Links
Archives
The opinions and observations of an Army Reserve intelligence officer and a moderate conservative who's TRYING to be open-minded!
Saturday, August 21, 2004
"NOT So Swift Boat Vets"--Courtesy of Air America, and pro-Kerry generals who should know better See my preceding post about Air America. The most irritating thing I heard this week--Air America's full-blown assault against the Swift Boat Vets. On one session of the "Unfiltered" morning program, one of their guests excoriated the group for taking funding from wealthy Texas Republicans. Then, in the next breath, they ran the audio of the MoveOn.Org ad calling on President Bush to "take the ad off the air" (as if he could do that)--and then, praised George Soros for funding MoveOn.Org! Seems to me that Air America thinks it's OK if rich people fund liberal causes, but it's a crime! a crime! if wealthy conservatives and Republicans do the same. However, that wasn't the most aggravating thing I heard ref this subject. Have you heard of the parody on the "NOT So Swift Boat Vets"? Wait till you hear this. First, you hear the John Edwards clip that leads off the first Swift Boat Vets ad, the one where he says you can get to know John Kerry by talking to the men who served with him. Then, you hear some actors, talking in voices that make them sound retarded/mentally deficient, saying how they don't like John Kerry. The spot closes with the audio from the end of the Swift Boat Vets ad. Message-- the Swift Boat Vets are idiots. The "Unfiltered" hosts cracked up in laughter. What a fine way to treat Vietnam veterans. Apparently, the only Vietnam vets that count to Air America are the ones who agree with their political philosophy. Sadly, at least one Vietnam vet is echoing this. Retired Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak, a Kerry adviser, came on an Air America afternoon show (Pacific zone) this past week and laughingly spoke of the "Not So Swift Boat Veterans." What a fine thing for one Vietnam vet to say about others. GEN McPeak, do you consider Paul Galanti, and the other 20 Vietnam POWs who support the Swift Boat Vets, to be "Not So Swift Boat Vets" themselves? Do you have the courage to go in front of the VFW or the American Legion and make that same joke? I doubt it. |
Traveling With Air America This past week, I was doing some work at FT Irwin CA, one of the Army's key training centers. FT Irwin is in the middle of the California desert (the Mojave, I think?). WAY out in the middle. The closest town to the post is Barstow. A nice town and seemingly a good place to live, but extremely small, with very little to offer the visitor. So, I chose to stay in a town with LOTS to offer the visitor--Las Vegas, some three hours drive away. It was worth it to commute six hours every day, because I got to stay in Vegas at night ("Blue Man Group" is indeed worth its $100 ticket price). And, perhaps best of all, I got to listen to Air America Radio for the first time. My car had XM Satellite Radio, and Air America is on channel 167. So, I had hours to listen and learn about this newest of political talk mediums. I heard all their big stars--Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Janeane Garofolo, the hosts of "Unfiltered" in the morning, and Alan Colmes--as I crossed the California and Nevada deserts each day. America, please reelect George Bush! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep these Air America wackos as far from the seats of political power as is humanely possible! These folks need therapy. Talk about a group of space cadets! On "Unfiltered", for example, one of their regular guests was a host of another Air America show. One day, this particular guest spoke for @20 minutes about a book written by a George Washington University psychoanalyst entitled "Bush On The Couch." This psychoanalyst takes his "observations" on the President's actions/behavior and makes speculative diagnoses on conditions the President might have. For example, this psychoanalyst has diagnosed President Bush as a "dry drunk"--an alcoholic who, although he has stopped drinking, has ingnored proper rehab and thus still suffers from the effects of alcoholism. The Air America guest host then went on to say that, acc. to this GWU psychoanalyst, many of W's more "offensive" personality traits--an unwillingness to accept criticism; a refusal to acknowledge mistakes; overrreliance on a small group of advisors, at the expense of taking in alternative ideas from outside sources--are all indicators of a "dry drunk" who needs treatment! Of course, this psychoanalyst has never interviewed the President, or looked at his medical records. I doubt he submitted his findings to peer review before publishing them. But hey, something that trivial doesn't seem to stop Air America Radio. The "Unfiltered" hosts accepted their colleagues' reporting as gospel. This colleague (who is paired with Robert Kennedy Jr. on the "Ring of Fire" weekend show on Air America) also reported on stories that President Bush is having a nervous breakdown. I'm sure Edward R. Murrow would be proud of these gals guys on Air America. So would Thomas Jefferson, I'm sure. In response to Federalists who claimed that the American people were so uneducated and prone to emotion that they couldn't be trusted with governing themselves, Jefferson replied that the answer was to educate the people, instead of denying their soverignty. If the people lacked the disecretion to govern wisely, Jefferson wrote, "then inform their discretion." Educate them. Give them the facts, share your judgements with them--and then they WILL have the information necessary to make sound decisions about governing. I think Air America Radio has a different take on that. Apparently, they think it's better to filter the information that reaches the people, to ensure that the "proper" message gets conveyed. This past week, we've seen efforts by Democrats and liberals to get Swift Boat ads off the air, and the book Unfit For Command kept out of bookstores and/or withdrawn from print altogether! Now, the Swift Boat Vets opponents have gone one step farther, assisted by Air America Radio. On the "Unfiltered" morning radio program this past week, a caller recommended to the listening audience a way to help keep Unfit For Command out of circulation amongst the American book-reading public. The caller suggested going to a bookstore, taking copies of the book, and misshelving them in other sections of the store. Very effective, I thought as I heard that. I was reminded of a warning I got from my grade-school librarian: misshelved books are de facto lost, as they can never be found. Surely, though, the Air America hosts would tell their listeners NOT to do what the caller suggested, I thought. I mean, Air America prides itself on the free exchange of ideas, right? Nope. The "Unfiltered" hosts seemed to think it was a great idea. They chuckled when they heard it, sounded pleased at the idea, and CERTAINLY didn't object to it. Glad I'm not a small bookstore owner.
|
Saturday, August 14, 2004
| More On The Phantom "Friends And Allies" Who Can Fight & Win With Us--IF We Only Say "Pretty Please".
