perfidy

The threat index should reflect not the danger that we are facing, but rather the danger the rest of the world faces from our righteous wrath. Excuse the lack of pretty graphics, nice tables and so on. I'm just a caveman, and I don't understand your strange html technology.

Green: Copasetic. I'm okay, you're okay. 

Blue: Pissy. You're starting to get me irritated. Back off. 

Yellow: Angry. Keep it, up asshole, and you're toast. 

Orange: Twitchy. Locked, Loaded, Looking for targets. and... 

Red: All out of bubblegum. We have just opened a 20,000lb., laser designated, GPS guided, bunker penetrating, fuel air explosive can of whoop ass ten feet from your door. Kiss your sorry ass goodbye.

We could even have different threat levels for different regions. France should always be on Orange. Just like those rotten bastards, the Norwegians. 
 

As Al Bundy said, it is good to hate the French. Cheese eating surrender monkeys. We can all have fun mocking the French. Every Bastille Day, I have a mournful drink in honor of all those who went to the guillotine to ensure French Liberty. 

France presents a problem for the United States. Despite being our nominal ally, they have obstructed us at every turn for at least the last six months. We should not be terribly surprised; the French live for being obstructionist. A classic example was France’s departure from NATO at the height of the cold war, only to return after the Soviet Union was safely on the dustbin of history. 

But the problem is not entirely with France. We were the ones who went to the UN, allowing them to entangle us in endless UN shenanigans. In the short term, though, these maneuverings will amount to little; we will eventually tell the UN to piss up a rope and invade Iraq. Saddam will get his long deserved appointment with justice, and the Iraqi people will dance in the streets of Baghdad once we liberate it. With a little luck and some hard work, the United States, Britain and Australia will create a halfway decent nation there with rule of law, a fair amount of freedom and a marked absence of oppression, murder, torture and rape. I think that we can reasonably expect that in ten years, Iraq will be on par politically and economically with 60s/70s South Korea, with the hope that in the not too distant future, it might follow the same path and become a real democracy. 

However, it is painfully clear that whatever France's reasons for their stubborn resistance, it has nothing to do with Iraq. The possibility of a free, prosperous and Saddam free Iraq does not move the French. The fact that they have effectively allied with a malignant thug, effects them not at all. Protestations that "War is Failure" from Chirac (however ironically appropriate coming from a French leader) are obviously disingenuous because at this very moment, French forces are fighting a bloody war in the Ivory Coast in West Africa, without UN sanction. 

It seems that there are several interlocking motives for recent French obnoxiousness. One, reaching for power in the EU. Two, fear and loathing at how strong the American hegemonic hyper-puissance has become. Three, internal French domestic issues. And finally, naked self interest. 

First the naked self interest. France's willingness to undermine UN sanctions that France itself had voted for goes back to the end of the first Cold War. France was the primary buyer of Iraqi oil in the oil for food program, France made millions selling arms to Iraq, and was shipping spare parts as recently as a couple weeks ago. France stands to make more billions if oil deals currently in place were ever acted on and sanctions lifted. 

As for the EU, France's desire to be the leader of a European superstate has long been commented on. For reasons unknown to mortal man, the Germans have gone along with this, loyally licking France's boots ever since the EU came into being. France's real opinions on the position of other nations in the nascent European federal state were on display when, after several East European leaders signed a statement in support of the U.S., President Chirac said that they had all "Missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." This is of course stupendously arrogant. Imagine the international reaction to an American President saying exactly the same thing, and adding that it "was not well brought up behavior." 

France, despite copious evidence that it is a partially industrialized, barely second-tier world power with almost no ability to project military power beyond its own borders and scarcely more power within its borders, still thinks that this is the Napoleonic age and that the world should tremble before France, and accede to her merest whim. France envisions its future as a counterweight to American power - more on that in a minute. France has been the driving force behind the evolution of the European Common Market of the 60s into the European Union of today. At every stage, the French have pushed to have ever more power over European citizens concentrated in a group of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. 

