Kieran Healy

Strategic Analysis

While you munch on your freedom fries, consider what is going on inside the mind of Steven DenBeste. Here he is wondering about the French:

De facto they’re allied with Saddam even if there’s no publicly-declared treaty or agreement; so will they be willing to intervene militarily? Will they smuggle some sort of weaponry in? Or ship it in openly?

If 20 cargo jets take off from French territory and head towards the middle east, what will we do? If they ignore all attempts to prevent them from reaching Iraq, would we be willing to actually shoot one or more of them down?

Just how far are they willing to take their opposition to us? They’ve reached the point where it seems as if they’re willing to make any sacrifice. Do they see the stakes as being high enough so that they might actually threaten to nuke us?

Wow. It just boggles the mind. Do you think DenBeste is a sui generis fruitcake or does he represent a wide body of opinion?

I think you’re misrepresenting his case. He’s stating worse case scenarios, they don’t have to be completely plausible. Stranger things have happened.

I agree set, this must be a misrepresentation. I mean, for DenBeste to be a fruitcake, he’d have to be baked, and filled with fruity-nutty things. However would he type? How could he spell?

And then, as to this sui generis business, it’s like this: all fruitcakes are alike, but each cookie is a cookie in its own way. No, no, if he is a fruitcake, there must be others just like him.

I’m not quite sure why you think that’s so far fetched. You don’t think that the French would try to provide some help to their ally, Saddam Hussein?

France is Iraq’s ally.

France is not the USA’s ally.

Looks like Narniaman has answered your question.

Looks like Narniaman has answered your question.

I think you’re misrepresenting his case. He’s stating worse case scenarios, they don’t have to be completely plausible. Stranger things have happened.

Stranger things have happened than France nuking the United States? Want to give any examples? The famous rain of frogs in Posset-on-the-Wye in 1537, maybe?

Unfortunately, he represents a body a body of opinion. On a different online forum I participate in, there is an individual who repeats anything he says as gospel. He credits den Beste for making him see that his previous rabid isolationism was wrong.

The extreme case scenario is just that, and I think that DenBeste knows it. And, I think that the nuke bit is rather extreme hyperbole (although I will confess as to only having read a little bit of his stuff, so who knows…). Still, the part that is not so far-fetched is the idea that France is hardly behaving like an ally (a view that George Will espoused this past weekend on This Week).

Indeed, while I do not expect the French to kowtow to the US, there is a point where they should just step away and wash their wash of the situation, but instead they have maneuvered themselves to be in Iraq’s camp, not just an anti-war camp. I say this because it is clear that barring a radical internal change in Iraq, there is going to a war. Delay aids Saddam, and the French are currently perpetuating that delay. Ergo, they are acting more in Iraq’s interest than ours.

A sui generis fruitcake…

Turn of phrase, probably should have said more improbable things have happened. But, yeah, from the tone of Den Beste’s post, I think it is mostly looking for things that could go wrong.

I mean, hey, there’s a possibility of being knifed in your sleep by your cousin who dislikes you, but it’s vanishingly small.

But that’s everyday life, not one of the pivots of history. If the former, it doesn’t pay to worry about everything. If the latter, you damn well better look at every single thing that can go wrong, no matter how paranoid. The French helping Saddam, then us attacking them and the ensuing escalation strike me as within the realm of possibility (but the chances of that happening are one in a million, the French are not stupid).

Anyway, I think Den Beste doesn’t believe this will likely happen, i.e. there is a probability on the order of 0.00000001% of it happening. But, with a decision that has the consequences as large as this, it never hurts to consider all possibilities.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

Poliblogger, you say “France is hardly behaving like an ally,” but is not an alliance a two way street? If heads is France not respecting US concerns, surely tails is the US not respecting French concerns.

Actually Den Beste is quite rational. You on the other hand are clearly a friutcake. Whether you are sui generis or a creation of Paul Begala, the world may never know.

