Stardate 20021004.1302

(On Screen): Alisa comments that I've been getting cranky lately, and she's right. It's an accumulation of several things, among which is that I need a vacation. (I always take one at the end of October, and I need to get off my ass and make reservations again this year.)

There are other things getting to me recently, too, such as problems with my link to the Internet. But one of the biggest reasons why I'm cranky right now is that I'm on edge. We're facing what I think is the single largest and most difficult challenge in this war. Whether we win or lose will be decided in the next two weeks. And though I think the odds are good, the chance of losing is high enough so that I'm deeply concerned. And because I have no ability to influence it, I'm feeling very helpless.

We win or lose based on whether Congress passes an authorization for invasion of Iraq, and on what kinds of restrictions it contains. This is the critical branch point for the course of the entire war. The original Bush proposal which would have given him carte blanche for operations in the entire region was almost certainly too broad, but I'm not so sure that it wasn't made that way so as to give the Democrats in the Senate something they could change, so that they could pretend that they weren't giving in all the way. It was an asking price, something which is deliberately intended to be partially negotiated away. But we must invade, and we must do so soon. If we do, our chance of winning this war is very good. If we put it off too long, or don't do it at all, then the situation becomes far more complicated and perilous and our chance of winning far less certain.

We will lose the war if no authorization is passed until after the new Congress takes office next year. We cannot afford to wait that long. And we will lose this war if an authorization is passed soon but includes any kind of requirement for UN approval, or NATO approval, or "approval by allies", or any of the other "yes but not really" limitations that Democrats in the Senate have proposed which would make it look as if they had consented to war while setting conditions on the authorization which in practice can't be satisfied. If an authorization for war passes without intolerable conditions attached, then I will feel much better. Quite frankly, winning in Iraq will be easier and less risky than winning in the Senate.

I fear Tom Daschle more than I fear Saddam Hussein.

Winning in the UN doesn't matter in the slightest. There was never really any chance of getting UNSC authorization, but it was politically necessary to try. Trying to get UNSC approval and failing will not in itself cause defeat.

Ultimately our enemies can't defeat us. We're too powerful. But we can defeat ourselves. We have the ability to win this war, but only if we choose to do so. If we shackle ourselves then we'll lose. If we sit passively, or spin our wheels with unimportant symbolic gestures, we will lose. If we muster the will to actually fight, we will win.

How we will win, and how long it will take, and how expensive it will be in blood and treasure, are all substantial questions. But those can only be answered once we make the decision to actually try, which is what we face now. And if we decide not to try, then we are certain to lose.

We face two external threats attempting to defeat us. In various forms and guises, there is a substantial violent threat against us in the Middle East, and we can only defend ourselves against it by going there and preventing it. It will not be dissuaded by diplomacy or stopped by trade embargos or by appeals to communitarian spirit, or even by substantial concessions and other forms of appeasement.

The other threat we face is political and it is centered in continental Europe, most vocally now in Paris and Berlin. I do not know if the forces there opposing us think of themselves as actually being allied with or aligned with Saddam and the other Arab forces who seek to kill us. Probably not; probably they think that they are standing up for larger and more important issues about how international relations should take place. But on a practical level it amounts to the same thing: the Europeans and the militant Arab forces are both attempting to defeat the US.

Europe actually has the ability to defeat us militarily, if they were willing to commit suicide in order to do so. France has a sufficient nuclear arsenal to kill three quarters of the population of the US and reduce the rest to a preindustrial technological level, but if it did so we would do the same in response, and they cannot prevent our counterstrike. Short of that, the Europeans have no actual ability to force us to do anything.

As long as they're not willing to nuke us, and as long as we're willing to ignore their fierce scowls, then they are powerless. The only way we can be defeated by the Europeans is if we grant them the power to defeat us. (Which they know, which is why they've been demanding "consultation".)

Mark Steyn asks the following rhetorical question:

Just as a matter of interest, how many countries does George W. Bush have to have on board before America ceases to be acting ‘unilaterally’? So far, there’s Australia, Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic, Qatar, Turkey.... Romania has offere