Okay, I'm gonna commit a minor sin in the blogosphere. I'm going to cite a source which I've read (I SWEAR!!), but I can't find now. (So many blogs to look through...) That source is an article written by a New Zealand army officer, which describes his country's peacekeeping operations in East Timor. The officer said that his country roughly follows this formula for its deployable troops: One quarter of the army is deployed; one quarter is recovering from deployment; one quarter is preparing to deploy; and the fourth quarter performs sustainment/support duties. That sounds like a reasonable formula--let's use it to see how many troops NATO (the world's most capable military alliance, with the largest collection of "capable" national militaries amongst its membership) could actually send if NATO heeds a President Kerry's call for more troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. On July 3rd, the Economist Magazine said the following: "Of 1.5 million soldiers available to NATO’s European members, fewer than 100,000 can actually be deployed. Oversized and underused, most NATO armies were designed to hold off Soviet tanks until America could unleash nukes. Since the cold war ended, there has been much talk of transformation, but little action, as defense budgets have shrunk. This has left European armies largely incapable of the special-forces operations and distant peacekeeping missions that are now in demand. NATO’s defense ministers vowed to make 40% of their forces deployable and 8% instantly deployable, a mark that only a handful can now meet." (Economist magazine, July 3rd, pg. 41) Assume that, given the ongoing baby bust and impending social welfare crisis on the Continent, that European armies won't be upgunning and expanding anytime soon. That leaves us with that "fewer than 100,000" figure the Economist just mentioned as our starting point for a NATO Expeditionary Force. Now, apply the New Zealand formula for how many troops deploy at once...that brings us to @25,000 NATO "boots on the ground" overseas at any one time. Subtract the British and Dutch contingents (already deployed in Iraq) and the @7000 NATO/EU troops already in Afghanistan...and we have a few thousand extra troops that MAYBE could go to Iraq, IF NATO and their national governments agree to send them. Doesn't sound like much of an opportunity for "burden shifting" to me! |
|
On the Fourth of July, John Kerry wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post entitled "A Realistic Path in Iraq." In it, the senator criticized President Bush for failing to "have brought more friends and allies to the cause" of liberating Iraq. A common complaint of antiwar protestors has been the Bush administration’s "unilateral" war effort. Kerry’s voice is just one from a crowd of politicians, diplomats, celebrities and journalists who claim that, by not waiting for UN weapons inspections or any number of diplomatic endeavors to run their course, President Bush caused our military to have to fight Hussein virtually alone. The critics imply that, if the president had only waited until fall or later, our coalition would have been strengthened by the armies of other nations if and when war became necessary. The track records of these foreign armies, though, imply something entirely different. It’s important to understand what "bringing more friends and allies to the cause" really meant in the winter of 2003, as military operations were ready to begin. The coalition’s faced a daunting task. They had to invade over hundreds of miles of desert terrain, dealing with sandstorms and heat and (potentially) chemical/biological attack along the way. They had to breach or clear countless obstacles, such as the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, small cities like Basrah and an-Nasiriyah, and many villages and hamlet, all of which were potentially defended by Saddam’s armies. Once the main Iraqi defense had been breached, the coalition needed to sustain supply lines running hundreds of miles, through territory still full of Baathist insurgents and foreign jihadists. Finally, there were the primary goals of the invasion—the major cities (e.g., Baghdad, Tikrit, Mosul). To take them, our armies had to be ready to fight and win a house-to-house urban battle, the toughest kind of ground fighting there is. Were these "friends and allies" up to those tasks? Hardly. The best fighting forces that were most readily available to the U.S. were the armies of NATO. Here’s how the Economist magazine rated the combat readiness of NATO armies. "If America has seemed reluctant to fight its recent wars through NATO," the magazine wrote on June 26th, "that is unsurprising. European forces are so inferior to its own that they are sometimes a burden, useful only for peacekeeping after the shooting stops." Johns Hopkins professor Eliot Cohen gave much the same assessment in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. Cohen wrote that European defense budgets: "are so riddled with inefficiencies that, aside from territorial defense, peacekeeping and some niche capabilities, the European pillar of NATO is largely irrelevant. In virtually every sphere of warfare, the United States dominates, an unprecedented phenomenon in military history. On and above the earth and on and below the sea, US military technology far surpasses that of any potential opponent. No other power has the ability to move large and sophisticated forces around the globe; to coordinate and direct its own troops; to keep troops equipped, fed and healthy; and to support those troops with precision firepower and unsurpassed amounts of information and intelligence…Today, an average US battalion has better gear—from body armor to night vision devices—than any other comparable unit in the world; with a few exceptions (mostly allies of the United States), it trains more effectively in the field; and it has officers and sergeants groomed by a military schooling system more thorough than any in history." The invasion of Iraq was one of the toughest challenges the U.S. military ever faced. To win, it needed capable allies by its side. Anyone else would have burdened our troops, not helped them. When the harsh test of reality is applied, only a few militaries make the grade. Of that few, most of them—most notablly Britain and Australia—were with us. But, what about peacekeeping, after the big battles were over? Our postwar efforts in Iraq have clearly been hampered by our inability to pacify Iraq by blanketing it with peacekeeping troops. However, quality is just as critical as quantity with peacekeeping soldiers as it is with true warfighters. Again, experience has shown NATO and other potential "friends and allies" to be wanting in this area. Take, for instance, the UN. Immediately after major combat operations (i.e., large-scale, force-on-force battles) ended, the world cried out for the UN to enter Iraq quickly and assert its leadership in the postwar rebuilding of Iraq. The UN did send a mission, led by the capable diplomat Sergio deMello. Unfortunately, the UN ignored US pleas to strengthen its perimeter security, and Baathist terrorists exploited that weakness in a bombing attack that devastated the UN headquarters and killed deMello. Did the UN respond with resolve and better security. Sadly, no. Instead it fled, saying it couldn’t return until Iraq was safer! And this is the "reliable" international partner on which John Kerry and many academics and diplomats want us to rely more thoroughly? Individual nations have also proven themselves wanting as allies in a tough counterinsurgency fight. In June the Washington Post told the story of the American First Armored Division, and its efforts to pacify some towns in Iraq during the al-Sadr uprising. "Old Ironsides", as its nickname goes, was supported by Polish forces—in a matter of speaking. The Polish contingent had received strict orders from its government: It could defend itself, but it could not conduct offensive operations. So, if the First Armored had wanted to use Polish troops in an assault on Baathist terrorist positions, the Poles were so limited in what they could do that they were de facto unavailable for any attack. Ukraine, Spain (before it fled) and other coalition partners have similar restrictions—but their rules of engagement seem outright robust when compared to those of the Japanese. The June 17th issue of the Economist reports that, due to Japan’s post-WWI pacifist tradition, its military (aptly titled the "Self Defense Force, or SDF) is limited to providing humanitarian support in a quiet sector of Iraq. Moreover, the SDF contingent must abide by government prohibitions on "collective self-defense." In other words, the Japanese peacekeepers in Iraq are ordered not to defend themselves fully! That led to this interesting compromise, which the Economist describes as follows: If "anyone attacks the Japanese troops in Samawah, a nearby Dutch contingent will come to the SDF's aid; but if the Dutch troops should come under attack, they are on their own." Kerry and other critics of the war claim that, if our allies felt more included in the planning for and