French Prove Their Mettle?

So the French are denouncing us again? de Villepin says he doesn't like our choice. He believes that it is illegal and against public opinion. He set forth again that France cannot accept an ultimatum that means something. And he proved that for all the French "sophistication" he cannot fathom an analogy.

He claims the war is against "the clearly expressed will of the international community." What is he basing "the will of the international community" on? We have already built one of the largest coalitions in world history - it will probably have more nations participating than participated in D-Day (they read the French better than we did obviously). The UN Security Council is not the last word of the "international community." And France certainly is not representative of the "international community" as a whole.

He also makes the mistake of thinking that the Bush administration is governed by opinion polls exclusively. Public opinion polls are wonderful tools, but they are just that, they are tools. You can't plan to build a house based around the fact you have no hammer. The tools cannot be allowed to dictate the job. In this case, world public opinion cannot be the deciding factor in Bush upholding his oath of office. Sometimes leadership means pissing off most everybody. The right thing to do is not always the easiest. The French with their apparently Clintonesque reliance on opinion polls prove that they do not have the spine needed to be a true world leader.

If France were a real world leader, like they pretend to be, they would understand that there are times when an ultimatum is right and justified. Diplomacy works up to a point. Once that point is reached you have to either surrender your position or issue an ultimatum. The French may not agree that the point of no return has been reached, but they have not stated a case for it. They are claiming that 83 pages of non-compliance is proof that the inspections are working. Their position opposing an ultimatum has not been defended and their reasoning has been illogical at best.

But logic has never been a critical component of the French position. Since the passage of 1441they have attempted to backpedal and to take any measure necessary to protect Saddam. They have a valid reason for taking that position - commercial interest - but they have been unwilling to state it. Instead they argue illogical positions and defend a failing process.

But the thing that amazes me the most is their inability to comprehend a metaphor. de Villepin attacked Bush's poker metaphor saying that we "cannot compare war to any kind of game. It's not a game." He just doesn't catch it. We have never said it was a game, Bush just chose to explain the situation to the US citizens in terms that would be understandable by virtually everyone. The poker metaphor/analogy was not intended for foreign consumption, it was intended for the US population. You would think the sophisticated French would understand the difference.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the French are acting like this. But this is not the action taken by an ally disagreeing with the details of a position. They don't agree with the basic premise. Allies have similar goals and concerns. The French are now saying that their goals and concerns do not line up with ours. There is now a fundamental cultural difference between our nations out in the open. The chips were down and they hung us out. It's time to reassess our relationship and decide where we go from here.