Stardate 20020325.0923

(On Screen): They're debating American foreign policy in Europe. But the change is that they're debating it with each other instead of preaching to us. Apparently it's sunk in that that wasn't doing any good.

Why, legislators asked, is the United States considering extending the war against terrorism to Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction before achieving all its goals in Afghanistan?

First, because it will be years before the situation in Afghanistan is completely stable, and we can't afford to wait that long. Second, because we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan. The goal was to depose the Taliban so as to make an example of it, and to make it so that the area could no longer be used as a safe haven by al Qaeda. "Establishing peaceful government" was a desirable side effect but was never a formal goal of the operation.

What is the point of moving the battle from Kabul to Baghdad now? asked Alan Simpson, a member of the Labor Party. "That would not bring peace to the region or country, but would add massively to the sense of instability, threat and risk felt by us all," he said.

Perhaps that is the point.

John Chipman, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said Europeans are not prepared now to join an effort to overturn Saddam's government.

"They want to hear more about why U.N. Security Council diplomacy can't be extended further and how the U.S. can be certain that this will not create even more instability in the Middle East," he said.

Because UN Security Council Diplomacy has been a spectacular failure. I'm thinking back now and I can't think of a single success attributable to it.

And as to instability, there is an a priori assumption that maintenance of the status quo is a goal in itself. I think the possibility needs to be considered that instability in the Middle East might actually be a good thing.

During a European Union summit earlier this month, leaders said they recognized the threat posed by Iraq's development of chemical and biological weapons, but no effort was made to develop a plan for dealing with Saddam.

The lack of support for action now is especially evident in Russia and France, Iraq's major trading partners in Europe. Both are owed billions of dollars by Iraq.

My heart bleeds.

French President Jacques Chirac, who is in a tight race for re-election, also has said an attack on Iraq needed Security Council backing. He says nations should first work to persuade Iraq to accept the "unconditional return" of weapons inspectors before any consideration is given to military action.

But we tried that for more than ten years and it was an abject failure. For seven years there were weapons inspectors whose activities were actively hampered by Iraq, and finally Iraq ejected them entirely. Why is there any reason to believe that they would be any more successful now than they were then?

For ten years, the Security Council tried to figure out what to do about Iraq and we got a meaningless stalemate.

It's time to try something else. All successful diplomacy is backed by the threat of force, and when the diplomacy fails, the force gets used. That's where we are now.

And if it destabilizes the rest of the Middle East, well good.