--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then show why it's in their interest *in the
> long-term.* Offhand, I'd say that the Muslim
> extremists will eventually target France because
> they
> are, after all, part of the hated West - women
> aren't
> veiled, they vote and drive, and religion is
> tolerated
> but not considered necessary. Would it be overboard
> to suggest that some extremists would like revenge
> for
> the Battle of Tours? {Mind you, I actually knew
> about
> that one from the history of the Arabian horse!}
Again, how, and why? France has decided - French
diplomats have publicly stated this over and over
again - that their primary foreign policy interest is
containing the United States. Why, exactly, do you
not believe them? They think (arguably, correctly)
that they can weaken the United States _and_ have the
US defeat Islamic extremists without their help. Why
not do it? We don't have a choice - we're first in
line to face the Reaper. They know that _whatever
they do_ we're in deadly ground, so we're going to
fight. France's decision to cooperate or not
cooperate in our fighting will have no impact on our
decision to fight, and little impact on the outcome.
Go through my rank order of preferences again and tell
me - what argument would you make to convince me to
choose 3 or 4? Chirac's not an idiot - he's not even
anti-American, actually (Villepin probably is, but
Villepin also thinks that Napoleon was a great and
good leader, which tells you everything you need to
know about his worldview) - he rather likes the US.
But he is supremely self-interested. If France
opposes us no matter what the outcome (given the
United States's unwillingness to impose consequences
for such behavior) France is better off than if it
does not. So why would it cooperate? This is true
for most other countries as well. We have, in fact, a
classic tragedy of the commons scenario. If _every_
country in the world opposes us, we will probably
lose, and everyone is screwed. But if a a lot of
countries do but we still get support from a crucial
few, we will probably win, and those countries that
oppose us will be better off.
Now, there is one way to convince France that it is in
their long term interest to support us. And that is
to make it clear that there will be consequences to
opposing us. Attack the European Union structure, for
example, and you weaken France's international
standing. Impose negative consequences for opposing
the United States, and you can change that rank order.
Am I right in guessing that you wouldn't approve of
such things? The US does have the capacity to do that
- and if an international coalition is so
all-important to you, then that's what you should be
suggesting, because that's the only way to do it.
> If the US was truly crippled by some fantastically
> sucessful terrorist plot, who *would* be the
> sheriff?
> Who would stand as the dam against chaos? - oh, I
> think that points of light would remain in the
> darkness, but they would have to be very, very
> careful.
> And who would buy all that French wine? and cheese?
> and haute couture culture? If the US were crippled,
> the world economy would nosedive, I think for a very
> long time indeed.
> Debbi
Yes. But they don't think that's going to happen.
They think we're going to win. They'd be stupid not
to, and they're not stupid. There isn't a single
major world leader who is dumb - you don't get in that
position without being very bright and capable.
_Furthermore_, as I have argued elsewhere, what is
most important to nations is not absolute, but
relative, position. For France in particular, a
chaotic world where no one is superior to France is
preferable to an ordered one where _someone else_ is
the sherriff. Dan (and I think a few other people) on
the list have read my arguments as to why that is the
case - they can comment on if they agree or not. But
that's not all that important, except so far as it
makes the case stronger for opposing the United
States.
Countries either pursue their interest or they don't.
Most countries are very open about the fact that they
pursue their interests exclusively, without reference
to things like democracy and freedom. The US is
fairly unique in that it sometimes (not always) takes
these things into account. I think it should, but I'm
not going to pretend that other people do,
particularly when _they_ don't even claim that they
do. Other than the threat of retaliation, what
possible argument do you propose that could convince
France (for example) to support us when opposing us
will benefit their interests in the short term
definitely, and probably in the long term as well.
Dan had it exactly right. One way or the other, we're
going to bell the cat (or die trying, but they don't
think that's likely). There are costs involved in
belling the cat. There are benefits to trying to stop
someone from belling the cat. The cat will go after
the mouse doing the belling _whether or not the
attempt is made_. So why not try to stop it, and get
all the benefits and bear none of the risks?
Gautam
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