Actually Den Beste is quite rational. You on the other hand are clearly a friutcake. Whether you are sui generis or a creation of Paul Begala, the world may never know.

kieran: “Stranger things have happened than France nuking the United States? Want to give any examples? The famous rain of frogs in Posset-on-the-Wye in 1537, maybe?”

#1 on my list would be 19 guys armed with boxcutters destroying the wtc and attacking the pentagon. that was pretty improbable 18 months ago, or at least i thought so at the time.

brad delong oughta know enough about fruitcakes.

etc: Allies are like friends. The moment you say, “You’re not my friend if…,” I’m already not your friend. Friendship, and alliances, aren’t about forcing your friend/ally to do what you want them to do.

Here’s how I view it; correct me if I’m wrong.

1. The US wants to attack Iraq.
2. France wants the US to not attack Iraq.

The US is not stopping France from doing anything. France is (trying to) use its ally status to stop us from doing something we want to do. If France did absolutely nothing, the US would not care; it’s France’s interference with our plans that caused the rift. Who takes the initiative is very important. We acted, and France acted in response to our action. I do not think a case could be made that we’re meddling in France’s affairs.

Actually, it is a little more complicated. In a sense, France doesn’t want us to attack because Iraq is big business for them, so we’re effectively destroying a source of money from the French. On the other hand, we would gladly pay the French billions of dollars if they’d only stop their incessant whining.

So in a sense I agree; but given the choice between going to war with Iraq and keeping France as an ally, I for one say farewell to the French. In an alliance, my interests still come before my allies’ interests.

To the French, if you had to choose, would you rather be a US ally or an Iraqi ally? That’s not unlike the choice facing France today, and they have clearly not chosen the US. That should give French sympathizers in the US pause—except, of course, all they care about is figuring out “why they have us,” so it’s just one more problem to solve.

This is really amazing to me. The US government is about to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq because of a lopsided application of international law, and the diplomatic opposition of another country causes this kind of outrage? The objective of the Bush Administration is to launch 3000 cruise missiles into Baghdad and afterwards seize its oil wealth in order to “reconstruct Iraq”? And you are bewildered that the government of France objects?

The scale of dishonesty of the Bush Administration surpasses anything I’ve read or seen, and I do a lot of both. For someone who flaunts his atheism so proudly, Den Beste and Hitchens certainly behave like members of a beleaguered cult. Those who challenge the torrent of lies of our government are traitors? Are those so threatened by dissent afraid we will befeated and occupied, or do they feel their self-love should be guarded by our nuclear umbrella?

If Freud had been born a century later, he wouldn’t study dreams nor have people tell their childhood stories while on a couch. He’d just read their weblog. Maybe someone could write some automatic weblog psychoanalysis software.

John wrote: “The US is not stopping France from doing anything. France is (trying to) use its ally status to stop us from doing something we want to do”

Let’s clarify this point: France will not stop the US from attacking Iraq; it just refuses to give that attack UN approval. And I thought you guys despised this “irrelevant” international body.

For crying out loud – France is not Iraq’s ally. They are for tough inspections in Iraq, backed up by military force, but they also think that the military inspections should run their course.

Now, the “you’re not my friend if..” senario is all very well, but that of course ignores the “either you are with us or against us” retorics of Bush, and the pressure USA puts on other countries to do what USA wants them to do.
Also, friends don’t friends do stupid and/or illigal things – at least not true friends.

France belives that there are some international rules that should be followed, and USA wants to break those rules. Now it might be said that France could just ignore it, and stay friends with USA, but this is obviously more important to them – and also to Germany, Russia, Belgium and China.
If France et al just ignores it, they create a presedence, which would allow say China to invade Taiwan, citing pre-emptive attack.

Kieran, I hope you’re not being tempted to go down the same route Daniel
Davies did a while ago. Beware! That way lies madness! Not to mention
having your comments section overrun by hordes of den Beste fans.
Apparently, his view of the world is more common than you’d think—at least among the self-selecting group of people with nothing better to
do with themselves than read weblogs and comment on them (er..wait..that
set and the set of me would seem to intersect…)

Someone said: “France is (trying to) use its ally status to stop us from doing something we want to do.”

This is totally wrong. France isn’t trying to prevent us from doing anything. They are refusing to participate through the United Nations, which is their right. France, I’m quite sure, has an opinion on whether or not the US should invade Iraq, but they don’t have a direct stake in that. It’s none of their concern what the US does. But France does have a stake in what the UN does, as do we. France doesn’t want the UN to invade Iraq, the US does. This difference of opinion is playing out within the UN, which is precisely how it’s supposed to work.

The anti-French brigade need to keep this in perspective. France is thwarting the US desire to convince the UN to invade Iraq, by opposing that desire within the UN. France is not, and cannot, thwart the US desire for the US to invade Iraq, because France doesn’t get a vote in the US Congress.

The only thing being argued in the UN is what the UN is going to do. What the US is going to do is not on the table in the UN.

Exhibit A that public debate in the United States is not invigorated or elevated by blogging but instead reduced by it would be these kinds of discussions.

There’s a reasonably large universe of people and ideas out there to take issue with. The practice of finding the stupidest, most irrational, most out-of-touch posts and articles and making them the subject of debate is pretty deeply integrated into asynchronous online discussions, but bloggers have taken it to new heights, following the excellent lead of talk radio.

DenBeste is only worth discussing if we think he represents a demographically significant sector of opinion, and then only worth discussing sociologically, e.g., why do these people think as they do? What are the deeper underpinnings of their thought? Because when something like “France nuking the United States” enters the scene as an actual scenario (or even a rhetorically deliberate misrepresentation), there isn’t much of a serious discussion to be had. Strange and unexpected things do happen, but at that level of possible strangeness, we should be soberly talking about similarly unlikely scenarios such as the intervention of space aliens, Canada staging a ground invasion of the United States, and Saddam Hussein being bitten by a radioactive spider and learning that with great power comes great responsibility.

It’s a wide, wide world of opinion out there in Blogistan. Surely Kieran Healy can find more interesting and sane people to talk about. Surely we can have conversations that matter about the genuinely difficult questions of our day, and debates that represent more than a scavenger hunt for the village idiot.

Den Beste does not represent a significant sector of public opinion in the United States. I have yet to meet a single person (outside of certain weblogs, which is a totally self-selected group) who felt anything like he does.

But to be fair, he said “threaten to nuke the US”, not “nuke the US”; he’s saying the French might engage in the same kind of brinksmanship that has become the US’s sole tool in foreign policy.

With due respect, Tim, SDB is an important figure in Blogistan. A lot of people read him and take his “analysis” seriously, even as “truth”. An occasional effort has to be made to break into the war-blogger echo chamber and point out that some of their leading lights are galloping along the edge of madness. That there are serious, committed, intelligent people who think this stuff from SDB is crazy talk might persuade some to take a more critical perspective.

It is still possible to support this war for rational reasons and with a rational perspective on outcomes. Let’s encourage those hawks to take the forefront in the discussion. Otherwise, the peace really will be a disaster.

(Quick lesson for the perplexed: analysis is the art and science of taking things apart until you understand the pieces and how they fit together; analysis is not the process of putting things you don’t understand together until the puzzle confirms your prejudices.)

“They [the French] are refusing to participate through the United Nations…” Wouldn’t they then abstain, rather than veto?

“(Quick lesson for the perplexed: analysis is the art and science of taking things apart until you understand the pieces and how they fit together; analysis is not the process of putting things you don’t understand together until the puzzle confirms your prejudices.)”

In the lingo of the Something Awful forums, “needs more love”.

