Engaging the Irritating Europeans

Opinion Journal ^ | 04/22/2002 | ROBERT L. BARTLEY

[Pokey78]

America must tell the world that the rules have changed.

From afar, European attitudes toward American policy in the Middle East seem a pastiche of rationalizations for inaction, resentment at being supplanted in world leadership, fear of their own Muslim populations, and cowardice political and personal.

[Ranger]

Good article.

Our best course of action is to consult in advance but act responsibly for the common good. Acting soley in our own interests may be necessary at times but is not the perrogative of a world leader that wants to be followed for very long.

In the case of Iraq, the sooner we get this over with the better. Many will complain when we act, but no tears will be shed for Saddam when the curtain falls.

[Kermit]

"Since World War II, the world order has been organized around the twin principles of nonaggression and state sovereignty...these well-understood rules of behavior kept the peace, more or less, for a half-century."

That's not what kept the peace and there wasn't "peace".

[Nogbad]

Ping for a significant turn.

To my knowledge
this is the first time
that a major newspaper has admitted
the likelihood that the 09-11-01 anthrax
came from Iraq.

(This editorial also was printed in today's hard copy of the WSJ)

[aristeides]

It's not an editorial -- Bartley is no longer the editorial page editor (Paul Gigot took over for him,) this is just Bartley's column, and it appeared on the op-ed page, not the editorial page. But it is significant that a column to this effect appeared in a major newspaper.

[Nogbad]

Well, I consider anything written by Bartley to be
(in effect)
an editorial.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up!!! I'm thinking we'll see more of the Iraq WMD connection in major publications as we gear up for an offense.

[Betty Jo]

Another article for the Bin Laden Medical Matrix!

[cornelis]

One of their biggest resentments is simply that the Americans have not bothered to try seriously to persuade them.

The first step is to try and seriously understand them. In this they are remiss. Nobody speaks French or German, really.

[piasa]

You're right, there.

While it is good to debate the Europeans, it is not neccessary to wait for their agreement. It might also be pointless since I'm not convinced the whining of European journalists or leaders of coalition governments really represent average European opinion, anyway.

If a rabid dog needs to be killed after it bit someone, it needs to be killed whether the world agrees with it or not...otherwise it can still bite. Having a mob determine it is OK will not make it more acceptable nor more neccessary than it already is to kill the dog. And having the mob oppose the killing won't cure the dog.

Unanimous consent or majority consent isn't what makes actions acceptable. Such consent is only neccessary when you have your own doubts and need reassurance, or when you desire to make others 'feel good' in case you might need them for something else in the future. If someone isn't potentially useful, their opinion is less relevant. So for some, their blessing might be worth obtaining, provided it doesn't interfere with the goal or slow down the timetable.

[Mitchell]

One interesting question is whether the presumed truth about the anthrax mailings (that they are a threat from some foreign power, probably Iraq) will ever be officially admitted. If Pres. Bush can garner support for a swift, overwhelming attack on Iraq based on general principles and on our knowledge of past events, it may never be necessary to announce the truth; the U.S. may calculate that it's better not to reveal what the nature of the challenge was. [Alternatively, the attack may simply be put off for a long time, implicitly acknowledging a mutual-assured-destruction predicament. I don't believe we're at that stage yet, however. We will be in 10 years, though, if we don't act now.]

[EternalHope]

One interesting question is whether the presumed truth about the anthrax mailings (that they are a threat from some foreign power, probably Iraq) will ever be officially admitted. If Pres. Bush can garner support for a swift, overwhelming attack on Iraq based on general principles and on our knowledge of past events, it may never be necessary to announce the truth; the U.S. may calculate that it's better not to reveal what the nature of the challenge was.

Interesting question. If we officially acknowledge the obvious, the next question from the public will be, "What did you know, and when did you know it?"

Regardless of the reasons (they are good), the average Joe will not like finding out the government knew a foreign nation attacked/threatened us with Anthrax, and scared us out of an immediate response.

[The Great Satan]

Regardless of the reasons (they are good), the average Joe will not like finding out the government knew a foreign nation attacked/threatened us with Anthrax, and scared us out of an immediate response.

Sooner or later, everyone is going to "get it," and I doubt very many will have complaints about the way this was handled. Besides, anybody who has been watching the anthrax story unfold for the last six months must be truly impressed with how easily public perceptions are managed during war time: so long as everything is smeared out over weeks and months, the public can be led anywhere you want to lead it. I really think that the PR aspects of this are the last thing on Bush's mind.

[Mitchell]

Interesting question. If we officially acknowledge the obvious, the next question from the public will be, "What did you know, and when did you know it?"

Regardless of the reasons (they are good), the average Joe will not like finding out the government knew a foreign nation attacked/threatened us with Anthrax, and scared us out of an immediate response.

Well, the claim would probably be made that we didn't know until shortly before the announcement. After all, they even had a profile of the "domestic perpetrator," and that's currently the government's officially preferred theory.

But the reason I was thinking that the truth might not be revealed isn't so much a CYA response on the part of the politicians.

The problem with revealing the truth is that it might be thought to demonstrate our Achilles' heel. It's likely that other countries would figure, even after we defeated Iraq, that they could carry out the same kind of attack but more successfully. (The first barbarian attack on Rome didn't succeed in bringing the Empire down, but it gave people ideas. Of course, Rome couldn't pretend that it hadn't been attacked, and people must have come to realize that the Empire had a vulnerable underbelly.)

[piasa]

I believe you are correct.

[freeperfromnj]

There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that Saddam Hussein was indeed involved in attacking the U.S. homeland, but the Bush administration has worked to suppress rather than advance it.

Somehow I believe that the anthrax was some sort of warning - the real threat is probably something less containable and more deadly - like small pox. I recently read that the vaccines will be ready in early October. They definitely know more than they are letting on for the sake of avoiding panic. The state of New Jersey just announced today that they have at the ready two potassium iodide tablets per person living within a 10 mile radius of NJ's 3 nuclear power plants in case of an accident. This coming a couple of weeks after finding the detailed plans of a NJ nuclear plant in a cave in Afganastan

[EternalHope]

Somehow I believe that the anthrax was some sort of warning - the real threat is probably something less containable and more deadly - like small pox. I recently read that the vaccines will be ready in early October.

Do not underestimate anthrax just because the initial use was in warning form. It could just as easily have been widely distributed and killed thousands. Whoever sent it has not been caught, and most certainly did not use up their supply. In other words, they can attack again, whenever they feel like it.

They definitely know more than they are letting on for the sake of avoiding panic.

You can say that again.

BTW: Smallpox is contagious and could kill many more people, but its use as a weapon is more difficult. That is because the attackers would have trouble protecting their own nations as the disease spread. That is why anthrax is cited as a military threat much more often than smallpox.

If you really want to worry, consider the danger if camelpox could be genetically engineered to be a human threat. The arabs believe they would be immune because of their exposure to camels, while we would not.

[freeperfromnj]

Do not underestimate anthrax just because the initial use was in warning form.

By no means did I intend to underestimate the widespread damage anthrax could cause. It's just a lot more difficult to disperse and we do have cipro. Unlike anthrax, smallpox (or indeed cowpox) is contagious and could be spread by a couple of suicide bioterrorists coast to coast.

[Alamo-Girl]

Hopefully our Achilles' heel has been protected. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if the information were withheld (if not otherwise needed for justification) - due to the economy, so that people wouldn't become unnecessarily fearful. It is an election year and to the benefit of Democrats to squash the economy.