perfidy

Those most recent statments from Osama Bin Laden praising Iraq for its resistance to coalition troops and calling for all Islam to rise up as one against the infidel oppressors really have me worried.

Oh wait... I forgot... HE'S DEAD.

Now this is just weird. The US military is using specially trained and equipped dolphins to locate mines in the Persian Gulf.

I feel two ways about this.

1. THIS IS SO DAMN COOL I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE IT. This reaction is mainly the result of this story by William Gibson, which features a dolphin who is modified and trained by the army to sniff out mines, addicted to smack for the sake of incentive, and then let go to seed as a junkie war veteran entertaining kids from his swim tank in a run-down carnival. Awesome story. The future is here.

2. OH MY GOD WHAT THE HELL HAVE WE BECOME? We're a volunteer army. Humans can volunteer. Flipper can't. The argument could be made that these dolphins are in a similar position to draft animals in wars before 1950, but something about this development strikes me as somehow more inhumane and profoundly creepy.

Well, I guess we know where The Onion stands on this war thingy.

Buckethead, my typo is duly noted, and my post on McCain now reflects his stance for the war. Apologies. I'm working on a long piece about the portrayal by the internet punditocracy (viz. The Emperor Misha in your post below) of the anti-war movement as uniformly stupid, and it's tainting the other things I write.

The best argument I can come up with on that front is, if I'm agin' it, and Windy City Mike is agin' it, does that mean that we too are puking, filthy, Stalinist, anti-Bush, ill-informed, blinkered, one-worlder, giant-puppet weilding, anti-Capitalists? Um.... I doubt it.

Granted, puke-ins, shit-ins, giant puppet heads, ANSWER, and the rest of the usual suspects cheapen the debate incredibly, but so do folks who suggest that, now that the war is on, that the unitarians, college students, and patriots in the anti-war crowd are somehow committing treason and providing aid and comfort to the enemy by exercising our right to dissent and (for some) gather peacably. More on this later.

Mike, I believe that John McCain, screwball that he is, is also one of the most forthright people in national politics. In the words of John Shaft (in the 2001 remake), "Do you think that makes me less dangerous... or more dangerous?" He has been against the war [correction] for the liberation of Iraq from the start, and unlike my illustrious Senators Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry has remained steadfast and articulate in his convictions. I know that at least Buckethead is going to try to beat me like a drum for sayin' this, but Democratic candidate Howard Dean (Gov. Vt.) reminds me favorably of a liberal McCain in that regard. I tend to respond well to straight shooters, even the crazy ones.

As for the President's legitimacy, of course Bush lost the popular vote. That tends to happen all the time-- you know as well as I do that the Electoral College is really what elects the President (and it's also why we're in no way a direct Democracy). Besides, if you want to get technical about it, every President since whenever has really lost the popular vote in the sense that only about 30-35% of voters vote-- meaning that a mandate of the people is really concretely a mandate of 17.5% of the people. As with you, my real issue is that the Supreme Court decided the election given all the irregularities that kept being unearthed in Florida, and I'm not just talking about chads.

If you want a really fake election though, just look at 1876, or for that matter, 1824.

I agree with you-- the volte-face attempted by the big dogs as they try to claim that a long war was always the plan is pretty funny, and deeply sad. On that, you're right. Aside from the political issues though, I think I'm rather less pessimistic than you about how the war is going. As Outkast said, "you can plan a pretty picnic, but you can't predict the weather." Forget Turkey-we are on the outs with them on a monthly basis, and at this point, with Turkish troops attempting incursions into Northern Iraq, their help would be more hindrance in the long term. Now that it's on, I just want it all over fast.

Listening to the radio on the way back from Ohio, I heard translations of a statement from the Iraqi Propaganda Minister. The thing that kept popping into my head was what the aliens said when they landed in Springfield on the Simpsons:

"Your superior weapons are no match for our feeble intellect!"

Actually, I have nothing agin the herring munching surrender monkeys of the north. It's really a cover for my racist feelings toward the powerful swedes, who are quick to anger and too dangerous to provoke openly.

Well, so far, TV coverage of the Iraq war has been tactless, banal, near-pornographic, and hysterical, as if the war is really the first season of Survivor.

