The Falklands
Well now, I don’t know about you, but that list doesn’t exactly make me feel any better, particularly considering that the first 3 were unequivocal quagmires. Not to mention morally bankrupt.
Kevin links approvingly to Emma’s interesting post about French motivation in opposing the invasion of Iraq and “how the game of nations is played.”
However, I’m afraid I think her assessment is entirely too cynical. Yes, Chirac is a snake and nations act out of their own interests. Much more than principle or morality, by necessity and because we are humans, always goes into foreign policy. Nobody with any brains is arguing that France is acting purely out of altruistic love of the Iraqi children or entirely because they have a moral objection to war. That would be a silly and naive position.
But, neither can it be discounted that France is a democracy and Chirac is responding to the will of his citizens. Perhaps public opinion is irrelevant to him, but one cannot prove it merely by assertion. There is every reason to believe that Chirac would find himself under the kind of pressure that Blair is under and has decided to take a different tack based upon his personal self-interest, which is how the system is actually designed to work. It’s hard to see that Chirac was particularly free under those circumstances to decide the issue based solely upon France’s oil interests in the mid-east or his ambition to lead the EU, even if he wanted to. If he were acting out of economic self-interest alone, Chirac would have held out for the best deal and then played ball. That is certainly what the Bush administration expected to happen.
I also think she gives short shrift to the notion that the “Old Europe” experience of the last century has left them with a genuine suspicion of grand global plans like the starry-eyed neocon dream of Pax Americana and that assessment does have some basis in morality. (Certainly, the German position is undeniably rooted in its moral culpability for WWII.) They all see their own security in terms defined by two world wars fought on their own soil and they rightly mistrust propagandist phrases like “benevolent hegemony.” Yes, that is “self-interest” but it isn’t necessarily cynical and it isn’t necessarily a hypocritical stance that would change if the players were different.
In other words, it’s not naive to believe that there is a mix of genuine democratic principle and hard edged self-interested realism in France’s position. That position, after all, is mirrored by far more countries than ours is and most of them do not have interests in Iraq that make it the least bit worth their while to side against the United States. Indeed, it cannot be seen as in the self interest of any individual nation. The U.S. is a powerhouse, both militarily and economically and there is little to be gained by a country like Chile or Mexico defying us on a war in a far off region in the world.
It is not believable to me that this large collection of democratic countries throughout the world are lining up against the US out of calculated individual self-interest alone. There are selfish motives involved in each, to be sure, but they are responding to their people and taking a big gamble that their collective power will serve to check what seems to be a very aggressive U.S. foreign policy doctrine. It’s a ballsy move that makes no real sense if there is not a deep seated feeling amongst these players that the US must be put on notice that we do not have unfettered support for these global ambitions.
That global alliance of the unwilling simply cannot be explained as another Great Game.
This guy had a hard-on for war today. He is angry and he is excited and he is babbling incoherantly.
Yee Haw.
“We’ll Meet Again Someday…..”
Post Script:
It will be interesting to see if Karl’s vaunted bandwagon effect will come to pass as it’s obviously designed to do. Now that it’s on for sure will everybody come scampering to be with the “winners?” We’re about to find out.
And somebody should have given Junior a couple of valium before he went out there. He sounded suspiciously like he was about to declare war on France.
GEORGE Bush’s top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons.
Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a “clean bill of health” from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America’s war machine.
Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein’s weapons programme will be enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught, he told an all- party meeting on global security.
Former defence minister and Labour backbencher Peter Kilfoyle said: “America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections. President Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing.
“This make a mockery of the whole process and exposes America’s real determination to bomb Iraq.”
Dr Perle told MPs: “I cannot see how Hans Blix can state more than he can know. All he can know is the results of his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction.”
The chairman of America’s defence policy board said: “Suppose we are able to find someone who has been involved in the development of weapons and he says there are stores of nerve agents. But you cannot find them because they are so well hidden.
“Do you actually have to take possession of the nerve agents to convince? We are not dealing with a situation where you can expect co-operation.”
Mr Kilfoyle said MPs would be horrified at the admission. He added: “Because Saddam is so hated in Iraq, it would be easy to find someone to say they witnessed weapons building.
“Perle says the Americans would be satisfied with such claims even if no real evidence was produced.
“That’s a terrifying prospect.”
First of all, why the hell is Richard fucking Perle speaking for this country before members of parliament? Can somebody please explain what position he holds that allows him to go around the world shooting his mouth off as if he has some position of authority?
