Agreed. If we did not have a large force bogged down in Iraq (unnecessarily) we would not need a bigger army.

Bakho -

No disputing the reality of the military being bogged down, but one wonders if more honest, conscientious planning would have mitigated the force level issue. One also wonders if creating specialties in the area of "nation building" (to use a crude, generic term) would address some of the problems. In other words, would troops properly trained for the tasks at hand be more effective and efficient? Through all the difficulties in Iraq what has impressed me is the commitment that the soldiers exhibit and the belief in their mission. If that commitment and sense of purpose could be leveraged with the kind of skills required for such a mission, the results might be stunningly productive.

Where is Woolsey?

Perhaps with his newfound enthusiasm for energy indepdence, his thinking on foreign policy has shifted somewhat? In any case, he has been quite busy working that side of the agenda.

Who cares where Woolsey is? I am looking for the realist-liberal internationalist fun duo, Brent and Zbig. I can't find hide nor hair of them, but want to get their reactions to the dancing in the streets of Baghdad.

Steve, please don't go too far down the road of Seymour Hersh and his buddies. You may end up sitting around a dark table with candles doing some weird exorcism on DC.

Steve, are you saying that we should take a step back to a more isolationist standpoint? At least concerning the military, of course.

Or are you saying that the United States needs to give global assistance rather than try to convert other nations to accept and use our own form of democracy?

In other words, introvert or just stop being so aggressive?

If I'm way off track here, please tell me.

"... those foreign policy players who felt that American values, as opposed to American interests, ought to drive a significant part of our foreign policy calculus -- and giving this a military edge might not be a bad thing."

Steve, can you be more precise? When you talk about American values, what do you mean, sushi and lattes and macdonalds, or "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ?

Thanks for a great post, Steve. A couple of points:

As a Dem sympathizer, I have to wonder at the wisdom of people who are trying to change the way *Dems* think about foreign policy adding their names to letters penned by, as you put it, the organ of the Bush administration's neoconservative team. That's not the way to get Dems to listen to you.

And an unrelated point: As a Canadian who likes his foreign policy in the Pearsonian tradition, it's striking to hear your characterization of the differences between the Milosovic and Saddam situations as "procedural" and "cosmetic". Surely there's a difference in goals--and one that should matter to American liberals. After all, in the first case we're talking about a broad international coalition enforcing the rule of international law in the ICC. In the second case, we're talking about confronting a criminal regime by taking actions to topple it that are outside of any agreed upon international legal framework. That's not to say that the Clintonians would have liked to see Saddam tried in the ICC. It's just to say that having Saddam tried in the ICC is a very different goal than the ones the Buch administration seemed to have.

Again, though, thanks for a great post.

Bert -

While you're waiting for Brent & Zbig, maybe you'd like to comment on this:

Tom Cleaver of Redress Press sends along this clip from the New York Times. The date is September 3, 1967:

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

What would happen if people just stopped paying attention to this crowd?

I'd view this request more credibly if it came with more stars.

scott:

"After all, in the first case we're talking about a broad international coalition enforcing the rule of international law in the ICC"

Aren't you forgetting about the UN Security Council, which was totally bypassed in the bombing of Serbia by the cobbled together and (check Wesley Clark on this) and cumbersome NATO coalition. I guess by "broad international coalition" you mean some European countries. I don't think Russia or China thought of this invasion as being "broadly international". And maybe we should ask Africans, South Americans, and Asians what they think. Maybe you ought to revise you line or reasoning and re-post.

Jon K:

Earth to Jon K. I think you are a bit disoriented.

scott:
by the way, can you remind me what was that "rule of international law" you were talking about?

bertignac:

True, true. The UN SC *was* bypassed in the Milosovic case. But the lesson I take away from that is that other international alliances like NATO can have a role to play when the SC isn't up for the job.

And regardsless of what Russia or China thought of it, it was a coalition with significant representation from countries in both Europe and N. America, as well as Britain. Sure, I suppose one could argue that it was just a "coalition of the willing", except without the cool name. But it was much more that the US, Britain, some private contractors, and a sprinkling of tokens from other places.

Scott.

Oops. Sorry bertignac--I missed your PS.

All I meant by "international rule of law" was the ICC. As oposed to, eg, whatever it is that's happening to Saddam right now.

scott:
I don't mean to be contentious, but NATO is not an international alliance, at least not to any of the countries (the majority) that are not members. The rest of what you say, then, just doesn't have any solid logic. The truth is, is that international alliances don't now and never have been determinant, nor should they.

I must admit to being more than a little embarrassed at how obvious the limits of our military sustainability are. I grew up in the 80's when it was absolutely unthinkable that anyone would want to attack the United States. Now I would not be surprised if some of the nastier sorts in power out there are eyeballing targets (domestic or foreign) they would never have dreamed of taking at the height of American cold-war power. And we're spending much more than anyone else on our military for that dubious distinction? I feel that we, as a country, have kicked ourselves in the balls. . .

Speaking of our soldiers, I read something today which is stunning and horrific, if true.
I'm linking to a dailykos diary which also links to an article. The subject is depleted uranium and gulf war veterans. The claim is that DU has been identifed as the cause of Gulf War syndrome;moreover, 11,000 Gulf War vets have died and more than 50% are on permanent disability.
There are names in here of people that could be contacted. If that is true about the Gulf war, then what will happen with our soldiers currently serving---to say nothing of the Iraqis, is beyond imagining. DU, while not radioactive is extremely toxic, and the way it is uses leads to its dispersal in the form of a fine dust.

I don't know if the numbers in the report are correct, but I hope that people with contacts, like Steve, will search out the truth on this matter.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/31/15335/6770

From the 1790's, when the French revolutionaries first unleashed the levee en masse against the royalist "Coalition of the Willing," every major modern conflict has depended on conscription to supply the manpower needed for war on a wholesale scale. The results have never been pretty, but it was cheaper than paying mercenaries.

The PNAC Gang wants to pay retail prices for wholesale war. The US cannot sustain the cost of the current Mesopotamian expeditionary force without conscription. And even a draft carries with it large opportunity costs--cheap enough for those who would pay over $6 billion for 23 Presdential transport helos, however. A few Hessians here, a few there. . .

As the Roman Empire grew, traveling Italian legionaries were replaced by local "barbarian" garrison troops. My modest proposal is that the US enroll a foreign legion of likely young Iraqis--Kurds will certainly do--perhaps as the "83rd Airborne." Promises of a homestead and citizenship worked once, non?

scott:
sorry to pick on you, but you asked for it.
"But it was much more that the US, Britain, some private contractors, and a sprinkling of tokens from other places."

This is absolutely, insidiously insulting to Coalition soldiers. Tokens!! Maybe you should go to Poland, Australia, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, and tell them about tokens. As an exercise, can you find out how many NATO member boots on the ground there were during the bombing war against Serbia?

There is a clear difference between Serbia and Iraq. With Serbia, it was always a combination of military and negotiations. In the end, Kosovo was settled by negotiation, not military. With Iraq, negotiation was never on the table. Iraq was regime change or else. There is a whole lot wrong with the no negotiation stance. For one it is almost guaranteed to end in partisan warfare. The partisans have no other options. The politicians are often too stupid to know this, but the military has always recognized the need to make a political deal to give finality to any conflict.

That said, the commitment of the US to Iraq alone demands more troops. Bush has resisted increasing troop strength by abusing the Guard and reserve in a way that was never intended. Signing on to a letter requesting greater troop strength may only reflect the realization that troop strength is inadequate for our current commitment. It does not mean support for additional troop strength to take on new projects. It is doubtful that the US will be taking on any new projects in the near future. It is too expensive, current borrowing already has international markets skittish and any new troop strength will be needed to replace the Guard and Reserve units that Bush has broken in Iraq.

Great post Steve. The one item that struck me, that I didn't necessarily see covered in your analysis is the "promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world ". I suspect that is part of the neocon lexicon for additional misadventures such as Iraq. I am sure the citizens of Fallujah certainly felt we were promoting freedom as we flattened that city. What freedom were we promoting? Freedom from having a roof over one's head?

Of course in typical fashion, one can't say it is 100 percent a lie. After all, they spinmeisters talk about Iraq as "promoting freedom", and it is post 9/11/2001. But let's call them on the connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Steve writes: "America spends roughly the equivalent dollar amount on defense as all other nations in the entire world. It seems remarkable that given that enormous expenditure, the security deliverables seem so dismal and paltry. Americans don't feel safe."

Pacifists of the old school might try to tell you that the problems of the world do not have military solutions. I don't think pacifists should run governments, but they ought to at least write their own letters to the people in power.

Good post, Steve. I had a somewhat different reaction to the PNAC letter, but maybe that's just because of my youthful age (click the name). But I completely agree with what you said about the failed military complex, and I don't think our opinions are mutually exclusive. Also, thanks for the enlightenment on the foreign policy budget- it's astounding. Question for everyone: can somebody tell me what the budget for foreign policy activities outside of the Pentagon was like under Clinton? If it's $30 billion now, what was it when Clinton left? (A reference- i.e. newspaper article or the like- would be greately appreciated).

On another note for the sane regulars around here, looks like BS'er-in-chief is back in the comment section.

On yet another note: Marky, I've been overwhelmed with school work. But I will get to the French translation soon, and react appropriately.

How are 25,000 more people per year going to be persuaded to join the military? Is the idea to gear the economy so exclusively to favor the rich that no young middle class or poor person will be able to find a job so they will enlist? Or are we talking a draft here? I actually hope the Bushies are envisioning a draft because then I can enjoy the vision of them tanking in the next election.

Well, lily, I am talking about a draft (what I alluded to at 8:59 PM). Click on the name in the above post (8:59 PM). I'm actually pro-draft, even though I'm thoroughly anti-Bush. I think there are some good reasons for why progressives should support a draft. It's also socially just to support an official draft, as I've explained.

Wish I had written that. I had to do the second-best and extensively cite it in a recent blog post.

Yes, the Bush Administration is in a pickle, given how they've misused the troops we have and are only beginning to face up to the conseqences on the Reserve and the Guard.

Yes, we have to address as part of an overall reassessment of our military forces the question of the size, composition and deployment of troops. But that should be in response to a strategy, not a back-door means to create expeditionary capacity to be used according to the sort of criteria the PNAC and the neo-lites would advocate. The challenges of using the military for nation-builiding activities -- whether you look at it from the view of Fukuyama or Adm Zinni or Tom Barnett -- should be addressed directly as part of the assessment.

Steve, stay on the Truman democrat (small d) side of the emerging cleavage with the rest of us old-fashioned realists/liberal internationalists.

For the latest in news from Iraq, I usually turn to Juan Cole at Informed Comment (www.juancole.com). He's fluent in Arabic and knows the quality of his sources. He has this on Sunni turnout:

"Sunni Arab turnout in the elections was light. The Sunnis in Samarra, a city of 200,000, only cast 1400 ballots. Ash-Sharq al-Awsat also reported that Tikrit's polling stations were deserted.

In eastern Mosul, where Turkmen and Kurds predominate, there was some turnout, but in the Sunni Arab western part of the city, firefights raged. The Arabs of Kirkuk appear largely to have boycotted the vote, whereas the Kurds came out enthusiastically (-al-Zaman).

Evan Osnos of the Chicago Tribune writes,

' In the Sunni-dominated cities of Latifiyah and Mahmoudiyah south of Baghdad, streets were largely free of violence, but voters said they were fearful of retaliation for voting. Polling centers were largely empty all day in many cities of the Sunni Triangle north and west of the capital, particularly Fallujah, Ramadi and Beiji, The Associated Press reported. In Baghdad's mainly Sunni Arab area of Adhamiyah, the neighborhood's four polling centers did not open, residents said. '

Dexter Filkins of the NYT wrote, ' In the town of Baji in northern Iraq, election officials did not show up. In Ramadi, where Iraqi officials set up a pair of polling places just outside the city, a total of just 300 ballots were cast, many of them by police officers and soldiers. ' "

Prof. Cole has more about this on his weblog.

a larger military probably is not necessary. We have established that sanctions will work given enough time. I have no proble with accenting sanctions with military action when warranted but a large scale ground assault should not be precipitated without international consensus.

It appears that the Sunnis did not vote much. It was expected but the question is what percentage of the total vote possible participated.

It seems that the insurgency has lost some of its vigor but still retains the power to inflict damage. This may go on for some time but it also seems that the Iraqi people may have opened the door to create a stable government if not a democracy we would recognize.

What a bunch of narcissistic ankle-biting toy poodles!! Juan Cole, indeed!

Oops. I meant, "Professor" Cole ... ha ha ha. What a pretentious twit!

“...the the right answer is to not invade and not occupy until the circumstances are right.”

How is to be defined? When hell freezes over? What level of consensus is required before we decide that “the circumstances are right?” Forget the abstract theorizing. On a practical level, it will only be an always available excuse to do nothing. It would allow those inclined towards pacifism to forevermore throw a monkey wrench into the works. And they will!

Speaking as one of "those inclined towards pacifism", I have to say that when the likes of Max Boot and Danielle Pletka start urging the government to increase the military, it strikes me that we should be wary of helpful hints about the need for more cannon fodder coming from the mouths of war-lovers and imperialists.

These people are not to be trusted because their efforts are focused on achieving some deliberately veiled yet ideological goal. They *say* they are doing this for the good of the country but they have no intention of trying to take into account the opinions and concerns of us anonymous mothers and fathers. I think PNAC and most of the Boards, Think Tanks, and Foundations that have taken up permanent residence within the policy operations of our government are a greater danger than good.

I appreciate your efforts, Steve, to bring the ruminations and machinations of these folks to the webworld's attention.

