perfidy

Yes, Saddam used to fall into the category, "Yes, he's a bastard, but he's our bastard." The fact that he fell out of that category was due to 1) the end of the cold war, as I've discussed earlier; and 2) he went to far. The Cold War distorted our perceptions of international politics enormously. Ideology is a bad thing.

Johno, on Reagan: 

Yes, Yes, and about as close as we're likely to get 

Mike, on Alien and Sedition: 

I don't think its very likely. The amusement factor of someone calling Bush a Nazi in Lafayette Park right north of the White House, yet remaining magically un-arrested, was about a 9.5. Civil Forfeiture is unalloyed, unconstitutional, unacceptable wrongness. Yet, there is a movement to reverse it. All is not lost. There are many bad things in this country. I could talk about them for hours. But overall, things are not just better here than elsewhere, they are good in an absolute sense. We have freedom and wealth and knowledge unimagined in history. And the basic structure of our institutions is sound, though always threatened; threatened more by expediency and good intentions than by malice. There's a lot of things I'd fix, but many more that I'd leave alone. 
 

Well, the government mostly, but not just the government. Arafat began his terrorist career killing American diplomats, but then focused on indoctrinating teenagers to blow themselves up in the hope of taking a few Israelis with them when they check out. The rest of the Palestinian Authority is similarly oriented. When the Israelis move into the west bank or Gaza, they try to minimize, not maximize civilian casualties. They attempt to kill those who plan and orchestrate the suicide bombings of Israeli citizens. Israeli armed forces are subject to the rule of law, and the civilian control of a democratic government.

I pose a little thought experiment: how long, in hours, would it take for the Palestinians to get their independence if they adopted a policy of non-violent resistance a la Gandhi? The fact that they resist the Israelis (the "Zionist Entity") does not justify their behavior. Terrorism is unacceptable, and that is a choice that the Palestinians have made. This is why over the last decade or so I have had ever less sympathy for their plight. The large majority of Palestinians who support the suicide bombings of innocent Israelis are not merely morally wrong, they are stupid because it makes it that much less likely that they will ever achieve their goals.

Mike, would you say that the Chinese Empire in the fifteenth century or so had an informal empire that included SE Asia, Korea, Manchuria, and Japan? For me, I have a hard time translating influence into empire - empire to me means something like the Romans or the British. Generally, if someone wants our stuff, or watches our movies, or whatever, that's their choice. We aren't forcing it down their throats at gunpoint. Now, obviously in Iraq we are going to force Democracy down the Iraqi collective throat, but if McD's can't make money in Mesopotamia, they'll close up shop and move elsewhere.

As for the United States itself, while yes, we did take the land from the Indians, our polity is not structured even remotely like any historical empire. We do not function like an empire internally. Our overseas possessions are leased, or the people there voted to be part of our big crazy party.

Maybe we need to consult a therapeutic semantician.

I haven't had a chance to listen to the news since this morning, though I see on the ever-useful Drudge Report that the ground war has started. Apparently, we are moving into the shock and awe phase of Gulf War II. So I have little to say about that, except that I hope it all moves swiftly, and that there are few casualties.

While I do like Brendan Fraser, and for the same reasons as Johnny, I don't think this disqualifies me from thinking that operation names have gone disctinctly cheesy over the last two decades. Back in the big one, we had cool names like ULTRA, Overlord, Barbarossa, Market Garden, and the like. Even into the Vietnam era, we still had names like Rolling Thunder. But starting around the invasion of Panama, we lost it. I understand that the military still uses a computer generated naming system for small operations - which results in names like Pave Blue (the research project that led to the F-117 Stealth Fighter), Elegant Lady, Tractor Rose, Forest Green, Senior Citizen, Island Sun and Black Light, White Cloud and Classic Wizard. But for the big ones, we come up with utter crap. Noble Eagle wasn't to bad, though even that leaves much room for improvement.

While I don't think that corporate sponsorship is the way to go, "Kotex sponsors operation Iraqi Freedom, because you can never be too sure." has a nice ring.