There can be no good purpose for them to want him telling the Brits at this moment that the entire inspections process has been a sham from the get-go. Why do they let him do this?
He seems to be having a bit of a public meltdown, what with the Hersh nuttiness, and I have to wonder why they don’t tell him to shut his piehole.
I haven’t read Woodward’s book “Bush at War” because, well, the thought of paying money to Bob Woodward to observe him give George W. Patton a metaphorical blow job smacks a little too much of voyeurism. But, it seems I’m going to have to do it just for the shock and awe value.
Maureen Dowd, in a surprisingly dark and realistic column today (and one which should be shoved into her face the next time she goes all Alpha Bitch Queen and forgets that she’s not writing about the entertainment business) says:
And America is not known for its long attention span or talent for empire building. As Bob Woodward reports in his book “Bush at War,” a month into the bombing of Afghanistan, when the Taliban stronghold of Majar-i-Sharif fell, Mr Bush turned to Condoleezza Rice, in a moment right out of “The Candidate,” and asked: “Well, what next?”
He turned to Condi and asked what next. Has there ever been a more callow, infantile president in history?
President GI Joe likes to play with the toys that go ker-pow, but he’s “not into nation building.” What do you suppose the chances are that he remains interested in Iraq after Shock and Awe starts to get so, like, boring?
Atrios via Roger Ailes points out this nice story of some fine military “security” officers and their off base cross burning antics. These are some of the same military “security” officers who have authorization to use deadly force to protect residents and equipment from protesters on base — at their discretion
Not all MP’s are white supremecists by any means, but it should be remembered that this is why we have a system of justice. We don’t let cops shoot to kill except in self-defense. It is impossible to believe that protesters could threaten some sort of vital equipment at Vandenberg Air Force base in California that would threaten the lives of servicement in Iraq. If they can, then somebody needs to take a much harder look at the security of the base overall rather than putting out the word that they are going to shoot first and ask questions later.
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) – Security forces at Vandenberg Air Force Base may use “deadly force” against protesters if they infiltrate the military complex if a war starts, officials said.
Some anti-war activists plan to trespass onto base grounds in hopes of disturbing Vandenberg’s mission and to vandalize sensitive equipment they contend helps guide the war effort.
Vandenberg officials revealed Friday that military security police may shoot to kill, if necessary, to protect base residents and machinery.
Anti-war protesters have a habit of threatening “base residents.” And protecting “machinery” is a patriotic duty. Shoot the bastards. Where do they think they live, America?
Strangely, I’ve seen lots of this kind of thing, but I have yet to see any kind of “Down With Saddam” signs. Who, exactly do these people think we are going to war with?
Hesiod links to the following article and explains that this means the “pro-war” rallies are actually “pro-al Qaeda” rallies.
LONDON, March 15 — On three continents, Al Qaeda and other terror organizations have intensified their efforts to recruit young Muslim men, tapping into rising anger about the American campaign for war in Iraq, according to intelligence and law enforcement officials.
In recent weeks, officials in the United States, Europe and Africa say they had seen evidence that militants within Muslim communities are seeking to identify and groom a new generation of terrorist operatives. An invasion of Iraq, the officials worry, is almost certain to produce a groundswell of recruitment for groups committed to attacks in the United States, Europe and Israel.
“An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups,” a senior American counterintelligence official said. “And it is a very effective tool.”
Another American official, based in Europe, said Iraq had become “a battle cry, in a way,” for Qaeda recruiters.
Some of the information about Qaeda recruiting comes from interrogations of captured operatives and from materials found at the house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the third-ranking Qaeda leader, was arrested this month, officials say.
I’ve often wondered what, exactly, the UN’s critics proposed that we put in its place. Well, David Gelernter has risen to the challenge with results that are a bit … odd.
The core of the new organization–call it the Big Three–would be a Britain-Russia-America triumvirate. The underlying principle: No credible world organization could include only countries we like. But Russia’s fluid condition gives us an unusual opening. Russia is a big country with a vivid history. No organization that includes Russia could possibly be America’s cat’s-paw. Yet Russia is uncertain of what she wants; she is open to persuasion. Yes, that means money; but international prestige is worth even more, especially to a humbled former champion. Including Russia (but not China or France) in the ruling committee might impart just the right soupçon of anti-Americanism to the new organization, which must be credible yet not intractable
There is much one can say about this, the most obvious being that this ridiculous concept that time is going to stand still and the US, Britain and Russia will always be in the exact positions they are currently in is well…dumb. But, instead of writing a thousand words I’ll offer this instead:
