War Diary: Sunday, March 16

On the day before the U.S.-British-Spanish summit in the Azores, the mood of the world began to shift away from talks about stopping the war to positioning during the war -- and its aftermath. The mood of resignation was exemplified in comments made by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin's statement on French television, where he said that "France is prepared to compromise, on the basis of a very tight timetable, but not on an ultimatum and not on automatic recourse to force." Villepin went on to say, "We think the talk was of a March 17 deadline, and there was a question of allowing a few extra days, but I think that for the Americans, it's a question of days." At another point, Villepin said that "it is difficult to imagine what could stop this machine."

It was in this context that the Russian, German and French foreign ministers met and issued another pronouncement against the war, offering Villepin's formula of a tight timeline without an ultimatum or an automatic recourse to war. It was, however, clear that their hearts were no longer in it. Their statements, and other statements by aides, indicated that they now accepted that war would come within the next few days.

Therefore, there are two questions. The first is how the three countries would act during the war and what they would do afterward. The question of how they would act during the war boils down to a diplomatic and a military-intelligence question. Diplomatically, would the three main antagonists to a U.S. attack on Iraq continue their rhetoric after the war, or would they fall silent? More important, would they be introducing cease-fire resolutions at the U.N. Security Council as the war is being fought, forcing the United States to veto it? That is going to be the next line in the sand. Having opposed the United States on the war, would they continue their opposition during the war?

There also is a military and intelligence tripwire: Will any of these three governments provide intelligence to the Iraqis about U.S. war plans or operations and -- if there is a more lengthy war -- would any of them be prepared to provide materiel of any kind to Iraq? This is not a trivial question. The Russians and French in particular have substantial intelligence capabilities and have been known to exchange intelligence with other countries. The U.S. military plan is to blind the Iraqis so that they cannot respond to U.S. moves. If any of these countries provided intelligence or materiel, it would directly effect the course -- if not the outcome -- of the war. It is not clear whether either the French or the Russians, both of whom would be quite pleased to see the United States bog down in Iraq, would refrain from intelligence sharing. Obviously, the risks attached to such a move would be extremely high, a fact of which both the French and Russians are aware.

The Germans have been thinking about the second issue: what they would do after Iraq. According to the German weekly Der Spiegel, the German government is considering sending up to 1,000 German soldiers to participate in any U.N. peacekeeping mission after the war. They also would be prepared to participate in economic reconstruction projects, one assumes especially in the oil fields. The German proposal points to the weakness in the tri-power position if they cannot prevent a war. They continue to have interests in Iraq which they will want to pursue even in a U.S.-dominated region. However, it will be the United States that will be making the real decisions in a postwar Iraq, and any opportunities will be made available based on past performance. The United States is not interested in 1,000 German troops, certainly not as a basis for cooperating with Germany in Iraq. It will be very tough for the Germans to appease Washington at this point. However, one obvious way is a shift in rhetoric, refraining from continuing the diplomatic process and absolutely refraining from intelligence or military cooperation with Iraq.

Driving the point home, the administration said today that U.S. President George W. Bush had approved the formation of an "Iraqi Interim Authority" to govern Iraq after the war. The authority would include representatives of all of Iraq's ethnic groups and would be charged with drafting a new constitution for the country. The U.S. military would take control until the interim authority begins functioning, and would continue to control the Iraqi military, intelligence and security forces. U.S. officials will pay the salaries of Iraqi officials, using Iraqi money frozen in the United States, while the U.S. Treasury reorganizes the Central Bank and other economic institutions.

In other words, the United States will be in charge of Iraq after the war, and the United States will be deciding whether there is a U.N. peacekeeping force and what its role will be. The United States also will decide, with Britain, who gets what contract in Iraq. The French, Germans and Russians now are faced with the reality that they will not be given an opportunity to gracefully shift their position in the U.N. Security Council by deciding to abstain at the next moment. Therefore, they face the much more difficult decision of how to position themselves during the war.

It will take a great deal, particularly for the French and Germans, to get back into U.S. graces. The down payment will be silence during the war, no resolutions for cease-fire and absolutely no cooperation with the Iraqis. But that is only the down payment. The United States will want more down the road.

And this brings us to the real problem the tri-partite powers have right now. If the war goes forward as we think it will, the United States might be reviled as a bully and a cowboy, but the French, in particular, will be seen as an ineffective speechmaker. The bottom line is that the French, Germans and Russians together would have failed to stop the Americans. And in the Middle East, where effective power is much more important than rhetoric, the influence -- particularly of the French -- is about to take a powerful hit. The region might understand that France's heart might have been in the right place, but that in the end, France does not have the power to be a reliable partner.

In a region and a world where power is more important than good intentions, France, Germany and Russia have some maneuvering to do.

"It is not clear whether either the French or the Russians, both of whom would be quite pleased to see the United States bog down in Iraq, would refrain from intelligence sharing."

This is something that I've feared for quite some time. If the US and Britain get bogged down in Iraq -- if there are substantial civilian casualties during a drawn out battle for Baghdad -- then Blair will be swept from power, the US will be disgraced, and France wins.

The answer is obvious. They will share whatever they have, if they think they can get away with it.

the United States will be in charge of Iraq after the war, and the United States will be deciding whether there is a U.N. peacekeeping force and what its role will be. The United States also will decide, with Britain, who gets what contract in Iraq.

You bet!

n a region and a world where power is more important than good intentions, France, Germany and Russia have some maneuvering to do.

The Mother of All Miscalculations

Perhaps you might want to review some footage from the previous war. We will not be bogged down, the Iraqi people will not be denied self determination, and the SOCIALIST movement will not stop the free peoples of the world. This is not only a fight to rid us of Saddam and his vile weapons, it is also a test as to which countries are actually for or against freedom. Please do not misjudge the phrase "self determination" as it does not mean any form of governence so long as the people chose it. It means a free, constitutional, democratically elected and representitive republic. This of course precludes socialism, communism, and what ever the hell the french call that by which they attempt to govern themselves. Ask the free peoples of Europe their opinion, say Denmark or Poland, since they know the difference between freedom and a socialist state. The current peace movement has little to do with Iraq, it has much more to do with the political aspirations of those behind it. God bless America, God save the Queen, and please please God save us from the french.

"It is not clear whether either the French or the Russians, both of whom would be quite pleased to see the United States bog down in Iraq, would refrain from intelligence sharing."

And that could very well be viewed as an act of war against the US and UK. And the repercussions for them could be quite a bit more severe than just being shut out of a post-war IRaq.

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.