A War of Diplomats (Germans learn the meaning of the phrase "Payback is a…")

The German foreign minister was the first to bear the brunt of rejection for his country. Just over a week ago, with Joschka Fischer standing at her side at the US State Department building in Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that the Americans had discussed "at length" Germany's wish for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. However, she added, "the only country that we clearly support is Japan."

A week later it was German Chancellor Schroeder's security and foreign affairs adviser Bernd Muetzelburg's turn. While touring the United States to promote Germany's cause at the UN, he opened up the paper in New York last Thursday morning to read that next to Japan the best the US government could do would be to support "a developing nation's" bid for a permanent seat. It was, as the New York Times wrote, "a harsh setback for Germany."

When German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder sits down with US President George W. Bush for lunch at the White House on Monday, he'll experience first-hand just how little support Germany can expect from its major ally in its efforts to land a permanent seat. US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns has already clarified the Bush administration's position on the matter, noting that more than two new permanent members "could be damaging."

The Americans' clear signaling of their plans to block Germany's nomination is the most serious consequence to date in a typically behind-the-scenes diplomatic battle. The group of G4 nations — a newly formed alliance between India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for the purpose of supporting each other's bids for permanent seats in the UN — intends to force an expansion of the UN Security Council, which currently numbers 15 members, to include 6 new permanent and four non-permanent members. The so-called "Coffee Club," which includes countries like Italy, Pakistan, Argentina and South Korea, is clearly opposed to the G4 move.

The two camps have been forging new, discrete alliances, recruiting partners and threatening opponents for months. The G4 nations need a two-thirds majority in the UN General Assembly, or at least 128 of the 191 member states, to amend the United Nations Charter to allow for the expansion.

We know the answers your intelligence services came up with, among them a formidable 19 page report by the British of which 16 pages where an exact copy of a postgraduate thesis from the early 1990s.

We know that prior to the war there was a great deal of cross traffic between Syria and Iraq, that there was a great deal of planning for a common defense, or better yet a common offense. We know that weapons were brought in from Syria and that other convoys carrying military equipment left Iraq for Syria.

We know that US troops deployed into the field believing they would be hit with chemical weapons, and we now know that Saddam's generals believed that Iraqi units were armed with chemical weapons, and were told to expect such attacks.

So why did the attacks not materialize, when even Iraqi generals expected them?

Its a good question. I believe the answer went with the convoys that went to Syria. But if Saddam's generals believed they had them, and we already know very well the dance that took place every time the UN inspectors tried to enter a facility, with trucks exiting out the back gate, then we can't be faulted for believing they existed. And still exist.

The WMD issue was never our main issue for going in, we were going in I believe from the day Bush took office. WMD was the only issue the UN cared about, and after 17 or 18 resolutions, with UN management being paid off through the Oil For Food, which we now know was among the largest scams in history, we're pretty doubtful they ever cared about it.

But WMD was not our issue. Our issue was this; we saw Saddam as a threat to the region. Sanctions had been imposed to restrain him, but sanctions were unraveling. France had signed contracts worth maybe $100 billion dollars which were only valid if sanctions were ended with Saddam still in office; Russia had signed a similar set of contracts, which meant that in effect the Security Council had already been bought. Those contracts were worthless as long as sanctions were in place, and they were worthless if Saddam was overthrown, which meant the clock was ticking for an end to sanctions.

That, for anyone paying attention, meant that Saddam would be emerging from his isolation with EU, Russian, and UN support leaving him stronger than when he went in. Our choice was to accept it, and deal with the consequences of a more powerful Saddam, or move quickly to end his regime. We chose the latter.

The secondary reason was this; although the press is fond of saying that there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the truth is much more complicated. There is actually a long list of connections, including connections with the people who hit the World Trade Center in the early nineties, direct connections with Bin Ladin in Sudan, direct connections with the 911 hijackers in Malaysia, direct connections with Abu Nidal, and on and on. No one likes to talk about some of these, because there are also connections to the Saudis, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Iran, and on and on. Even we can't take them all down at once. So we take one down, and then apply pressure to the next.

Whatever the press says, you can assume that German intel knows all of this. They had the choice of helping us, staying out of the way, or obstructing us. They chose two of the three, obstructing us publicly and helping us privately. We appreciate the help, and we're annoyed at the obstruction and the lack of public support. We're big boys, we can take heat, but like anyone we would like a kind word once in awhile from our friends.

"Who should the Americans be listening to, FRANCE???? Bwaaaaaahhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Best laugh I had all day. France and military strategy in the same sentence? BwaaaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!"