"In Um Qasr today, the Mogogo tribe bested the Wolodok tribe 4 to 3 in the giant obstacle course race, but the greater number of athletic teammates should help the Mogogos in tomorrow's feats of agility. Both teams say they are hungry, and have not yet figured out how to fashion local vines and twigs into fishing tackle. According to George, de facto leader of the Wolodoks, a coalition is forming to vote Mogogo member Saddam off the island next. Stay tuned for more!"

Yesterday, several coalition soldiers were killed, and others were taken hostage, and the TV press spun themselves into a frenzy of babble and pie charts. May I point out that the number of soldiers shot by Iraqis is still just about countable on fingers and toes? After all, there is a war on. Yet the press treats every show of resistance by Iraqi soldiers as a horrendous deviation from plan. What do you imagine would happen if the fight were to become truly bloody, like Verdun, Normandy, Iwo Jima? God forbid that happens, but if the American press ramps up to report individual casualties, what will they do if the war turns into a War?
Just one frivolous reason to ardently wish for a speedy end to the conflict.

Gulf War II: The Clone Wars

Did anyone else notice how young and fit Saddam is looking now that the war's on? Bombings and mortal terror seem to be just the thing to put some color back in his complexion! Just last week he looked so old, tired, gray, and-dare I say-wizened. But somehow, in the last week, in between the bombings, the fires, and the regime change, he has found the time to get a facelift, a chintuck, slap some Grecian Formula into the hair and 'stache, and hit the treadmill. Lookin' good, Saddam! Kudos to you and your stylist!

Flogging

Mike... thank you for the lengthy analysis. I'm signing off on the empire debate. Your kung fu is the best.

In Sawfan, in southern Iraq, American troops were welcomed by residents. "Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free." Some chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!" "No Saddam Hussein!" one young man in headscarf told Gurfein. "Bush!" It looks as though the Arab street, at least in Iraq, will not be rising up against us.

Well, the government mostly, but not just the government. Arafat began his terrorist career killing American diplomats, but then focused on indoctrinating teenagers to blow themselves up in the hope of taking a few Israelis with them when they check out. The rest of the Palestinian Authority is similarly oriented. When the Israelis move into the west bank or Gaza, they try to minimize, not maximize civilian casualties. They attempt to kill those who plan and orchestrate the suicide bombings of Israeli citizens. Israeli armed forces are subject to the rule of law, and the civilian control of a democratic government.

I pose a little thought experiment: how long, in hours, would it take for the Palestinians to get their independence if they adopted a policy of non-violent resistance a la Gandhi? The fact that they resist the Israelis (the "Zionist Entity") does not justify their behavior. Terrorism is unacceptable, and that is a choice that the Palestinians have made. This is why over the last decade or so I have had ever less sympathy for their plight. The large majority of Palestinians who support the suicide bombings of innocent Israelis are not merely morally wrong, they are stupid because it makes it that much less likely that they will ever achieve their goals.

I haven't had a chance to listen to the news since this morning, though I see on the ever-useful Drudge Report that the ground war has started. Apparently, we are moving into the shock and awe phase of Gulf War II. So I have little to say about that, except that I hope it all moves swiftly, and that there are few casualties.

While I do like Brendan Fraser, and for the same reasons as Johnny, I don't think this disqualifies me from thinking that operation names have gone disctinctly cheesy over the last two decades. Back in the big one, we had cool names like ULTRA, Overlord, Barbarossa, Market Garden, and the like. Even into the Vietnam era, we still had names like Rolling Thunder. But starting around the invasion of Panama, we lost it. I understand that the military still uses a computer generated naming system for small operations - which results in names like Pave Blue (the research project that led to the F-117 Stealth Fighter), Elegant Lady, Tractor Rose, Forest Green, Senior Citizen, Island Sun and Black Light, White Cloud and Classic Wizard. But for the big ones, we come up with utter crap. Noble Eagle wasn't to bad, though even that leaves much room for improvement.

While I don't think that corporate sponsorship is the way to go, "Kotex sponsors operation Iraqi Freedom, because you can never be too sure." has a nice ring.

