Bush and company went out of their way to snub the Germans.
This really isn't true. The Germans were being difficult to begin with. I think it was totally appropriate to say, "to hell with you".
If I'm not mistaken, the Brits have already sent 30K troops to the region. They're NOT going to be backing out. Canada will be there with or without UN approval.
In the end, the UN is going to pass another resolution and EVERYONE will be onboard; and that will the only thing that salvages the UN [for now].
this will be one very fragile coalition.
I actually don't think so. I think it may be LESS fragile, in the end, than was the '91 coalition. Everyone knows what to expect, and Bush 43 has been much stronger than was Bush 41. He has, essentially, given them no choice in the matter -- they will either be strongly supportive of the action, or they will be viewed as supportive of an outlaw regime.
That, really, is the central issue. This is obviously a righteous cause, and it is going to be difficult, even for "Old Europe" to not sign on. Chirac knows if he isn't on board before the war starts he won't have a role when the war is over. I suspect Schroeder knows that as well.
I do believe the Saudis may be a problem -- predominantly because they DON'T have that same concern. Whether or not they are involved in the war, they are obviously going to have a place at the table after the war because of their proximity. My attitude about Saudi's participation has changed over the last couple of months. They may not be with us. It really doesn't matter, though. |