I am pleased to have provided you with moment of humor.
I trust that you are not at all angry with France for not participating in the Iraq War, since you view French forces and people as a joke and do not believe that France can contribute anything whatsoever to the effort. And therefore, the lack of a wholly useless and incompetent nation from your alliance cannot be a cause of consternation or annoyance.

I doubt American generals in the field exhibit the same mindset towards other allied forces present, since I expect that no allies, including the British, would remain if the Americans attempted to issue unilateral orders without considering their allies' opinions. Since French people have nothing intelligent or interesting to say to Americans on any subject, apparently, it is puzzling that Americans should be so angry that an ally they consider completely useless and foolish should not be present. It would seem that you would think the alliance is stronger without the French presence, and would want the French to stay home at all costs, rather than dilute the fine allied forces with our idiocy, n'est-ce pas?

You said, "Useless and incompetent" when describing French forces. You are not wrong, and who am I to argue with your wisdom. You are assuming that I am not angry with France. Bingo! Right again! In order for me to be angry with France I would first have to care about France. I do not. Although it is fun to peek in on these Euro threads and read some of the French and German bashing.

In my long lifetime France has never, repeat never, been an ally of the United States. The younger people on this forum feel betrayed by France. I do not. For me the behavior of your government is typical of French behavior. You are friends with whomever you need at the moment. You have not needed the US for decades, so any pretense at friendship is unnecessary. Anti-Americanism in France has been going on for what? 150-200 years. It's nothing new. What is new, however, is the anti-French attitude that is growing faster than anything I have ever seen. You see it is now fashionable to be anti-French in the US. It's a beautiful sight to behold and long, long overdue. I promise you that you will get as good as you have given over so many decades.

Are we Americans glad that you chose to stay home so that we would not have to put up with your silliness? Yes, once again you have nailed it. See the reason that Americans have taken such an angry line with France is not that you didn't join the fight. Heavens (you have heard of heaven, haven't you?) no, as a matter of fact we are grateful not to have to clean up any of your messes. But, what really has us annoyed is the underhanded way your slimy politicians behaved in the run up to the war. The blatant way that idiot popinjay de Villepin (sp?), ran around the world attempting to undermine our efforts. Are the French so stupid as to believe that you can appease an enemy that would destroy western civilization? You are a part of the very thing that militant Islam hopes to destroy. I do believe that it is part of the French psyche that no matter what the US proposes France must oppose. Of course that was before we realized just how deeply French politicians were up to there armpits in corruption and collusion with Saddam.

We are not friends, we are not allies, you are the enemy that America is just waking up to. You are not worth any angst real or perceived that may appear on these threads. You are French and therefore merely a minute thorn in our side. I hold nothing but contempt for France and at least 85% of the French people. If I had one wish it would be to have all American soldiers who were killed during WWII exhumed and brought home. It hurts me to no end to have our fallen buried in France. We Americans have failed to honor their memory by leaving them in France where their graves are desecrated.

P.S. The only time that I have ever been angry at France was the day that rodent Chirac said, "We are all Americans now." That was perhaps the most insulting and vile thing that I heard. Chirac, you are not fit to wipe the bottom of any American's shoes. Never flatter yourself by saying you are an American.

Have a nice day.

"But, what really has us annoyed is the underhanded way your slimy politicians behaved in the run up to the war. The blatant way that idiot popinjay de Villepin (sp?), ran around the world attempting to undermine our efforts."

Yes, Villepin is a disgrace, and Chirac is a fool for giving him plenary power to play like a schoolboy at world politics. He did great harm to France's international position, and now he will do great harm to France domestically as Prime Minister.

"Are the French so stupid as to believe that you can appease an enemy that would destroy western civilization?"

No.
It is not a question of appeasing. It is a question of understanding, well, from direct experience in Lebanon and Algeria, that which is required to win an Arab insurgency. What is required is mass killing of civilans, because the insurgents cannot be separated out from the populations that support them. France is not willing to do that, and therefore did not entertain war. America is not willing to do that either, and yet plunged into war anyway. But without the willingness to take the war to break the civilians will to resist precisely as Saddam and every other Arab leader who has gained power has, there is no way to WIN. It does more harm than good to launch a war fettered by beliefs that make it impossible to win.

"We are not friends, we are not allies, you are the enemy that America is just waking up to."

France is not an enemy of America.

"Have a nice day."

The same.

But. When the invasion of Iraq was imminent, Germany and others asked for proof that the allegations made by president Bush that Saddam had WMDs and actually tried to use them could be substantiated.