execution of postwar Iraq rebuilding efforts, they would have been much more forthcoming with troops, aid and willingness to help share the load in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In that same Fourth of July OpEd, Kerry writes that America has "to move our allies beyond the resentment they feel about the Bush administration's failed diplomacy so they can focus on their interest in fighting terrorism and promoting peace. The best way to do that is to vest friends and allies in Iraq's future." The senator’s wishful hope--that diplomacy really stood a chance of ousting Hussein—aside, we can cast doubt on his faith in foreign nations as peacekeepers with just one word: Afghanistan. Following the end of major combat operations in Iraq, NATO and the European Union offered to take the lead in rebuilding and pacifying Afghanistan. Many observers saw this as Western Europe’s chance to prove it could conduct military operations far from Europe itself. Last August, NATO pledged that it would expand the International Security Assistance Force’s (ISAF) reach beyond the capital of Kabul, into the provinces where warlords ruled. A year later, the warlords still rule those provinces. NATO has sent less than 7,000 troops to Afghanistan, and most of them remain in or near Kabul. Pleas from Afghan President Karzai for more troops and equipment have gone largely unheeded. The Economist magazine reported last month that the German peacekeeping contingent in the Afghan town of Kunduz is lightly armed, while the nearby warlords have tanks. And, as in Iraq, restrictive guidelines limit the European troops’ freedom of action. The German parliament has prohibited their troops from eradicating opium poppy fields or even engaging in riot control—something one might normally expect a peacekeeping force to do. Faced with an unsure security environment, the Afghan elections scheduled for September have been in doubt. The parliamentary elections look sure to be delayed until next year. And now, there is the sad case of Sudan. For months, Arab militiamen have been waging a guerilla war against black Sudanese. Many have been killed. Moreover, "systematic destruction of wells, agriculture and villages" wrote the Washington Post in a July 22nd editorial "has left more than 2 million people in need of food aid." Last month the U.S. Agency for International Development warned that as many as 1 million people could die. The Sudanese government is widely believed to quietly support the rebellion. Faced with the potential of another Rwanda-like tragedy, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and US Secretary of State Colin Powell have pleaded for troops and humanitarian aid from other countries. The response, as the Post editorial put it, has been "murderously modest." The U.S. has drafted a resolution for the UN Security Council condemning Sudan and calling for multilateral action—but the UN is moving, again in the Post’s words, "at a glacial pace." "If countries -- such as France -- that frequently scold the United States for unilateralism want the United Nations to be taken seriously," the Post editorial continues, "they need to push the Security Council toward sanctions and humanitarian intervention". But France and other capable nations are doing virtually nothing. Two years ago, Great Britain proved that a modest deployment of troops can make a difference in an African crisis, when a brigade’s worth of British troops curbed a rebellion in Sierra Leone. European nations—especially France, with military bases on either side of Sudan and a long colonial tradition on the continent—could do much more, but won’t. France, for example, has offered one contracted supply aircraft and $6 million in aid, while the U.S., despite its worldwide commitments, has sent $130 million and pledged $170 million more. In the end, concluded the Post’s editorial page, the U.S. will likely once again have to step up. "This would add to the unfairness with which the world's burdens are shared -- American taxpayers already pay most of the bills for global security", the paper concedes. "But if nobody else will act to save up to 1 million civilians, questions about sharing the burden must be put aside." Those who criticize the Bush administration for sacrificing a cadre of battle-ready, willing foreign allies by "rushing to war" in Iraq would do well to heed the lessons coming from the Sudan. And, from Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and other places where our "friends and allies" were either incapable of, or unwilling to, do their fair share. As commander-in-chief, President Bush owed our troops the support of the best fighting forces on the planet. As it turns out, that’s us, the British, the Australians, and few others. Where are these armies that could have marched with us to Baghdad and fought successfully alongside our troops, if only we’d waited a little longer and been a bit more sensitive in the diplomatic language we’d used? Why should we have waited? What practical battlefield advantage would we have gained? The "friends and allies" Senator Kerry spoke of on the Fourth of July were not the kind that the U.S. could have brought with us to Iraq. More likely than not, we’d have had to carry them. |
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Coalition Allies' Policies PREVENT Them From Fighting!
Kudos to Belmont Club, for printing a Washington Post account of how 1st Armored Division overcame al-Sadr's militia in Karbala and elsewhere. (I'm a regular Belmont Club reader now!) Let me point out what I consider a key passage from Belmont's post.
"At Karbala, Americans fought to retake positions from Sadr simply because rules of engagement governing other Coalition partners prohibited them from participating in their own designated areas of operation. 'Karbala had been the responsibility of a brigade of Polish soldiers. Like Spain, Ukraine and other US partners...the Polish government had prohibited its soldiers from conducting offensive operations. The rules rendered them useless when Sadr's militia rose up.'"
Think that's an isolated incident? Check out this week's Economist magazine, which details German and Japanese peacekeeping efforts. The Germans, who are significant players in the ISAF contingent that pledged, under NATO leadership, to improve security in Afghanistan--are prevented by the Bundestag from participating in riot control operations! (What do they do when a riot breaks out in Kabul or Mazar e Sharif--sing Kum-ba-ya auf Deutsch? Look for an American or a Brit with a spine?) The Japanese in Iraq, meanwhile, are prohibited from DEFENDING themselves. In the interest of abiding by Japan's pacifist constitution, if the Japanese contingent in Iraq is attacked, they will turn for defense to--a nearby Dutch contingent! To make matters even more ludicrous: if the Dutch are attacked, acc. to the Economist, "they are on their own."
I can't comprehend this. The days of counting coup went away when the Winchester rifle first appeared on the Great Plains. This is not paintball. Where on Xanadu do these nations think they live?
And THESE are the guys that Kerry, Washington Post/NY Times and the rest of the multilateral crowd wanted us to wait to go to war with, until Blix was done wandering around Iraq? What for? Would you want to fight with these guys? Would you want your kid, or your brother's/sister's kid to?
Kudos to Belmont Club, for printing a Washington Post account of how 1st Armored Division overcame al-Sadr's militia in Karbala and elsewhere. (I'm a regular Belmont Club reader now!) Let me point out what I consider a key passage from Belmont's post.
"At Karbala, Americans fought to retake positions from Sadr simply because rules of engagement governing other Coalition partners prohibited them from participating in their own designated areas of operation. 'Karbala had been the responsibility of a brigade of Polish soldiers. Like Spain, Ukraine and other US partners...the Polish government had prohibited its soldiers from conducting offensive operations. The rules rendered them useless when Sadr's militia rose up.'"
Think that's an isolated incident? Check out this week's Economist magazine, which details German and Japanese peacekeeping efforts. The Germans, who are significant players in the ISAF contingent that pledged, under NATO leadership, to improve security in Afghanistan--are prevented by the Bundestag from participating in riot control operations! (What do they do when a riot breaks out in Kabul or Mazar e Sharif--sing Kum-ba-ya auf Deutsch? Look for an American or a Brit with a spine?) The Japanese in Iraq, meanwhile, are prohibited from DEFENDING themselves. In the interest of abiding by Japan's pacifist constitution, if the Japanese contingent in Iraq is attacked, they will turn for defense to--a nearby Dutch contingent! To make matters even more ludicrous: if the Dutch are attacked, acc. to the Economist, "they are on their own."
I can't comprehend this. The days of counting coup went away when the Winchester rifle first appeared on the Great Plains. This is not paintball. Where on Xanadu do these nations think they live?
