Uncategorized

This article (subscription only) in today’s WSJ sheds some light on the motives of France’s ruling elite, who seem to be engaged in a political crusade–using Iraq as a weapon–to weaken the United States. The gist of the article’s explanation for the French leadership’s anti-Americanism is that the French believe that they will get away with it.

PARIS — Having done their best to block America’s plans to wage war on Iraq, French leaders are assessing the cost of angering their mighty ally, and are coming up with a surprising figure: virtually nothing.

French political leaders and businessmen, ignoring warnings from Washington, express confidence France can veto U.S. plans in the United Nations without paying a heavy price in its commercial, political or diplomatic interests. President Jacques Chirac, in declaring his determination Monday to reject a U.S.- and United Kingdom-backed Security Council resolution that would lead to war in Iraq, refuted the idea that France would suffer for snubbing its allies.

“There is no risk that the U.S. and France, or the American and French people, will quarrel or get angry with each other,” he said.

Mr. Chirac’s belief in a virtually cost-free veto is shared by many in France, across the political spectrum. “There’s some talk of boycott in the air, but that’s a human reaction, and we can understand that,” says Jacques Barrot, chairman of the parliamentary delegation of the center-right Popular Movement Union. “It’d be wrong for the U.S. to put on trial a country that is standing beside them in the fight against terrorism,” he adds.

(Note the last sentence. The quote about “standing beside them in the fight against terrorism” does not seem to be intended as a joke.)

The article goes on to state that French leaders are not particularly concerned about American trade reprisals, but that French political interests are indeed vulnerable. Again, the French leadership sees it differently:

Many French politicians appear to be in denial about the possibility of a chilled Franco-American relationship. President Chirac said Monday he was confident France would have a role in rebuilding peace in the Middle East after a war.

Colin Powell, in warning about the political cost to France for its screwing of the U.S., may have inadvertently strengthened French anti-U.S. resolve when he implied that France’s hostile actions would have mainly short-term consequences:

“Even though France has been a friend of ours for many years, will be a friend in the future, I think [a French veto] will have a serious effect on bilateral relations, at least in the short term”

[emphasis added]

I don’t think that the French leaders are, pace Lex, our enemies–at least not in the sense that the Iraqi and North Korean leaders are. We do not consider attacking France. However, the French government sees itself as our competitor and is doing its cynical best to undermine us in ways which are likely to get a lot of Americans killed. This is not how allies behave, and Powell and other U.S. officials should be careful to stop referring to France, even in diplomatic euphemisms, as our “friend.” We should also stop suggesting that our relationship with France will return to normal shortly after the current unpleasantness is over. We do not seem to realize that we are sending mixed messages.

Our problem with France is similar to our problem with the Arabs: they don’t think we’re serious. Neither the Arabs nor the French think that we have the resolve, the bloody mindedness needed to see this war through to victory and to punish countries that impede us. After all, we quit without finishing the job in 1991 and, with the minor exception of Afghanistan, we’ve been bluffing and pulling punches ever since. If we want to deal successfully with the Arabs now, we are going to have to defeat Saddam Hussein and remove him from power–and preferably kill him or put him in a cell with Manuel Noriega. And if we want to deal successfully with the French, we should embark on a long-term effort to marginalize France politically until it changes its anti-American tune. We should also make a point to retaliate personally against Chirac and his political associates. (I’m not sure how much we can do in this regard, but both Bush’s father and Clinton interfered, with some success, in Israeli elections, and we’ve done similar things in other countries, so maybe we should do the same in France. I doubt that Chirac would have any compunction about aiding Bush’s opponent in 2004 if he could do so.)

I am not convinced that we are ready to take any of these measures. The problems with Americans, as Lex suggests, are that we are nice and have short memories. These are good qualities when dealing with your in-laws but handicaps in international politics. We ought to realize that we cannot buy other nations’ love, but that we can gain political leverage by consistently rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies. Obviously our leaders understand these principles, but sometimes they seem to forget them in practice–it’s usually easier and more pleasant, in the short run, to be generous and hope that everything works out. But we can’t afford that now, and it may benefit us to make a particularly harsh example of France so that everyone will understand that it’s costly to oppose us.