"If there are not clear forces on the ground prepared to pursue their justice (perhaps with our or Europe's advice) that are identical to the cultural and ethnic make-up of the government under attack, the the right answer is to not invade and not occupy until the circumstances are right."

Exactly right, Steve. We need to make sure that the hundreds of thousands in Iran are fully prepared to take down their government and install themselves as guardians of a future Iran of democracy and freedom, before we invade. Coordination is essential between the disaffected citizens of Iran and our military so that both strike at once, and in one fell swoop complete the deed. Our military need then to only contend with holdouts in the Iranian military and dead-enders.

Welcome aboard, Steve.

We will all be awaiting the President's special address to the nation in prime time immediately after the festivities begin.

Freedom is on the march!

"How are 25,000 more people per year going to be persuaded to join the military?"

lily,
Easy. The American people aren't very bright in the first place. Schmooze 'em up with all kinds of patriotic flag waving rhetoric, lay on some nationalistic fervor, appeal to American mythos, tell'em how Freedom is God's gift to humankind!, enlist John Philip Sousa to the cause. Hell, there are hundreds of thousands who voted for Bush who will heed the call if asked by their leader. And with the new $250,000 benefit for surviving families if you get killed in this crusade for freedom, man, 25,000 more soldiers a year is a Slam Dunk!

Do not mis-underestimate the American people, lily, you pacifist! And you are probably un-patriotic too!

Steve - I would respectfully note that $30 billion is not a "DOD rounding error," not at 7.5 percent of the total budget (roughly). A few hundred million, yes, but a billion here and a billon there, and soon you're talking about real money.

I'm not going to argue about the size of the defense budget, only to note that increasing it is not the only solution, as the PNAC letter suggests. About a third of funds go to military personnel and infrastructure, a third to research and development, and a third to operations and maintenance. Given the heavy supplementals to continue operations in the Middle East, any increases in personnel would have to be paid for with decreases in military projects or increases in taxes. Neither are good for the right.

I would suggest that maintaining high-quality professionals is the number one priority. Increases in personnel could be warranted if sacrifices were made elsewhere, notably accelerating the BRAC process to reduce military infrastructure, killing off unaffordable Cold War relics like the Joint Strike Fighter, F-22, Virginia class sub, and multibillion dollar carriers. We could support transformation for future combat operations, focusing on a more mobile expeditionary force if we pulled forces out of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

In short, what the PNAC wants could be done, if sacrifices were made by Congress and the four Services. Given that this scenario is unlikely, the PNAC calls for unconstrained increases and continued deficits in the call of "national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world." I think they need less rhetoric and more reality.

I guess I'm not convinced that using our military to occupy a larger portion of the globe is a long-term solution to the security issues that the U.S. faces. It might work short-term. I fear that, the more we use our military unilaterally, the less other countries, including our allies, are going to be willing to work with us on anything, and they will probably increase active attempts to find ways to "balance" U.S. power. If occupation is not the goal, why so many additional troops? Problems with terrorism require the assistance of foreign governments more than additional troops, and include efforts as such as non-proliferation (woefully underfunded by the current administration). Even undermining dangerous dictatorial regimes (e.g. Iraq) has shown to take more than military might. I think most would agree that the rebuilding of Iraq could have gone much smoother with more planning and additional, non-military skillsets on the ground. If we were to try it again, I would hope that some resources would be made available for those activities, rather than simply adding troops.

Hell, maybe some of them chickenhawk neocons will sign up! They want war, let the sonofabitches get in there and help fight it. I got no use for war mongers too afraid to join in the fight. Either fight or keep your mouth shut.

Paine & Steve -

The missing variable in this discussion of the timing of foreign interventions is domestic politics. The timing of the Iraq War was driven largely by domestic political considerations, and that's probably always going to be the case. It's nice to consider what the ideal might look like, but political circumstances will always intervene.

One big problem with Iraq is the US went in without enough of the right kind of allies. For Instance, if Syria, Jordan and the Saudis had gone in with us, do you think their fellow Sunnis would be practicing scorched earth against them?

Afghanistan only became doable after the Pakistanis agreed to allow the US to use its air space and the central Asian republics allowed US bases. We need to be much more selective about how we use our military. Stopping ethnic cleansing in Kosovo is possible. Stopping Haitian coups and preventing boat people floatillas is possible. Invading a country of 25 million and trying to run it as a military dictatorship against a well armed insurgency is not a good use of our military. There are many options that can be used to advance US interests in the world. Military is only one and generally a very crude one at that. Clearly, military first and foremost was the wrong option for Iraq and our soldiers are paying the price for the mistakes of our politicians.

I think we can decide, but I think that Iraq went so badly in part because the Bush administration "sold" the war in the media instead of getting the proper advice and consent. A true debate would have brought to the fore all the flaws in the intelligence and the lack of post war planning.

The real problem is that both parties, though right now the Republicans are worse, throw money at DOD and then abandon true Congressional oversight.

First, the planning for the Iraq war was faulty as we didn't have enough regular ground troops to fight it and badly abused the Reserves and National Guard. So this is the reason for the rather interesting mix of signers of this PNAC letter.

Second, we could have more ground troops and pay the higher survivors' benefits Chu proposed today without giving DOD one more penny if they were only held to the fiscal and management standards that other departments are sorta held to.

Third, they could save a lot and have more ground troops by getting rid of all the private contractors that do the support that used to be done by regular troops, getting tough on fraud and waste, and cutting out the "mission impossible" missile defense system.

But then common sense is not very common. So the likelihood of the above happening is about the same as appointing Chuck Spinney Secretary of DOD after Rummy leaves.

Linda, darling, as one of those private contactors supporting the DOD, can I tell you that honestly, having military triggerpullers doing admin/support/analytical work is very often not in the best interests of military efficiency? DOD would collapse tomorrow if all the contractors were taken out, like a hard-core heroin addict. That said, I do agree that getting tough on DOD accounting practices and scrapping the national missile defense program would save a bundle that could go elsewhere.

Steve, I assume you have read the Pentagons New map by Barnett? He lays out a preliminary framework of how these types of FP goals should be achieved using a "Leviathan" force which can achieve military objectives (current force size is more than adequate for this)while a "Sys Admin" force would handle the Nation Building. Unfortunately, this "Sys Admin" force does not really exist yet in size, composition, structure or even policy focus.

My view is that needs to be a broad based multilateral effort, rather than a US go it alone strategy which will fail. The mistakes the Admin made in Iraq would simply be repeated in Iran, etc. Having a broad based coalition involved in this process would provide for much better decision making (avoiding some but not all mistakes).

Finally, no one addresses costs! We can not even afford this first small effort in Iraq. Democraticizing the rest of the "gap" per Burnett would cost Trillions over many years. By definition we can not afford to do it alone. It is only a task that can be achieved thru global cooperation (thru global institutions - though they can be ad hoc ones when we find that existing ones like the UN are dysfunctional in this regard due to antiquated veto structure in place which needs to be reformed).