And THESE are the guys that Kerry, Washington Post/NY Times and the rest of the multilateral crowd wanted us to wait to go to war with, until Blix was done wandering around Iraq? What for? Would you want to fight with these guys? Would you want your kid, or your brother's/sister's kid to?
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Michael Moore: Our Coalition Partners Are Inferior and Our Troops Are Thugs:
More on Fahrenheit 9/11:
Moore's portrayal of the Marine recruiters doing their jobs in Flint MI is really rude. Eleanor Clift in Newsweek, in her column this weekend, is moved to describe those recruiters as stalking prey. How respectful.
How respectful is it of Moore to also portray our troops in Iraq as barbaric thugs. Somehow, he forgot to interview Brian Chontosh, the Marine LT who charged a trench full of Iraqis. Or, the thousands of our troops who've worked tirelessly to help rebuild Iraq.
Perhaps the worst part of the movie--his belittling of our coalition partners. Romania, for example, is depicted with an old movie clip of a vampire coming out of a coffin. How nice to the thousands of soldiers from other nations, many of whom have been killed or wounded. Pray tell, are Romania, South Korea, Hungary, Thailand, and the other nations who joined our coalitions inferior to the USA? No, I think Moore is telling us they're inferior to France, the country he really worships.
More on Fahrenheit 9/11:
Moore's portrayal of the Marine recruiters doing their jobs in Flint MI is really rude. Eleanor Clift in Newsweek, in her column this weekend, is moved to describe those recruiters as stalking prey. How respectful.
How respectful is it of Moore to also portray our troops in Iraq as barbaric thugs. Somehow, he forgot to interview Brian Chontosh, the Marine LT who charged a trench full of Iraqis. Or, the thousands of our troops who've worked tirelessly to help rebuild Iraq.
Perhaps the worst part of the movie--his belittling of our coalition partners. Romania, for example, is depicted with an old movie clip of a vampire coming out of a coffin. How nice to the thousands of soldiers from other nations, many of whom have been killed or wounded. Pray tell, are Romania, South Korea, Hungary, Thailand, and the other nations who joined our coalitions inferior to the USA? No, I think Moore is telling us they're inferior to France, the country he really worships.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Bush Froze In Front of That Elementary School Class on 9/11--and You Would Have, Too!
Cheap-shot maestro Michael Moore is having a field day with "Fahrenheit 9/11." I must admit, it's saddening to see the Hollywood set, who is supposedly pretty intelligent, so willingly fawn over and enable this guy. Moore's not dumb. Now, he'll be feted forever in Hollywood, the Hamptons, Manhattan, Georgetown and Cannes.
But, I am BIG TIME mad at the way he pokes fun at President Bush for how he acted when he first heard of the airplanes hitting the WTC. Virtually every Hollywood-loving publication acts shocked, shocked that Bush seemed to freeze a bit, or seemed unsure, in the minutes after being told the second plane had hit the WTC. A few points on that.
Civil War soldiers had a term for the first time you saw battle, or the enemy up close--"seeing the elephant." It was common knowledge that many people froze at that first sight of danger, or the first realization they were in combat. (Just as you'd freeze, I suppose, if you saw an elephant charging you). Natural human emotion. Last time I checked, President Bush was human. I'm curious how FDR acted in the first 10 minutes after hearing of Pearl Harbor, or JFK's actions as the CIA first briefed him on the discovery of Soviet offensive missiles in Cuba. Perhaps they froze a bit, too.
In those situations, you normally get "snapped out of it" by the ones around you--your friends, the soldiers awaiting your orders, etc... You see them, or they smack you in the shoulder, and you snap out of it and refocus. In DESERT STORM, I was an artillery staff officer at the 24th Infantry Division HQ. I remember when the division, on the Iraqi border, first prepared to fire live rounds at Iraqi forces. No drill, no exercise--the real thing. I picked up the phone to alert the artillery HQ--and froze. All I could say was gibberish. I put down the phone, looked at my two sergeants glaring at me, regained my composure and passed the alert warning. So, who surrounded President Bush in the moments after hearing of the WTC strike? An elementary school teacher and her students.
I suppose that President Bush's critics think he should have excused himself, left the classroom and gone to his "post". The problem with that--there was nothing for him to do at his "battle station" at that time. What info did President Bush have in those few minutes? Virtually none. His staff was gathering it. I suppose he could have pestered his aides to "gather harder", but what good would that have done?
Commanders can only command effectively, especially from a distance, when they have good information on which to base decisions. That takes time to gather. Often the first reports you get are wrong or misleading. Remember, in the first hours of 9/11, how all the major news stations reported for hours a car bombing at the State Department--a bombing that never happened? What if President Bush had immediately issued shoot-down orders to the Air Force--and then found out there was no major terrorist attack. How could he, the FAA and the Air Force have been sure they could have contacted all those Air Force jets, now plying our skies with shoot-to-kill orders, and gotten them back in time. If Slim Pickens' B-52 could evade the USAF and Russian Air Forces in "Dr. Strangelove", who's to say it couldn't have happened again?
Another thing to consider: In a battle, often you don't get much info as to what's going on. Reason--the people in the battle are busy--FIGHTING THE BATTLE! Back to my DESERT STORM days. Our division's biggest battle was the capture of Jalibah Airfield. Once the attack began--our radios at division HQ went silent. For several agonizing minutes we had to wait, because the people in a position to give us good info were otherwise occupied. What if we had called in air or artillery strikes based on the first few spot reports we heard? Chances were good that we would have hit friendlies.
Responsible leaders wait for the situation to develop, and then act when the time is right. In the meantime, they trust their subordinates to act as they've been trained to do. In these now-infamous 10 minutes while President Bush listened to the teacher read a story to those kids, we had the following four agencies working the crisis: The FAA, the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD; the US Air Force; The Canadian Air Force. Frankly, I think they did a pretty good job. And, President Bush did well by letting them do their jobs.
No wonder al-Qaeda thinks America is a soft mark. They see the Administration having to respond to the crap of Michael Moore, and the Democratic leadership fawining over it. I hope our troops overseas don't see this and think we've lost our minds at home.
Cheap-shot maestro Michael Moore is having a field day with "Fahrenheit 9/11." I must admit, it's saddening to see the Hollywood set, who is supposedly pretty intelligent, so willingly fawn over and enable this guy. Moore's not dumb. Now, he'll be feted forever in Hollywood, the Hamptons, Manhattan, Georgetown and Cannes.
But, I am BIG TIME mad at the way he pokes fun at President Bush for how he acted when he first heard of the airplanes hitting the WTC. Virtually every Hollywood-loving publication acts shocked, shocked that Bush seemed to freeze a bit, or seemed unsure, in the minutes after being told the second plane had hit the WTC. A few points on that.
Civil War soldiers had a term for the first time you saw battle, or the enemy up close--"seeing the elephant." It was common knowledge that many people froze at that first sight of danger, or the first realization they were in combat. (Just as you'd freeze, I suppose, if you saw an elephant charging you). Natural human emotion. Last time I checked, President Bush was human. I'm curious how FDR acted in the first 10 minutes after hearing of Pearl Harbor, or JFK's actions as the CIA first briefed him on the discovery of Soviet offensive missiles in Cuba. Perhaps they froze a bit, too.