My pal ParisLawyerPundit emailed today and said the French media are abuzz with the purported demagoguery of the Murdoch-controlled press, which is supposedly responsible for whipping Americans into a bloody frenzy. Weird. First I’d heard of it. I responded:

Essentially no buzz here about the “Murdoch-controlled press”, and I am a news addict. The “paper of record”, the New York Times, has been incoherent but basically anti-war, or at least anti-Bush. The Wall Street Journal has been hammer-and-tongs for ousting Saddam. The TV networks have been generally anti-war/anti-Bush. The Sun Times, which we get at home, is a Murdoch paper, and its columnists tend to be Chicago Democrats who are, again, anti-war primarily and vociferously anti-Bush. Murdoch also has George Will and John O’Sullivan and a few others who are for the war. It may not be clear in Europe, but the Left here hates Bush at least as much as the Right hated Clinton. Bottom line, there is no demagoguery. The major media in the United States have been hesitant to hostile about a war.

PLP went on to express good wishes and concern for the fate of Tony Blair. I responded:

As to Blair, I think he is secure. The Labor Party cannot oust him, probably. He survived that recent vote with half his party and all of the tories. If they tried to bring him down, he might lead a “Blairite” faction out of New Labor and provoke a new election — or form a National government with the Tories. Blair is a brilliant politician, and somewhat like Lloyd George, in but not of his party. And as LG was willing to destroy the Liberal Party out of a combination of principle and egotism, Blair may well be willing to do the same to Labor. And they know it. He led them out of the wilderness, and he could lead them back in again. (See Iain Murray on this topic).

What may happen is that the British army will sit out the initial attack, but then participate in the occupation and reconstruction phase. This would actually be a decent division of labor. Their ability to operate with our people in combat is limited, and they would suffer more casualties due to their relatively backward equipment. So, if they sit out the initial blitzkreig, that’s OK. However, they are very good at peace-keeping, counter-insurgency and all of that traditional imperial constabulary-type work. They would be a very valued addition to an occupation force. Their General Jackson hinted at this in the interview excerpt I posted on Chicago Boyz.

I also offered these thoughts on the country’s mood – as if I’m qualified to do so! But, hey, everybody’s got an opinion:

The American public is ambivalent, though willing to support the President, and they do not like Saddam. This has largely broken on partisan lines, with the uncommitted middle grudgingly willing to support the President. Recent polls show support for the President rising in the last two weeks. I attribute this to the antiwar protests, which always alienate middle class opinion, and the active opposition of the French and Germans, which has angered many people who would not ordinarily pay much attention to these types of issues. Also, I think the President’s patient attempt to go the diplomatic route has been noticed by the public. He is not a cowboy, anything but, and everybody on this side of the Atlantic knows that. Also, Bush’s patient reiteration of the criminality and evil of the Iraqi regime has been paying off. The public agrees that Saddam is evil, even if they don’t think we should attack him. And a certain amount of “liberal hawk” opinion has come around to supporting the war on humanitarian grounds, similar to what drove this group to support going into Bosnia and Kosovo. The thing Europeans seem not to get is that the United States did not perceive 9/11 as a “one off” but as a symptom of a deeper and bigger problem, of an ongoing danger. Everybody who is paying attention expects more of the same. Everybody I know in New York and DC tell me that they expect that there will be a nuclear detonation there at some point. And these are not people who are hawks or even Republicans. And many people are willing to see the government take violent action to prevent something like that from happening even once.

Anyway, that’s how it looks from my kitchen table.

The always good Walter Russell Mead points out that the preferred “anti-war” program of ongoing “sanctions” actually kills more people in Iraq, mostly children, than a war would. Unfortunately the anti-war people are so far into their own fantasy land that facts, rational argument and moral reasoning cannot reach them. They’d rather just smoke a joint and carry around a picture of Bush with a Hitler moustache. Brilliant.