In the mid nineties, there was a brief shining hope for space enthusiasts. The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), descendent of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, had a spaceship. Known as the DC-X, for Delta Clipper – Experimental, this spaceship could not reach orbit. DCX was a one third scale prototype of a single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle. Unlike traditional expendable rockets or even the space shuttle, the full size DCX would take off vertically, travel to orbit, and return in one piece. 

This concept for an SSTO vehicle promised to reduce the per pound cost to orbit by several orders of magnitude, because the program did not entail throwing away large parts of the launch vehicle every time it was used. Further, the vehicle was designed using many of the lessons used in the design of large passenger jets, so that it would require much smaller ground crews and less turn around time than the space shuttle. 

The McDonnell-Douglas engineers who worked on the project had several firm rules to guide them. Most important was this: no new technology. The DCX project did not require a single item of new technology. No research was needed. Every component of the DCX was off the shelf technology. Only a few components even needed to be custom designed, such as the fuel tanks and the outer skin of the craft. The DCX team took the flight control system directly out of an MD80 passenger jet. (One engineer quipped that the DCX thought it was a airliner with a very unusual flight path.) 

For $600 million, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), successor to Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) built a working, flying prototype space ship. By comparison to typical NASA expenditures, even in NASA Director Goldin's "Faster, Better, Cheaper" era, this was chump change. The BMDO flew the DCX over twenty times, each time pushing the boundaries, each time learning more of what they would need to know when they built the first full size prototype. (Some of these flights were even broadcast on CNN.) 

However, this happy progress was not to last. With typical government fickleness, the DCX program was transferred to a jealous NASA. NASA crashed the DCX the first time they flew it, and declared that the program was a failure. When the time came for NASA to name a contractor to build an SSTO craft, the contract was awarded to Lockheed's X-33 program. The X-33's success was predicated on the development of novel aerospike engines. At the time that Lockheed was awarded the contract, no one in the world had ever constructed a working aerospike engine. At the time that the X-33 project was cancelled, five years and billions of dollars later, no full-scale working aerospike engine had ever been built. 

Why would NASA, which at least theoretically desired an inexpensive to operate, earth to orbit vehicle, pick the X-33 project over the DCX? Especially considering that the DCX program had actually built a working prototype, and did not require the invention of several new technologies to even have a chance of succeeding? We may never know the answer to that question, but the experience of the last decade should suggest something to those who are planning NASA's next moves. 

Small programs with clear design goals have a much better chance of success than typical NASA programs. Private industry, given a clear mission and a free hand on how to go about achieving it, can achieve wonders. NASA should issue a clear set of specifications, in much the same way that the military does for new combat aircraft. Industry must build a flying prototype (though perhaps with some seed funding from the government.) One of the prototypes will be chosen, and the winner will get a contract to build production versions of the spacecraft. NASA should not have the opportunity to micromanage development, nor to continually change the specifications. And NASA should be forced to pick one of the working prototypes. 

Here is a situation where the government could help the market: primarily by creating a market for SSTO spacecraft. The aerospace industry can justify spending even very large amounts of money designing a spaceship if they know they have a chance of actually selling some once they're done. Boeing spent tens millions of dollars just designing the 777, knowing that they would have a market for them. Boeing would spend at least that much on creating an SSTO, if it were assured that the government would buy them. 

One other important qualification should be that the winning company could also sell the SSTO to private industry. FedEx, among other private companies, did research which indicated if an SSTO with sufficiently large cargo were available at around the price of a 747, they could operate several for point to point cargo shipping on earth, and have a good profit margin. (If you can get to orbit, that same vehicle can reach any point on earth in little over 45 minutes. When it absolutely, positively has to be there in an hour...) But FedEx is not going to pony up the development costs, any more than it would for the cargo jets it flies today. 

Once we have cheap, regular and frequent access to space, then everything will start to happen - orbital hotels, miracle materials developed in zero-g labs, lunar colonies, the works. But we will only get there if NASA is forced to get out of the way, and focus on what it's good at: research and deep space exploration.