These are the type of policies the neo-liberals/realists need to embrace as a counterweight to the Neo-Cons. You can not simply oppose democracy in Mid-East. You must have a saner policy alternative. Adding 25K troops is exactly the WRONG thing to do. We need to be expanding the Sys Admin force not the Leviathan force. It was the Neocons who ignored the planning put in place by the "Sys Admin" people in the State Dept and CIA that ledd to all of the blunders by Rumsfeld and crew.

young turk:
if you havent seen it check out this link on History News Network for an interesting short discussion of Barnett.

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=49649#49649

"You can not simply oppose democracy in Mid-East. You must have a saner policy alternative."

Steve, the Young Turk has a point of having a saner policy alternative . . . although why anyone would want to simply (or complex) oppose democracy is beyond me. Do Democrats really believe that democracy in the Middle East should be opposed?

Try reading the piece by Youssef M. Ibrahim in
www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-01-31-mideast-edit_x.htm

Even if one doesn't believe that the ends (of Bush) justify the means, isn't the end result shaping up? At some point, will it not be pragmatic for opponents of Bush to temper their criticism and at least rejoice as the Iraq people are?

The headline of Le Monde today is "Rapproachement franco-américain après les élections irakiennes" ... Condi is coming 8 Feb. Pretty soon Jacques, Gerhard and George will be lunching together, all on the same page about Iraq. What will Dems say, pray tell?

Something important is brewing on this blog. There is constructive discussion, even debate, from commenters of very different views -- working through the problems that Steve Clemons has highlighted and nudged forward.

I just thought we should pause a moment and thank Mr. Clemons for his high standards -- and I think it has set an interesting standard for the seriousness of responses above -- even those who don't buy Clemons's same concerns.

There is something useful happening here.

Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel!

Oh, come, strong branch of Jesus, free
Thine own from Satans tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people crave
And give them vict'ry o'er the slave.

Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel!

Yeah bert those elections have changed everything. Those surrender monkeys are finally coming around to saying Bush ain't that bad a fella after all. Those elections sure did the trick, you naive fool.

Some people have the mistaken impression that Bush is opposed simply and entirely because of his political party. It is not constructive to discussion to deny that Bush has done many things wrong in Iraq. Right now seems a moment of neutral optimism about Iraq---it might not get worse, as it has been doing for nearly 2 years.
It's premature to talk about democracy building in other countries without at least examining the grosser errors of the Bush administration.
Besides rank incompetence, there has been massive corruption and war-profiteering---where is that $9 billion, by the way? Those who don't have a moral qualm with any of Bush's policies might at least wish to watch the purse next time around.
It's quite amazing, actually---the war we got WAS war on the cheap, and look what it has cost us!

There is one very important question about the future of Iraq I would like to see answered: is the US building permanent bases in Iraq at this moment? I think there are many on the right who cheer the nascent democracy in Iraq with one hand, while using the other to cheer for Bush building permanent bases in Iraq, regardless of what the Iraqis desire. I fully admit there may be compelling realist reasons to build bases in Iraq; however, I also admit that this makes Iraqi democracy a bit of a farce.

Paul Kennedy? Is that THE Paul Kennedy from the rise of fall?

Ira:
Guess you know more about what goes on here that I do? Do you read French press daily, in French? Do you bath in French public opinion because you live permanently in France and have open discussions with lots of people? Or are you, in you own words, just a "naive fool"? Dites-moi.

marky:
You keep slipping further and further behind the curve of events.

"marky:
You keep slipping further and further behind the curve of events"
Berti,
No one cares to read your jejeune ripostes.
Why don't you save commenting for those occasions when you have something to say?

Sean:
Thanks for the link to Ibrahim's editorial. Every sour cynic on this blog should read it.

"Regardless of its flaws and how it came about, Iraq's first free election in half a century is a historic event. Among other things, it has given quite a boost to a liberation process underway in the greater Middle East, sending tremors through both ruled and rulers."

marky,

Gee, you sound like you represent people. A kind of opinion rep, right?

Berti, perhaps there is more good in France than I thought. I am eager to see if French public opinion is more pragmatice than our own Democrats.

Youssef M. Ibrahim also said: “In interview after interview, Iraqis said such things as, ‘It is like a wedding ... It is a great day ... This is history.’

Contrast this to Kerry’s Meet the Press interview:

KERRY: “. . . Let me begin, if I can, by saying first of all I was just there a few weeks ago . . . and I'm confident of what the world response will be. No one in the United States should try to overhype this election.”

Why not hype it? Or is hatred of Bush more important than celebrating triumph in Iraq? Even if the struggle for democracy in Iraq will take generations, when will it be clear that this is (at least today) the right course?

Steve,
what alternative is there?

Well, searching the news turns up a lot of articles which take it as a given that the US is building the 14 (16 in one account) permanent bases. I am pretty sure there is no official acknowledgement of this from the administration.
It is considered likely that the Iraqis will ask the US to leave rather soon.. say, within the year. What happens then will be interesting. I know many readers of this blog are well-connected in the military. If there is some non-classified information you can share on this subject, I for one would appreciate it.

Folks -- I like the debate, and particularly some of the links to other material. Thanks Sean. Let's keep it constructive and focused on the issues rather than each other.

I think that those who have been skeptical of Bush and the election are as Marky put it, sort of "neutrally optimistic." It doesn't invalidate their concerns -- and if all goes well here, and Iraq stabilizes and generates something that looks nearly like a democractic order -- then Bush should be credited for taking and winning the gamble. I'm not there yet -- I have my doubts about how stable the scene is -- but I'm not one who wants to be right about this.

I am going to post something later that will propose some humility about the January 30 election and what it all means -- but at the same time, we shouldn't see the eruption of civil war as a victory for those who critique the Bush administration. I'm not that cynical yet anyway.

Bertignac -- Chirac's dinner with Bush is scheduled for February 21st. Is it a small dinner? a state dinner? How is the press setting this up? Are they pitching it in such a way that if Bush and Chirac come out smiling that Chirac has caved to Bush? In other words, is the press setting up a zero sum game, tug of war approach to covering Bush's visit? Or have the press pretty much decided that this will be -- at least cosmetically -- a new start in transatlantic relations?

I like that you are reading the press daily and have a sense of the tone over there -- so please share.

But again to all -- let's keep it about the issues...feel free to do battle but the personal stuff and commentary zinging between some of you is not as interesting as the wrestling over policy and ideas,

Steve

Sean:
French public opinion about foreign policy (American, I mean) is basically just a continuous drone of superficial anti-Americanism either of the anti-globalist/defunk left stripe, or of the jingoistic Le Pen neo-fascist flavor. There is no French public opinion, nor any debate or discussion of French foreign policy, non whatsoever. The leitmotif is "Be Negative". Always look at the problems and worst case scenarios, and nothing else. In other words, just like the Dems these days. Strictly the peanut gallery. But Chirac is no fool and neither is Schoeder. The writing was on the wall for all to see in Iraq. And the French coming around. The process was already begun before the elections. And, I would guess that on the level of military/police, US-French cooperation never altered one blip over the past couple of years. In any case, the US is going to do all the heavy lifting no matter what "crisis" happens in the world ... that is a given. But it seems that the French and the Germans are back in the fold and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some announcements soon.

