Our Supreme Omniscient Commander of Good went out of his way after 9/11 to tamp down any vigilantism against American Muslims. But French people in America should not expect that he will show the same forbearance. In fact, just last week he spoke to regional reporters and made it clear that he endorsed the backlash against the French:
With the Mexican press full of a debate over the ramifications of a vote against the resolution, Bush added, “But, nevertheless, I don’t expect for there to be significant retribution from the government.”
His emphasis was on the word “government,” raising the possibility of adverse reaction to Mexico from the American business community and average citizens.
Making that point, he cited what he called “an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French.”
With many Americans unhappy at French resistance to a war in Iraq, the president said there has developed “a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except by the people.”
Anyone who says the man doesn’t have leadership qualities isn’t looking in the right place. Atrios found this article from Houston:
For Francoise Thomas, the anger against France for its continuing opposition to military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein hadn’t hit home until she read about it on one of her doors.
When Thomas took out the garbage Saturday morning, she saw red letters spray-painted on the garage door of her townhouse.
“Scum go back to France,” it read.
I guess Karl isn’t worried about the “French” vote.
THE message scrawled on the side of an American bunker-busting bomb being wheeled out into the desert was blunt: “Fuque the French” had been scrawled on the side by a member of the US Air Force.
Calpundit highly recommends this piece by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek and it is very good. In fact, even for someone as deeply mistrustful of the Bush administration as I it is shocking to read that every single country that has had dealings with the United States in the last year (except Britain and Israel who are probably lying) has been left feeling humiliated. Yowza.
Kevin then makes the following comment:
Zakaria’s observation that the most powerful nation in the world somehow feels as if it is “besieged” is a telling one. Time and again, when I try to figure out what is happening in America, I keep coming back to the palpable sense of fear that seems to envelop us. We are seemingly afraid of everything: child molesters, terrorists, street crime, sharks — in a way that is wildly out of proportion to the actual danger they present.
[…]
Our reaction to 9/11 has been the same. Instead of making use of the outpouring of support that we got in its aftermath, we have turned in on ourselves, and in the process we have changed from the flawed but generous nation that we are into a mean and paranoid country that lashes out at friends and enemies alike.
I have thought a lot about this question as well. I spent some of my grade school years in Kansas, where my father worked on the missile silos. Every single day at school we practiced diving under our desks in anticipation of a nuclear attack. When JFK was killed, the town I lived in went on nuclear alert. The assumption was that the Soviets had to be behind it.
But, I do not think there was the kind of pervasive paranoia and sense of fear that we see today. Maybe it was that many people had recent memories of war so they had a more philosophical perspective, I don’t know. Paradoxically, despite the fact that nuclear annihilation was an everyday concern, people didn’t seem to be afraid.
I think this current sense of being besieged stems in large part from the emergence over the last 10-20 years of the tabloid TV news media. In our insular society, where many people experience their community by watching the local news, the “if it bleeds it leads” directive makes people believe that they are inundated by crime and pestilence and deviant sex and everything else that a tabloid press has always used to sell advertising. I have seen polls that indicate that even when crime has gone down significantly, as it did during the late 90’s, people are still convinced that their community is drowning in crime. If you watch the 11 o’clock news here in LA, you are easily convinced that you are living in post-modern anarchy and that it is relentless and escalating even though statistics show otherwise. Fear is stimulating and stimulation is what gets people to pay attention in a sea of white noise and talking heads. It’s very hard to look away.
But, there is more to it than that. We are in one of those periods in which the paranoid style in American politics has become dominant. Listen to talk radio or watch cable news, the two most explicitly political forums in the electronic media, and the paranoia is palpable. This sense of being under siege is fed daily by the likes of Rush and the rest, who mercilessly pound home to their devoted listeners the idea that they are victims of a liberal, permissive culture that is trying to undermine their values and a bloated, consuming government that is trying to steal their money. Everything they care about is in danger of being invaded, overtaken and eliminated by the political opposition. Even those who do not listen are subtly influenced by the conversation in the background. It drifts through the body politic like smoke.
Strangely then, it’s within the safety of their living rooms and their cars that the profitable message of paranoia is drummed into the minds of the free people of the United States over and over and over again. America’s insularity is the instrument of its fear.
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?