In those situations, you normally get "snapped out of it" by the ones around you--your friends, the soldiers awaiting your orders, etc... You see them, or they smack you in the shoulder, and you snap out of it and refocus. In DESERT STORM, I was an artillery staff officer at the 24th Infantry Division HQ. I remember when the division, on the Iraqi border, first prepared to fire live rounds at Iraqi forces. No drill, no exercise--the real thing. I picked up the phone to alert the artillery HQ--and froze. All I could say was gibberish. I put down the phone, looked at my two sergeants glaring at me, regained my composure and passed the alert warning. So, who surrounded President Bush in the moments after hearing of the WTC strike? An elementary school teacher and her students.
I suppose that President Bush's critics think he should have excused himself, left the classroom and gone to his "post". The problem with that--there was nothing for him to do at his "battle station" at that time. What info did President Bush have in those few minutes? Virtually none. His staff was gathering it. I suppose he could have pestered his aides to "gather harder", but what good would that have done?
Commanders can only command effectively, especially from a distance, when they have good information on which to base decisions. That takes time to gather. Often the first reports you get are wrong or misleading. Remember, in the first hours of 9/11, how all the major news stations reported for hours a car bombing at the State Department--a bombing that never happened? What if President Bush had immediately issued shoot-down orders to the Air Force--and then found out there was no major terrorist attack. How could he, the FAA and the Air Force have been sure they could have contacted all those Air Force jets, now plying our skies with shoot-to-kill orders, and gotten them back in time. If Slim Pickens' B-52 could evade the USAF and Russian Air Forces in "Dr. Strangelove", who's to say it couldn't have happened again?
Another thing to consider: In a battle, often you don't get much info as to what's going on. Reason--the people in the battle are busy--FIGHTING THE BATTLE! Back to my DESERT STORM days. Our division's biggest battle was the capture of Jalibah Airfield. Once the attack began--our radios at division HQ went silent. For several agonizing minutes we had to wait, because the people in a position to give us good info were otherwise occupied. What if we had called in air or artillery strikes based on the first few spot reports we heard? Chances were good that we would have hit friendlies.
Responsible leaders wait for the situation to develop, and then act when the time is right. In the meantime, they trust their subordinates to act as they've been trained to do. In these now-infamous 10 minutes while President Bush listened to the teacher read a story to those kids, we had the following four agencies working the crisis: The FAA, the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD; the US Air Force; The Canadian Air Force. Frankly, I think they did a pretty good job. And, President Bush did well by letting them do their jobs.
No wonder al-Qaeda thinks America is a soft mark. They see the Administration having to respond to the crap of Michael Moore, and the Democratic leadership fawining over it. I hope our troops overseas don't see this and think we've lost our minds at home.
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Perhaps We Should Reconsider Sending Military Academy Faculty to Ivy League Colleges
Okay, this post will be quick--fingers getting tired. When we pick officers to go to college for masters degrees, en route to teaching positions at our service academies, the services seem to favor Ivy League schools. Many of the US Military Academy professors I know either went to, or wanted to go to, Harvard/Yale/Columbia etc...
Maybe that's not such a good thing. Maybe our tax dollars don't belong at Ivy League schools. Reason--how welcoming are the Ivy League faculty and communities to the US military?
Primary case in point: Columbia University, home to perhaps the nation's best journalism school. AND, home to Nicholas DeGenova, author of the infamous "million Mogadishus" wish. Yes, the university president scolded DeGenova. But, according to the news accounts I read, none of the twenty-plus professors attending the conference where DeGenova made that repulsive comment, nor the student audience, made much of a fuss when he said it. And, there was no faculty outcry later, calling for his removal or a formal university rebuke. Well, as they say, silence often means consent. So, sadly, I must conclude that many of the Columbia faculty at least somewhat agreed with DeGenova.
Unfortunately, there's more from other high-profile schools. Recently, the Navy sent a JAG recruiter to the Yale Law School--and got a shockingly rude reception from the Law School faculty and student body. When the Air Force tried recruiting at NYU Law School a year earlier, they needed police protection to fight off a mob that scared away potential applicants. (News flash Ivy League: JAG lawyers are the ones who PROSECUTE those in uniform who break the law, such as those at Abu Gharaib). When a Stanford official was asked why ROTC courses on campus don't get class credit, he replied that they didn't measure up to the rigor and standards of the Stanford curriculum. BUT, you can take "Girls on Film" and other such "worthwhile" classes at Stanford for credit!
Okay, elite university faculties, actions speak louder than words. The Sword and the Rose hereby says that we don't need to send taxpayer dollars to schools with faculty and administrations that are openly contemptuous of our men/women in uniform. There are PLENTY of good state schools (e.g., Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Arizona) where soldiers are looked on with pride, not contempt. Let George Soros pay Columbia's bills. As a taxpayer, as long as the DeGenovas of the teaching world are more welcome at Ivy League schools than Colin Powell, then we should spend our taxpayer dollars accordingly.
Okay, this post will be quick--fingers getting tired. When we pick officers to go to college for masters degrees, en route to teaching positions at our service academies, the services seem to favor Ivy League schools. Many of the US Military Academy professors I know either went to, or wanted to go to, Harvard/Yale/Columbia etc...
Maybe that's not such a good thing. Maybe our tax dollars don't belong at Ivy League schools. Reason--how welcoming are the Ivy League faculty and communities to the US military?
Primary case in point: Columbia University, home to perhaps the nation's best journalism school. AND, home to Nicholas DeGenova, author of the infamous "million Mogadishus" wish. Yes, the university president scolded DeGenova. But, according to the news accounts I read, none of the twenty-plus professors attending the conference where DeGenova made that repulsive comment, nor the student audience, made much of a fuss when he said it. And, there was no faculty outcry later, calling for his removal or a formal university rebuke. Well, as they say, silence often means consent. So, sadly, I must conclude that many of the Columbia faculty at least somewhat agreed with DeGenova.
Unfortunately, there's more from other high-profile schools. Recently, the Navy sent a JAG recruiter to the Yale Law School--and got a shockingly rude reception from the Law School faculty and student body. When the Air Force tried recruiting at NYU Law School a year earlier, they needed police protection to fight off a mob that scared away potential applicants. (News flash Ivy League: JAG lawyers are the ones who PROSECUTE those in uniform who break the law, such as those at Abu Gharaib). When a Stanford official was asked why ROTC courses on campus don't get class credit, he replied that they didn't measure up to the rigor and standards of the Stanford curriculum. BUT, you can take "Girls on Film" and other such "worthwhile" classes at Stanford for credit!
