Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: It's not really about Saddam
National Post (Canada) ^ | 02/14/03 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 02/14/2003 3:30:04 AM PST by Pokey78

Saddam is what Alfred Hitchcock called the MacGuffin. Like the top-secret formula in The 39 Steps or the uranium in Notorious, he's the pretext for the movie, but he's not really what the movie's about. Despite the best efforts of the French and Germans, the old butcher will be gone in a few weeks. The real debate in Washington is about the speed and scale of post-Saddam Middle Eastern reform: There are legitimate differences about that but the "post-Saddam" bit of it is taken for granted. As noted in this space many months ago, he's being taken out first because he's the weak link in the chain of Arab despots. All the other stuff -- the chemical weapons, the ties to Islamist terrorism, the material breaches -- is true but ancillary.

Likewise, for M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder and their little Belgian chum, it's not really about Saddam, either. To be sure, they would like him to remain President-for-Life and their joke "plan" to send in blue-helmeted UN troops was designed to achieve just that. This isn't because, as some have argued, they're worried that when the Yanks open up the filing cabinets they're going to find a lot of invoices from France and Germany. As must surely be clear after these last two weeks, Messrs. Chirac and Schroeder don't embarrass easily. The wily Continentals will shrug off whatever turns up in Saddam's basement: It's just business, nothing personal, c'mon, we're all men of the world here, right?

No, for them what this movie is about is much closer to home. To the dozy "experts" on this side of the Atlantic, the notion of a "split" between America and "Europe" is so appealing they don't seem to care that the only real split is between Chirac, Schroeder and Belgium's Manekin Pis, on the one hand, and everybody else. America has never been isolated. Oh, sure, concede the cynics, Bush's Anglosphere poodles in Britain and Australia are snuffling his gusset, but no one else. Well, there's those seven Continental countries that signed that letter to The Wall Street Journal. Hah! scoffed Robert Scheer of The Los Angeles Times, nothing but a bunch of nations "you can buy on eBay." Really? Italy? Spain? Next, the Vilnius Group got on board: That's pretty much every country in the Baltic and Eastern Europe. "Everyone's feeling better. Albania signed on," sneered Mark Shields on CNN.

Oh, dear, oh, dear. Are there no foreigners good enough for Shields, Scheer and the other "multilateralists"? Brits, Aussies, Italians, Poles, Lithuanians: none of 'em count. During the Great War, Irving Berlin wrote a song about a proud mother watching her son march in the parade: They Were All Out Of Step But Jim. In this war, according to the picky multilateralists, they're all out of step but Jacques. Well, President Chirac can do the math: On the Continent of Europe, the majority of nations support the Anglo-American position; Belgium supports the Franco-German position, and the rapid crumbling of support for the Schroeder government at home suggests, if he's not careful, that the axis of weasels is going to be down to Paris and Brussels, Monsieur Evil et Mini-Moi. Chirac is playing a high-stakes game -- Schroeder is merely the dumb moll who's along for the ride and way out of her league -- and it's important to understand that the swaggering Texan gunslinger is a mere proxy for his real target: Tony Blair.

To the French, something very astonishing has happened: "Europe" was supposed to be France writ large, a "union" built in France's image. To that end, they took it for granted that the entire Continent would inevitably come to be as semi-detached from NATO as the French have been since 1966. To M. Chirac, Tony Blair is the odd man out, with his strange Anglo-Saxon hang-ups about the transatlantic alliance. But, as has become obvious, to the Czechs, Poles, Bulgars, Romanians and everybody else, it's Chirac who's the misfit.

What to do about this appalling lèse-majesté?

Answer: Get rid of Blair.

Sounds crazy? Not necessarily. Look what happened a month before the last Gulf War. Mrs. Thatcher: riding high in October, shot down in November. She went to a big EU get-together, fired off a couple of rhetorical volleys that the Eurodefeatists in her own party found a little too vulgar, and next thing you know she was being carried out by the handles. The fact that she was George Bush's buddy availed her naught. Arguably, this changed the course of the war: It was Maggie who'd stiffened Bush's spine after the seizure of Kuwait in August 1990, famously telling him "this is no time to go wobbly"; I think it's safe to assume that she would have advised the President that calling it quits before Baghdad and leaving the thug on his throne was wobbliness of the worst kind, and she may well have carried the day. But by that time she'd been gone three months and the talk was all of "no-fly zones" and "UN-designated safe havens."

