Month: April 2003

On a purely entertaining note, (and since Lex may appreciate the tunes), check out radioparadise . I tune in during the day on a stream, excellent playlist, no commercials, much more relaxing than CNBC drivel.

If this article is accurate, Russia has been subverting the U.S.-UK anti-Hussein alliance, has been supporting the Iraqi military and intelligence apparatus at an intimate level, and has done so until very recently. As the article puts it,

It is not known how the Russians obtained such potentially sensitive information, but the revelation that Moscow passed it on to Baghdad is likely to have a devastating effect on relations between Britain and Russia and come as a personal blow to Mr Blair. The Prime Minister declared a “new era” in relations with President Putin when they met in Moscow in October 2001 in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks.

And obviously these revelations, if true, are likely to have a similar negative effect on U.S.-Russia relations.

Perry de Havilland wonders how Putin could have been so foolish as to imagine that Iraq could possibly defeat the U.S. and allies, or that Russia’s role in aiding Hussein would not eventually be publicized. You might as well ask why the French could be so stupid to assume they will get away scot free after alienating the U.S., or why Saddam Hussein could imagine that he would prevail once the U.S. and its allies decided to fight.

People miscalculate. Powerful people, especially if they are sheltered from information that contradicts long-held or official positions, can make big mistakes. Saddam Hussein is an obvious example, but even Putin and Chirac may have suffered from bad advice delivered by advisors with mutually supporting opinions. (The just-as-bad alternative is that they ignored good advice. I think this is possible in Chirac’s case, as he shows some Captain Ahab-type tendencies. Putin may have been badly advised by Russian military “experts” whose expertise was at best outdated.)

No one is immune from such mistakes. Better leaders try to prevent them. Bush has succeeded largely because he is decisive and sees the big picture accurately, but also because he is a good manager and selected excellent advisors whose diverse views — e.g., Powell vs. Rumsfeld — make big conceptual errors less likely. It was not so long ago that people were asking how Bush’s predecessor, an intelligent man, could be so foolish as to make various bad decisions for which he is notorious. Hubris and overconfidence are deadly no matter who you are. Good decision makers guard against them and try to minimize their effects.

According to this story Chirac told Blair that “[t]he political, administrative, economic and social reconstruction of Iraq can only be done by the United Nations, which has the legitimacy and experience necessary for the task.” That comment is so pathetic it would degrade me to prepare a verbal response. Chirac is a sock full of dung, nothing more. (Extra credit to the person who knows who first used that expression, and about whom. Hint, it was said in French)

Query whether Chirac’s bunghole can be distended enough to have the entire UN headquarters in New York shoved up it. There’s only one way to find out for sure.

(Pardon the scatology, but there is really no other way to express the full richness of my loathing for Chirac. And as for Villepin, well … .)

UPDATE:Instapundit has this post with links to the Telegraph story about Russia spying for Iraq, and a good article about Villepin and Chirac attempting to ingratiate themselves with the Arabs. I will credit Chirac/Villepin with ambition, anyway. They are aggressively and openly trying to assemble and coordinate a joint French/Russian/German/Pan-Arab anti-American front. The Americans, too nice as usual, are not catching on very quickly to how serious this all is. They still think that France is at heart an “ally”, though one composed of comical “surrender monkeys”. Wrong. France is a hostile foreign power. France is and has been, in effect, already waging war against us. It’s goal is to defeat, to humble, the hyperpower. And France is led by active, clever, persevering and truly hostile men. Let’s all stay alert on this. It is going to get very ugly, especially as the captured Iraqi files begin to reveal their secrets and we see the extent to which France has been acting jointly against the United States with its (former) ally, client and customer Iraq.

This is in response to the person who commented negatively on Sylvain’s eloquent expression of gratitude (scroll down) for the U.S. I want to make clear that I’m grateful too.

I’m grateful for the existence of the United States, which makes the world a better place in so many ways than it would otherwise be.

I’m grateful that the U.S. isn’t shy about supporting freedom, even other people’s freedom.

I’m grateful that the U.S. has enough military power to actually do something about tyranny, not just make speeches.

I’m grateful for the decency, courage, and moral seriousness of my fellow Americans (most of them, anyway), and for our leaders. For all of their flaws, they still have the resolve to confront our enemies.

I’m grateful that most Americans have enough sense to see through captious arguments — like the argument that we shouldn’t touch Iraq because we don’t know for an absolute certainty that Saddam Hussein is a threat to us, and the argument for doing nothing because it’s possible that Iran or North Korea is in fact the bigger danger.

I’m grateful that Americans are willing to take action as soon as it becomes necessary to do so, in order to avoid a larger and far more destructive conflict, with a less certain outcome, in the future.

It’s a great country and I am grateful for it. I’m grateful for other countries, like Israel and the UK, as well. But without a powerful and confident United States, the Hitlers and Husseins would have a much easier time of it and the world would be a far bleaker place.

It is not the banal rantings of commentators on editorial pages which bothers me. It is the provision of the mass media platform to the jackasses, combined with everyman’s inability to effectively respond, which sets me spinning. I refer to this editorial gem which Andrew Greeley recently published in one of our local rags. I will not admit to the number of responsorial letters to the editor that I have submitted in my life, lest one of you try to have me committed for an obsessive personality disorder. I believe that most letters are selected for publication on the basis of “writing quality which will not threaten employment of anyone on the editorial board.”

Greeley writes, “Because the U.S. military never seems to learn from its mistakes, it would appear that we are once again deep in the Big Muddy.” On the contrary, it looks as if the U.S. military has graduated with honors. He sarcastically berates the Defense Department for dismissing CIA reports which do not buttress the war argument, and cites the Brookings Institution on casualty estimates in the tens of thousands. I find liberals usually refer to the CIA as a shadowy, evil entity, unless of course they can find support for their viewpoint, and Brookings stated, just five days after Greeley’s article, that “The attacks on Basra and Baghdad showed creativity and a fine sense of timing” and “it has indeed been a very good plan.” He then states, “What happens when you want to liberate a country that does not want to be liberated?” I do not feel that even merits a response. Finally, Greeley says that “one hears responsible people in nice restaurants returning to the theme of their predecessors 35 years ago: ”Let’s kill them all!” Well, I feel fortunate to not be dining in the same establishments the good Father apparently frequents, for I have not heard this sentiment expressed by anyone that I know.

The Chicago Sun-Times did not deem to print my letter in response to Andrew Greeley. Maybe they feel that attacking a priest’s views is just too controversial for the op-ed page. And so I publish my thoughts here, my outlet, in the hope that they will fall upon thoughtful ears.