Hey ho, Operation: Iraqi Freedom. Good grief. What's next? I've got a few additional suggestions myself. How about Operation: Kick yo’ ass, bitch! That would certainly get the attention of white suburban teenagers. What a demographic! Women are a huge demographic, they need to get them on board, too. How about, Operation: Protect the Freedoms of Women Abroad to Make Them Just like Americans? Soccer moms love Operation: Minivan. Or Operation: Never Discipline your Children, Instead let them run around, scream, and annoy people in public places? Metalheads are a neglected demographic, in my opinion. Operation: Speak English or Die? The original satiric nature of the title might be lost on today's Metalhead. 

But why do that, when you can keep the same Operation: Iraqi Freedom title and add corporate sponsorship? How about the Amazon.com Operation: Iraqi Freedom? The Bank One Operation: Iraqi Freedom. How about the New York Stock Exchange Operation: Iraqi Freedom? The Motorola Operation: Iraqi Freedom? It could be just like sports stadiums, and the government could raise additional revenue by selling the naming rights of the war! What a concept! It's free market capitalism and atavistic ass-kicking rolled into one! Like a football game! 

Hey, we have to teach the Iraqis to be good free market capitalists anyway. Let’s start right away! 
 

Virginia Postrel, via Tacitus, thinks, as I do, that the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is really, really, dumb. Where are the great, cryptic, epic, operation names of yesteryear? Operation Desert Storm! Operation Overlord! Operation Enduring Freedom! Operation PantyDesert Shield!

Please visit Tacitus and scroll down to the comments for a host of alternate suggestions, such as:

Operation Wellington
Operation Guillotine
Operation Return of the King
Operation Beverly Hills Cop IV
Operation Hide The Saladin
Operation Shifting Rationale

Yes, I know we've seen this before, but it's too good not to revisit:

Greetings, 

There is no new information about the war, and I have completed tomorrow's lecture, so I have returned. In reviewing previous posts on the matter of empire, I've had a few additional thoughts. 

Let's start with the war and Iraq. The United States is, if successful, going to dictate an awful lot about policy in a new post-Hussein Iraq. Assuming things roll out according to plan (I reiterate, that doesn't happen often), Hussein will be removed and a representative government installed. Depending on how much influence the United States exercises, it may or may not follow along imperialistic lines. If the U.S. dictates what kind of government Iraq will have, that's skirting the edge, and more than a little arrogant, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's an imperial exercise. Imperialistic at most. The imperialism that follows would probably be more cultural and economic in nature, and that is what informal empire is all about. By cultural, I mean western media, clothing, products, Blue jeans and Beatles tapes, not to mention Mickey D's, essentially. Of course, the Iraqis might not mind that none too much. Hussein himself is not so anti-western as some might believe. He wears suits, except in war time, when he wears western style military clothing. But in the suit, he'd blend right in to a Lebanese American wedding in Toledo. 

Which leads me to another thing, piggybacking on a previous Bucketman point. Hussein is the kind of leader who, in times past, was precisely the type the United States liked. He was secular, ruthless, and more western than the leaders of neighboring states. The Bucketman has reminded us (although I said the same thing during my lecture on Tuesday, prior to seeing the post) that there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Even so, I would very much like an explanation from the government as to exactly why Hussein went from ally to enemy in so short a time. I heard today that Rumsfeld himself was adamant about keeping Hussein in power even after the nerve gas attack incident or incidents. Maybe that's not true, but I'd like to hear more about it from a reliable source, and I mean published material or corroborated documentation. I am, after all, in a direct educational line of descent from Von Ranke, so let's see the documents. Beyond that, I want the government now, many of whose members were also affiliated in some way with the Reagan administration that backed Hussein, to explain itself. What changed your mind? Was it just the invasion of Kuwait? Did the U.S. cut him off? Why? Why, Mr. Big hat funny pants Uncle Sam, did you go to war against people carrying weapons with made in the USA stamped on them in 1990? Why are we really going to war with them now? Was it okay for him to nerve gas people before or do God knows what, but it's not okay now? What's really going on here? I think there's a lot we're not being told, and I want to know what it is. We should aspire to a more democratic government, and secrecy is anathema to democracy. So let's have it. 