So look at it from M. Chirac's point of view: Why shouldn't that happen again? Blair's line on Iraq is unpopular with his own parliamentary party and its supporters throughout the country. Why not put the skids under him? Who knows what could happen in three or four weeks? After all, in some ways, Blair is more dangerous than Thatcher: the latter saw herself as an Atlanticist rather than a European; Blair sees himself as both -- which, to the likes of Chirac, is a contradiction in terms. But that's evidently not how Mitteleuropa and beyond views it. Let Blair emerge from an Anglo-American war on Iraq with his worldview resoundingly confirmed, and it's possible that Europe will develop in ways that are not in France's interest.

The EU is far more important to Chirac than NATO is. The EU is a French creation, NATO an American one. So the French decision to block Turkey's request for mutual aid is entirely consistent with its long-term priorities: It has no objection to NATO as a moribund talking-shop, but it has zero interest in supporting it as a functioning mutual defence pact dominated by the Anglo-Americans. For Turkey, on the other hand, NATO membership is an indispensable component of its national identity -- as a modern, secular, western Muslim nation. To flip the finger at Turkey is to risk doing grave damage not just to NATO but to one of the few functioning Islamic states. I think it's very difficult, after the Franco-German-Belgian mischief-making, to carry on dignifying them even nominally as "allies."

The German government is currently in the hands of some pretty grubby characters, the generation whose views on America and terrorism were formed in the student riots of 1968. Belgium is not a serious country: Its last performance on the world stage was the weekend before September 11th, when, in its capacity as President of the European Union, it was at Durban grovelling to Mugabe and Co. for the evils of western civilization. Is it worth maintaining the pretense that the Anglo-Americans and these fellows share common goals? My distinguished colleague John O'Sullivan gets very impatient with the surrender-monkey cracks and thinks the Continentals are still worth the effort. I seem to be making a lot of movie comparisons today, so here's one more: The O'Sullivanite tendency sees this as The Road To Baghdad with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby as America and Europe: they snipe and squabble and scheme and pick each other's pockets and fight over the girl, but in the end they're there for each other. I don't think so. The French have an interest in a Europe that's a counterweight to America, but none at all in a Europe that's as pro-American as Blair and the Vilnius Group are. For them, that's what the picture's about -- and Saddam and Turkey and NATO are just MacGuffins.

For the rest of us, what's at stake since September 11th, since that Durban conference even, is the survival of "the West" -- an elastic term that has traditionally stretched from trigger-happy Texas to statist Sweden. If M. Chirac's vision of Europe prevails, we can pretty much guarantee, from his performance this last month, how the UN, NATO, the ICC, and all the rest will develop. Therefore, it is necessary that he emerge from the ruins of Saddam's presidential palace as dazed and diminished as possible. That's not the main reason for going to war, but it's now an important sub-plot.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Germany; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bubyesaddam; bushdoctrineunfold; marksteynlist; surrendermonkey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: Gritty
Yes, you can count on MS to finally get it right. Iraq and the WOT is all a distraction from the real game, which is what the post-WOT world is going to look like. The French/EU are going to end up being on the wrong side of history. It's pretty clear now that they are no longer an ally, An adversary, no, but a rival, yes.
41 posted on 02/14/2003 7:29:50 AM PST by Snerfling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Please add me to your Steyn list as well. Thanks in advance.
42 posted on 02/14/2003 7:36:55 AM PST by pgyanke (Just die so we can finally have peace! - Paraphrased from UBL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Thanks for the ping.

Steyn's article makes perfect sense to me. He's been on to Chrirac for a while. Now he neatly ties together the scheming of Schroeder, Verhofstadt and Chirac. Brilliant analysis.

I too, hope that Blair can hang on. He may be a social liberal, but at least he's not afraid to face a real danger head on, and damn the consequences. (Unlike that despicable coward, the impeached X42). That's my definition of a leader.
43 posted on 02/14/2003 7:38:11 AM PST by baseballmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
"Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. It's not France being different "just to be different". It's France being "different" to wreck the Atlantic alliance, sever European ties to America, and remake the Continent in its image. It's the one explanation that fits the evidence best."

Which is the missing link in my failure to understand the EU - and how the French could EVER agree to the dissolution of their beloved French Franc currency in favor of the Euro. I NEVER could understand the French ceding their Franc nor the Germans their Deutschmark.

But after reading Steyn, it NOW all makes sense. The French, after years of impotency, founded the EU and the Euro-as-Viagra to attempt to once again be a factor on the world stage.

Michael

44 posted on 02/14/2003 7:44:38 AM PST by Wright is right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ez
The rift is easily explained. Iraq is a SOCIALIST country, led by the Arab Baathist Socialist Party. This socialism was imported from Michel Aflaq and France, who assisted Saddam in using his Leninst tactics to achieve power.

I don't think France & Germany care a bit about the form the Iraqi goverment. As Steyn says in his article: this isn't about Iraq or Saddam.

