Month: March 2003

That extra-cool photo of sunset over Europe does not appear to have been taken by Columbia. It’s apparently a composite shot. Thanks to the zillion people who have let me know. But it’s still cool.

“But what is clear is that [he] is keenly sensitive to anything that touches his pride or self-esteem … he has a high opinion of himself and a great contempt for others. He is quite aware of his superiority to them in certain respects; and he either disbelives in or despises the qualities in which they are superior to him. Whatever disturbs or wounds his sense of superiority irritates him at once; and in that sense he is highly competitive … he has a spite against goodness in men … he has a spite against it, not from any love of evil for evil’s sake, but partly because it annoys his intellect as a stupidity; partly (though he hardly knows this) because it weakens his satisfaction with himself, and disturbs his faith that egoism is the right and proper thing; partly because, the world being such a fool, goodness is popular and prospers. But he, a man ten times as able … does not greatly prosper. Somehow, for all the stupidity of these open and generous people, they get on better than [he does] … Goodness therefore annoys him. He is always ready to scoff at it, and would like to strike at it.” – From A.C. Bradley’s analysis of Shakespeare’s Iago.

I’ve been thinking lately about the alleged vast difference between Bill Clinton’s foreign policy and George Bush’s. To listen to some Europeans, you’d think it were night and day. But on the key issues at stake now, the principles of U.S. foreign policy are pretty much indistinguishable between Clinton and Bush. On Iraq, Clinton’s stated objective, after the failure of sanctions, was regime change. The other day, I quoted the former president who, in his language at least, was no less hawkish than Bush:

“What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? … Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal.”

MORE MULTILATERALIST: The difference, of course, is 9/11 and the simple fact that Bush has, shall we say, a different relationship with the follow-through than his immediate predecessor. Even in practice, on, say, the unilateral question, there’s the Kosovo precedent, which shows that Clinton was prepared not merely to defy certain powers, i.e. Russia, to do what he wanted; but he was also prepared to bypass the U.N. altogether if necessary. In this narrow sense, Bush is actually more multilateralist than Clinton. He’s heading into an uncertain Security Council vote which he need not have pursued. Even on an issue like the Kyoto accord, the differences are exaggerated. No one seems to point out that ratification of Kyoto was killed not by Bush but by the Senate under Clinton which voted it down 95 – 0. Again, the difference with Bush is that he connected this action with words. Clinton was a master at saying what others wanted to hear. What I’m getting at is that the distinctions are by no means as great as some would have it; that some of our problems today are not a function of Bush but of world events; and that Clinton’s facility with schmooze and inaction didn’t solve the problems of a unipolar world; it merely delayed them a while. That period of glorious avoidance is now over – for good and ill. But very similar policies endure.

A SHIFT IN BRITAIN?: The latest MORI poll shows some small good news for Blair. His eloquent defense of war against Saddam has helped win some people over. A huge 75 percent would back a war if the U.N. approves and some kind of “smoking gun” is found by inspectors. But a hefty majority would still oppose without those conditions. I have to say that’s almost meaningless. The inspectors aren’t there to find any smoking guns. And the U.N., at best, will not veto. But what the poll says to me is that once a war starts, the Brits will back the troops; and when WMDs are discovered, retroactive support will soar. My gut tells me that Blair’s gamble could pay off hugely. As long as we win well and quickly, that applies to Bush as well.

I’ve been sloppy lately. I was too glib in ascribing the Vatican’s love-in with Baghdad as a function of the old Jew-hatred. I feel sick when I see Vatican envoys raising arms with Arafat or clasping Tariq Aziz’s hand warmly. But I don’t think that Rome reflects more general anti-Israeli attitudes than the rest of Europe. And “Jew-hatred” was too much, a cheap shot. A really good treatment of the debate can be found at Instapundit, in an often-up-dated posting that rewards re-reading. On an unrelated point, it was silly for me to blame Fox News Channel for the Fox network’s running of “Married in America.” They’re clearly different entities. My broader point is that it’s a little weird to be focussing on a handful of potential gay marriages as an alleged threat to the institution when the broader heterosexual culture treats marriage with far more <a href = contempt than any homosexuals asking for equal access. Fair enough?