Okay, elite university faculties, actions speak louder than words. The Sword and the Rose hereby says that we don't need to send taxpayer dollars to schools with faculty and administrations that are openly contemptuous of our men/women in uniform. There are PLENTY of good state schools (e.g., Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Arizona) where soldiers are looked on with pride, not contempt. Let George Soros pay Columbia's bills. As a taxpayer, as long as the DeGenovas of the teaching world are more welcome at Ivy League schools than Colin Powell, then we should spend our taxpayer dollars accordingly.
American Reporters Crave European Approval
Listen to any press conference the Bush Admin holds. Notice how SHOCKINGLY RUDE the questions are? Reporters basically stand there and imply the President might be guilty of mass murder. This is especially true of foreign reporters.
I would think that, just once, one of those esteemed journalists would tell their rude colleagues, either at the press conference or in print, to take a hike! Just ONCE, wouldn't you like to hear a reporter say "Hey, don't talk to our President that way!" Just once, wouldn't you like to hear some indignant pride from a journalist that's proud to be an American?
Well, with the notable exception of FOX News reporters, don't hold your breath. Remember Sally Field, years ago at the Oscars? When she got an Oscar, she stood at the podium nearly in tears and said to the Hollywood crowd in the audience, "Wow, you really like me! You REALLY REALLY like me." Well, think of a reporter from the NYTimes/WashPost/LATimes/TIME/NEWSWEEK talking in the same manner to the European media/political elite, and you'll understand what I mean.
American reporters CRAVE European approval. To them (in general--I know this is a kinda broad brush statement), they look for validation not from the average American Joe/Jane, but instead from the Harvard/Georgetown faculty elite, the Georgetown/Manhattan/Hamptons/Hollywood cocktail party set, and (most of all) the Paris/Brussels/Berlin foreign policy elite. It's THOSE people whom American reporters want to have "really really like" them.
American reporters value being accepted at European foreign policy conferences and vacationing with European friends. Imagine, if they expressed support for the President in any way/shape/form, how frosty those cocktail party conversations in Nice or Berlin would be. To support the President would mean risking being called (in the words of a French diplomat) "simplisme". You can't say that Israel has a right to defend itself because Israel, as all worthwhile thinkers "really really" know, is a "s**ttly little country" (again, the words of a French diplomat.)
So, when you read the American papers and wonder who these reporters are talking to, it's not you or me--it's the Paris-based elite.
Listen to any press conference the Bush Admin holds. Notice how SHOCKINGLY RUDE the questions are? Reporters basically stand there and imply the President might be guilty of mass murder. This is especially true of foreign reporters.
I would think that, just once, one of those esteemed journalists would tell their rude colleagues, either at the press conference or in print, to take a hike! Just ONCE, wouldn't you like to hear a reporter say "Hey, don't talk to our President that way!" Just once, wouldn't you like to hear some indignant pride from a journalist that's proud to be an American?
Well, with the notable exception of FOX News reporters, don't hold your breath. Remember Sally Field, years ago at the Oscars? When she got an Oscar, she stood at the podium nearly in tears and said to the Hollywood crowd in the audience, "Wow, you really like me! You REALLY REALLY like me." Well, think of a reporter from the NYTimes/WashPost/LATimes/TIME/NEWSWEEK talking in the same manner to the European media/political elite, and you'll understand what I mean.
American reporters CRAVE European approval. To them (in general--I know this is a kinda broad brush statement), they look for validation not from the average American Joe/Jane, but instead from the Harvard/Georgetown faculty elite, the Georgetown/Manhattan/Hamptons/Hollywood cocktail party set, and (most of all) the Paris/Brussels/Berlin foreign policy elite. It's THOSE people whom American reporters want to have "really really like" them.
American reporters value being accepted at European foreign policy conferences and vacationing with European friends. Imagine, if they expressed support for the President in any way/shape/form, how frosty those cocktail party conversations in Nice or Berlin would be. To support the President would mean risking being called (in the words of a French diplomat) "simplisme". You can't say that Israel has a right to defend itself because Israel, as all worthwhile thinkers "really really" know, is a "s**ttly little country" (again, the words of a French diplomat.)
So, when you read the American papers and wonder who these reporters are talking to, it's not you or me--it's the Paris-based elite.
Finally, A Wash Post Column Nails France and Germany!
TO ALL TO ALL!!! Read the Washington Post OpEd section for Sunday, 20 June. Ivo Daadler (lefty) and Robert Kagan (righty--I think) have called it right on Germany and (especially) France's unacceptable hesitation to step up in Iraq.
In the interest of full disclosure:
1) Both Chirac and Schroeder had plenty of pressure on them to stay out of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF). France has its long-standing desire to be a worldwide counterweight to (what it sees as) US superpower, while Schroeder's SPD won reelection largely by stimulating anti-American resentment at home. Both countries, also, have large Muslim expat populations. And, those expats aren't nearly as well assimilated into Franco/German culture as Muslim immigrants to America are. To paraphrase the old quotation: While anyone can come to America and eventually become an American, foreigners can live their whole lives in France and Germany and still never be thought of as anything but "Auslanders." To be honest, therefore, Chirac and Schroeder had reasons to worry if OIF caused Muslims worldwide to grow restless.
2) Germany has been a much better ally than France. It was one of the first to step up and send troops to Afghanistan. (It's still there, as I recall). Also, while it initially sided with Belgium and France to prevent NATO from agreeing to Turkey's request for air defense support prior to OIF, it was Germany who transferred that action into NATO's Defense Minister's Committee--where France DOES NOT sit, and the Turkish request stood a much better chance of getting approved. I'd also must remind readers that German troops guard American bases in Germany, and come to attention any time ambulances full of Iraq and Afghanistan wounded pass by en route to the main American hospital at Kaiserslauten. Germany is a good ally; we need to find ways to build suspension bridges from America, over the French, to them.
Okay--HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT! Kudos to Ivo and Robert. (Warning--Francophiles may want to stop reading here. The zings to follow are mostly aimed at Chirac--Schroeder seems to be following along largely because Jacques is his ally in the quest to create a EU with some real centralized authority). Read my earlier post on "Why I'm Mad At France." To summarize the key points from that post--here's what France did (and is still doing) to hinder success in Iraq: (1) It undercut US/UK efforts to get the UN to stand up to Hussein pre-OIF (2) It undercut SecState Powell (who favored diplomacy) and thus strengthened the "neocons" (who favored war); (3) In the post-major-combat phase, it made unrealistic demands and generally refused to be helpful as the US/UK/Coalition of the Willing tried to establish peace and security in Iraq; (4) It INSISTS on the poor impoverished Iraqi government PAYING Hussein's debts!
KEY POINT FOR AMERICANS TO REMEMBER: We (not the French, not the Germans--WE) made the NATO efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo work. Both places turned into dangerous messes because the Western Europeans were unwilling to police their backyards. So, we had to come do it for them, and we've been doing so since 1995. We did it grudgingly, but we did it, because we value NATO. Now, when we make the same argument to France and Germany--well, they're too busy.