As far as semantic arguments over what is and is not an empire go, I tend to fall on the side of the dictionary - if you rule it, own it, use it for your economic purposes without particularly caring what happens to the subject population, you're talking empire. Much as I abhor the term "American Global Hegemony" it is more accurate. We have power, influence and what not coming out of our ears, more in fact than we quite know what to do with. We are first, second and third among equals. But we haven't created an empire. 

Going halfway around the world to terminate the leader of a nation that pissed us off may be uppity, forceful, arrogant, domineering, renegade, of doubtful wisdom, wrong or even evil. But if after we do, we give it back, it's not imperial. Perhaps its more like empire's kindler, gentler, third cousin twice removed on the maternal side. And she has a great personality. 

And as for blogging politesse, I just wanted to assure all of my fellow tuppenny pundits that what I have done up to this point is not an attack on the morals, intelligence, ancestry, judgment, honor, personal grooming habits or sexual orientation of anyone. That way, when I do make a personal attack, it will be obvious that that was what I wanted to do. 

"Cultural Historian," huh? I heard that cultural historians were four-flushing, devious, deviant, dimwitted pinheads who couldn't narrate their way out of a wet paper sack. And that when they weren't failing to write even mediocre history, they spent their time engaged in questionable unsafe same sex practices with their aunt-mothers, brother-fathers, and any filthy goat that happens to be wandering by. And they have the perspicacity, good sense and wisdom of a retarded paint chip on crack.

You say the attacks on Bush are similar to the attacks on Reagan. You seem to imply that the attacks on Reagan were misplaced, that he wasn't an amiable dunce, that he did have a grasp on policy, wasn't leading us to hell, and faced down the global menace of communism. So are you saying that Bush is no Reagan, and that this comparison is wrong?

So is Bush stupid, unable to comprehend the policies he's advocating (or not advocating), and not facing down terrorism? And you're asking if this behavior is deliberate? Or that critics were right to criticise Reagan but wrong on Bush?

Forgive me, but I don't see what you're getting at.

Money Quote:

"That's Rumsfeld's function -- to take the polite fictions and drag them back to the real world. During the Afghan campaign, CNN's Larry King asked him, "Is it very important that the coalition hold?" The correct answer -- the Powell-Blair-Gore-Annan answer -- is, of course, "Yes." But Rummy decided to give the truthful answer: "No." He went on to explain why: "The worst thing you can do is allow a coalition to determine what your mission is." Such a man cannot be happy at the sight of the Guinean tail wagging the French rectum of the British hind quarters of the American dog."

Wonderful imagery.

Like Mike, I should like to say that I don't mean any of what I write as an assault on anyone in particular. (If I am assaulting anyone, I'll be specific.) I tend to come across a bit stronger in writing than I do in person.

I don't have a problem showing favoritism to Israel over Palestine. Of the two groups, one is a parliamentary democracy (and one fifth of the members of this parliament are from the same ethnic and religious group as the enemy.) with freedom of speech and press, a market economy, and rule of law. The other is a terrorist organization that plans and executes the murders of civilians, and ruthlessly supresses all dissent (collaboration) and embezzles billions of dollars into Swiss bank accounts. I can discriminate between the two, rather easily.

I posted a poll on my friend's website - it was still there as of this morning - asking, "what is the most ruthless empire in world history?" I included as one choice, "American Global Hegemony." Right now, the response (from an admittedly small pool of respondents) is down to 28%. But for the first several days, half of the votes were going to America. I found this shocking but not surprising. Does America have an empire? Or even imperialistic aims? 
 

Empire, n. 1.

a. political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. b. The territory included in such a unit.

2. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire. 

3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control 

(From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

While we have fought wars, we have not annexed conquered nations. (Okay, we did in the Spanish-American War, but they are all independent, or have voted to remain part of the U.S.) We occupied Europe, but as France and Germany proved recently, we do not control them or dictate to them. Naturally, we have a great deal of influence. But the last six months in the UN shows that it is not infinite. We can create an empire, but we haven't and we won't. America's position in the world is nothing like the British, French, Roman, Persian, Chinese or other historical empire. As for decline, I know nothing lasts forever. But I don't see the U.S. going down in flames anytime soon. Not in the next fifty years, probably not for a while yet. 