It is worth noting that whenever one of these proposals has come to a vote, in any nation, it has failed. The entire EU project is undemocratic, imposed by fiat from above. France feels that it will benefit from this situation, that the power of all the other nations in Europe can be harnessed to the pursuit of French aims. And since the Americans had conveniently neutered the Germans, the only thing in the way was the British. France has used the recent international hooforah as a pretext to try to strengthen its position winthin the EU. This may have backfired, as the southern and eastern tiers of Europe are less and less willing to follow the French lead. And the British, well, they have never liked following the French. Which leaves the French in charge of a coalition consisting of themselves, Germany and Belgium. The "Unilateral" U.S. has the support of six times as many European nations as France. 

Along with the French desire to control the EU, the French also oppose the U.S. on more general terms. As the sole remaining superpower, the U.S. at this moment is in a position of absolutely unparalleled strength in relation to the rest of the world - more so even than in the immediate aftermath of WWII. Without sounding too jingoistic, we could defeat all of the navies of the world faster than they could assemble. We, and we alone, can project overwhelming military power anywhere on the globe. And we can do this without breaking the bank - we are spending half (as a percentage of GDP) on defense as we were during the worst years of the Cold War. The American economy, despite a recent mild downturn, is still outperforming every other economy. Japan and Europe are in the doldrums, and have been for over a decade. American innovation, dynamism and cultural ubiquity scare the French. 

When I was in college for the second time, a foreign exchange student from France was a friend of mine. He had asked me to take him into town so that he could purchase a car. He had expressed a clear need for a large, American car with a V8 engine. While we were waiting for the appointed time, he began complaining about "American Cultural Hegemony." This was too much for me, as I was sitting there watching someone smoking Marlboros, wearing Levis, listening to rock music, and about to go buy a big American V8 car. "Dude, no one held a gun to your head! You bought in of your own free will!" But he was exercised over Euro Disney and McDonalds in the City of Lights. People buy it because they like it. 

We offend them. Just by existing. By being so simplisme yet so perversely successful and powerful. France is attempting to build a coalition to form a counterweight to American power. Germany, China and Russia have signed on, along with every tinpot dictator or islamofascist theocracy who fears that they're next on our list. But how far will this get them? Three vetoes on the on the UN security council and not a lot more. It will be decades before Russia is a functioning nation again, they are nothing even close to a world power. They have moved into the third world. China is struggling to leave the third world, but with half a billion desperately poor, barely literate peasants moving into the cities at an ever growing rate, it may be likelier that China collapses than it becomes a true world power. And Germany is subject to the same stultifying effects of EU overregulation as France. This is not a coalition of weasels, it's an ad hoc alliance of failed states masquerading as world powers. 

Finally, you have internal French domestic politics. The large suburbs of unassimilated and radicalized Islamic youth circling every French city must weigh heavily on the French subconscious, though I think they prefer not to think about openly. Not upsetting this large minority must be a factor in French decision making. Also, like Schroeder, Chirac has parlayed populist anti-Americanism into electoral success. 

It has annoyed me that the media has continually harped on the fact that America's unilateralism has damaged our relations with our allies. But the fact is, the consequences of French intransigence and pride will hit them a lot harder when they realize that they've pissed off not merely an American administration, but a large fraction of the American people. My step grandfather fought in WWII and he still hasn't forgiven the Japanese. The American public is often forgetful, but by no means always. They have damaged their relations with us.

Gentlemen,

Hmmm. Here's the thing. While I understand the visceral reaction of the people who distanced themselves from Representative Moran, referring to his remarks as "indefensible," and offensive, there are other things to consider. Granted, his remarks are offensive to people, that is undeniable.

Has it occurred to anyone, however, that he's just plain wrong? The reaction to Moran's remarks are further evidence that many Americans no longer give a damn what somebody says, and whether it is accurate or inaccurate, but only how they say it.

Plus, Moran thinks he's right, and he's probably going to continue to think he's right. We cannot stop people from thinking unpleasant things just by preventing them from saying it, or censuring them when saying it. Maybe, instead of yelling at people and calling them offensive, it's more constructive to just say, "No, you're wrong, and here's why." Just a thought.

Mike

China is planning to create a space station and start mining the moon. Meanwhile, here in America, we do diddly.