It is substantiated that Saddam violated numerous UN resolutions demanding compliance with safeguards to prevent him from having or developing WMDs.

It is substantiated that the UN inspectors were on the take

It is substantiated that Hussein supported terrorist organizations (and had ties with al Queda)

It is substantiated that Hussein had plans to develop WMDs at the first opportune moment

How much of a chance should we have taken with this guy?

Anyway, if Germany and France supported military action in Feb and March 2003, war would likely have been avoided.

"In 1780, a majority of Americans were disinclined to support George Washington's Army. Throughout the Revolutionary War, support for the Patriots went up and down, until the victory at Yorktown made the Bruts thrown their hand in. Until Sherman took Atlanta in Septemeber, 1864, public opinion in the north. was willing to make a deal with Jefferson Davis. There is no such thing as a popular war."

I should like to expand on this, because it is directly on the topic I have tried to address.

In the American War of Independence, the Americans were the guerillas. What would have been required for the British to win that war? Depopulation of whole areas in rebellion, killing many, many civilians. The British did win the Boer War, which was an insurgency, and they did it by putting all civilians in concentration camps and killing all civilians who resisted. Insurgencies are wars of populations against armies. The only way to win them is by killing large numbers of people.

In the American Civil War, there were organized armies in the field, but there was also an insurgent population in rebellion supporting them in every way. It was the Union general Sherman's march through Georgia, unleashing the US Army on American citizens, that broke the will of that portion of the South and ended rebellion there. It also intimidated the Carolinas, where Sherman was next headed, into submission, since the choice was to have the civilian population destroyed by the US Army, as had happened in Georgia.

In Algeria, France systematically defeated the FLN insurgents, and in the process inflicted between 100,000 and half a million civilian casualties. President De Gaulle examined well what was required to keep Algerie francaise, and concluded that what would have been required was akin to genocide, a perpetual war against the Arab civilians, driving them into the desert and systematically killing them. De Gaulle concluded that absent that, no victory was possible there. And since De Gaulle was unwilling to commit the French Republic to that course, he decided to withdraw. However, he did not withdraw on his own decision. He presented a referendum to the French people: withdraw from Algeria, or fight to the death. 75% of the French thought that maintaining French control of Algeria was not worth doing to France what would have had to be done to retain it. And so Algeria was let go free.

In the American West, the Americans learnt that the only way to defeat the Indians was to destroy their food supply by killing the buffalo, hound them into reservations, and kill all Indians, men, women or children, who went off the reservation. The Indian reservation was a concentration camp, and it ended successive Indian insurgencies.

In Israel, there is a perpetual insurgency which cannot be defeated. The Israelis have been unwilling to turn the Palestinian areas into concentration camps/Indian reservations and starve those areas still in rebellion into submission. And so the war there continues to percolate, and shall continue to do so.

The only way that insurgencies have ever been defeated in modern history is by concentration camps and unleashing armies on civilian populations. Nothing else has worked, and nothing else is at all likely to work.

This is why, faced with the prospect of an insurgency, a nation has to make a "gut check", to use the American military parlance. If you are NOT willing to resort to concentration camps and unleashing armies on civilians, then entering a war with an insurgency is destined to end in your defeat.

Would the tactics needed to win a war against an insurgency be popular? No. They are brutal. They constitute "crimes against humanity" under international war. The way the British won the Boer War and the Americans won the US Civil War and the Indian Wars all constituted crimes against humanity by present law. But that is how you defeat insurgencies. If you are not willing to commit crimes against humanity, you cannot win such a war and you should not enter into it. It is a matter of doing the "gut check" BEFORE plunging ahead.

The difference between the US and France is that we see a problem and try to fix it. You see the same problem and shrug your shoulders and say oh well. You would leave the entire ME as is and hope that they will somehow morph into a freedom loving peaceful area. Not going to happen.

The Iraqi people will know freedom. It will not be easy, nothing worth having is easy. It will take the blood of many. I believe the Iraqis have the will to see this through.

There is only one part of your post that I must take exception with: "France is not an enemy of America." Oh yes you are. I watch Chirac run around the world making alliances with all nations who are openly hostile to the US. Why do you suppose that he is doing that? France is the enemy of the US, every bit as much as Bin Laden. You are far more dangerous, however. Bin Laden is open and uncompromising in his hatred for us. Your government and people are far more stealthy in your attacks. The enemy that you can see is not nearly as dangerous as the one that you can't.

But take heart, you are in good company. I view Germany as a secret enemy as well. Neither of you have the courage to openly declare your status so you run around doing your best to undermine the US all the while smiling and glad handing our leaders. Both of your country's populations wallow in your hatred of the US. We are your whipping boy. We are to blame for all of the ills that befall the world. Sad.

