Chicago Boyz

Bush should cut our losses in the UN and attack Iraq. Instead he is giving our enemies more time in a forum where we are at a disadvantage. If we have to fight without the UK, so be it. The costs of delay will soon exceed, if they do not already, the benefits of having Britain on board. The costs of appearing weak because we are over committed to the UN process, and thus seem (probably inaccurately) unwilling to fight, could be even higher.

Our enemies are militarily weak but effective with rhetoric and propaganda. It’s time to put them on the defensive militarily. Further negotiation — which by now consists mainly of bribery and incremental abandonment of our principles — is not likely to be effective and weakens us by making us seem afraid to fight. Bush’s hyped announcement of a supposed breakthrough between Israelis and Palestinians makes the situation even worse, because it comes across, at best, as a transparent attempt to distract from our faltering efforts in the UN. (Why, now, do we propose to rescue Saddam Hussein’s ally Arafat from his political grave?) At worst, this latest “peace process” gambit is a weak-minded attempt to buy the love of our Arab non-allies. Such tactics have never worked; they merely encourage our enemies.

I hope that Bush decides to attack soon, with allies or without, because we are frittering away our advantage. It’s time to turn the game around.

More:

Lynn B comments on the Israeli-Palestinian angle (via Diane).

David Warren is on the case.

I look at all this stuff I’m posting, and that’s what I think. Maybe I need to ratchet back.

It is how I deal with worrying about the damned war coming, and the whole ugly situation. William H. McNeill, one of the great University of Chicago historians, said somewhere that every generation lives on the brink of disaster. Right. That’s right.

I would like to just get in a car, not my car, a decent car, one with balls, and get out on the highway in the middle of nowhere, go 90, and listen to The Ramones Leave Home really, really loud. But I’ve got mouths to feed. So I don’t do irresponsible things like that anymore. No matter how much fun they are.

Instead, I’m going to put the dishes in the dishwasher, the clothes (the 21 month old puked all over everything) in the washer, pray, and sleep.

Tomorrow is another day, as Scarlett O’Hara used to say. Life is good in the heartland. This is a great time to be alive, whatever happens. We are lucky to be here. Rick Rescorla, who went back into the WTC on 9/11 and died there, led his coworkers out saying “this is a proud day to be an American”. Damn. That is not a made up story. That happened. Never forget. God bless America.

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.