Jeff Millman: Rightfully flexing their muscles

Now that the bombs are raining down on Iraq, it is supposedly inappropriate to criticize our commander-in-chief for the process that got us here. We've been told that to show our solidarity for those who serve our country in combat, we must support the war effort now underway. The Bush administration would have us believe our opinions on the policy and execution of the war are now somehow connected to how we should feel about the honor of our troops.

But it's the peaceniks, and those steadfastly committed to diplomacy before it was cut off, who showed the greatest support for our troops: it's these people who wanted to bring our troops home, quickly and unscathed. And that's why France, for sticking with diplomacy and multilateralism, is undeserving of America's rhetorical attacks.

All war is a failure of diplomacy, and America's failure of diplomacy should not be blamed on France. President Bush had the burden of organizing a real coalition and convincing the Security Council to endorse the war -- and he didn't get it done.

Could weapons inspections ever work? No, and France was wrong to suggest they could. But war is also the ultimate tool of diplomacy, and shrewdly harnessing the threat of war could have parlayed a simple Security Council majority into all the international legitimacy and cooperation America would ever need. It's hard to believe our vassal states, including Mexico and Germany, and the other countries on the council would prefer to side with France over the one country that dominates global trade, provides military protection for much of the world and bankrolls so much foreign aid.

Incredibly, Bush's contempt for diplomacy and efforts to undermine and isolate France will prove counterproductive. France's political prestige is entirely based upon its Security Council veto. By blaming it for America's failure, Bush is undoubtedly emboldening France and giving it the global relevance it desperately wants but lost decades ago.

Yes, the U.S. is still the leader of the free world, if leadership means having the most of everything. But leadership also means getting others to follow you. It's America's lack of this leadership, not France, which is convincing Europe, especially the large powers, that it needs to counter-balance American power and global influence. France is hegemonic in this more independent, muscular Europe. And while America's new flock of friends among the former communist block may not like it, it will be hard for them to argue against the ambitions of Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Britain, especially from outside the European Union.

What! Are you shocked and awed? Italy, Spain and especially Britain, our "coalition of the winning," side with France and not us? Soon they will, because as democracies, they're not so willing to be in our coalition. A recent survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project shows that large majorities within our coalition view the United States unfavorably. Seventy-four percent felt that way in Spain, 59 percent in Italy and 84 percent in Turkey, which is starting to line up behind us. For our staunchest ally, 60 percent of Britons disapprove of Bush's foreign policies and 48 percent view America favorably against 40 percent unfavorably. Although Tony Blair will stay in power, his successor will most likely be more anti-American and more pan-European: our weakened alliance will jeopardize future coalitions.

The point is that Bush should be blamed not just for the failure of diplomacy, but also for strengthening France's hand in international affairs. If the world was not particularly offended by Bush's parallel buildup and quick timetable for war, his abandonment of worldwide concerns (global warming, land mines, the international criminal tribunal) and his aides (Defense Secretary Rumsfeld) popping off to allies, there is no doubt that France would have joined the coalition like the rest of the world, and not just because its veto would have been meaningless.

France's opposition to the war was based primarily on opportunity, not principle. And that's a shame because diplomacy is so critical to our war on terrorism. It's our participation in NATO and the U.N. that cloaks our unilateral forays in self-defense as universally needed. It's goodwill and respect for the concerns of other nations that will encourage reciprocity by foreign governments. We need allies now more than ever to let us tap into their intelligence and police assets to catch terrorists.

If we're going to face up to Iraq and take responsibility for the dangers imposed by terrorism, we should be honest about the need for diplomacy and why we've failed.

France may have invented "le bouc ‚missaire," or the scapegoat, during its infamous Dreyfus affair. Let's hope that the demons of suspicion and blame that divided France in the late 1890s will not come back to haunt us now when international unity is needed more than ever.

Jeff Millman is a senior Philosophy, Politics, and Economics major from Los Angeles, Calif.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.