Steve,

" ... we shouldn't see the eruption of civil war as a victory for those who critique the Bush administration. I'm not that cynical yet anyway."

I know you are not, but what about Teddy Kennedy, or John Kerry?

I don't think Bush is, or should, be gloating in any way shape or form, not to the French, not to the Dems. Everyone needs to come together and help make this work. And, to his credit, that is what Bush is doing.

Steve,
I will keep you posted on French news and tone. Condi Rice is here on 8 Feb, so that ought to be interesting. One thing, the comments by Carlos Valenzuela about how above board the Iraqi elections went was reported on page 2 of le Monde, heading cynics off at the pass. The "new start" in transatlantic relations had already begun, now it will go full force. In any case, we are talking public relations here. Aside from the war, I haven't noticed any change whatsoever in French-US relations, at least in terms I could notice, like products, tv, image, etc. The French are basically awestruck by the US. And even the most negative just can't stop talking about the US. But, aside from wackos, who are everywhere, the French and the US "feel" friendly. In any case, I don't hide that I am pro-Bush and nobody has tried to lynch me yet.

PS:
One thing interesting Le Monde reported today, is that France has stopped asking the US for a specific calendar for withdrawl of troops. France now says, (and I translate):

"Either we focus on a date, or on procedure; either on the principle that things will change progressively and it's necessary to work one step at a time. That is what we are doing. We are not here to always argue. Everything evolves." (from Elysée)

It is so amazing that after all the joy of Iraqi elections I have completely forgotten about Bush & Co. being War Criminals. Chirac is going to sit down and have dinner with a War Criminal, how nice. Chirac's got a little Daladier in his blood? But let's be fair. Jacques has to have Georgie to dinner as a matter of courtesy, doesn't he, and Jacques can speak frankly to the little shoot'em up fella who'll be weasely squirming in his chair 'cause he already knows Jacques don't cotton to him, and Jacques is gonna stick the needle to him many times about Georgie's father this ... , and Georgie's father that ......, and ashame about Brent and yadda yadda, and after they finish their Hamburgers Girondais, a little something to make Georgie feel comfortable (the only thing), they will come out of dining all smilesy-wilesy like they had the best time, but behind all the comraderie the feeling is mutual wanna take a shower time. Kiss and make up my ass.

Dov:
What a cutsey little post, especially the "smilesy-wilesy" part. Sounds kind of like an angry Elmer Fudd. But, it's all pretty embarrassing to witness.

I am soooo giddy with joyfulness that my ebulliance (pardon my French)is glowingly exuding sugar plum happy happys all through my itty bitty wittle lovey dovey honey suckle rose of heart that I cannot contain my smiley face optimism for one moment, don't you believe me yet. Oh! the joy of being happy wappy slap cwazy happy 'bout them Iraqi electons that I think I'll have yet another bon-bon, s'il vous plaisy waisy coochy coochy. Oooo that was goody woody!

Bertignac --

You are offering a highly biased view of political polemics in France. The article in Le Monde that you cite concerning dates and procedures for withdrawal from Iraq, written by Claire Tréan, is a masterpiece of Gallic irony. After attributing the defrosting techniques uniquely to the US, she offers this juicy central section:

"At the Elysee, it was stressed with insistence Monday that dialogue with Condoleezza [sic] Rice 'has always been constant and frank, even if it has sometimes been difficult.' Ms. Rice, the presumed author of the famous phrase "Punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia," has never shown until now such a desire for an exchange with the protesters. Since the arrest of Saddam Hussein, the elections on Monday [sic] in Iraq is the first event that might offer the US a source of satisfaction. It is however a very partial success, which settles nothing.

In order to get out of the mess in which it is bogged down, the US must transform this test. As was the case during other episodes in the Iraqi crisis, but more evident than ever, it seems now to find it useful to come closer to analyses for which it formerly had contempt because they were not its own."

There's also a bit of a wink at the end about Chirac characterizing his conversation with Bush as "friendly."

I might add that in the French investment community, there's not a soul who would touch an American asset with a 10-foot pole. "Awe," says Bertignac. Yes, there was "awe" a few days ago when bold headlines about the US deficit spread through the international press (including IHT). Great decoration for European newspaper stands.

Whoa Nellie! What we all have to do now is bite the bullet and take the bull by the horns. It's never too late to throw the whole shootin' match at 'em. Give 'em what for and throw everything at 'em but the kitchen sink. Then we'll get their attention with a wake up call. Hello! First things first, then after that give it to them good, just like in the old days when men were men. No fooling around we gotta get tough cause that's when the tough get going. Time to really stick it to them like we did in '44. Show'em whose boss then kick'em in the pants and hittem over the head with a 2X4, then you'll see some action. Just duke it out until they collapse into a miserable heap. We'll hand their heads to'em and beat'em to a bloody pulp until they're screamin' bloody murder. No time for talkin', talk is cheap, put up or shut up. Yup, its time for a reckoning. It's now or never. Freedom is on the March! Katie bar the door!

Here's the kind of rah-rah America that comes up when you type "Irak" into Le Monde's search engine:

AMERICA CANNOT WIN THIS WAR

The beginning of wisdom consists in recognizing that the US cannot win the war underway in Iraq. As a result of its poor initial calculations, misguided planniung and inadequate preparation, Washington has lost the trust and support of the Iraqi people, and has little chance...

1 - L'Amérique ne peut pas gagner cette guerre
LE MONDE | 29 Janvier 2005 | par James Dobbins | 1964 mots
LE début de la sagesse consiste à reconnaître que les Etats-Unis ne peuvent pas gagner la guerre en cours en Irak. Par suite de ses mauvais calculs initiaux, de son planning mal orienté et de sa préparation inadéquate, Washington a perdu la confiance et l'appui du peuple irakien et a peu de chances...

WITHOUT ILLUSIONS, FRANCE TRIES TO HAVE SOME INFLUENCE ON THE IRAQI CONFLICT

Jacques Chirac and Michel Barnier deny any change in their policy toward Iraq. But in formulating it in a manner less irritating for the US and supporting the election process underway, they hope to be in a position to influence the post-war period.

