Thursday, April 10, 2003
Well, last night was spent in front of the TV screen watching CNN & FOX. By the time I got home last night, the statue of Saddam had been brought down and the immages of it were looping on all channels. To tell you the truth, it just choked me up to see that our men and women in uniform had managed to bring the gift of freedom to those poor souls in Baghdad. We wish them well, and we wish them wisdom to be able to do transform the opportunity they have right now to be strong and free into a permanent reality.
In Basra first and in Baghdad later, the Iraqis have been looting government and Baath Party buildings or offices. The idea is that this way they show their contempt for these institutions.
The news of the day, is that this morning at 11:26, AP Wire service reported that Baghdad residents had sacked and looted the German Embassy & the French Cultural Center...... What does that tell our Euro "know-it-all" friends?
In Basra first and in Baghdad later, the Iraqis have been looting government and Baath Party buildings or offices. The idea is that this way they show their contempt for these institutions.
The news of the day, is that this morning at 11:26, AP Wire service reported that Baghdad residents had sacked and looted the German Embassy & the French Cultural Center...... What does that tell our Euro "know-it-all" friends?
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
last night I turned the TV on and zapped through a few channels I got off the dish. I reached and Italian State run TV channel called RAI and saw the smiling face of Robert Kagan staring back from behind the screen.Obviously I decided to sit it out and see what he had to say. Soon after, the anchor said that they would be showing their " editorial " ( my knowledge of Italian is limited, but I got that part pretty easily! ). Immediately, they began showing the 43d President of the United States, Mr. George W. Bush, while he was praying and then cut him off with scenes of bombs blowing up in Baghdad; then back to Bush in prayer... then they showed wounded children in an Iraqi hospital; then Bush praying again and soon afterwards... let's see if you can guess.... that's right, more bombs! Both Kagan and I were appalled, shocked and sickened. From the cheers and applause that came from the in-studio audience, I was led to believe that the average Italian Joe was not...... shame on them!
On a more up-beat note, the event had me go back and re-think about Kagan's February column on the WP. I found some great advice and food for thought in it, now as I did then:
Napoleonic Fervor
By Robert Kagan
Monday, February 24, 2003; Page A21
BRUSSELS -- Was Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo a glorious moment in France's history? In a best-selling account of Napoleon's final days published two years ago, France's multi-talented foreign minister, Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin, argues that, yes, even today, Napoleon's defeat "shines with an aura worthy of victory."
This is something to contemplate as we watch France twirl the globe on its fingertip. The Times of London recently reprinted excerpts of de Villepin's book, implicitly suggesting that the spirit of Napoleon -- that is, Napoleon at Waterloo -- might well be driving French foreign policy today. Certainly for de Villepin, the spirit of Napoleon still lives and inspires. The foreign minister's office is adorned with portraits of the Corsican, and the remarkable poet-politician writes in his book, "There is not a day that goes by without me inhaling the perfume of the discreet violet," the flower worn by Napoleon's loyalists after his escape from Elba. "This Napoleon guides and transcends. He has carried, ever since his fall, a certain idea of France, a superior vision of politics. His gesture inspires the spirit of resistance. . . . Victory or death, but glory whatever happens."
Today France is marching toward another glorious Waterloo, taking on the assembled forces not of Wellington and Blucher but of Blair and Bush. Insofar as France's goal is to stop the Americans from going to war in Iraq, it is certain to fail, as President Jacques Chirac and de Villepin both know. But even in defeat there are victories to be won.
There is, above all, the victory of a principle. Americans make a serious mistake if they believe France is simply engaged in petty churlishness. Chirac and de Villepin believe they, and ultimately they alone, are defending the European vision of world order against that vision's most dangerous enemy -- the United States. "In this temple of the United Nations," de Villepin declared at the Security Council a week ago, "we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. . . . France has always stood upright in the face of history before mankind." The French expect to fail in their effort to prevent war, but they expect the war and its aftermath to bring disaster both for the United States and for those European leaders who have thrown in their lot with Bush. When the dust settles, the French believe, their brave stance will be vindicated before the court of European public opinion.
For France the larger game has always been the struggle for mastery in Europe. The United States may win the battle over Iraq, but who is to say that France will not ultimately win the war to chart the direction of Europe in the years and decades to come? Already France speaks for the vast majority of the European public. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar may have the United States on their side, but at the moment a majority of Blair and Aznar's constituents are on France's side. As for the Eastern Europeans, one poll shows that 75 percent of Latvians oppose war in Iraq, too. And while Chirac's recent undiplomatic spanking of Poles, Czechs and others who dared to support Bush may today seem a self-inflicted wound, Chirac may still succeed in making the "new" Europe think twice before crossing the old.