Well put, and exactly why I stopped engaging with Den Beste months ago after a long period of detailed rebuttal. (Much as DD did). The problem, of course, is that anybody whose political education is shaped by Tom Clancy novels and uncritical readings of Reagan/Bushist propaganda is going to think that SDB is the best thing since sliced bread, and is going to attempt to convince others (who are, perhaps, less charitable to SDBs views) that what he says makes sense.

Plus, there’s always the possibility that his ideas will filter through to people that do have a say; it’s certainly possible that some AEI types read his blog and may be influenced by it. I don’t know, but it’s probable. With that in mind, his unrebutted ideas may be presented as truth by people who have a clear line to the executive branch. That would be, in a word, catastrophic.

I like the way that the leftover cloven hooves have so swiftly become the perfect fit for French feet. Ah, it’s always about other governments’ vested interests, lack of international co-operation, support for terrorist regimes, alliances with dictators, and use of vetoes. When we’re done being down that rabbit hole, can we find a looking glass, please?

I’ve read Den Beste’s post in full, and his latest post, to see how badly he’s been ‘misrepresented’. Apart from attempting to assure himself that the powers that be in the White House aren’t basing US foreign policy on the promptings in his blog, he seems to have anticipated lots of nasty scenarios in the aftermath of a war (which, nevertheless, does not plug his promptings). His posts make for an interesting read, though. China “continues to be pugnacious internationally”. “French machinations” may be an attempt to “destroy Blair politically”. Oh, and as the Mother Of All Bombs is tested in the run-up to this war, weeping can commence over the fact that “no one except us really cares about Iraq at all”. I am, however, in agreement with his assessment that “Truth and Justice and Honesty have nothing to do with the [current] situation”.

And for those who feel that Den Beste is not worth discussing, how dissimilar are his blog writings from any of the news items currently popping up on CNN and its ilk? You tell me who’s marginal in this debate.

let’s face it, it is all the fault of the british

I think he’s a fruitcake with a core cadre of readers. Hey, anyone who can slog through his dense, ill-researched prose, and likes it well enough to do it again deserves to be on the skinny edge of international diplomatic reality along with him.

The original question put to me was, if France is an ally, doesn’t that mean we have to respect their opinion?

Essentially my answer was no.

Whether France works against us in the UN or elsewhere isn’t the point I was making. Frankly I don’t care where they oppose us. The fact is they are working against us for their own reasons.

I don’t think we have any sort of obligation to France. That’s the main point. I don’t think France has any obligation to us either. But from now on the US will most likely not look at France as an ally.

Re: Friends don’t let friends do stupid things… Unspoken is your assumption that the US is trying to do something stupid. For your statement to invalidate mine you’d need to prove that going to war is akin to driving drunk. (Most of you probably believe that, but please realize that most of the US does not. You have to prove it to us, not yourselves.)

John, couldn’t France sincerely think that we were doing something akin to driving drunk, but simply be mistaken? After all, it’s not every day your ally invades another country without an explicit act of war. Why is it so crazy that someone could form the judgement that such an action is a serious mistake?

His posts make for an interesting read, though.

And so does the grand unified conspiracy theory in Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum. Doesn’t make it anything other than fiction, though.

‘Martial’ has the right idea. One can construct all sorts of weird and wonderful scenarios from within such an echo chamber.

“But from now on the US will most likely not look at France as an ally.”

Freedom fries all around, everyone!

Kant, Bruce Russett and John O’Neal, and the rest of the Democratic Peace gang must be quaking in their boots at the thought that the towering intellect that is SdB threatening to prove them wrong—something else in the 0.00000001% probability range…

Of course don’t forget the Russians. They have more nukes, and there public pronouncements have been near identical to the French.

AAAAARGHHHHHHH!

Out of unadulterated laziness, I’m just stealing Ted Barlow’s whole post here: Via Through the Looking Glass, I see that

Freudblogging

He’d just read their weblog.

Freudblogging

He’d just read their weblog.

[...] Crackpot, conspiracy-theorist, and total asshole Steven “Shut-in von Clausewitz” den Beste = talented comic & writer Bruce Vilanch [...]