While I had the war on TV, shots were fired here in the neighborhood. Irony, yeah? All wars foreign and domestic.

Money Quote:

"That's Rumsfeld's function -- to take the polite fictions and drag them back to the real world. During the Afghan campaign, CNN's Larry King asked him, "Is it very important that the coalition hold?" The correct answer -- the Powell-Blair-Gore-Annan answer -- is, of course, "Yes." But Rummy decided to give the truthful answer: "No." He went on to explain why: "The worst thing you can do is allow a coalition to determine what your mission is." Such a man cannot be happy at the sight of the Guinean tail wagging the French rectum of the British hind quarters of the American dog."

Wonderful imagery.

Upon reviewing your rebuttal to my rebuttal of your rebuttal of Mike's and Mike's theses, I find I committed one gaffe. I managed to leave the impression that I support the Kyoto and World Court Treaties. Well I don't. Even though the US first proposed the World Court. I totally agree that international relations is just anarchy-- I would argue it's managed anarchy-- and in that atmosphere instruments such as World Courts become prying tools to leverage sovereignty out of the hands of individual nations. It stands to each person to decide when and whether that is a good thing. I most cases I think it's not. 

So, yes, I am on crack, but it's a crack of omission, not a crack of insanity, to coin a metaphor that should never, ever, ever be used again. 

In closing, just want to make clear what I think the biggest peril is: after Spidey kicks Doc Octopus' ass, he doesn't have to care for his family. We will. My question is how, and for how long? Afghanistan made a good start of it, but American material and advisory support for its budding institutions is not exactly overwhelming right now, and they are in danger of slipping into chaos as a result. Iraq will be a touchier situation and will require a more delicate hand that I'm not confident anyone in the current administration knows how to provide. Who are the civilians they want to have run the place? 

ANYWAY... enough for now. I think we've all staked out our territory, and all that really remains is to wait twenty-four and a half hours from now to see what actually happens. God bless America.

Well, AI unit:Edward_Gibbon00132 may be able to pack sufficient nuance and non-simplisme to satisfy you into 2500 words, but I can't.

But what are the perils? Is the UN gonna take us out? They can't agree to remove a pathetic weakling of a vile toad like Saddam, what are they going to do to us? Sanctions? I would laugh for years on that one. We, France, Britain, China and Russia (and Israel and Pakistan and India) have nukes. That is enough. I don't think it unreasonable to think that keeping nukes out of the hands of deranged cracksmoker like Saddam.

As for finances, we will pay for the war, and we will sell Iraq's oil to finance the reconstruction. Even in a slow economy, 100 billion is still not that much money. Its only a one time expense, for cryin' out loud.

All due respect, but are you on crack? The world court is a kangaroo court that seems expressly designed to screw with us. And, it violates not national soveriegnty, but several of the bill of rights. We can't sign a treaty that violates individual rights. And Kyoto imposes economy wrecking restrictions on us, when our emissions are decreasing anyway, while leaving India, China and the rest of the world free to pollute and kill snail darters. Most European nations haven't ratified it either. There have been no real consequences, let alone peril, from not signing those ridiculouse, disingenuous treaties.

We do have a reasonably coherent foriegn policy, looked at from far enough off, and that's enough for this buckethead. No policy in this veil of tears will ever be perfectly consistent. But as long as we are whacking the bad guys, well okay then.

In my opinion, the practical side is pretty clearly a definite go. Saddam gone, threat to America reduced, increased leverage in the Middle East, decent shot at the good life for Iraqis, and France gets the shaft in Europe. 

The theoretical questions are harder to answer. John remains conflicted about America's role in the world, and Mike poses several questions on when wars are just. What I think it boils down to is that Norway is different from the United States, and that international relations in general bear no resemblance to relations between the nations of the west, let alone between citizens of this country. 

Last one first: international relations is the story of who gets screwed by who. History is a narrative of the follies and betrayals of mankind. International politics is just history in realtime. Over the centuries, we have seen that there has never been a time when someone could cry, Rodney King-like, "Why can't we all just get along?" and have it stick. 

As a general rule, nations will act in their own interest. "There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests." This means that like minded nations can sign treaties, trade and work together; band together for common defense; etc. In this, they are like individuals. However, nations and more specifically their rulers are not always, well, reasonable. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, in rough order of murderousness are a few examples. Attempts at creating supranational organizations to fill the role that a nation has for individuals have uniformly failed. International relations is an anarchy. 

Inside the United States, you and I can sign a contract (treaty), conduct business (international trade), etc, in the knowledge that the U.S. government will prevent abuses and ensure justice. With the threat of force backing a consistent, universal law. This is largely why we all get along - because we know that in we aren't going to get killed for making the wrong decision, and that everyone plays by the same rules. This situation is also the case in most of Europe, Japan, and a few other places. 

Europe was able to create among themselves the beginnings of an international order. Why were they able to do this? Because the United States guaranteed the security of every western European nation. They were able to negotiate a larger framework because we provided security for absolutely everyone, not just the big nations. In the larger world, this is hardly the case. For most of the world treaties, resolutions and what have you have absolutely no meaning unless backed with a threat of retaliation for violating the terms of the treaty, resolution, etc. This is a Hobbesian world. As a nation, we have the sovereign right to decide on foreign policy, war, etc. We make these decisions in the light of our own security and interests. To do otherwise is foolish. 

Happily, though, we are a good people, by and large. What we want is for everyone to get along, and have stuff, and not kill or oppress each other. We tend to use our power for these purposes. The United States, far more than the United Nations, has been a force for order and prosperity and freedom in the world. Because of the investment of trillions of dollars for arms, and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, we helped free Europe first from the horrors of Fascism, then from Communism. Our commitment to these principles over the last seven decades means that millions who were oppressed are now free. 

Which is my segue into the other point, that the U.S. is not Norway. Because the United States is so phenomenally wealthy that even our poor are richer than 90% of the world's population, and because we are so technologically advanced and basically just really damn puissant, we can with very little effort (just over 3% of GNP) expenditure field armed forces that could conceivably take out every other military force in the world. The reason that this is the case is that we have liberty, and freedom, and rule of law. This allows us to be the free-wheeling, innovating, unpredictable, whimsical materialist, deeply religious, rig and run, can do, fuck with me and you're dead but after we kill you will bring you back to life and build you a mansion kind of people that we are. 

We are the eight thousand pound gorilla. Even though it may be unfair for Norway, different physical laws apply to gorillas of our size. We affect international relations whether we want to or not. When we sneeze, the French dive under a couch and wave a white flag. 

Robert Kagan had a wonderful analogy. Europe and America are like two people trapped in a forest with a rabid, hungry bear. The American has a laser sighted .50 cal Barrett sniper rifle with homing bullets. The Europeans have a swiss army knife. Naturally, these two will have a different perception of threat levels. It makes sense for the European to hang back, try to reason with the bear, or run away. The bear seeking bullet armed American is going to think, "I'll just shoot that B-ar." 

We define acceptable threat levels, because we can act if we deem the threat significant. We weigh the benefits of actions against the cost. And even a very low probability of getting nuked at work (one block from the White House as I write this) is unacceptable. We fought the Axis in WWII directly, and directly caused millions of civilian deaths. And we were right to do so. We decided to fight the communists indirectly, and caused no Russian casualties, though perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians dies in Korea, Vietnam, or through our inaction in Cambodia, etc. 

We have the right to do this because we have a republican system of government that represents the entire nation, not just the will of crack smoking dictator. If the leaders of this country do things that are wrong, disastrous or immoral, then the American people will through the bums out. (eventually.) We have a free, self correcting governing system. We have for the better part of the last century fought around the world to increase freedom. Large parts of the world are now free, or at least much freer than they were. And Iraq is next. 

You can't apply the Golden Rule to every instance of foreign policy. "What if somebody did that to you?" Well, they can't. What if a rapist complained to a policeman who shot him in the course of arrest, and said, "What if somebody did that to you?" Well, the policeman was justified, and the rapist isn't. 

