Andrew Sullivan is on the mark here:
A BRITISH COMPROMISE? Two British papers - the Guardian and the Times - are reporting that Britain may attempt to produce a different version of proposed Resolution 1442 than the simple one now envisaged. 1442 would actually delay war for yet another two weeks - until March 30 - with a clear deadline for complete Iraqi disarmament. Blair hopes, it is alleged, to win over a few waverers on the Security Council to get a majority. It's also argued that the Turkish balk has delayed the military timetable, so the extra two weeks don't amount to much. The problem with this approach is that it presumes reasonableness on the part of the Franco-German-Russian axis. But what Saddam has shown - rather brilliantly - is that even the slightest concession from Baghdad is enough for the appeasers to claim that the "inspections" are "working" (even though 1441 doesn't stipulate that the inspections should have any effect except verifying Saddam's complete and immediate disarmament). There is in principle nothing to stop this process from going on for ever. De Villepin has claimed that inspections cannot go on for ever, but has never proposed an end-date, or even a simple criterion by which one could measure whether they had failed. The truth is, I fear, that France, Russia and Germany simply want to keep Saddam in power and to humiliate the United States in order to build their own relationship with the Arab satrapies and pursue their own priorities in the region. If that's their game, no compromise will satisfy them, whatever the British think. So let them veto.
- 12:17:32 AM
WHAT "INCOMPETENCE?": In particular, the Euro-axis is alarmed at the consequences of a successful Iraq war on the broader Middle East. They are dismayed at the prospect of Israel being strengthened strategically, as they pointed out today in their press conference. They are terrified of Arab and Islamist militancy and are instinctually reluctant to confront rather than appease it. And they are equally concerned about the damage a war without U.N. support would do to their diplomatic leverage in the U.N. No new formula will change any of this. If I'm right, then the current neo-lib whining about the Bush team's alleged incompetence is partisan hooey. Josh Marshall and Fred Kaplan, who both support a war, nevertheless complain about alleged Bush administration "incompetence." It seems to me that both have to give some real reasons as to what the Bushies did wrong. They pursued a text-book U.N. strategy. The secured a tortuous U.N. Resolution which was passed unanimously. They won the Congressional vote easily. I'm unaware of any obvious military failings. If the impasse is because of the irredentist opposition of Germans to war under any conditions, then it's not Bush's fault. If it's because of a French desire to stymie American power, then it's hard to see what Bush could have done to stop this. If the French refuse to enforce a resolution they signed, why is that a sign of incompetence on the part of the Bush administration? My own view is that the diplomatic mess we're in is a function of world reality - and would be the same whatever administration was in charge. The Clinton administration avoided such a crisis because they avoided serious action to solve the problem. Personally, I'd rather have a crisis because we're doing something than a non-crisis that leads to still greater danger in the future. |