2 - Sans illusions, la France tente de peser dans le conflit irakien
LE MONDE | 14 Janvier 2005 | Claire Tréan | 814 mots
Jacques Chirac et Michel Barnier démentent tout changement de leur politique à l'égard de l'Irak. Mais en la formulant de manière moins irritante pour les Etats-Unis et en soutenant le processus électoral en cours, ils souhaitent être en mesure d'influer sur l'après-guerre.

else:
Tréan's article had it's moments of restrained reserve, but the irony you speak of is very minimal. In any case, the quote from L'Elysée was neither ironic nor skeptical. As far as the French investment community is concerned, if you say it maybe it's true, I don't know. The "awe" I spoke about is something I have seen continuously for fifteen years. It is a pedestal effect, the French put the US on a pedestal, then knock it down, etc. Nothing specifically to do with the current relationship, nor with Chirac, but about the French people (as witnessed in the press, tv, friends, etc). As far as the "wink" at the end goes, who knows what that is? ("Asked about the tone of Chirac and Bush's conversation the source close to Chirac said, 'The tone? Friendly, of course.' ") Sounds like a micro-edit cobbled together by the part of Tréan. You left out the first (more complete) part of the quote by the source close to Chirac:
"Currently, the subjects on which we can work together effectively together are more important than the subjects on which we don't have the same views."

By the way, the title of Tréan's article is:
"The Iraki election accelerates the defrosting between Americans and Europeans"
Now, maybe you could argue that her use of the word "dégel" (actually "breaking the ice" would perhaps be better than "defrosting") is meant to be ironic, but I don't think so. In any case, the word "accélère (accelerates) indicates a process already underway, which it was. Don't take my word for it, do some research on Michel Barnier (Foreign Minister) and see how he has been talking for weeks, if not months.

else:
Read the first page long paragraph teaser for the article. "At Elysée the conversation between M. Chirac and M. Bush is reported as 'friendly'. 'We don't only argue. Everything changes." No Gallic irony there.

else:
Dobbins isn't French. Nor is he a LeMonde journalist. Did you read the front page editorial (same Le Monde) "Bush, idéologie et pragmatisme" by Pierre Hassner? (You seem to want to project the irresponsible and futile politicking of some Democrats to Chirac. But, very soon I believe it will become quite apparent that Chirac and Barnier are not Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry. The word "on the street" for a long time in France is that Chirac's own people regretted his intransigence towards the US and have been getting him to soften up and backpedal for a long time.

else:
Maybe there was a reason that Barnier replaced de Villepin as Foreign Minister, non?)
Teaser for else:
(quoted from Michel Barnier, "A Letter to America", Nov. 2004, which was published in the Wall Street Journal)
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/actu/article.gb.asp?ART=45820

"France is the largest investor in U.S.stocks after the U.K. These investments represent about 650,000 U.S. jobs. Because of all the things that connect us, I'm concerned about the campaigns against my country, and the recent surge of "French-bashing."

"Indeed, we have so much to do together to promote democracy, security and development. In the Middle East, first of all, where Europeans have long been involved. Let us recognize without animosity that the war in Iraq deeply divided us. The facts have been established and History will decide. But the important thing now is to turn Iraq into a real success story. France has no other aim. It will not send troops there but it is ready to help train Iraqi security forces and resolve the debt problem, and more broadly, to help prepare Iraq for elections in January."

(the rest of the letter, in full ... it's not paper, afterall)

A Letter to America

I am writing to you as a friend of America. When I think of your great nation, the words "peace," "freedom" and "prosperity" come to mind. Together we have tirelessly promoted these ideals, which underpin our democracies, and -- particularly in the dark hours since September 11 -- we have relentlessly fought the terrorist threat that jeopardizes them.

I am writing to you as the citizen of a country that helped your country secure its own independence and later received your help, as faithful allies and liberators. The ceremonies of the 60th anniversary of D-Day were a stunning tribute to the American soldiers who fell in Normandy to win our freedom and that of Europe. Our destinies are intertwined. History demonstrates this, and economics proves it: two-thirds of your direct investment abroad are made in Europe, and Europe accounts for 75% of foreign direct investment in the U.S. In 2003, our exchange of goods and services approached $400 billion.

France is the largest investor in U.S.stocks after the U.K. These investments represent about 650,000 U.S. jobs. Because of all the things that connect us, I'm concerned about the campaigns against my country, and the recent surge of "French-bashing."

There's a paradox here, since France is actually among your best friends in the fight against terrorism. Our intelligence experts work hand in hand and French special forces fight by your side in Afghanistan. Likewise, France is one of your most solid partners within the Atlantic Alliance. It heads NATO's operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan. It is the second-largest contributor to the NATO Reaction Force. In the end, the most inaccurate clichés are obscuring the most obvious truths. It is time to put a stop to it.

More generally, I'm concerned to see both Americans and Europeans expressing doubts over the future of transatlantic relations, and I'm troubled to see that Europe is misunderstood, if not scorned, in the U.S. The European Union is changing. It has opened to the East. Soon, I hope, it will have a Constitution that will make its institutions more effective and legitimate. It is in America's interest that Europe asserts itself as a powerful, reliable partner. As President Kennedy once said, the U.S. should see "in such a Europe a partner with whom we could deal on a basis of full equality."

Indeed, we have so much to do together to promote democracy, security and development. In the Middle East, first of all, where Europeans have long been involved. Let us recognize without animosity that the war in Iraq deeply divided us. The facts have been established and History will decide. But the important thing now is to turn Iraq into a real success story. France has no other aim. It will not send troops there but it is ready to help train Iraqi security forces and resolve the debt problem, and more broadly, to help prepare Iraq for elections in January.

We must also break the deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is the matrix of a number of other conflicts, and serves as the pretext for numerous acts of terrorism. Let us not leave this situation unresolved and the Middle East without a future. Let us revive the Road Map and reactivate the Quartet. We must be ready to accompany any effort in this direction with financial support, but also with an international presence on the ground.

Iran is another priority. Out of concern for developments in the Iranian nuclear program, the Europeans have launched an initiative to obtain all the necessary guarantees from Tehran. This balanced proposal will have a greater chance of success if it enjoys firm American support. Alone, we run the risk of failure. Together we can succeed.

Elsewhere, we must continue working side by side: in Afghanistan, to consolidate that nascent democracy; in Africa, which brings together so many of the challenges of today's world; in the Balkans, so that its countries can complete their transition toward European-Atlantic institutions; and in Haiti, to put an end to the infernal cycle of poverty and instability.

Because we have common interests everywhere, we should have common ambitions. This is why I believe we must give a new impetus to our political relations. When it comes to defense and trade, instruments of cooperation already exist and work well. There's no need to invent new ones. The political dialogue between the EU and the U.S., on the other hand, is insufficient. The time has come to give it more substance. The U.S. election and the signing of the first European Constitution, now in the process of ratification, offer an opportunity to give new momentum to our political partnership. The Europeans, and the French first among them, are waiting for this. Why not convene a high-level group right now, consisting of independent, respected figures from both sides of the Atlantic to explore ways in which we can deepen our political cooperation?