Something like imperial overstretch is a serious concern, but remember that our relative military power is going through the roof as military expenditures as a percentage of GNP are declining. We are becoming more powerful with less effort - we are not sacrificing economics to maintain our power, as many empires in the past have done. While we worry about other potential rivals - Japan and East Asia are in the shitter, economically, Europe has been in the doldrums for decades, Russia is a third world nation, and China could be on the verge of complete collapse in ten years. Who is going to give us the payback? And why would they? If Iraq, liberated from Saddam, becomes more prosperous and free, they are not going to be gunning for us. Remember how the people of Afghanistan celebrated after we destroyed the Taliban. There will be some resentment for our power and success, but I don't see your scenario coming to pass. 

I have painted an optimistic picture, to be sure. But the problem is not from plans not surviving contact with the enemy. Militarily, we include that in the plan. We have the flexibility to adjust to the situation as it evolves. We're good at that. And even a moderate success is still, well, a success. As far as military conflict goes, I don't think you'll see major resistance from anything other than the Special Republican Guard, perhaps 13,000 troops. As for the people, Saddam rules a totalitarian state - all segments of the population have been set against each other to allow Saddam's small tribe from Tikrut to maintain power. There won't be a Baathist resistance movement. 

Finally, in a representative democracy, or Republic, we elect officials to make decisions. We don't have plebiscites on every issue like Athens in 500bc. If we are unhappy, we bitch and we moan, and then elect someone else next time. So no, we don't have direct control over the government minute to minute, but the existence of an unhappy electorate will definitely affect the actions of our public servants. And we have the ultimate power to remove those who displease us - though we may have to wait a couple years. I was deeply unhappy with our leadership for most of the nineties, but I never said I lived in a "republic." (BTW, I'm really getting frustrated with "scare quotes." This mode of expression has gotten a lot more common over the past few years. Sure it fits in with our ironic mode of existence, but imaging the speaker twitching the two first fingers of both hands beside his head as he speaks is getting to me.)

From George Will:

WASHINGTON -- In Europe, anti-Semitism has been called the socialism of fools, which is confusing because socialism is the socialism of fools. Confusion has been compounded because Europe, nearly six decades after the continent was rendered largely Judenrein, has anti-Semitism without Jews, as when the ambassador to Britain from France -- yes, our moral tutor, France -- calls Israel a "shitty little country."

Will post space stuff later, I have to go home and work on the houses.

Well, AI unit:Edward_Gibbon00132 may be able to pack sufficient nuance and non-simplisme to satisfy you into 2500 words, but I can't.

But what are the perils? Is the UN gonna take us out? They can't agree to remove a pathetic weakling of a vile toad like Saddam, what are they going to do to us? Sanctions? I would laugh for years on that one. We, France, Britain, China and Russia (and Israel and Pakistan and India) have nukes. That is enough. I don't think it unreasonable to think that keeping nukes out of the hands of deranged cracksmoker like Saddam.

As for finances, we will pay for the war, and we will sell Iraq's oil to finance the reconstruction. Even in a slow economy, 100 billion is still not that much money. Its only a one time expense, for cryin' out loud.

All due respect, but are you on crack? The world court is a kangaroo court that seems expressly designed to screw with us. And, it violates not national soveriegnty, but several of the bill of rights. We can't sign a treaty that violates individual rights. And Kyoto imposes economy wrecking restrictions on us, when our emissions are decreasing anyway, while leaving India, China and the rest of the world free to pollute and kill snail darters. Most European nations haven't ratified it either. There have been no real consequences, let alone peril, from not signing those ridiculouse, disingenuous treaties.

We do have a reasonably coherent foriegn policy, looked at from far enough off, and that's enough for this buckethead. No policy in this veil of tears will ever be perfectly consistent. But as long as we are whacking the bad guys, well okay then.

In my opinion, the practical side is pretty clearly a definite go. Saddam gone, threat to America reduced, increased leverage in the Middle East, decent shot at the good life for Iraqis, and France gets the shaft in Europe. 

The theoretical questions are harder to answer. John remains conflicted about America's role in the world, and Mike poses several questions on when wars are just. What I think it boils down to is that Norway is different from the United States, and that international relations in general bear no resemblance to relations between the nations of the west, let alone between citizens of this country. 

Last one first: international relations is the story of who gets screwed by who. History is a narrative of the follies and betrayals of mankind. International politics is just history in realtime. Over the centuries, we have seen that there has never been a time when someone could cry, Rodney King-like, "Why can't we all just get along?" and have it stick. 

As a general rule, nations will act in their own interest. "There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests." This means that like minded nations can sign treaties, trade and work together; band together for common defense; etc. In this, they are like individuals. However, nations and more specifically their rulers are not always, well, reasonable. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, in rough order of murderousness are a few examples. Attempts at creating supranational organizations to fill the role that a nation has for individuals have uniformly failed. International relations is an anarchy. 

Inside the United States, you and I can sign a contract (treaty), conduct business (international trade), etc, in the knowledge that the U.S. government will prevent abuses and ensure justice. With the threat of force backing a consistent, universal law. This is largely why we all get along - because we know that in we aren't going to get killed for making the wrong decision, and that everyone plays by the same rules. This situation is also the case in most of Europe, Japan, and a few other places. 

Europe was able to create among themselves the beginnings of an international order. Why were they able to do this? Because the United States guaranteed the security of every western European nation. They were able to negotiate a larger framework because we provided security for absolutely everyone, not just the big nations. In the larger world, this is hardly the case. For most of the world treaties, resolutions and what have you have absolutely no meaning unless backed with a threat of retaliation for violating the terms of the treaty, resolution, etc. This is a Hobbesian world. As a nation, we have the sovereign right to decide on foreign policy, war, etc. We make these decisions in the light of our own security and interests. To do otherwise is foolish. 

Happily, though, we are a good people, by and large. What we want is for everyone to get along, and have stuff, and not kill or oppress each other. We tend to use our power for these purposes. The United States, far more than the United Nations, has been a force for order and prosperity and freedom in the world. Because of the investment of trillions of dollars for arms, and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, we helped free Europe first from the horrors of Fascism, then from Communism. Our commitment to these principles over the last seven decades means that millions who were oppressed are now free. 

Which is my segue into the other point, that the U.S. is not Norway. Because the United States is so phenomenally wealthy that even our poor are richer than 90% of the world's population, and because we are so technologically advanced and basically just really damn puissant, we can with very little effort (just over 3% of GNP) expenditure field armed forces that could conceivably take out every other military force in the world. The reason that this is the case is that we have liberty, and freedom, and rule of law. This allows us to be the free-wheeling, innovating, unpredictable, whimsical materialist, deeply religious, rig and run, can do, fuck with me and you're dead but after we kill you will bring you back to life and build you a mansion kind of people that we are. 

We are the eight thousand pound gorilla. Even though it may be unfair for Norway, different physical laws apply to gorillas of our size. We affect international relations whether we want to or not. When we sneeze, the French dive under a couch and wave a white flag. 

Robert Kagan had a wonderful analogy. Europe and America are like two people trapped in a forest with a rabid, hungry bear. The American has a laser sighted .50 cal Barrett sniper rifle with homing bullets. The Europeans have a swiss army knife. Naturally, these two will have a different perception of threat levels. It makes sense for the European to hang back, try to reason with the bear, or run away. The bear seeking bullet armed American is going to think, "I'll just shoot that B-ar." 

We define acceptable threat levels, because we can act if we deem the threat significant. We weigh the benefits of actions against the cost. And even a very low probability of getting nuked at work (one block from the White House as I write this) is unacceptable. We fought the Axis in WWII directly, and directly caused millions of civilian deaths. And we were right to do so. We decided to fight the communists indirectly, and caused no Russian casualties, though perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians dies in Korea, Vietnam, or through our inaction in Cambodia, etc. 

We have the right to do this because we have a republican system of government that represents the entire nation, not just the will of crack smoking dictator. If the leaders of this country do things that are wrong, disastrous or immoral, then the American people will through the bums out. (eventually.) We have a free, self correcting governing system. We have for the better part of the last century fought around the world to increase freedom. Large parts of the world are now free, or at least much freer than they were. And Iraq is next. 

You can't apply the Golden Rule to every instance of foreign policy. "What if somebody did that to you?" Well, they can't. What if a rapist complained to a policeman who shot him in the course of arrest, and said, "What if somebody did that to you?" Well, the policeman was justified, and the rapist isn't. 

Moral equivalence is not a valid argument, because we are not morally equivalent to the Iraq and Saddam, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or North Korea, or even the first victims of WMD, militarist Japan. Using tear gas on some dirty hippy protestors throwing rocks at McD's is not the same as dropping sarin gas on a village of 5000. 

Though we are not the same as Norway, we will not invade them. Now that we are past the need to ally ourselves with any fascist wingnut dictator who happened to be (or claimed to be) anticommunist, we are targeting the supporters of state terrorism, collectors of WMD, the threats to the tranquility of the world. The war on terror was specifically not a war on Al Quaida. It is war against all who use terror, or support those who do. Saddam counts on both. We don't need a direct connection to Osama, though there are connections. And all the other nations are, to paraphrase Francis from Stripes, "On our list."

I think that this is part of a long term - not plan - but rather process where the U.S. through direct action or by example moves towards freedom. The United States is like a wrecking ball for tyranny - every time we go up against one, we destroy it, and not always with military might. We are subverting the Middle East as we speak, and through no particular effort of ours. Just by being our crazy, whacky selves. Since we cannot crawl into a hole and drag it in after us, we must use our powers for good. (Which is why the dirty hippy protestors are important - if they ever manage to convince the middle of the body politic that things is goin wrong, then it all comes to a dead stop. Self correcting, and even dirty hippies can be useful.)

Except that they're not going up. 

(and you jumped in too early, there is a Spiderman Part II coming.) 
 

Was arguing with Mike Burton the other day. Mike is uncomfortable with the U.S. exercising its military might in the Middle East. He was basically making the argument, "What right do we have to interfere?" Fair enough. So I asked Mike, a huge Spiderman fan, "What about, 'With great power comes great responsibility'"?” 

We have a moral obligation to use our power for good. We must think very carefully, to determine what course of action will bring about the most good. During the Cold War, we allied ourselves with some repugnant dictators, but with the larger purpose of fighting a greater evil, communism. Now, that reason no longer exists - we need no longer coddle jackbooted thugs in third world capitals. When we look at Saddam Hussein, we can see that he is clearly, solidly in the repugnant dictator category. He oppresses the Iraqi people. Rape, torture, arbitrary executions, economic privation and near total lack of freedom is the daily lot of the Iraqi citizen. 

Also, he gives support to terrorists of all stripes as a matter of state policy. He has invaded his neighbors. He has developed chemical and biological weapons, and used them. He has attempted to develop nuclear weapons, with the help of the French. There is a strong likelihood that Saddam would either provide such weapons to terrorists, or adopt terrorist methodology himself to deliver those weapons to American targets. These are all reasons that pretty much everyone agrees the world would be a better place if Saddam predeceased us. (The French have been very careful not to talk about Iraq - their opposition is based on America, not Iraq.) 

On the other side of the moral calculus, we must take into consideration the consequences of using military force. This, I think, is where John has the most problems. Mike seems to have more problems with justifications for war, even admitting that Saddam is the star of his own personal villainous Jackasserama. There are two groups of sane arguments against a U.S. invasion. One focuses on the practical aspects:

1) Civilian casualties 

2) Diplomatic blowback / Increase anti-Americanism worldwide 

3) Destabilize the Middle East / Make things worse

The other is more theoretical.