10,000 9/11s : Today is the fiftieth anniversary of Stalin’s death. Here’s a superb column in the Independent no less on the scandalous fact that there are still apologists for this monster. They’re the same people who apologize for Saddam Hussein, of course. But Stalinism still lives and still murders: North Korea and Iraq are both Stalinist operations. So is Cuba. Money quote:

Fidel [Castro] runs his country on precisely the same lines as his hero. Amnesty International’s latest reports detail the plight of the “prisoners of conscience” (otherwise known as democrats) and notes than even now, the number of people harassed “directly by the state”, including “political dissidents, independent journalists and other activists”, is increasing. It is worth remembering the name of just one victim of Fidel, plucked from among many: Bernardo Arevalo Padron has been festering in prison since 1997 because he called Fidel Castro “a liar” for failing (as ever) to stick to agreements on relaxing his authoritarian rule. Yet still Tony Benn brags about the standards of the Cuban health-care system which, preposterously, he says are “better than America’s”. (If you are ever taken ill on a flight across the Atlantic, Tony, I suggest you test this by insisting on being flown to Havana rather than New York.) Still John Pilger describes the Cuban revolution as “a crucial model for challenging power”. (For a man obsessed with hidden agendas, he very rarely discloses this agenda of his own.)

Amen. The fact that this column appeared in a paper that is one of Saddam Hussein’s chief apologists is surely a sign of hope.

The “pig” metaphor could offend Muslim immigrants in Britain.

SALON’S SHAME: “Thanks for the item about Sami Al-Arian, Eric Boehlert and Nicholas Kristof. Mike Fechter of The Tampa Tribune had this story nailed in May 1995 and he continued to develop more stories about Al-Arian’s activities after that. Through it all, he took endless amounts of grief from other elements of the media, including the St. Petersburg Times, Miami Herald, Salon and others. They all sniffed that it was unseemly and a modern McCarthyite witch hunt. Instead, they just showed their ignorance and lack of legwork. Contrary to what Boehlert claims in the Howard Kurtz piece, the information was there. In May 1995, Fechter showed the link between Al-Arian’s Islamic Committee for Palestine and the World and Islam Studies Enterprise think tank at the University of South Florida. It was more than guilt by association. It was the kind of dogged and thorough investigative reporting most reporters say they champion, but the people so desperately trying to justify their actions now didn’t want to do the work to confirm it. Their loss.” – more sharp comments on the Letters Page.

Check out this website from Fox advertizing their newest (and not too successful) reality television show. This is how Fox views the sacredness of marriage. And yet the same network routinely features speakers and pundits who bemoan gay people’s sincere attempt to commit to one another as an assault on civilization. Motes and beams, don’t you think? Or just more double standards from those who claim to support the institution of marriage, but, in reality, just want to keep homosexual citizens permanently stigmatized?

Chatting with a senior member of the administration this weekend, I felt a sense of relief. The president is adamant that Saddam will soon be gone. It will happen. The only option short of war will be Saddam’s exile, or death. I think Saddam understands this, which is why we suddenly have his desperate attempts to show superficial disarmament. But it isn’t enough. It cannot be enough. Maybe if he’d done it three months ago, we could have come to an agreement. But now the moment has passed. The permanent and transparent disarmament we need – the reassurance that the world deserves – cannot be accomplished while that duplicitous monster is in power. We should try for a second U.N. resolution, but we shouldn’t be too disheartened if we don’t get it. When you’re dealing with the likes of Chirac, there can be no secure agreement. One reason the French get along with many of the Arab regimes, after all, is that they have the same approach to negotiation. They never mean a thing they say; and will pledge one thing one week (Resolution 1441 anyone?) and act as if it doesn’t exist the next. And the interminable delays only encourage our other foes (North Korea), and sap the morale of the armed forces. It’s time to act. It’s good to know that forces are now at full strength, that we can achieve our goals without Turkey’s help (a Kurdish blessing in disguise), and that the Brits are also ready to move. So let’s roll. Sooner rather than later.