America needs a capable, responsible Europe. And Europe needs a strong America, engaged in world affairs. Transatlantic cooperation has always been an essential condition for peace. Today, in a world that has become more unstable and more dangerous, our alliance is more necessary than ever. Let us make sure that it is able to meet the challenges that await us.

correction:
last post FOR else (and everybody else) posted by bertignac

Send your sour grapes, cynicism and sarcasm to:

Michel Barnier, Ministre des Affaires étrangères
Ministère des Affaires étrangères
37, Quai d'Orsay
75351 Paris
France

Michel Barnier, 30 Jan 2005 (Interview in le Parisien Dimanche)
http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2005/barnier_iraq_election013005.asp

Election in Iraq

Interview given by Michel Barnier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the "Le Parisien Dimanche" newspaper.

Paris, January 30, 2005

Q. – What credibility can be given to elections in such an explosive situation?

THE MINISTER – We have known from the outset that this election is difficult, given the climate of insecurity and sometimes even of chaos reigning in Iraq. But it's possible, and useful, since this tragedy, this instability will be ended only through a political process, through democracy and elections. The Iraqis haven't had the opportunity to vote democratically for several decades. Today they are very clearly keen to do so: 13 million of them have registered on the electoral lists, despite the situation.

Q. – Wouldn't it have been better to postpone the poll, as many Iraqis were themselves asking?

THE MINISTER – Who can be sure that by postponing it the election would have been better and safer? It's the first step in a process. It has to be used as a basis on which to build and make a success of the other stages, particularly the drawing-up of a Constitution.

Q. – Don't you fear the arrival in power of the Shiite religious leaders?

THE MINISTER – Let's not impugn anyone's motives. As in every society, there are in Iraq communities, majority forces and other minorities. What's important is for the largest ones to use their majority and their power intelligently and for minorities to have a fair place and be respected.

Q. – Precisely, doesn't the Sunnis' boycotting pose a major problem?

THE MINISTER – It will make it imperative, in any case, to involve all the country's political forces in the preparation of the Constitution. A constitutional and territorial organization will have to be found for Iraq which guarantees fairness and that everyone is properly represented.

Q. – Some people are already predicting a civil war?

THE MINISTER – That's not inevitable: if action is taken one stage at a time, it has to be possible to find a way out of the present difficult situation. The Iraqi people must regain their total sovereignty in accordance with the UN resolutions.

Q. – Have the US armed forces got to pull out?

THE MINISTER – UNSCR 1546 lays down the prospect of the withdrawal of the foreign troops at the end of 2005. This is a timescale set in agreement with the Americans by a resolution which was passed unanimously. We mustn't lose sight of this timescale... taking account, of course, of the situation prevailing at the time.

Q. – Couldn't France do more?

THE MINISTER – France has already said she is willing to support the Iraqi people in the political and economic reconstruction. There won't be any French soldiers in Iraq, either now or later, since it won't be additional foreign soldiers who would be useful. When he had a meeting recently with his Iraqi opposite number, Jacques Chirac confirmed that we are ready and willing to participate in training the police – outside Iraqi territory. The instability of the Middle East is our own instability. France's priority is to contribute to rejoining the path of peace in the region./.

31 January 2005, French Embassy Press Release (without the "Gallic irony" of a LeMonde journalist)
http://ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2005/barnier_europe1_013105.asp

FRANCE/US

Q. – Has the time come for George Bush and Jacques Chirac, for French and Americans once again to enjoy close links?

THE MINISTER – But we have a dialogue with the Americans; in fact I attended a working lunch with President Bush and President Chirac in June at the time of the commemoration of the Landings. We have been working together for several months: on UNSCR 1546, Iraq's debt, the Peace Process, and in many other places, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan.

PS:
In all the French articles I've seen so far about the Iraqi elections, the thawing (voila: that's the correct translation for dégel!) of US-French relations, interviews with Michel Barnie, I have not yet run across any mention of John Kerry.

A rather lengthy response: http://sisypheanmusings.blogspot.com/2005/02/primer-for-military-force-structure.html

A Primer for the Military Force Structure Debate: "It would be great to have a debate in the blogosphere about how the military should be sized and structured to meet our national security requirements. It's one of my niche interests. It is with that in mind, that I've written this rather lengthy post."

Sisyphus:
I haven't finished reading your discussion on military force structure, but I will. I just wanted to say I'm impressed and look forward to finishing it and learning something. I'll be on your blog checking out other entries. Thanks!

The "interests vs. values" debate bores me. As if fighting for our interests did not advance our values, or vice versa. What inspired me most about Clinton's foreign policy outlook was that he really believed you could "do well by doing good."

But Steve, you are dead-on target about the Pentagon. Let's bring back zero-based budgeting and hold government managers accountable for real, measureable results.

Dear Sisyphus:

Thanks for the serious response to my post. We do see the situation differently -- but I like how you have challenged some of the points I raised.

I don't have time at the moment to write a response as long as yours to mine....but I will take a crack at it later. I do respect the military -- but I think that we have tended not to hold the Pentagon responsible for its errors. I may be mistaken, but your post seems to imply that I am not qualified to judge the military's performance or raise serious questions about the lack of accountability for those running the Pentagon and our national security strategy. We can debate that another time -- but suffice it to say that I have also enjoyed this subject as an niche interest -- decades ago when I was looking at weapons system development and procurement reform in the U.S. as a young grunt at RAND -- and have followed the subject with varying degrees of interest since.

I really like the tenor of your post overall -- but I do believe that the national defense/security policy community has trouble seeing beyond its edges and despite having a complex array of studies aimed at studying its behavior and resources, it is remarkably unwilling to hold itself accountable for errors. Despite the impressive array of strategic assessments and studies constantly generated by the Pentagon -- inertia defines most Pentagon decisions, in my view, than any other explanation.

We can debate this later if you like -- but for now, thanks -- and perhaps when we both get a bit more time -- we can wrestle a bit over this question with both of us responding to a roster of the other's most serious critiques.

best,

Steve Clemons
www.TheWashingtonNote.com

Steve Clemons and bertignac,

Thanks both. I look forward to your next post and continued discourse.

Respectfully,

“We must also break the deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

“We” must do nothing of the sort. Let the Israelis and the Palestinians work out their differences. The rest of the world needs to essentially mind its own business. The central reason for the continued troubles is the self pity of the Arab world. Western liberals must cease encouraging these people to act like immature children. It’s time the Arabs grow up and join the 21st Century. Are they able to do this? The elections in Iraq is another reminder that they can indeed.

Elitist liberals are too much in love with themselves. The “we must” mentality often is a sign of pure egotism. Please get a grip if that might indeed be the case in this particular instance.

"there is absolutely nothing about size that makes the military ... better at the cultivation of stable civil societies abroad,"

Soldiers, ours or theirs, are needed to provide security so that stable civil societies can grow. Cultivating civil society isn't the military's role, it's providing a secure environment.

But our military is overstretched as it is, yet still cannot provide any semblence of security in Iraq. In Afghanistan, warlords and drug barons provide some sort of "security", but it is more like Sicily of old than any cultivation of a stable civil society.

