Alors et alors seulment:

A Little Sarkasm about the Former Iraq

La tragédie irakienne ne peut pas nous laisser indifférents. La France était et demeure hostile à cette guerre. Que l'histoire nous ait donné raison ne nous dispense pas d'en mesurer les conséquences : une nation qui se défait dans une guerre civile sans merci ; un affrontement entre chiites et sunnites qui peut embraser tout le Moyen-Orient ; des groupes terroristes qui s'installent durablement, s'aguerrissent avant d'attaquer de nouvelles cibles à travers le monde entier ; une économie mondiale à la merci de la moindre étincelle sur les champs pétroliers. Il n'y aura de solution que politique : elle implique la marginalisation des groupes extrémistes et un processus sincère de réconciliation nationale, au terme duquel chaque segment de la société irakienne, chaque Irakien, devra être assuré d'un accès équitable aux institutions et aux ressources de son pays ; elle implique aussi que soit défini un horizon clair concernant le retrait des troupes étrangères. Car c'est la décision attendue sur ce sujet qui contraindra tous les acteurs à mesurer leurs responsabilités et à s'organiser en conséquence. C'est alors, et alors seulement, que la communauté internationale, à commencer par les pays de la région, pourra agir le plus utilement. La France, pour sa part, y sera disposée. C'est le message que Bernard Kouchner vient d'apporter à Bagdad, message de solidarité et de disponibilité.

Maybe we should grapple with Le Monde more often, Mr. Bones. Maybe we learn nothing important and new about the flashy-trashy M. du Sarkozy, yet unquestionably it is a solid gain to know what an étincelle is, should we ever encounter one. [1]

It stands out that we get no explanation of WHY France was and is and (ever?) shall be opposed to the Mesopotamian edition of the Kiddie Krusade. To talk about reasons would have adverse consequences as regards Greater Texas, no doubt, but if the Gallic ideobuddy allows himself était et demeure hostile à cette guerre, most of the harm is done already. Down at the ranch they forgot their own reasons for the Boy-'n'-Party aggression in the first six months of it, at most, so if M. du Sarkozy was to explain, for instance, that he and his party and his country believed that Hans Blix was right and the Bushies and Blairies and Party neocomrade Gen. Powell were talkin' self-servicin' rubbish, no additional damage control would be necessary. [2]

We learn elsewhere in the oration that Sarko is (was and remains) a global Kiddie Krusader whose reservations are confined to the Mesopotamian front:

Le débat international n'est pas abstrait ou lointain : les menaces d'aujourd'hui -terrorisme, prolifération, criminalité- ignorent les frontières ; les évolutions de l'environnement et de l'économie mondiale affectent nos vies quotidiennes ; les droits de l'homme sont bafoués [3] sous nos yeux.

As you saw in the headlines, Mr. Bones, terrorisme, prolifération, criminalité signifies "Qommies and more Qommies and still more Qommies." It is at least a little bit more intellectually and ethically respectable to be terrorized of Iranian nukes rather than of Saddam's forty-five-minute terror-tipped specials. On the other hand, in the present case even the autoterrorized admit that what they loathe and dread not exist at the moment. This means that M. du Sarkozy is a devotee of the Prëemptive Retaliation dogma right up there in the Tony Blair class, and that in turn suggests that Sarko's own hostility to the Iraq aggression may be mosty based on envy -- Oh, that Paris could act as Crawford can! Like Messrs. Pollack and O'Hanlon, he does not see any objection in principle to breakin' and enterin' other peoples' countries, but wants it to be done with competence and by the right people. Competence is competence all the world over, but when it comes to pickin' the right people for their vigilante patrols, doubtless one crew means Democrats and the other Europeans.

The best thing about his brief analysis of the bushogenic quagmire is that little spark about the Gulf of Petroleum. In the holy Homeland, Dubyapologists and bipartisan advocates of Responsible Nonwithdrawal™ find it impossible to be that frank except on very rare occasions. Since our own invasionites find the subject of fossil fuel undiscussable, naturally there can be no proper discussion of whether Boy and Party must occupy the former Iraq eternally in order to keep gas prices down where gas prices belong. M. de Sarkozy finds oil mentionable, but just barely. He can scarcely be said to discuss it, and so we must guess for ourselves whether France's hostility to Dubya's war was and is based on the perception that cheap gas did not at all require such strenuos exertions. [4] That would be suitably hard-nosed in the traditional French style, at any rate, and ethically more presentable than sheer hyperpower envy. BKGB.

