Why are the US and French governments behaving as they are?
The people in the US and French governments may or may not have the
values that you and I hold, but they certainly have enough smarts to
have gained their positions in government.
So the question becomes: why are they acting as they are? I think
that both the Bush administration and the French government have
developed beliefs that make sense to themselves of their actions.
The Bush administration now believes the US liberal analysis of past
US policy with regard to Moslems. The French government believes the
Bush administration with regard to the capabilities of the Iraqi
government and army.
First, consider the Bush administration. It entered power with a
strong belief in the values of discipline and deterrence. The members
of the administration figured that if you discipline wrong-doers by
punishing them, for example, by executing them, then others will avoid
wrong-doing so as to avoid the punishment.
The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in
Washington, DC, on September 11 presented the Bush administration with
what Ian Banks, in his novel `Excession', calls an `out of context
problem': the Bush administration had to realize that it could not
deter future attacks by punishing the wrong-doers; it could not
execute them because they were already dead.
The Bush administration belief system failed. Hence, the Bush
administration had to adopt a new belief system.
Of course, the Bush administration it could keep many of its old
beliefs by claiming that the hijackers were in a special category:
not ordinary wrong-doers, but `evil'. However, the members of the
administration still had to explain the cause of evil.
>From the point of view of a day-to-day oriented administration, it
does no good (except in speeches) to say that evil is caused by a
`wrathful God'. God is not susceptible to political analysis.
Instead, what I think happened is that the senior members of the Bush
administration decided that their opponents, US Liberals and
Democrats, had been right all along.
* The Liberals and Democrats in the US say that the depth of despair
and hatred against the US in the Moslem world is high. As a
consequence, some people will fight the US and be willing to die
in the process. Those willing to fight will be a small portion of
the population, but large in absolute numbers.
Moreover, Liberals and Democrats they say that to improve matters
peacefully will take a generation or more of wise foreign aid,
including changes in Moslem school systems, and tolerant
statements by Moslem government and religious leaders.
* Suppose the Liberals and Democrats are correct? The Bush
administration must be concerned both with the distant future and
with the immediate future.
Since the Liberals and Democrats say that peaceful improvements
will take time, the Bush administration will need to figure out
alternative actions that are quicker. If it does not, it loses
support from frightened donors and voters.
Hence, as a beginning, the covert and overt military actions
against any in the Moslem world who have or who might attack the
US or US interests.
This leads to arguments put forward to invade Iraq.
I know of four major arguments for such an invasion. The Bush
administration claims to favor arguments two, three, and four. I
think that argument number four is their prime reason, although their
day-to-day rhetoric focuses on argument number three.
It is with the prime argument, number four, that, I think, the French
government takes issue.
Four arguments to invade Iraq are:
1. To help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel
dictatorship.
Salmon Rushdie made this argument. No government that I know of
has said that this is a prime reason to go to war, although all
claim it would be a nice side effect.
2. To support UN Chapter 7 resolutions.
International laws and resolutions are a Liberal, Democrat, and
contemporary European ideal; they provide a mechanism for
restraining the actions of a super power.
The only current, duly recognized international organization that
can serve in this role is the UN. No one thinks of the UN as a
good mechanism for international governance, but it exists. UN
Chapter 7 resolutions are supposed to be enforceable by military
action if necessary, in contrast to Chapter 6 resolutions (such as
those involving the Israeli-Palestinian issue), which are
recommendations only.
Ironically, the primary argument that the U.N. should become
... an effective organization that helps keep the peace.
was made by US President Bush, not by others. Regardless whether
anyone thinks he is the least bit truthful in expressing US hopes,
the argument favoring a mechanism to restrain a super power such as
the US is powerful, and should appeal to others.
3. Find and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
The French point out they lived for years next to a power that had
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and that broke treaties.
In this respect, the Iraqi government is neither special nor
unusual.
The US says that the Soviet government was successfully deterred
but that the Iraqi government is unusual in that it cannot be
deterred. The US points out that Iraq has twice started
disastrous wars in attempts to to gain control over neighbors, and
thus over those who depend on oil from the Middle East, and may
well try again.
(Note that the French, German, and other Europeans' economic
borders run through the Middle East. They are more dependent on
Middle Eastern oil than the US; hence the growth of a Middle
Eastern hegemony is more of a threat to Europe than to the US.)
4. Overthrow the government of and establish a major US presence in an
Arab country so as to frighten the other Arab dictatorships into
greater efforts into policing against enemies of US.
I think this is the primary motivation of the US government.
As side effects, a successful US invasion of Iraq will also:
* Enable the US to find and destroy chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons that might be used to threaten the US or US
allies or US interests -- in other words, satisfy argument
three.
* Reduce the power of Europe and the Russia by establishing a
Middle Eastern hegemony.
* Maintain oil supplies from Middle East until new central Asian
and west African supplies become available.
* Extend the economic dominance of the dollar over the euro for a
few more years, by ensuring that oil is priced in dollars.
I am sure the Bush administration favors all these side effects.
I think the Bush administration believes US Liberals and Democrats
who say that past US policy has been wrong, and has back-fired
against the US. Also, I think the Bush administration believes US
Liberals and Democrats who say that to fix this mistake will take a
generation.
Over the next two to ten years, therefore, the Bush administration
sees its safety, and that of its donors and voters, in coercion
rather than in education and social change. The latter takes
longer.
Moreover, I suspect that the Bush administration sees US government
covert and overt anti-terrorist actions as fairly incompetent. The
members of the administration know their own people. Or perhaps
they think of US spies as highly competent, but know that they make
mistakes. Either way, members of the administration will not want
to depend on them. I think they have higher hopes in the police of
various Arab tyrants many of whom have stayed in power for decades.
The French government disagrees with the US government.
My interpretation of events is that the French government does not
believe that the other Arab dictatorships are competent. Instead, the
French government believes that the US description of Iraq applies to
all the Arab dictatorships, namely that:
* a small portion of the government and army will do as the
government seeks competently. In Iraq, this portion includes
those who are in the Special Republican divisions and those who
produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons,
* but that the vast majority will do what the government wants
poorly or not at all. In Iraq, this larger portion includes
those whom the US government says will surrender as soon as a
war starts.
Given the US description, the French government believes that the US
cannot expect an invasion and occupation of Iraq to lead to other Arab
governments being able to engage in more effective policing against
enemies of the US, even if they come fear the US enough to want to
help the US. The US will not gain protection; but in any event, the
French will lose relative power.
So long as the French government believe that the US description of
the Iraqi government and army applies to all Arab governments and
armies, the French will oppose a US invasion.
Moreover, European countries are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil
than the US -- since their economic boundaries pass through the Middle
East -- they will suffer more in a war than the US, regardless whether
the war goes well or badly for the US.
Worse, from a French point of view, if in the long run, the war goes
well for the US, then the US will gain power over France.
On the other hand, if in the long run, the war goes badly for the US,
then the relative power of France may rise compared to the US, so long
as the French are not perceived as siding with the US.
If the US appears to be willing to act unilaterally, and
* if the government of France thinks the US will succeed in US terms
in its invasion,
-- then, at the last moment, France can be expected to favor some
sort of UN resolution that the US will accept but that will, the
French can hope, provide a basis for limiting US actions in the
future.
* if, however, the government of France thinks the US will lose,
-- then, France will stand against the invasion and hope to
benefit from the aftermath.
The question is what levels of confidence or probability does the
French government put on the various outcomes?
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