Moral equivalence is not a valid argument, because we are not morally equivalent to the Iraq and Saddam, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or North Korea, or even the first victims of WMD, militarist Japan. Using tear gas on some dirty hippy protestors throwing rocks at McD's is not the same as dropping sarin gas on a village of 5000. 

Though we are not the same as Norway, we will not invade them. Now that we are past the need to ally ourselves with any fascist wingnut dictator who happened to be (or claimed to be) anticommunist, we are targeting the supporters of state terrorism, collectors of WMD, the threats to the tranquility of the world. The war on terror was specifically not a war on Al Quaida. It is war against all who use terror, or support those who do. Saddam counts on both. We don't need a direct connection to Osama, though there are connections. And all the other nations are, to paraphrase Francis from Stripes, "On our list."

I think that this is part of a long term - not plan - but rather process where the U.S. through direct action or by example moves towards freedom. The United States is like a wrecking ball for tyranny - every time we go up against one, we destroy it, and not always with military might. We are subverting the Middle East as we speak, and through no particular effort of ours. Just by being our crazy, whacky selves. Since we cannot crawl into a hole and drag it in after us, we must use our powers for good. (Which is why the dirty hippy protestors are important - if they ever manage to convince the middle of the body politic that things is goin wrong, then it all comes to a dead stop. Self correcting, and even dirty hippies can be useful.)

...ever have to go live in Doc Octopus' house, and take on financial and moral responsibility for feeding and sheltering his family, settling family disputes? 

I see your points about our moral imperative, the potential benefits of destabilizing the Middle East, etc, but I think you tend present matters as less complicated then they are. In five hundred years, when "AI unit:Edward_Gibbon00132" writes the Grand History of America, I hope things turn out the way you describe, with grand historical sweep intact. In fact, I hope that's how they turn out tomorrow. But, I'm not as confident as you are that this is the case. 

There are very real perils in choosing to go outside the UN to effect a coup in a foreign nation, and also in insisting that Iraq give up its stores of "WMD's" while keeping our own intact. 

There are very real perils in embarking on what could be a long-term occupation of another country when there has been no talk of how to finance this effort. What-- is the UN gonna foot the bill? 

There are also very real perils in choosing not to join the World Court and sign the Kyoto accord, which would evolve some sovereignty over US citizens to international bodies, while simultaneously pursuing policies that make other nations cede sovereignty to us when we deem the situation too grim. 

Understand, I'm not pleading for a totally internally consistent Weltschauung for US diplomacy to work within, that's impossible. Rather, I'm asking for the government to at least give some thought and consideration to the inconsistencies that can undermine the very endeavor they are working to build.

Was arguing with Mike Burton the other day. Mike is uncomfortable with the U.S. exercising its military might in the Middle East. He was basically making the argument, "What right do we have to interfere?" Fair enough. So I asked Mike, a huge Spiderman fan, "What about, 'With great power comes great responsibility'"?” 

We have a moral obligation to use our power for good. We must think very carefully, to determine what course of action will bring about the most good. During the Cold War, we allied ourselves with some repugnant dictators, but with the larger purpose of fighting a greater evil, communism. Now, that reason no longer exists - we need no longer coddle jackbooted thugs in third world capitals. When we look at Saddam Hussein, we can see that he is clearly, solidly in the repugnant dictator category. He oppresses the Iraqi people. Rape, torture, arbitrary executions, economic privation and near total lack of freedom is the daily lot of the Iraqi citizen. 

Also, he gives support to terrorists of all stripes as a matter of state policy. He has invaded his neighbors. He has developed chemical and biological weapons, and used them. He has attempted to develop nuclear weapons, with the help of the French. There is a strong likelihood that Saddam would either provide such weapons to terrorists, or adopt terrorist methodology himself to deliver those weapons to American targets. These are all reasons that pretty much everyone agrees the world would be a better place if Saddam predeceased us. (The French have been very careful not to talk about Iraq - their opposition is based on America, not Iraq.) 

On the other side of the moral calculus, we must take into consideration the consequences of using military force. This, I think, is where John has the most problems. Mike seems to have more problems with justifications for war, even admitting that Saddam is the star of his own personal villainous Jackasserama. There are two groups of sane arguments against a U.S. invasion. One focuses on the practical aspects:

1) Civilian casualties 

2) Diplomatic blowback / Increase anti-Americanism worldwide 

3) Destabilize the Middle East / Make things worse

The other is more theoretical.