Ummm...may I point out that, one of the reasons we're so stretched in Iraq is that we've already made our Army deployment-weary by SECURING THE BALKANS!!! While the French/Germans/Other Europeans bask comfortably in their welfare states, they've looked to us to keep the world, and their Continent, secure. They've convinced themselves that that's our mission, as the world's sole superpower. (So then, exactly what is the French/German mission?)
Our active Army isn't the only weary force we have--our Reserves and National Guard are in the same boat! THEY are the first pool of reinforcements President Bush should be able to pull from. But, his ability to do so is limited, because they've already been deployed--TO THE BALKANS! For the past four years or so, National Guard divisions have pulled the majority of the Balkans peacekeeping mission. I.e., these citizen soldiers have already been away from home/jobs/family for up to a year already. So, when we call them for Iraq, the well has already been largely emptied. THAT increases strain on our forces--strain the French/Germans/Other Europeans seem unwilling to help relieve.
If this is what NATO gets us now, then maybe we do need to reconsider. The Western Europeans are big boys and girls now. Time they started acting like it.
TO ALL TO ALL!!! Read the Washington Post OpEd section for Sunday, 20 June. Ivo Daadler (lefty) and Robert Kagan (righty--I think) have called it right on Germany and (especially) France's unacceptable hesitation to step up in Iraq.
In the interest of full disclosure:
1) Both Chirac and Schroeder had plenty of pressure on them to stay out of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF). France has its long-standing desire to be a worldwide counterweight to (what it sees as) US superpower, while Schroeder's SPD won reelection largely by stimulating anti-American resentment at home. Both countries, also, have large Muslim expat populations. And, those expats aren't nearly as well assimilated into Franco/German culture as Muslim immigrants to America are. To paraphrase the old quotation: While anyone can come to America and eventually become an American, foreigners can live their whole lives in France and Germany and still never be thought of as anything but "Auslanders." To be honest, therefore, Chirac and Schroeder had reasons to worry if OIF caused Muslims worldwide to grow restless.
2) Germany has been a much better ally than France. It was one of the first to step up and send troops to Afghanistan. (It's still there, as I recall). Also, while it initially sided with Belgium and France to prevent NATO from agreeing to Turkey's request for air defense support prior to OIF, it was Germany who transferred that action into NATO's Defense Minister's Committee--where France DOES NOT sit, and the Turkish request stood a much better chance of getting approved. I'd also must remind readers that German troops guard American bases in Germany, and come to attention any time ambulances full of Iraq and Afghanistan wounded pass by en route to the main American hospital at Kaiserslauten. Germany is a good ally; we need to find ways to build suspension bridges from America, over the French, to them.
Okay--HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT! Kudos to Ivo and Robert. (Warning--Francophiles may want to stop reading here. The zings to follow are mostly aimed at Chirac--Schroeder seems to be following along largely because Jacques is his ally in the quest to create a EU with some real centralized authority). Read my earlier post on "Why I'm Mad At France." To summarize the key points from that post--here's what France did (and is still doing) to hinder success in Iraq: (1) It undercut US/UK efforts to get the UN to stand up to Hussein pre-OIF (2) It undercut SecState Powell (who favored diplomacy) and thus strengthened the "neocons" (who favored war); (3) In the post-major-combat phase, it made unrealistic demands and generally refused to be helpful as the US/UK/Coalition of the Willing tried to establish peace and security in Iraq; (4) It INSISTS on the poor impoverished Iraqi government PAYING Hussein's debts!
KEY POINT FOR AMERICANS TO REMEMBER: We (not the French, not the Germans--WE) made the NATO efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo work. Both places turned into dangerous messes because the Western Europeans were unwilling to police their backyards. So, we had to come do it for them, and we've been doing so since 1995. We did it grudgingly, but we did it, because we value NATO. Now, when we make the same argument to France and Germany--well, they're too busy.
Ummm...may I point out that, one of the reasons we're so stretched in Iraq is that we've already made our Army deployment-weary by SECURING THE BALKANS!!! While the French/Germans/Other Europeans bask comfortably in their welfare states, they've looked to us to keep the world, and their Continent, secure. They've convinced themselves that that's our mission, as the world's sole superpower. (So then, exactly what is the French/German mission?)
Our active Army isn't the only weary force we have--our Reserves and National Guard are in the same boat! THEY are the first pool of reinforcements President Bush should be able to pull from. But, his ability to do so is limited, because they've already been deployed--TO THE BALKANS! For the past four years or so, National Guard divisions have pulled the majority of the Balkans peacekeeping mission. I.e., these citizen soldiers have already been away from home/jobs/family for up to a year already. So, when we call them for Iraq, the well has already been largely emptied. THAT increases strain on our forces--strain the French/Germans/Other Europeans seem unwilling to help relieve.
If this is what NATO gets us now, then maybe we do need to reconsider. The Western Europeans are big boys and girls now. Time they started acting like it.
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Why We Should Be Mad At France
Actually, the French government. No, these won't be the same accusations we hear thrown routinely at the French--arrogance, willingess to support the Hussein regime, furnishing America's bloviating liberal elite with summer homes and moral support, etc. No, these are three specific reasons, related to the Iraq crisis, why we have a right to be royally PO'ed at the Chirac government.
1) They actively opposed our pre-war efforts to marshal diplomatic pressure on Hussein's regime. In the months leading up to the fight, there were some hopes that Hussein and his clan might have been induced to leave Iraq, and take up "exile" in another Arab or Third World country. Chances for that would have increased if the UN had shown some backbone. If, for example, it showed indignation at having its decade's worth of resolutions ignored, and Hussein's refusal to live up to his part of the deal that ended DESERT STORM. (As a reminder, that deal in a nutshell was "Saddam: Accept peace on our terms and abide by UN guidelines, or the US-led UN-approved coalition army will refuel/rearm and continue to Baghdad.")
The problem with that--the UN Security Council needed to show unanimity. France, with its veto, needed to at least seem willing to not stand in the US and UK's way. That didn't happen. France said it wouldn't support force without Hans Blix's say-so, and then only maybe. So much for intimidating Hussein by presenting him with a UN membership that was determined, angry and ready to fight if need be.
2) FM DeVillepian basically cut the legs out from under SecState Powell's attempt to marshal UN and diplomatic pressure on Hussein. Remember, right before major debate on the Iraq issue began in the UN, Powell, DeVillepian and other key dignitaries attended a UN meeting on matters other than Iraq. Then, suddenly, DeVillipian was outside, holding a press conference where he announced France was opposed to hostilities in Iraq. Remember how surprised and angry SecState Powell was?