Americans should not count too heavily on Eastern Europe's serving forever as a pro-American fifth column in Europe. In coming years, as Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Romanians become economically and politically enmeshed in the European Union, and as geopolitical insecurities and memories of Soviet occupation, the wellsprings of today's pro-Americanism, begin to fade, the "new" Europe may come to resemble the Europe of France and Germany. The present idea of "new" and "old" Europe, pleasing though it might be to Americans, may prove inaccurate. Perhaps it is really France that represents Europe's future, while those trying to preserve the transatlantic relationship represent Europe's past. That, at least, is what France can hope.
In realizing this great dream, of course, France is prepared to wreak some destruction, as Napoleon did, and even to the very international institutions France claims to cherish. First NATO, which France does not cherish, was brought almost to its knees by France's opposition even to planning for the defense of Turkey. Now the European Union, which France values highly, has been badly shaken by Chirac's threats, and at a time, as one senior EU official recently told me, that the fragile institution can ill afford such pressures. Finally, there is the U.N. Security Council, de Villepin's "temple." Will the international order France seeks be strengthened or weakened if a new generation of Americans becomes convinced that the Security Council is a spineless debating society? Perhaps France is prepared to pull the temple down "in the spirit of resistance" to the American behemoth.
It's not just a question for Americans to ponder. On a visit to Berlin last week, I found Germans vehemently opposed to war with Iraq but also wondering aloud whether Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has been wise to chain German fortunes so closely to France. French leadership is exhilarating, but it can be unnerving to follow a leader whose motto is "Victory or death, but glory whatever happens." This may provide the opening for the United States and its stalwart allies in Europe. Success in Iraq, both during and, just as important, after the invasion, might help keep and attract some support in Europe. Not everyone finds glory in defeat.
On a more up-beat note, the event had me go back and re-think about Kagan's February column on the WP. I found some great advice and food for thought in it, now as I did then:
Napoleonic Fervor
By Robert Kagan
Monday, February 24, 2003; Page A21
BRUSSELS -- Was Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo a glorious moment in France's history? In a best-selling account of Napoleon's final days published two years ago, France's multi-talented foreign minister, Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin, argues that, yes, even today, Napoleon's defeat "shines with an aura worthy of victory."
This is something to contemplate as we watch France twirl the globe on its fingertip. The Times of London recently reprinted excerpts of de Villepin's book, implicitly suggesting that the spirit of Napoleon -- that is, Napoleon at Waterloo -- might well be driving French foreign policy today. Certainly for de Villepin, the spirit of Napoleon still lives and inspires. The foreign minister's office is adorned with portraits of the Corsican, and the remarkable poet-politician writes in his book, "There is not a day that goes by without me inhaling the perfume of the discreet violet," the flower worn by Napoleon's loyalists after his escape from Elba. "This Napoleon guides and transcends. He has carried, ever since his fall, a certain idea of France, a superior vision of politics. His gesture inspires the spirit of resistance. . . . Victory or death, but glory whatever happens."
Today France is marching toward another glorious Waterloo, taking on the assembled forces not of Wellington and Blucher but of Blair and Bush. Insofar as France's goal is to stop the Americans from going to war in Iraq, it is certain to fail, as President Jacques Chirac and de Villepin both know. But even in defeat there are victories to be won.
There is, above all, the victory of a principle. Americans make a serious mistake if they believe France is simply engaged in petty churlishness. Chirac and de Villepin believe they, and ultimately they alone, are defending the European vision of world order against that vision's most dangerous enemy -- the United States. "In this temple of the United Nations," de Villepin declared at the Security Council a week ago, "we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. . . . France has always stood upright in the face of history before mankind." The French expect to fail in their effort to prevent war, but they expect the war and its aftermath to bring disaster both for the United States and for those European leaders who have thrown in their lot with Bush. When the dust settles, the French believe, their brave stance will be vindicated before the court of European public opinion.
For France the larger game has always been the struggle for mastery in Europe. The United States may win the battle over Iraq, but who is to say that France will not ultimately win the war to chart the direction of Europe in the years and decades to come? Already France speaks for the vast majority of the European public. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar may have the United States on their side, but at the moment a majority of Blair and Aznar's constituents are on France's side. As for the Eastern Europeans, one poll shows that 75 percent of Latvians oppose war in Iraq, too. And while Chirac's recent undiplomatic spanking of Poles, Czechs and others who dared to support Bush may today seem a self-inflicted wound, Chirac may still succeed in making the "new" Europe think twice before crossing the old.