As a matter of fact, the Americans in the Revolutionary war only occasionally were a guerrilla force. Washington victories at Trenton and Princeton, where he showed a tactical brilliance that belies his general military reputation, were such instances. Francis Marion's efforts against Cornwallis might even bear the terrorist label, which is why Mel Gibson did not use his name in "The Patriot." But by and large, it was Washington; ability to stand up a national army and keep it in existence that led to British failure. Had General Howe been willing aggressively to pursue Washington after the Americans were driven from New York City--as General Grant and others urged--probably the rebellion would have been broken and Congress would have been willing to accept whatever deal that Howe offered. With the the precedent in the Jacobite rebellion in mind, we probably would have got and accepted similar terms. IAC, then and afterward, the Brits came very close to winning the whole thing .

The comparison with the Boer War is more apt, but misleading. Unlike the British, we are NOT a colonizing power, nor is this our habit of mind. Our best --or worst--attempt was in the Philippines, and by 1936 we had decided to give it up entirely and go back to our original purpose, which was to obtain a naval base at Manila and to deny the islands to the Japanese by granting independence to the Filipinos. As for "crushing" the insurgency, that never happened. The Moros have been there forever.

As for Sherman in Georgia. It suggests that if Fourth Army had been able to come into Iraq from Turkey and take Fallujah by force, then an object lesson would have been made. Yes, Sherman's bummers were a lot more savage than Northern memory will admit, but their main effect was intimidation, although, so far as Carolina is concerned, the burning of Columbia, amounts to a lot more than intimidation.

Yes, General Washington's ability to keep an "army in being" certainly kept the American rebellion alive, but if we look at several decisive campaigns of the US War of Independence, we see what I mean by insurgency. (I did not use the word "terrorist".)

At the low ebb, there were only a few thousand soldiers in Washington's Continental Army, and yet the British only controlled enclaves along the seacoast. Wherever the British were not, was not ruled by the British. This is important. It is the essence of insurgency. The local population gave American rebels food, clothing, support and information. They gave the British nothing. They did not always attack them, and they were cordial, but they did not help. And as soon as the British had marched through, they helped the American rebels. That is the essence of an insurgency, and it is why you have to attack and intimidate or destroy a civilian population that wages one. Sherman's March to the Sea in Georgia in the American Civil War did that, and ended effective resistance and support from that part of the South. Civilians were thrown into starvation and desperate efforts to save themselves. They had no excess to offer to support rebel forces.

Start with the first campaign of the US War of Independence. The bloody British retreat from Concord was indeed an insurgency. And the American rebels so rapidly concentrated around Boston that the British durst not sortie again.

Next, the taking of Saratoga was by irregular forces, insurgents. The movement of the heavy artillery to the siege of Boston caused the British to abandon the city.

Of course the operations at New York between the British and Continental Armies were between regular forces in the field, but operations in the American South were entirely a matter of local rebellion and Tory counter-action until Lord Cornwallis shifted the center of gravity south in 1779.

The Battle of Saratoga had, at its center, a semi-regular Continental Army, but the reason the British could not retreat, nor advance, nor attempt flanking maneuvers into the woods was the presence of "militia", which is to say, insurgent farmers. The American forces did not need long supply lines, because they could rely on local support. The British required supply lines, but could not keep them open on campaigns into the interior, because the Americans were rebellious and "militia" insurgents would destroy unguarded wagon trains or small detachments of troops.

As to the Boer War and the rest, my point is that there is an insurgency in Iraq. All of Western Iraq, the Sunni areas, is in rebellion. There is apparent cordial cooperation wherever the Americans are, but no support for them. And insurgents hide and operate there at will, supported by the populations. There has been no willingness to declare martial law by the Iraqi government, to crush out this rebellion. The borders have not been sealed. This is not the strategy for a victory over an insurgency.

It is not true that the British gained no support from the local population. A thousand Bostonians of all classes left with the British evacuation. ˜New York City was a hotbed of Toryism before and after it was taken by Howe. Before the attack on Long Island, Staten Island welcomes the British forces. In the South Tories took the field alongside of Cornwallis' army. It is generally accepted that about one third of Americans were Whigs, a third Tory and a third just waiting to see who won.

But this is not an Iraqi insurgency but one confined to the Sunni Arabs. With outside help, they can keep this going for years, of course. but the proportion of Sunni in Iraq is less than, say, the Catholic population in Ulster, so their local support is less.Some of them them may even be willing to buy into the political process.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.