When it comes to pickin' up the pieces in "Iraq," Sarko's mind is chock full of the usual cant. He has no clue, I take it, why "un processus sincère de réconciliation nationale, au terme duquel chaque segment de la société irakienne, chaque Irakien, devra être assuré d'un accès équitable aux institutions et aux ressources de son pays" did not happen years ago. I myself have no clue why he supposes "que soit défini un horizon clair concernant le retrait des troupes étrangères" should fix things up in a jiffy, no more than when Democratic politicians talk the same way. Both parties are to be applauded for disagreeing with Rancho Crawford and Rio Limbaugh and wanting a serious withdrawal with absolutely no GOP military operatives or GOP military bases left behind -- assuming that is what they want, a point that is rather clearer with M. du Sarkozy than with most prominent donkeys. All the same, "defining a clear horizon" still leaves the horizon a long way off, and probably receding as one advances boldly towards it.

As we agreed yesterday, Mr. Bones, the point of such claptrap is probably rather that France should be noticed as uttering it than that the extremist Republicans actually do it.

Then finally comes Dr. Bernie and the " message de solidarité et de disponibilité ," a message which poor M. al-Málikí seems to have understood well enough. If M. du Sarkozy seriously intended to solidaritize with the neorégime at brave New Baghdád, the results might be interesting, but clearly he and his government and his party and his France are only at the disposition of a chimaera, the humble servants and cordial wellwishers of an "Iraq" sincerely processed into national reconciliation. Should the nonexistence of that fabulous creature be not enough to make sure that Sarkozy & Cie. never have to do anything much, he sets up another impossibly high hurdle:

Car c'est la décision attendue sur ce sujet qui contraindra tous les acteurs à mesurer leurs responsabilités et à s'organiser en conséquence. C'est alors, et alors seulement, que la communauté internationale, à commencer par les pays de la région, pourra agir le plus utilement.

I.e., Sarko promises to be good as soon as everybody else is good too -- but not an instant before! The Gaullist or pan-French cynicism about collective security and international coöperation is sound enough, so the chances that such a "promise" will ever actually have to be kept are indistinguishable from zero. Thanks a lot, Nick!

___
[1] Ah, you too? "Spark, flash, brilliance." Figuratively, it means Sarko's idea of Sarko, for instance. As it happens, I had emitted that little flash of my own before I reached for the dictionary.


[2] That "demeure" could be questioned by pedants, considering that, like the rest of the Security Council, France was willing enough to pardon the outrageous offense against traditional international law as soon as decency allowed, or even sooner. However that particular sort of pedant is likely to be rare chez Sarkozy. In those circles, the whole Turtle Bay complex of notions must seem so absurd that it scarcely matters what one's UN ambassador votes for or against. Only a provincial redneck like Neocomrade J. Bolton would get worked up over matters completely trivial.


[3] "scoffed at, made game of" Observe that human rights brings up the rear of the procession. Might it have been omitted altogether if Dr. Bernie K. was not around?



[4] In Greater Texas, the other great unmentionable about the aggression is Jewish Statism and the interests of the Tel Aviv statelet. This dirty little secret is not quite so unmentionable, invasionite pols may safely bloviate about it when addressin' AIPAC and other such audiences, but that limited liberty of thought and expression may only manage to aggravate the real occupation policy problem. The purpose of their bloviation is to affirm their eternal devotion to &c. &c., so to announce that the Party's semiconquest and occupation of the former Iraq has little or nothin' to do with the security of Jewish Palestine would seem counterproductive even if they believed that to be the case. No doubt they do not believe that to be the case, but as long as the subject is taboo, there will be no chance to correct that error.

Sarko devotes five paragraphs to the Palestine Puzzle, most of it tame boilerplate conventional wisdom: "la France est déterminée à prendre ou à soutenir toute initiative utile. Mais elle a une conviction : la paix se négociera d'abord entre Israéliens et Palestiniens " and so on and so forth. He points out no direct connection between the two great Levantine occupations and probably, quite correctly, thinks that there is none, yet he is bound and determined to be a Kiddie Krusader (outside "Iraq"), hence

[L]a création d'un " Hamastan " dans la bande de Gaza risque d'apparaître rétrospectivement comme la première étape de la prise de contrôle de tous les territoires palestiniens par les islamistes radicaux. Nous ne pouvons pas nous résigner à cette perspective. La France ne s'y résigne pas.