45 posted on 02/14/2003 7:50:01 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It sounds like Chirac's best move right now would be to get in touch with Labor party dissidents and try to take down Blair from underneath.
46 posted on 02/14/2003 8:08:15 AM PST by xm177e2 (smile) :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ez
Ba'athists are not really socialists. If anything, they are more like Hitler's "National Socialism," and France and Germany have no love for that.
47 posted on 02/14/2003 8:09:10 AM PST by xm177e2 (smile) :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Ba'athists are not really socialists. If anything, they are more like Hitler's "National Socialism," and France and Germany have no love for that.

France & Germany HAVE BEEN more in tune with the international Socialist movement, but France has always had a National Socialist movement just below the surface (think Le Pen). The Germans lack such an internal struggle because of their post-WW2 laws that prevent the political organization of the rightwing variety. BUT now that Frenchman & Germans are beginning to think of themselves as EUROPEANS first, they can resume being National Socialist.

Changing the national affiliation apparently makes it OK.

48 posted on 02/14/2003 8:16:58 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
To flip the finger at Turkey is to risk doing grave damage not just to NATO but to one of the few functioning Islamic states.

I'd like to flip the finger to France and Germany. On the floor of the UN. During primetime.

BTW, I am not sure that Turkey can be classified as an "Islamic state" ala Iran or Saudi Arabia. Others can speak to this, but I do not think that the religion of Islam is mated to the state in Turkey as it is in those other places.

49 posted on 02/14/2003 8:22:08 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Steyn is brilliant. I really hope Chirac and the British lefties don't get Blair, although in the long run it could help the Tories by splitting Labour and taking it left again.
50 posted on 02/14/2003 9:21:08 AM PST by colorado tanker ("Hi, my name is Hans and I'm here to inspect you" (oveheard pick up line))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Bump to the top!

Thanks for the ping
51 posted on 02/14/2003 10:02:04 AM PST by CyberCowboy777 (Extremism in the Pursuit of Liberty is no Vice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

The Complete Military History of France

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female
schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War - Tied

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the
Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkish Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador, fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
52 posted on 02/14/2003 10:07:44 AM PST by baggadonuts (The Complete Military History of France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
I am just as incensed by subsidized heating oil, Amtrack, and other boondoggles as I am by agricultural subsidies. I don't approve of any of them. And as for the hard-working farm families of the Klamath Basin, I feel sorry for them and wish them well. I work with hard-working farm families out here on the other side of the continent. My point is that the government induced their ancestors to settle this land by making a promise to them that it cannot fulfil. The climatic history of the interior west is capricious. Rainfall regimes for Western basins during the Holocene (last 13,000 years or so) have oscillated between "Xeric" (Mediterranean-like, with some rain during the winter) or "Ustic" (enough rainfall for small-grain or grass agriculture, but with dry spells during the growing season), on the one hand, and "Aridic" (desert) on the other. These aridic spells can last for 50 years or more, which dries up the whole watershed. It is quite possible that the current 3-year drought which has hit the interior west might last for a couple of generations. At some point, an extended drought will make watershed-irrigated agriculture in the West impossible, and many people will be displaced.

Eh?

53 posted on 02/14/2003 10:19:29 AM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative (http://c-pol.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Wow!! I love Steyn's insights and his ability to explain them!

France can only maintain its 'image' of power by forcing a truly strong country (morally, economically and militarily) to kowtow to them. They have not even come to terms with the fact that English is the world language of commerce, rather than French.

I believe that GW Bush will not accept these terms of surrender.
54 posted on 02/14/2003 10:47:07 AM PST by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Despite the best efforts of the French and Germans, the old butcher will be gone in a few weeks.

Steyn has completely lost it.

55 posted on 02/14/2003 10:48:06 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Mark Steyn, I give you another BTTT
56 posted on 02/14/2003 10:56:11 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The wogs begin at Calais.

Too, too true.
57 posted on 02/14/2003 11:07:54 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Greetings Pokey ......how about putting me on the Steyn ping list? Thanks,

Lando

58 posted on 02/14/2003 11:18:20 AM PST by Lando Lincoln (God Bless the arsenal of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Yup. Steyn, even when low-key, hits 'em out of the park.


59 posted on 02/14/2003 11:53:33 AM PST by Paul Ross (From the State Looking Forward to Global Warming! Let's Drown France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philo
LOL ! Thanks. I remember a joke by another FReeper recently...

Q: Why do the French put trees by all of their roads?

A: So the Germans can march in the shade.

60 posted on 02/14/2003 12:07:09 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye SADdam. You're soon to meet your buddy Stalin in Hades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson