Cynicism

Much to-do today in Europe, "New" and "Old." First, you have Belgium and France vetoing any move by NATO, for the moment anyway, to supplement the Turkish defense on its border with Iraq, lest it appear that NATO has given up on all "diplomatic initiatives." This followed on the heels of U.S. officials going absolutely apoplectic over the, truly unsurprising (American dismay, notwithstanding), Franco-Germanic peace initiative, which would triple the number of inspectors in Iraq, back them with surveillance flights, and possibly include the assistance of UN troops. Politically, even if you completely disagree with their position, and there are practical reasons to do so (namely, its feasibility, given Iraq's reluctance to allow surveillance flights) this is a really shrewd political move on their part, at least in the short term. If their proposal is accepted on Friday, it puts the onus on the U.S. to decide, and then to declare, its place in the world. Now, I'm not sure anybody is convinced that this will actually stop the build-up for a war, or even an actual war in the matter of a couple more weeks. Again, though, it's all a matter of the official declarations themselves, which appear to carry the potential either to establish the Security Council's relevance in today's world or to show it to be little more than a theatrical distraction that fewer people will pay much attention to in subsequent years.

Depending on one's perspective, either side can be regarded as cynical. On one hand, the European perspective could be regarded as an egregious disregard of the liberal values it so publically declares to be its hallmark, as extending UN inspections prolong, or perhaps even lead to additional, sanctions against a people (not a government) these same European governments, the UK excluded, have long believed have suffered enough; or, that the European peace perspective is a cover for their existent concerns with refugees, and thus is politically expedient; or, that they're simply parasites who reap the benefits of a war without having to actually risk the fight -- in the polls or on the battlefield. On the other hand, the U.S. perspective could be regarded as a wanton giddy-up attitude to foreign policy that disregards the need, if it wants international allies, to make a compelling case for war, one that is grounded on something more than paper-thin rhetoric, deconstructed ("it's all a matter of perspective, see", "the authorship and provenance of this document doesn't matter") intelligence, and a messiah-complex that compels the belief that America must save the world from an evil that the rest of the world does not recognize; that its intentions, sometimes even the best ones, are clouded by a myopic understanding of the roots of the terrorism it so fears, resists, and, all the same, potentially inflames by a war on terrorism that might also be the war of terrorism (i.e., the very intention of "terror"'s architects).

In sum, this whole bloody mess is cynical -- how could it be anything else? Perhaps, if you'll indulge me a little more cynicism, though it can also be read it in a far more positive light as well, it is a matter now of which stain (they both appear to be blood) will be easier to clean off ourselves.