The Poor Man

Who's a Bigger Weasel?

The cowardly French are at it again, hiding behind the morally bankrupt UN and refusing to live up to their responsibilities to deal with genocidal crimes against humanity! And the liberal media responds with their usual Francophile lies and distortions!

BUNIA, Congo, June 6 — Starting at daybreak, four planeloads of French soldiers touched down at the airport here today, the first of 1,400 troops dispatched by the United Nations Security Council to restore law and order to this provincial town, ruled by a series of ethnic militias since war erupted in Congo in 1998.

The French soldiers, who roared out of their planes in jeeps fitted with heavy machine guns, are the vanguard of a force equipped with a more muscular Security Council mandate to intervene in the conflict here than the United Nations peacekeepers already in place, who can use force only if civilians come under direct threat.

Notice how the NY Times blatantly substituted the word "French" and "United Nations" for "American" and "broad-based coalition of unweaselly countries willing to share the heavy burden of global leadership by doing what they are told." I'm surprised I'm the first person to notice this incredible example of liberal media bias. Get on the ball, fact-checkers!

-----END SARCASM-----

I'm not sure how much usefulness there is in pointing out, for the one billionth time, that our current big excuse for invading Iraq is not the one that was originally offered, nor is it particularly likely. That excuse is: it was solely done to improve the lives of foreigners, excepting those who we accidentally carbonized but really had no choice about that, and that when we gave big speeches about "weapons of mass destruction" and "al-Qaeda ties" and "dangers to the US and the world" we were really speaking in a magical language where it sounds like we said that stuff, but only if you love Saddam and resent Iraqis being happy. But let's point it out again. The invasion of Iraq cost on the order of $50 billion, took several hundred thousand troops, 200 American and British lives, and several thousand (or tens of thousands) Iraqi lives, and required taking an enormous steaming dump on the United Nations, several long-time allies, and our own reputation. The French intervention cost far less than that by every measure, but we couldn't bothered to join in there at all. So either we really really really love Iraqis way more than Africans, or the post-facto elevation of a secondary motivation to the primary position is an attempt to cover up a foreign policy clusterfuck of gigantic proportions. It's a puzzler.

I'm not necessarily upset that American troops aren't being sent in. If they could be useful, it would be nice to join in, but if the French can handle it, they are quite welcome to do so. Not a bad precedent. But then there's this editorial from Kenya's The Nation, by one john Kamau, which brings up an unpleasant prospect:

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has asked UN members to create a "rapid reaction force", but then that is being hindered by politics of the post-Iraq war. While France has said it can contribute troops before the UN assembles its own bluehelmets, the Bush Administration has expressed support for the project but refused to commit any troops to it.

There are three reasons for that. The "Somalia syndrome" still haunts the US troops up to this day. Secondly, it is not in American interest, and thirdly, Washington is nursing a grudge against France for leading opposition to the Iraq war.

That last point is pure speculation of course, but perhaps not of the wildest variety. If pissing off the French played any part in the decision not to be a part of this mission, even indirectly, this may actually succeed in marking a new low. And even if it didn't, it is the incredible childishness of the Administration, and a rather embarrassing segment of the American population, towards the French position on Iraq (itself not without a certain childishness) which gives speculations like this a certain plausibility.

Posted by Andrew Northrup at June 7, 2003 05:43 PM | TrackBack