1) Just war theory / Applying the Golden Rule to International relations 

2) Moral Equivalence Arguments 

3) Great Power politics

In the first category, we have some potentially serious - less than optimal - outcomes. Are we justified in invading when things might end up worse? Are we justified in invading - even if we succeed in all our goals - if thirty thousand Iraqis die? These are the core questions. 

First, based on my study of the U.S. military, I can virtually guarantee that the now imminent conflict with Iraq will be swift and relatively bloodless. There will be no Stalingrads. (Ve vill not have much fun in Stalingrad, no.) The U.S. armed forces are in the early stages of a revolution in military affairs that is equal in importance to the adoption of gunpowder. No other nation has begun this process. The result is that our military has an unparalleled comparative lethality and effectiveness. 

The war will be over in two or three weeks, and civilian casualties will be low - probably less than 2000, though we will hear complaints from the left that casualties are in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. The Iraqi army will for the most part simply surrender. Those elements of the Army that do resist will be swiftly annihilated. The Iraqi army is to the U.S. military what the Zulus were to the British army. And yes, I know about Isandhlwhana - which was the result of stupendous idiocy on the part of the British commander - who did absolutely everything wrong. More important, as an example, was Rourke's Drift, where 100 British soldiers held off 5000 Zulus for almost a day, killing half of them in the process. Technology and discipline allowed the British to defeat vastly numerically superior forces. The same will happen in Iraq. (and the Iraqi army isn't as big as it once was) 

So, that objection is out of the way. The other two are closely related, and harder to figure. However, given that the calculated risk in terms of battlefield and civilian casualties is so low, that gives us wriggle room in our calculations for the other factors. 

Here are some points to consider. The French have always been pains in the ass. Their behavior over the last several months should come as no particular surprise, though we should wonder what they hope to gain from it. Nearly every European nation except France, Germany and Belgium officially supports us. Around the world, the reaction is mixed, but hardly uniformly against us. China and Russia are opposed, but China is still officially a communist nation for Christ's sake, and Russia has legitimate sphere of influence style arguments against American involvement, as well as lucrative trade deals and mountains of uncollected debt with the current regime. 

All of these nations are acting in what they perceive to be their own national interest. They are accorded no opprobrium for doing so. Only the United States is targeted with this criticism. The French, for example, have been fighting for months in the Ivory Coast without UN sanction. The African terrorists didn't destroy the Eiffel tower and kill 3000 French citizens, either. 

I don't think the world will hate us any more (or any less) after we induce Saddam to shuffle off this mortal coil. Most people will breathe a quiet sigh of relief that someone did the job. And though they wish the cowboy Americans weren't so damnably powerful, they certainly weren't going to do the job themselves. 

In the next couple years, I think that the real diplomatic blowback will be on the French and the Germans. They have pissed us off. They will be locked out of the settlement in post war Iraq. France's arrogant attempts to usurp leadership of the still nascent European superstate have alarmed much of southern and eastern Europe. I don't think that they'll be able to quietly slip through the pro-French EU constitution. And they won't get any help from us. France's position in the world has already been weakened, and will be weakened further once we successfully and very quickly put an end to Saddam's regime. 

As for destabilizing the Middle East, that's not a bug, that's a feature. We will be installed directly in the geopolitical heart of the Middle East. We'll have bases that no one will be able to dictate the use of but us. U.S. Army, Air Force and Marine units will be bordering Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia; the three largest surviving Islamic terrorist supporting nations. We will be able to put the arm on them, but good. 

And remember, similar fears were voiced about the first Gulf War. The eruption of the "Arab street" after our stunning victory was rather… anticlimactic. I think the same will be true here. And as for making things worse in Iraq, I don't see how they could be significantly worse. If we succeed in establishing a new polity that is as prosperous and free as say, South Korea in 1970, we will have achieved a great victory. If we do better - and we have in the past - then that's just gravy. A prosperous and free Iraq would virtually win the war on terrorism all by itself.

Of course the ratio of civilians killed to bombs dropped has increased, we're dropping far fewer bombs. It would have to go up, even if fewer civilians were being killed.

...tomorrow, when I'm at my other office. I've got some goodies.