THE REAL AGENDAS: And one reason to pay only limited attention to the howls of outrage as the U.S. and U.K. do what is necessary is the fact that very little of the opposition to this war is actually about this war. For some it’s about “war” in general – a newly empowered new age pacifism. For France, it’s about … France, and its eclipse as a power of any significance. France’s crisis is deepened by the fact that a successful war against Saddam could also accelerate the end of the Franco-German bloc as the power-house of the European Union. For Russia, it’s about money. For the Germans, it’s about a new national identity. The Germans have never been able to sustain a moderate polity on their own. They veer from extreme romantic militarism to romantic pacifism. Their current abdication of all strategic responsibility for Europe or the wider world is just another all-too-familiar spasm from German history. For the broader anti-war forces in Europe, it’s about American uni-polar power – and the need to counteract it, even if it’s being put to good use. For still others, especially in the Vatican and France, it’s the old Jew-hatred again. For the Democrats, it’s about getting back to prescription drugs. For the anti-war left in America, it’s really about Bush. The pent-up fury they felt after Florida never found expression or even validation in the wider culture. It was repressed in the first months of a new presidency – and then made irrelevant by 9/11. Finally, they have a chance to demonstrate their hate – which is why so much of the demonstrations’ focus has not been on Saddam, Iraq or even war, but on Bush. The anti-Bush left knows that a successful war will only strengthen the president further and marginalize them even more – hence their utter desperation and viciousness today. This is their moment; and the demonstrations are their therapy. Meanwhile, a real and actual problem in global security is being addressed. Thank heavens that for some, this moment really is about Saddam.

“When one reads the reports of UNO [United Nations Organization] conferences, or international negotiations of any kind, it is difficult not to be reminded of l’Attaque and similar war games that children used to play, with cardboard pieces representing battleships, aeroplanes, and so forth, each of which had a fixed value and could be counted in some recognized way. In fact, one might almost invent a new game called Uno, to be played in enlightened homes where the parents do not want their children to grow up with a militaristic outlook.

The pieces in this game are called the proposal, the demarche, the formula, the stumbling-block, the stalemate, the deadlock, the bottle-neck and the vicious circle. The object of the game is to arrive at a formula, and though details vary, the general outline of play is always much the same. First the players assemble, and somebody leads off with the proposal. This is countered by the stumbling-block, without which the game could not develop. The stumbling-block then changes into a bottle-neck, or more often into a deadlock or vicious circle. A deadlock and a vicious circle occurring simultaneously produce a stalemate, which may last for weeks. The someone suddenly plays the demarche. The demarche makes it possible to produce a formula, and once the formula has been found the players can go home, leaving everything as it was at the beginning.” – George Orwell, “As I Please,” December 12, 1946.

Fascinating interview in Le Monde with Bernard Kouchner, former socialist minister of health and founding member of Medecins Sans Frontieres. Here’s my translation of the last couple of questions and answers:

Le Monde: So France is in an impasse?
BK: Dead right we’re in an impasse. We’ve deepened the wound in Europe rather than healing it. We’ve enabled German pacifism, which was a mistake. We’ve brutalized the Eastern Europeans who have just emerged from dictatorship. That was a second mistake. And then we’ve opened up a serious split with the United States. That’s the charge I bring against the president of the Republic.
Le Monde: And your friends, the Socialists? You blame them too?
BK: You bet. France’s role, before all others, is to be concerned about human rights and to fight dictatorship.

Before we write off all of France, we should be aware that some of the French entirely understand the damage Chirac has done to himself, his country, and the security of the world.

AMERICA GOES TO SEA: Very smart piece in the Financial Times on America’s growing move away from land-based forces and toward maritime power. I wonder how much longer U.S. troops will remain in Germany.