Americans should not count too heavily on Eastern Europe's serving forever as a pro-American fifth column in Europe. In coming years, as Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Romanians become economically and politically enmeshed in the European Union, and as geopolitical insecurities and memories of Soviet occupation, the wellsprings of today's pro-Americanism, begin to fade, the "new" Europe may come to resemble the Europe of France and Germany. The present idea of "new" and "old" Europe, pleasing though it might be to Americans, may prove inaccurate. Perhaps it is really France that represents Europe's future, while those trying to preserve the transatlantic relationship represent Europe's past. That, at least, is what France can hope.
In realizing this great dream, of course, France is prepared to wreak some destruction, as Napoleon did, and even to the very international institutions France claims to cherish. First NATO, which France does not cherish, was brought almost to its knees by France's opposition even to planning for the defense of Turkey. Now the European Union, which France values highly, has been badly shaken by Chirac's threats, and at a time, as one senior EU official recently told me, that the fragile institution can ill afford such pressures. Finally, there is the U.N. Security Council, de Villepin's "temple." Will the international order France seeks be strengthened or weakened if a new generation of Americans becomes convinced that the Security Council is a spineless debating society? Perhaps France is prepared to pull the temple down "in the spirit of resistance" to the American behemoth.
It's not just a question for Americans to ponder. On a visit to Berlin last week, I found Germans vehemently opposed to war with Iraq but also wondering aloud whether Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has been wise to chain German fortunes so closely to France. French leadership is exhilarating, but it can be unnerving to follow a leader whose motto is "Victory or death, but glory whatever happens." This may provide the opening for the United States and its stalwart allies in Europe. Success in Iraq, both during and, just as important, after the invasion, might help keep and attract some support in Europe. Not everyone finds glory in defeat.
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
While on the phone with a "Senior Western Diplomat" yesterday, I was told that the Bush-Blair meeting in Belfast had been a total failure and had fallen apart on fundaental issues such as the degree of UN participation in the Iraqi reconstruction process etc. It was about 3 PM Central European Time when the call took place, and I was curious to go read the reports myself..... only to find out that the meeting had not taken place yet!
Obviously, I found this to be quite interesting. Euro-pessimism is so emedded in their mids, in an almost religious fashion, that they call meetings a failure before they even take place. The Euro culture of negativism and depression has now become pre-emptive. If you don't like what WILL be happening.... just say it has failed before it actually happens!
In other news, perhaps it would help if the Bush Administration managed to behave in a way that didn't give reason for these sorts of articles to be written..... from today's NYT :
The Last Refuge
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In 1944, millions of Americans were engaged in desperate battles across the world. Nonetheless, a normal presidential election was held, and the opposition didn't pull its punches: Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate, campaigned on the theme that Franklin Roosevelt was a "tired old man." As far as I've been able to ascertain, the Roosevelt administration didn't accuse Dewey of hurting morale by questioning the president's competence. After all, democracy — including the right to criticize — was what we were fighting for.
It's not a slur on the courage of our troops, or a belittling of the risks they face, to say that our current war is a mere skirmish by comparison. Yet self-styled patriots are trying to impose constraints on political speech never contemplated during World War II, accusing anyone who criticizes the president of undermining the war effort.
Last week John Kerry told an audience that "what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Republicans immediately sought to portray this remark as little short of treason. "Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war," declared Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Notice that Mr. Racicot wasn't criticizing Mr. Kerry's choice of words. Instead, he denounced Mr. Kerry because he "dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief" — knowing full well that Mr. Kerry was simply talking about the next election. Mr. Racicot, not Mr. Kerry, is the one who crossed a grave line; never in our nation's history has it been considered unpatriotic to oppose an incumbent's re-election.
Anyway, what defines patriotism? Talk is cheap; so is putting a flag in your lapel. Citizens prove their patriotism when they make sacrifices for the sake of their country. Mr. Kerry, a decorated veteran, has met that test. Most of his critics haven't.
I'm not just talking about military service — though it's striking how few of our biggest hawks have served. Nor am I talking only about financial sacrifice — though profiting from public office seems to be the norm, not the exception, among those who wrap themselves in the flag. (Mr. Racicot himself accepted the job as R.N.C. chairman only on the condition that he remain on the payroll of Bracewell and Patterson, a law firm that specializes in lobbying.)
The biggest test of a politician's patriotism is whether he is willing to sacrifice some of his political agenda for the sake of the nation. And that's a test our current leaders have failed with flying colors.
