Martin Walker says that America has had enough of European hypocrisy and lousy advice.

"When the Europeans demand some sort of veto over American actions, or want us to subordinate our national interest to a UN mandate, they forget that we do not think their track record is too good," a senior U.S. diplomat said recently in private. "The Europeans told us they could win the Balkans wars all on their own. Wrong. They told us that the Russians would never accept National Missile Defense. Wrong. They said the Russians would never swallow NATO enlargement. Wrong. They told us 20 years ago that détente was the way to deal with what we foolishly called the Evil Empire. Wrong again. They complain about our Farm Bill when they are the world's biggest subsidizers of their agriculture. The Europeans are not just wrong; they are also hypocrites. They are wrong on Kyoto, wrong on Arafat, wrong on Iraq -- so why should we take seriously a single word they say?"

Mr. Walker obviously hasn't heard from the guy den Beste is talking about. See http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Thefringeofthefringe.shtml

I don't recall the Europeans ever saying they could handle the Balkans themselves; am I hallicunating, or do I remember them begging us to clean it up?

Also, Russia would have collapsed with or without detente, no? What does them calling Russia's policies on ABM prove? Does he also have access to an alternate reality where the European position on Iraq is incontrovertibly wrong?

He seems to be blowing off steam more than making an argument.

"From a French, and often from a wider European viewpoint..."

Somebody still worries about the French? On the ICC for example, they were exempted - secretly -
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/bering.htm

Then too, they sent warplanes in support of the Taliban overthrow - sort of... First, they waited until it was clear it was a roll-over. Then, there was this funny little thing in the French military code: if a unit is alerted that their orders might require them to come under actual fire, the members of said unit can vote on whether or not to follow those orders. In Afghanistan, guess which way the vote went?

>I don't recall the Europeans ever saying they could handle the Balkans themselves; am I hallicunating, or do I remember them begging us to clean it up?

It was both, Jason - first they said they didn't need the muricans, and then it was "save us, save us!"

>Also, Russia would have collapsed with or without detente, no?

The point is, the Euros were wrong because they did not think the Soviet Empire (not Russia) would or should collapse. Detente was a policy intended to "stabilise" relations with a regime on the assumption that it wasn't going anywhere (sound familiar?). Only the U.S. called for regime change, and we were right to do so (sound familiar?).

What does them calling Russia's policies on ABM prove?

That they were wrong.

>Does he also have access to an alternate reality where the European position on Iraq is incontrovertibly wrong?

He doesn't need access to an alternate reality. It is incontrovbertibly wrong for the U.S. in this reality. That's the point, Jason - the Euros are trying to get us to take positions that are in their short-term self-interest (so as not to stir up their internal "muslim streets") but not in our short- or long-term interest. They are wrong, incontrovertibly, in this reality, if they think that not taking out Saddam Hussein immediately, before he gets nukes, is anything but good for the U.S.

'Detente was a policy intended to "stabilise" relations with a regime on the assumption that it wasn't going anywhere (sound familiar?).'

To be fair, US policy under Reagan *also* assumed the USSR wasn't going anywhere (contrary to the 20/20 hindsight conventional wisdom about "bankrupting" the USSR through military spending; if you read the directives of the era, they all assume status quo). That's why I don't get the complaint.

'They are wrong, incontrovertibly, in this reality, if they think that not taking out Saddam Hussein immediately, before he gets nukes, is anything but good for the U.S.'

That's a false framing of the debate. The question isn't whether or not to stop Saddam from getting nukes, it's whether a war is the best way to do it.

On the balkans, I'll take your word for it; I'm too lazy to do the research.

"That's a false framing of the debate. The question isn't whether or not to stop Saddam from getting nukes, it's whether a war is the best way to do it."

OK, Jason. After failed inspections, and santions, but just short of turning Iraq in molten glass, You suggestion would be?

Regards

>I don't recall the Europeans ever saying they could handle the Balkans themselves; am I hallicunating, or do I remember them begging us to clean it up?

In 1991, Jacques Poos, the foreign minister of Luxembourg, acting as Foreign Minister for the EU becuase of the rotating Presidency, declared 'This is the hour of Europe, not the hour of the Americans.'

A few years later a Belgian foreign minister looked at what had heppened following Poos' statement and got it right: 'Europe,' he said 'is an economic giant, a political dwarf and a military worm.'

'OK, Jason. After failed inspections, and santions, but just short of turning Iraq in molten glass, what would your suggestion would be?'

Aggressive answer: announce we'll vaporize anything we suspect of being a WMD-related installation until he agrees to the return of (with enforcement power) inspectors.

Better answer: bribe him into giving them up through lifting trade restrictions.

Another one: actually get serious about forcing the choice of inspectors or war on Saddam, instead of pretending we want inspections when we're really going to invade anyway. Currently, no one really believes, Saddam included, that the Bush administration would settle for inspectors.

Rand,

Why did you write that Martin Walker "says" the passage you quote? It was a senior U.S. diplomat who apparently said it. Not Martin Walker.

I'm being a nitpick, I know. But I think I'm specifically annoyed because of Glenn Reynolds' sloppy attributions (and thus generally annoyed, today at least, at the sloppiness of the blogosphere overall). Reynolds often writes that such-and-such-blogger "reports" such-and-such, when the blogger in question is simply linking to REAL reporting by REAL journalists. Here's a perfect example.

(Not that you're a mere link-hack like Reynolds, of course. No offense intended.)

The "says" was referring to the link, not the quote. Sorry for the confusion, but I don't think it's really a misattribution.

>> Better answer: bribe him into giving them up through lifting trade restrictions.

He's turned that bribe down before - why will this time be different? (He's even accepted it, with a "you first" condition.)

>> Aggressive answer: announce we'll vaporize anything we suspect of being a WMD-related installation until he agrees to the return of (with enforcement power) inspectors.

And the difference between this and war is that Saddam gets a free pass to gas Kurds.

Oh, and since the destruction will taint the evidence, it probably won't continue long enough to accomplish the goal.

And, this is a long drawn-out process which is conducive to both cheating and a loss of will. Which of those is good?

And, if we define "suspect" well enough to reduce false negatives to an acceptable level, we'll probably have too many false positives.

Why is keeping Saddam in power so important?

Jason:

I really doubt that Saddam would stop building WMD's if we lifted the trade sanctions. I wouldn't be surprised if he AGREED to, and simply kept his WMD programs hidden. (He's demonstrated that he's good at hiding WMD projects before, remember.)

>>That's a false framing of the debate. The question isn't whether or not to stop Saddam from getting nukes, it's whether a war is the best way to do it.

I think the answer to these two questions is, at this point, one and the same. You cannot be in favor of doing something effective to stop Saddam from getting nukes, without being in favor of war. War is the only way to accomplish the goal. Those who advocate half-measures, or even would reward Saddam's recalcitrance by lifting trade sanctions in advance of compliance, are not serious about their desire to stop him.

Oh sure, they would prefer that he not get nukes. Anyone who is serious about accomplishing this goal can only weigh the cost of war against the cost of Saddam with nukes. Given that containment, sanctions, inspections, have all failed after 10 years, after he agreed to all of them, this is the only option we have left.

Which is worse? War now to get rid of Saddam, or Saddam with nukes? That is the proper frame for the debate, because those are the only two real options.

Jason McCullough: You're wrong in thinking the Reagan administration didn't think the Soviet Union was going anywhere. Reagan, from his first year in office, thought the USSR was on the skids.

Rand, I think your website is fried again...