Our war technology is unsurpassed, but providing security to allow for nation building is labor intensive. The "backdoor draft" is no solution to being overstretched, and fancy gadgets for blowing things up does little good against terrorists and guerillas.

"Soldiers, ours or theirs, are needed to provide security so that stable civil societies can grow. Cultivating civil society isn't the military's role, it's providing a secure environment."

When will the Old Europeans and the Canadians start pulling their share of the load? They have mooched off the United States for far too long. We must remember that America is the preeminent power in the world because of the laziness and selfishness of many of our allies. Let the guilt tripping begin. They should be ashamed of themselves.

It is also the United States that has the aircraft carriers and other equipment able to assist the Tsunami victims. The French and the Germans barely own a few broken down ships and planes.

I appreciate the distinctively French style of some of the responses to Steve’s posts.

They are at their best when multiple French readers join the fray. When Bertignac argues with an American he starts out in his Cartesian style, but tends to be pulled into fuzzy American rhetoric by his interlocutors.

On the other hand, when Else and Bertignac go head-to-head over the nuanced distinction between Gallic Irony and Restrained Reserve, the posts take on the wonderful quality of explications de texte written by bright young students at that fine institution on Rue Clovis in Paris 05.

When you (Bertie and Else) engage each other you adhere to all those lovely French school conventions as you take apart an article in Le Monde:
•De quoi s'agit-il ?
•Quel est le problème posé ?
•Quelles sont les idées principales de l'auteur ?
•Quelles sont ses idées secondaires ?
•Quelles solutions l'auteur propose-t-il ?

And you go on, as every French child is taught, to encadrer les idées importantes, while adering to the principle that il faut toujours respecter les conventions de style.

If all bloggers would adopt this methodology, the results would be so much clearer.
JohnStuart

Just an update here on how the Figaro -- somewhat to the right of Le Monde -- has represented the European Cold War "thaw" with the US:

L'Europe s'interdit de féliciter les Etats-Unis
EUORPE REFUSES TO CONGRATULATE THE US

Bruxelles : de notre correspondante Alexandrine Bouilhet
[01 février 2005]

"Surprised by the success of the Iraqi elections, the Europeans are congratulating everyone, even themselves, with the notable exception of the United States. In their group communique, strongly inspired by their awkward position as "old Europe," the 25 yesterday saluted the "efforts undertaken by the Independent Electoral Commission
[and so forth]. In their conclusions, the Union's Foreign Ministers insist, without embarrassment, on the "support provided by the international community, including the European Union."

The five paragraphs devoted to Iraq mention neither the Americans nor the members of the Coalition."Bush and Blair have already congratulated themselves enough, haven't they?" replied a diplomat in the "peace camp." More diplomatic, French minister Michel Barnier, recalled that the US is "in the United Nations" and "included" in the international community..."

No, irony? This is a major newspaper, covering a major story.

Purely anecdotal: Roughly ten days ago, John Kerry made his way to a table in the exceptionally large Montparnasse restaurant, La Coupole -- to a resounding round of applause.

Else:
You see "irony" where there is none. Major article in a major paper? A quarter of page two of Figaro, not exactly a big deal. The snide comment you talk about quotes an unknown source from "the peace camp". Most of the article talks about how to help Iraq, including training of Iraqi personnel. You seem intent on showing ... I'm not sure exactly what. That French-US relations are not normalizing? As far as applauding Kerry in a "large" Paris restaurant. Ok. But, remember, the French, during the US elections, were quite aware how lame Kerry was and that if he had even the slightest chance of winning it would be due to the anti-Bush vote, rather than any pro-Kerry vote.

Else:
"The European Cold War"??

David, you suggest that the US stay out of Israel/Palestine and let them decide for themselves. But the US is inextricably involved. Without US aid, Israel would dry up and blow away. So as the major supporter of Israel and defacto supporter of its policies, the US cannot Not be involved. By US not involved, would you cut all aid to Israel to zero? If not, then the US is involved like it or not.

I'm with the bert. The French now love us. How 'bout that you Dem egoistes! The French are now on the side of the neo-conservatives, and you liberals are left all alone by yourselves while freedom is on the march. You are like the Tories of the American Revolution and need to seriously consider what your Nova Scotia will be where you will have to flee after you find this country is no longer yours and you're not welcome in the re-born society that is gestating in the heartland. To France! I think not! They are now one with the righteous cause that America leads. Freedom is on the March!

Aux armes, citoyens,
Formez vos bataillons,
Marchons, marchons !
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons !

And you Lefties are not invited to stay in our country until you confess your grievous erreurs, poltroons!

When George Bush confesses lying to the American public about the WMD threat, I might take you up on your offer. When he fires Rumsfeld and withdraws Gonzalez's nomination to indicate that the 2nd administration will not promote routine use of torture, I will gladly do so.

This reminds me.. I'm still waiting for some comments about DU. The amount of DU the US uses in this conflict is many times what was used in any previous war. Whenever DU munitions are used, they turn into a fine, highly toxic dust.
DU is not particularly radioactive, but it is a very dangerous poison.

I really tire of hair-trigger blog triumphalism.
Haven't you righties learned your lesson yet?
I am happy the elections have occurred, but I hardly see reason to crow and brag about Iraq, given all that has occurred.

Marat:
Do you dispute that there is a serious repairing of US-French relations happening? Do you disupte the need to deal with reality and help Iraq be successful post-Saddam? I am not as interested in what the kibbutzers who risk nothing and have nothing on the line think. Words are cheap. I am interested in players, whether they are Bush or Chirac. The thing I reproach guys like you is your insulting and bitter nihilism, and schoolyard sarcasms.

last post to Marat by bertignac

Juan Cole comments on the elections:
Abdul Aziz Al Hakim in the Sunday elections for the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of religious Shiite parties he leads. And this is what the winners, if they are winners, think of the US:

' "No one welcomes the foreign troops in Iraq. We believe in the ability of Iraqis to run their own issues, including the security issue," Mr Hakim said. "Of course this issue could be brought up by the new government." '

The idea that the revolutionary Shiite al-Dawa Party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Badr Organization (trained by the Iranian revolutionary guards), all of them with close ties to Tehran, would welcome a permanent US military presence in Iraq was always a chimera. Most Shiites who voted on Sunday thought they were voting for an end to US hegemony in their country. This is why it is so bizarre that the US Right is interpreting the elections as a victory for the Bush administration.

------------

Indeed, what about those military bases? It is not a trivial issue.

Marky,
Nobody is bragging and crowing. But, don't you ever get tired of your self-righteous moral posing? Give away everything you own. Get a rice bowl, and beg and pray. Quick! The world needs you now. You can hold open the door to enlightenment as a Bodhisattva and help deluded souls like myself towards the light.

Marat,
I would be delighted if French-American relations are improving. Now that Bush is re-elected, it makes sense for Chirac to embrace him, whether he likes it or not. I'll take your word that it is happening.

I was taking exception to your comment (and similar comments in the blog)

"And you Lefties are not invited to stay in our cou