We could have had a real spaceship seven years ago, but instead we built a lot of nothing.

I now hear that 71% of the American public now wants the war to begin, quickly. The waiting really is the wearing part, though I think that early next week we may see the beginning of Gulf War II. My current take is that, barring major diplomatic breakthroughs with the undecided members of the security council, we will announce that we aren't seeking a vote because France would have vetoed it anyway, and then attack on the 18th or 19th. This will leave the blame for castrating the UN with France. I am looking forward to talking with (arguing with) my friends from Ohio when they arrive late this evening. While I have not discussed the war with them in any real detail (I don't get back home very often anymore) I hope that the "No war for oil/Bush is a fascist" type of antiwar argument has not seduced them. I don't think it has, though I am very, very curious to hear what they think about the ANSWER crowd that has been organizing these protests (unrepentant Stalinists) or the talk of plans for actively interfering with preparations for war. Or how they justify their opposition to the United States when the U.S. is going up against such a deranged mongoloid fuckw*t as Saddam. Or what relevance French opinions have on American security interests in the Persian Gulf region. 

Eminem is like Pat Boone.

What formal education I have had has largely been in Political Science and in Computer Science. One discipline is more or less engineering, the other is the red-headed stepson of the humanities. History, English, Philosophy, Sociology and Anthropology tend very strongly to the left. At my college (and Johno's) the only conservative faculty in the humanities were the two Political Science professors. The history department had two communists, and a liberal. 

Also, I read a lot of science fiction. 

So, I tend to look at history in a very judgmental way. (Many people now think that being judgmental and discriminating are bad things. But ask yourself: how far you would get in a day without deciding between things, or deciding that something was bad?) When I read history, I always think to myself, "Well they were right about that. That was clearly wrong. If they had done this thing, they would have been better off." This is why I like alternate history novels. 

I also take the same approach to current events. I look at what people are doing, and what effect it is having on them or others, and then judge. For example, I have decided that the Palestinians are a messed up people, who are completely wrong on just about every issue – and not just their strained relationship with their neighbors to the west. Someone once quipped that they have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Now, if someone were to offer me evidence that my judgment was incorrect, I would certainly change it. In the case of the Palestinians, I think this is unlikely. And that doesn't mean that I will never criticize Israel. 

You might say that this is likely evidence that I am a white, not very crypto, phallocentric oppressor of subaltern guano farmers. And you'd be right. The only thing that I hate more than Peruvian Guano Farmers is Dirty Hippies. And Norwegians.

...wet dog?

Tomorrow, my thoughts on the French... A post like this can go one of two ways: three words, or three thousand. We'll see.

Well, not really the enemy. But several friends from Ohio are coming out to participate in the planned anti war protest on the mall in Washington this Saturday. Naturally, working in downtown DC as I do, I had no idea that there was a protest scheduled. To be more accurate, I had no idea that it was an antiwar protest. There's always some kind of protest. Usually attended by dirty hippies. As Johno will attest, I hate hippies. (For a heart-warming story about dirty hippies, see this.)

Since it would be rude to go to the protest with them - I would only heckle the dirty hippy protesters - I will, in the spirit of sane and calm public discourse, go paint my new house like a good Republican homeowner. If anyone reading this has ever wondered why only liberals protest, there's your answer.

(I did keep referring to the protest as the "Pro-Saddam rally." I couldn't resist. I'll probably start quoting Orwell's thoughts on the pacifists in WWII when they arrive tomorrow night.)

I've had a busy day at work, so now, finally, an opportunity to post...

In re: Arthur Silber and Johno's concerns about Franco-American relations:

Much of the delay in America's war plans is a direct result of French obstructionism. Between these delays, allowing more time for Saddam to prepare for our invasion; and the French supplying spare parts for Saddam's military through shady third parties in Dubai; we can lay some of the blame for any American casualties directly on the door of the French.

Another major aspect of delays from the American side is consideration for Blair's political health. I think many of the pro war conservatives and moderates are aware of this, as am I, and while frustrated are not necessarily blaming W.

