perfidy

As I've mentioned in the past, though not in this forum, the current state of US-French diplomacy worries me badly. This feeling has only been amplified by the events of the past week. Now that France is nakedly out to take the US down a peg or two, regardless of what ends they use to achieve this goal, and given that the Bush administration seems daily less decisive on the issue of Iraq, the stakes seem to be rising out of all proportion with the situation. 

Steven Den Beste posted an article a few weeks ago here, arguing that the current diplomatic crisis is the result of a culture clash between Western Europe and the USA. Despite some factual errors in the piece brought to my attention by a good friend, I tend to agree with overarching theme. Whereas Bill Clinton was awfully fond of the intimate dance of empty postures that composes so much of international diplomacy^✶Side note: Bill Clinton has a jive on him. I mean, GOD, I hear him talk, I know he's full of sh*t, but I just can't... stop... myself from wanting to believe him. It's uncanny. And it's dangerous., the Bush administration discards them altogether and declares "here we stand." This approach is fine, insofar as it removes all doubt as to motive and strategy, but it is totally out of step with the way things are done across the ocean (moral judgement not implied). It's like putting John Wayne from "The Green Berets" into a production of Hamlet. Both are perfectly great on their own terms, but they don't mix so good. 

I am currently in the middle of John Keegan's The First World War and it has reminded me that Europe, united by centuries-long ties of trade and rule, tends to act like a large, close-knit family. Sure they may squabble, sure they may occasionally try to annihilate one another, but at the core they are a unit with a shared outlook that shapes the way they interact with the world and each other. When faced with an outsider, they tend to react as a whole regardless of their differences. (Interestingly, the former Communist nations tend not to share in this family affair. Huh.) Obviously, since the US's heyday has not included sharing ground with our big brothers, we tend to put less stock in the opinions of other states. 

But where exactly is this going to end? From this morning's Wall Street Journal, it appears that France may be willing to achieve its diplomatic reascendency at the potential cost of American lives. Now, although that's not the same as actually killing Americans, it's not exactly the opposite either. (Good analysis of this over at Chicagoboyz.) Of course, that analysis implies that France will be at fault if the US invades Iraq, which is only true if Iraq has been buying French arms. (Hmm. Any proof of that?) 

At best (for the USA), the current crisis could result in a complete vindication of US motives and methods, with a concomitant humbling of the French. But at worst, if things take a bad hop, Bush et. al may find themselves in the position of having squandered American diplomatic credibility and decades of goodwill over-- what? A tinpot dictator of a second-rate nation whose connection to "War On Terror 2K3" remains unproven to many both here and abroad. And that would just SUCK.