Consider the case of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who also piled on Mr. Kerry last week. As it happens, during the war in Kosovo Mr. DeLay was a defeatist, and blamed his own country for provoking Serbian atrocities; any Democrat who said similar things now would be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Mr. DeLay's political agenda hasn't shifted a bit now that we're at war again. He's still pushing for huge, divisive tax cuts that go mainly to the rich: "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," he says. And he's still eager to slash any and all domestic spending. In the midst of war he pushed through a budget that included sharp cuts in, yes, veterans' benefits.
You can see why Mr. Kerry blasted back, "I'm not going to be questioned in my patriotism by the likes of Tom DeLay."
Some timid souls will suggest that critics of the Bush administration hold off until the war is over. But that's not the American tradition — and anyway, when will this war be over? Baghdad will fall, but during the occupation that follows American soldiers will still be in harm's way. Also, a strong faction within the administration wants to go on to Syria, to Iran and beyond. And Al Qaeda is still out there.
For years to come, then, this country may be, in some sense, at war. And all that time, if Mr. Racicot and his party are allowed to set the ground rules, nobody will be allowed to criticize the president or call for his electoral defeat. You know what? If that happens, we will have lost the war, whatever happens on the battlefield.
Obviously, I found this to be quite interesting. Euro-pessimism is so emedded in their mids, in an almost religious fashion, that they call meetings a failure before they even take place. The Euro culture of negativism and depression has now become pre-emptive. If you don't like what WILL be happening.... just say it has failed before it actually happens!
In other news, perhaps it would help if the Bush Administration managed to behave in a way that didn't give reason for these sorts of articles to be written..... from today's NYT :
The Last Refuge
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In 1944, millions of Americans were engaged in desperate battles across the world. Nonetheless, a normal presidential election was held, and the opposition didn't pull its punches: Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate, campaigned on the theme that Franklin Roosevelt was a "tired old man." As far as I've been able to ascertain, the Roosevelt administration didn't accuse Dewey of hurting morale by questioning the president's competence. After all, democracy — including the right to criticize — was what we were fighting for.
It's not a slur on the courage of our troops, or a belittling of the risks they face, to say that our current war is a mere skirmish by comparison. Yet self-styled patriots are trying to impose constraints on political speech never contemplated during World War II, accusing anyone who criticizes the president of undermining the war effort.
Last week John Kerry told an audience that "what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Republicans immediately sought to portray this remark as little short of treason. "Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war," declared Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Notice that Mr. Racicot wasn't criticizing Mr. Kerry's choice of words. Instead, he denounced Mr. Kerry because he "dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief" — knowing full well that Mr. Kerry was simply talking about the next election. Mr. Racicot, not Mr. Kerry, is the one who crossed a grave line; never in our nation's history has it been considered unpatriotic to oppose an incumbent's re-election.
Anyway, what defines patriotism? Talk is cheap; so is putting a flag in your lapel. Citizens prove their patriotism when they make sacrifices for the sake of their country. Mr. Kerry, a decorated veteran, has met that test. Most of his critics haven't.
I'm not just talking about military service — though it's striking how few of our biggest hawks have served. Nor am I talking only about financial sacrifice — though profiting from public office seems to be the norm, not the exception, among those who wrap themselves in the flag. (Mr. Racicot himself accepted the job as R.N.C. chairman only on the condition that he remain on the payroll of Bracewell and Patterson, a law firm that specializes in lobbying.)
The biggest test of a politician's patriotism is whether he is willing to sacrifice some of his political agenda for the sake of the nation. And that's a test our current leaders have failed with flying colors.
Consider the case of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who also piled on Mr. Kerry last week. As it happens, during the war in Kosovo Mr. DeLay was a defeatist, and blamed his own country for provoking Serbian atrocities; any Democrat who said similar things now would be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Mr. DeLay's political agenda hasn't shifted a bit now that we're at war again. He's still pushing for huge, divisive tax cuts that go mainly to the rich: "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," he says. And he's still eager to slash any and all domestic spending. In the midst of war he pushed through a budget that included sharp cuts in, yes, veterans' benefits.
You can see why Mr. Kerry blasted back, "I'm not going to be questioned in my patriotism by the likes of Tom DeLay."
Some timid souls will suggest that critics of the Bush administration hold off until the war is over. But that's not the American tradition — and anyway, when will this war be over? Baghdad will fall, but during the occupation that follows American soldiers will still be in harm's way. Also, a strong faction within the administration wants to go on to Syria, to Iran and beyond. And Al Qaeda is still out there.
For years to come, then, this country may be, in some sense, at war. And all that time, if Mr. Racicot and his party are allowed to set the ground rules, nobody will be allowed to criticize the president or call for his electoral defeat. You know what? If that happens, we will have lost the war, whatever happens on the battlefield.