As for the Partial Birth Abortion ban, while it may offend liberals who tend to be absolutist on abortion issues generally, is not so unreasonable. Whatever you may think of early term abortion, letting a baby be (almost) born, and then stabbing it in the head before it comes out is, literally, inches from infanticide. If the baby is that close to being born, I can't imagine any situation where the mother's health would require a doctor to kill a baby that is already nearly out of the mother already.

BTW, there are antiwar social conservatives. For example, Mennonites and Catholics.

In re: Sucking up to tyrants:

I would certainly agree with a toned down version of Peter's argument. The rest of his article is more dispassionate. I posted it it because it was some wonderful bile. However, Boston College is a small institution that does not represent millions of people. The government of France does.

In re: Missy Elliot:

Did you notice the "heh"?

In re: Moran and Buchanan:

It was, "Deranged Mongoloid F*ckwits," originally; but that works, too. Buchanan long ago lost my respect, and even longer ago ceased to be anything that could remotely called conservative. The only accurate political labels I can think of for dear Pat are from the nineteenth century - I keep expecting him to start yelling about free silver or something. Moran, my very own congressman, is a complete jackhole. 'Nuff said. But one thing that blows my mind is the inability of the anti war left to see that by opposing "America's War" they are supporting a repugnant thug who is against everything they claim to stand for. That by supporting Saddam, they are calling for the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. Then, on top of it all, they plaster bizarre conspiracy theories and outmoded slogans. Aaaaggghhh.

In re: Shoe bomber:

Jose Padilla is a Deranged Mendacious F*ckwit and traitor. Therefore, he deserves a scrupulously fair trial followed by the hangman's noose. If we had caught him overseas, different rules might have applied, but we didn't.

Who is very pissed off in this article :

We Americans can expect neither gratitude, understanding nor support from the baroque regimes of France, Germany and their fellow travelers. Chancellor Schroeder? Bill Clinton without the moral fiber. President Chirac? The mouth of de Gaulle, the soul of Petain, and the morals of a pimp. Humanitarian Belgium? Yeah, just ask the Congolese. The European anti-war movement? Necrophiliacs licking the corpse of Josef Stalin.

Europeans will always be willing to weep over the dead. The United States must take a stand for the living. In Iraq. And beyond.

Mr. Peters is ordinarily much less vitriolic, but the whole article is a good read, as well as most of his other work. Check out the USS Clueless' Essential library for two conveniently accessible examples.

I think I will adopt his description of Chirac as my personal motto. It goes along with my "Are we not men, we are Devo" kind of worldview.

Heh.

Queerly, just as I was riding up the elevator after a refreshing nicotine break, thinking that despite a full time job, the endless labor of preparing my new house for moving into, and my old house for moving out of, and writing the great american novel in my spare time, and a wife preparing to give birth to our first offspring in two months, "now would be the right time to start a blog;" I got an email from my dear friend Johno, inviting me to join his blog. 

He therefore has my eternal gratitude for saving me the effort of creating one myself. He is my hero. At least until someone else does something nice for me. 

Like Johno, I am from Ohio. However, I am rather further to the right, politically speaking. Also, I am sans college degrees, though many people have called me the smartest "C" student they ever met. (In my defense, I did once get a 3.85 average one semester. It would have been a 4.0 if someone had warned me that the only way to get an A in Hale Chatfield's English classes was to write term papers on the topic of sex or death or both. I got a B+ on the mid term, recovered for the final, but the fat jerk still gave me a B+ for the class. But enough complaining.) I like long walks in the park, playing with puppies, and am a Gemini. I also think that astrology is horseshit. 

I fully agree with Johno on the politics, culture and stupid shit manifesto, though I should like to add "things that explode" to the list. 

[wik] While DJ B-head's first post did use the bold type that was to become characteristic of the blog's unique style and verve, note that he was so banal as to give his first post the excruciatingly bad title, "Howdy." Thankfully, he soon progressed to more innovative (and dare we say, cool) titles such as, "A quote from Ralph Peters," "Buckethead on France," and "The French." In almost no time at all, he became the stylish and clumsy commentator that we all love so much. 

This message from the Minister of Minor Perfidy: Thank you for your cooperation!