Mead’s essay is Exhibit 9,483 for getting this war started, fought and over with. So the poor suffering people of Iraq can have a chance to live decent lives again, to have medicine for their kids and clean water. C’mon, W, pick up the phone and just say “go!”

UPDATE: Iain Murray addresses some criticism of Mead’s math. Bottom line, it seems to me, the argument remains sound even if the numbers are a little off or open to dispute.

This editorial from Soldiers for the Truth shows that that gang of warriors are fully loaded to provide maximum, round-the-clock coverage of the war as it happens. So, if (when) the balloon goes up, be sure to check in with them.

Erik over at Wax Tadpole takes me to task:

I also don’t think [the French] see it as a purely zero-sum game in which America’s loss is France’s gain. They vastly underestimate the contribution that America makes to world stability and overestimate the stabilizing effect of their beloved multilateral institutions, which leads them to be reckless in their attempts to launch a new cold war.

He goes on to add:

I do think that French policy makers place greater weight on the good (or glory) of France as they see it than on the lives of American soldiers. That leads to decisions that place Americans at risk, but I’m aghast at the suggestion that they’re actively trying to get Americans killed.

Well. First, I think it is easier to think that Chirac and Villepin are smart and can at least anticipate the consequences of their actions than to impute a “vast underestimation” to them. They are bright guys. They can see how the world works, and they can foresee the more obvious likely consequences of their actions. And they know perfectly well how much America does to create “world stability.” Ending the “world stability” which has been imposed by the United States and which exists on American terms is what they want to happen.

As to being “aghast” at the idea that they are trying to get Americans killed, I’m aghast too. But I don’t see any other rational explanation for their conduct. Getting Americans killed is, at minimum, a price they are willing to pay. How the Hell else can you read it. If you provide the sworn enemy of the United States with powerful weapons, or the means to make them, you have got to figure they might be used against the United States. That is culpable conduct, whatever they may hope or wish will happen. And if it is not intentional it is still culpably reckless. What I am aghast at is their brazenness.

I recall reading that if one person has a crazy idea, he can be talked out of it. But get two people to share a crazy idea, and Heaven and earth can’t shake them. They have gone from being lonely fanatics to being an embattled minority possessing the Truth. So you can imagine how relieved I was to see this piece by Ralph Peters entitled “Dead Americans.” Peters’s closing line: “… every American who dies in this war will have a French diplomatic bullet in his or her body.”

To be fair, Peters does not go where I go on France arming Saddam:

Although one of the many reasons the French do not want us in Baghdad is that they don’t want us going through Iraqi archives and uncovering the extent of their complicity in Saddam’s defiance of sanctions, the material aid French firms may have provided to Iraq is a trivial issue compared to the moral and diplomatic encouragement Paris has given Baghdad.

Like I said before: I hope I’m wrong. I hope that at worst the French are being mercenary and irresponsible and thoughtless. Still not a very good moral justification for assisting Saddam to obtain weapons of mass destruction. But maybe it would be forgivable.

But please, let’s try to recall one of the many “lessons of 9/11” – there are lots of people out there in the world who really hate the United States. Some of them do so for reasons which don’t make a lot of sense to us. But Americans for some reason continue to find this hard to believe, even though they are rich, powerful, loud, indifferent to the sensibilities of foreigners and generally make it clear that the rest of the world is their playpen. Then, when some foreigner wants to cut our throats, we are dumbfounded. We need to stop being naïve. Poverty is not the root cause of hatred of America. Wounded pride is the root cause of hatred of America. And that can exist just as well in the French foreign ministry as it can in some madrasa in Pakistan, or some wealthy home in Cairo or Riyadh, or any number of other places.

Whatever their real motives, Chirac and Villepin had better watch it. They have caused this country to go into a more difficult war than was necessary. The inevitable consequence is that more Americans and more Iraqis are going to die when the war starts. Whatever those two think they are doing, they are building deep and probably permanent animosity here.