This was a first-class sandbagging by DeVillipian of Powell, and it had the following effects.
a) First, it sent a clear message that France planned to actively oppose us. DeV's action was a diplomatic insult of the highest order. He MUST have know that he was sandbagging Powell. Many nations were willing to oppose Hussein, and maybe even support force against him, but popular opinion at home prevented them from doing so easily. Other nations may not have wanted to support force, but at the same time wouldn't have wanted to aggravate the US, either. If it appeared the US was ultimately going to get the UNSC's approval to support a call for force in Iraq, these countries could have supported that call, and then defended it back home by saying, in effect "Well, it was going to pass anyway, we couldn't stop it, so why put ourselves on a limb pointlessly and get America mad at us?" France's action made it clear that America would be opposed in Turtle Bay, and France's UNSC veto meant that the UN was unlikely to approve force anyway. So, many nations then had the luxury of declining to step forward and commit to supporting force against Iraq, because France had saved them the trouble of having to make the tough decision.
b) DeV's action dealt a likely-fatal blow to SecState Powell's attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. He was the defacto leader of the faction in the Bush Admin that wanted to "give peace a chance." Once DeV sandbagged him, how could he go back to Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et.al. and argue with a straight face that diplomacy had a chance of dealing with Hussein successfully. If Powell was the "dove" in all of this, willing to give inspections and the UN another chance, then DeV shot the dove down. In so doing, he made war much more likely--a war that he knew the US and UK would mostly fight.
c) DeV gave the Iraqis an out. With France's opposition, it fueled Iraqi hopes that they could wait the crisis out. It turned out to be a false hope, but that likely helped to lessen any chances that Hussein would have fled, or one of his entourage would have risked trying to take him out.
3) In the months after Baghdad fell, the French haven't been helpful. Remember how, immediately after major combat ended, the US asked for UN help in the reconstruction. France responded by saying that our troops needed to leave Iraq...in WEEKS! Let's read between the lines here. Given that Iraq was in chaos and violence from the Baathists/al-Qaeda was rising, a French statement like that, at that point in the crisis, sent two real messages: 1) We really don't care about Iraq's becoming a stable state and 2) Don't expect the UN to be a force in creating security in Iraq, because we'll resist every step of the way. I'm sure that the Baathists/al-Qaeda took lots of cheer from that. Now, more recently, as Iraq prepares to regain its soverignty, it asks the world to forgive Hussein's debt. France's reply--NO!
I understand Chirac's concern over Middle Eastern unrest encroaching across the Mediterranean into France. France does have a large, restive Muslim population that is prone to being inflamed. But, hey, that France's fault. America assimilates its Muslims, France and Germany ghettoize theirs.
So, bottom line for this post--don't take your anti-French feelings out on the owner of the local French restaurant. (If, for no other reason than most of his employees are American). But, you have every right to be mad at the French government. No matter what the typical college professor or newspaper editor, who summers in Provence and attends conferences in Paris, tells you.
Actually, the French government. No, these won't be the same accusations we hear thrown routinely at the French--arrogance, willingess to support the Hussein regime, furnishing America's bloviating liberal elite with summer homes and moral support, etc. No, these are three specific reasons, related to the Iraq crisis, why we have a right to be royally PO'ed at the Chirac government.
1) They actively opposed our pre-war efforts to marshal diplomatic pressure on Hussein's regime. In the months leading up to the fight, there were some hopes that Hussein and his clan might have been induced to leave Iraq, and take up "exile" in another Arab or Third World country. Chances for that would have increased if the UN had shown some backbone. If, for example, it showed indignation at having its decade's worth of resolutions ignored, and Hussein's refusal to live up to his part of the deal that ended DESERT STORM. (As a reminder, that deal in a nutshell was "Saddam: Accept peace on our terms and abide by UN guidelines, or the US-led UN-approved coalition army will refuel/rearm and continue to Baghdad.")
The problem with that--the UN Security Council needed to show unanimity. France, with its veto, needed to at least seem willing to not stand in the US and UK's way. That didn't happen. France said it wouldn't support force without Hans Blix's say-so, and then only maybe. So much for intimidating Hussein by presenting him with a UN membership that was determined, angry and ready to fight if need be.
2) FM DeVillepian basically cut the legs out from under SecState Powell's attempt to marshal UN and diplomatic pressure on Hussein. Remember, right before major debate on the Iraq issue began in the UN, Powell, DeVillepian and other key dignitaries attended a UN meeting on matters other than Iraq. Then, suddenly, DeVillipian was outside, holding a press conference where he announced France was opposed to hostilities in Iraq. Remember how surprised and angry SecState Powell was?
This was a first-class sandbagging by DeVillipian of Powell, and it had the following effects.
a) First, it sent a clear message that France planned to actively oppose us. DeV's action was a diplomatic insult of the highest order. He MUST have know that he was sandbagging Powell. Many nations were willing to oppose Hussein, and maybe even support force against him, but popular opinion at home prevented them from doing so easily. Other nations may not have wanted to support force, but at the same time wouldn't have wanted to aggravate the US, either. If it appeared the US was ultimately going to get the UNSC's approval to support a call for force in Iraq, these countries could have supported that call, and then defended it back home by saying, in effect "Well, it was going to pass anyway, we couldn't stop it, so why put ourselves on a limb pointlessly and get America mad at us?" France's action made it clear that America would be opposed in Turtle Bay, and France's UNSC veto meant that the UN was unlikely to approve force anyway. So, many nations then had the luxury of declining to step forward and commit to supporting force against Iraq, because France had saved them the trouble of having to make the tough decision.
b) DeV's action dealt a likely-fatal blow to SecState Powell's attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. He was the defacto leader of the faction in the Bush Admin that wanted to "give peace a chance." Once DeV sandbagged him, how could he go back to Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et.al. and argue with a straight face that diplomacy had a chance of dealing with Hussein successfully. If Powell was the "dove" in all of this, willing to give inspections and the UN another chance, then DeV shot the dove down. In so doing, he made war much more likely--a war that he knew the US and UK would mostly fight.
c) DeV gave the Iraqis an out. With France's opposition, it fueled Iraqi hopes that they could wait the crisis out. It turned out to be a false hope, but that likely helped to lessen any chances that Hussein would have fled, or one of his entourage would have risked trying to take him out.
3) In the months after Baghdad fell, the French haven't been helpful. Remember how, immediately after major combat ended, the US asked for UN help in the reconstruction. France responded by saying that our troops needed to leave Iraq...in WEEKS! Let's read between the lines here. Given that Iraq was in chaos and violence from the Baathists/al-Qaeda was rising, a French statement like that, at that point in the crisis, sent two real messages: 1) We really don't care about Iraq's becoming a stable state and 2) Don't expect the UN to be a force in creating security in Iraq, because we'll resist every step of the way. I'm sure that the Baathists/al-Qaeda took lots of cheer from that. Now, more recently, as Iraq prepares to regain its soverignty, it asks the world to forgive Hussein's debt. France's reply--NO!
I understand Chirac's concern over Middle Eastern unrest encroaching across the Mediterranean into France. France does have a large, restive Muslim population that is prone to being inflamed. But, hey, that France's fault. America assimilates its Muslims, France and Germany ghettoize theirs.
So, bottom line for this post--don't take your anti-French feelings out on the owner of the local French restaurant. (If, for no other reason than most of his employees are American). But, you have every right to be mad at the French government. No matter what the typical college professor or newspaper editor, who summers in Provence and attends conferences in Paris, tells you.
