Paul Johnson has them over at Forbes. Note that the word "Anglosphere" continues to catch on...

I was pretty disappointed with the Forbes article. Mr. Johnson takes the opportunity to bash France rather than look at the real mistakes that have occured.

Lesson 1: Diplomacy takes time. The diplomatic part should have started much sooner than it did in the Fall of 2001. I'm not clear why Bush didn't start things back when he got elected. But in the months after September 11, he had some opportunity to orient world opinion his way concerning Iraq. Afghanistan was handled pretty well, for example.

Lesson 2: if global opinion is on your side, then it gets a whole lot cheaper. For example, the US is paying huge sums of money and favors in order to invade Iraq. In large part, that is because global opinion is against a war in Iraq.

Lesson 3: Sloppy work costs you. I've seen a number of cases where the US has behaved in a sloppy fashion under the Bush administration, whether it be explicitly stating support for the failed Venezuelan coup in 2001, the "evil axis" speech with the "you're with us or against us" logic, or when Bush reversed himself hastily on the Kyoto Treaty. Recently, we read that the Guardian has obtained a NSA memo purported hinting at a spying campaign on the swing votes in the UN security Council. And that Rumsfield is talking about deploying nonlethal chemical weapons (though just as banned as VX for whar that's worth) on the Iraq battlefield. If these are true (and Rumsfield's comments weren't just strategic misinformation), then that's a real sloppy thing to do at a particularly critical time.

Ah, another person who doesn't seem to have any memory of the past decade.

1. We have been doing the Diplomatic Dance for twelve years. Look it up.

2. So we should go around to these nations with our hat in hand, begging for money? We have already seen how they reacted to being asked for mere _verbal_ support. If I had already had an acquaintance show me that he was ready to trash our relationship the minute I really needed him, I certainly wouldn't think of asking to borrow my cab fare from him.

3. Rumors and a possibly-bogus "leaked letter" (in the _Guardian_ of all publications, and I wouldn't trust their reportage on this matter, read the post here -- http://damianpenny.blogspot.com/ -- for 2.03.03 at 1:17pm) are not good ways to support your argument. And Bush said "Either you're with us or you're with the _terrorists_." No, that does not mean the same thing as "you're with us or against us."

Ah, another person who doesn't seem to have any memory of the past decade.

Huh? My memory may not be that wonderful, but I don't recall G. W. Bush being US President for 12 years. Colin Powell didn't have a strong diplomatic hand till last Fall.

2. So we should go around to these nations with our hat in hand, begging for money? We have already seen how they reacted to being asked for mere _verbal_ support. If I had already had an acquaintance show me that he was ready to trash our relationship the minute I really needed him, I certainly wouldn't think of asking to borrow my cab fare from him.

Maybe I wasn't clear here. I'm just saying the bribes are smaller if public opinion in the other country is in your favor.

3. Rumors and a possibly-bogus "leaked letter" (in the _Guardian_ of all publications, and I wouldn't trust their reportage on this matter, read the post here -- http://damianpenny.blogspot.com/ -- for 2.03.03 at 1:17pm) are not good ways to support your argument. And Bush said "Either you're with us or you're with the _terrorists_." No, that does not mean the same thing as "you're with us or against us."

I notice you don't address the majority of my third point. Yes, the evidence for the NSA email is pretty weak (and your link outlines some huge mishandlings on the part of the Guardian). As for the infamous State of the Union address, apparently I wasn't the only one to mistaken the meaning of this false dilemma. That single phrase has resulted a lot of myoptic thinking. Ie, just look at the verbiage (2060 results!) that shows up for a google search on "friend or foe" "Saudi Arabia". Incidentally, the same search with France replacing "Saudi Arabia" yielded 6890 results.

My point is that past misteps have hurt the cause. Just look at the current situation, the US is hustling to get it's diplomatical agreements in place and not everything goes according to plan. For example, Turkey may end up not participating because of a last minute snafu.

My point is that I've outlined real problems that the Bush team experienced and to some extent overcome. As opposed to complaining about French perfidy. When Johnson started talking about removing France's permanent seat at the UN Security Council, then he lost touch with reality. As I crudely understand it, changing such things requires approval of the UN Security Council. And it just so happens that all permanent members have veto power. Hence, nobody is taking away France's seat without their permission. In particular, the US doesn't have that power or authority to do anything about it - no matter how naughty France has behaved.

Having said all this, I will wait till after the shooting is over before I really start second guessing Bush and his team. In particular, if the military deployment is competent and the primary objectives are met (ie, eliminating Saddam Hussein and driving his clan and the rest of the Baathists out of power), then I'm willing to forgive a lot.