Thursday, March 06, 2003

I don't buy the idea that Bush has bungled the negotiations over Iraq as Fineman, among others, are suggesting.

Their premise relies on the assumption that Bush wanted German, French, Russian, Chinese and even Turkish support - at least enough to offer more than token gestures (a few billion here or there, a few weeks delay, and so on) in order to obtain this support. If this were true, then, not having gotten this support (as of posting), I might agree with them.

But, as I mentioned in an earlier posting, suppose we're not giving Bush enough credit? Maybe, while Fineman and the rest of the chattering class have devoted gigabites upon gigabytes of copy about what Bush has to do in order to get the French and others on board, Bush was intending to go it alone all along? Doubtful? Think of the benefits: no arguing about targets between allies, as with Yugoslavia. No having to maintain support in multiple countries with fickle public opinion and corrupt, conniving leadership. Having successfully defeated Iraq, pretty much on our own (no offense to England), we wouldn't neither need nor desire to solicit help in future conflicts, wherever these future conflicts might be. And, having found (in all likelihood) after hostilities have concluded, evidence of Saddam's WMD programs, there will be no need to solicit the opinion of those who were proven so obviously wrong this time around: the French, Germans, and Congressional Democrats.

No, I think Fineman has it exactly backwards. It's the French, etc., who have egg on their face. All of the blustering, and all of their posturing, and all of their marches, and they couldn't deter the moronic Texas cowboy from his appointed tasks.

UPDATE: I forgot to include Powell in the group of bunglers. I can see Bush looking at Powell and asking "We've spent the last four months wasting our time doing what with the UN? This war could have been over by now!".