1) Just war theory / Applying the Golden Rule to International relations 

2) Moral Equivalence Arguments 

3) Great Power politics

In the first category, we have some potentially serious - less than optimal - outcomes. Are we justified in invading when things might end up worse? Are we justified in invading - even if we succeed in all our goals - if thirty thousand Iraqis die? These are the core questions. 

First, based on my study of the U.S. military, I can virtually guarantee that the now imminent conflict with Iraq will be swift and relatively bloodless. There will be no Stalingrads. (Ve vill not have much fun in Stalingrad, no.) The U.S. armed forces are in the early stages of a revolution in military affairs that is equal in importance to the adoption of gunpowder. No other nation has begun this process. The result is that our military has an unparalleled comparative lethality and effectiveness. 

The war will be over in two or three weeks, and civilian casualties will be low - probably less than 2000, though we will hear complaints from the left that casualties are in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. The Iraqi army will for the most part simply surrender. Those elements of the Army that do resist will be swiftly annihilated. The Iraqi army is to the U.S. military what the Zulus were to the British army. And yes, I know about Isandhlwhana - which was the result of stupendous idiocy on the part of the British commander - who did absolutely everything wrong. More important, as an example, was Rourke's Drift, where 100 British soldiers held off 5000 Zulus for almost a day, killing half of them in the process. Technology and discipline allowed the British to defeat vastly numerically superior forces. The same will happen in Iraq. (and the Iraqi army isn't as big as it once was) 

So, that objection is out of the way. The other two are closely related, and harder to figure. However, given that the calculated risk in terms of battlefield and civilian casualties is so low, that gives us wriggle room in our calculations for the other factors. 

Here are some points to consider. The French have always been pains in the ass. Their behavior over the last several months should come as no particular surprise, though we should wonder what they hope to gain from it. Nearly every European nation except France, Germany and Belgium officially supports us. Around the world, the reaction is mixed, but hardly uniformly against us. China and Russia are opposed, but China is still officially a communist nation for Christ's sake, and Russia has legitimate sphere of influence style arguments against American involvement, as well as lucrative trade deals and mountains of uncollected debt with the current regime. 

All of these nations are acting in what they perceive to be their own national interest. They are accorded no opprobrium for doing so. Only the United States is targeted with this criticism. The French, for example, have been fighting for months in the Ivory Coast without UN sanction. The African terrorists didn't destroy the Eiffel tower and kill 3000 French citizens, either. 

I don't think the world will hate us any more (or any less) after we induce Saddam to shuffle off this mortal coil. Most people will breathe a quiet sigh of relief that someone did the job. And though they wish the cowboy Americans weren't so damnably powerful, they certainly weren't going to do the job themselves. 

In the next couple years, I think that the real diplomatic blowback will be on the French and the Germans. They have pissed us off. They will be locked out of the settlement in post war Iraq. France's arrogant attempts to usurp leadership of the still nascent European superstate have alarmed much of southern and eastern Europe. I don't think that they'll be able to quietly slip through the pro-French EU constitution. And they won't get any help from us. France's position in the world has already been weakened, and will be weakened further once we successfully and very quickly put an end to Saddam's regime. 

As for destabilizing the Middle East, that's not a bug, that's a feature. We will be installed directly in the geopolitical heart of the Middle East. We'll have bases that no one will be able to dictate the use of but us. U.S. Army, Air Force and Marine units will be bordering Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia; the three largest surviving Islamic terrorist supporting nations. We will be able to put the arm on them, but good. 

And remember, similar fears were voiced about the first Gulf War. The eruption of the "Arab street" after our stunning victory was rather… anticlimactic. I think the same will be true here. And as for making things worse in Iraq, I don't see how they could be significantly worse. If we succeed in establishing a new polity that is as prosperous and free as say, South Korea in 1970, we will have achieved a great victory. If we do better - and we have in the past - then that's just gravy. A prosperous and free Iraq would virtually win the war on terrorism all by itself.