Stardate 20030130.1225

(Captain's log): The signals continue mixed. There are wheels within wheels.

Evidence is mounting that in fact the military deployment is not going as fast as expected, and that we're not really ready to invade. But more than that, it's becoming even more plausible that there's a major effort underway to encourage a coup in Iraq, or some other form of "transition of power".

The one thing which I think is clear is that the Bush administration doesn't think that "containment and continued inspections" is acceptable. One way or another, the status quo ends, and soon.

But it's equally clear that they'd much rather it end without an actual military attack. So you have Bush himself saying that he would welcome having Saddam go into exile. The Arab plan which was leaked by Time Magazine, to offer amnesty to most of the Iraqi military if they deposed the government, seems to be live again. And this message may be getting heard in Iraq, because Saddam is making speeches saying that treason is bad. (Of course, the fact that Saddam himself gained power through treachery is unimportant.)

I can certainly sympathize with the idea that it would be much nicer for Saddam to be deposed or otherwise forced out of power than for us to actually have to invade and take the place by force. But I'm also worried about the fact that if there is a coup that we may not be able to have as much control over what happens next as we would if we actually invaded. Would we then be able to really find what's being hidden now? Would we be able to militarily occupy Iraq and use Iraqi territory as a base of operations to threaten Syria, Saudi Arabia and possibly Iran? Would a coup lead to replacement of a hostile brutal dictator with a friendly brutal dictator, net gain for us but no net gain for the Iraqis? If as a result of a coup Saddam is replaced with the equivalent of a Mubarek, then we don't really win.

Because even though part of the purpose of this is to get rid of Saddam and his ambitions to develop nukes, another part is to begin the process of seducing the "Arab Street" away from radical Islam. In the long run we can't win the overall war until the lot of the average Arab improves.

Not through charity; that's the mistake that the left makes. We can't make them stop hating us by giving them gifts. Their problem ultimately isn't poverty, it's shame. They don't want wealth, they want achievement and respect. Giving them charity only shames them more and will increase resentment. The only thing which will cool their anger is for them to succeed, themselves, and for that to happen their systems need to be reformed to give the average Arab, no matter what nation he lives in, more freedom and less restrictions imposed on him by his government and by self-selected holy men. They can only begin to achieve when they are more free, and only gain the respect they crave through achievement.

And we must free the Arab women. In the long run, they are not only the worst victims of Islamic extremism but also the ones who will have the most to gain from reforms, and thus be the greatest supporters of that process and opponents of any attempt to turn it back. Half the Arab world is waiting to help us in reform, if only we can give them the chance.

If it is indeed the case that Saddam actually has a nuke, in secret, I can understand this willingness to even accept exile for Saddam. It's vile, but it's a case of soiling one's hands in order to prevent a much greater evil. (Besides, he can be killed later.)

Another interesting event today was a joint letter signed by the leaders of 8 European nations strongly disagreeing with the direction that France and Germany have been trying to pull the union. Apparently they've gotten fed up with Chirac's L'Europe c'est moi act.

And they aren't bit players, either: Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark. Five are current EU members and three are important candidates. Three are members of the G7. Predictably, those who hate the US immediately criticized them. But what they were criticized for was breaking ranks. The criticism doesn't even talk about the issues involved; what was wrong was that they were undermining European unity. As Scrappleface said the other day, it's more important to do things together than to do the right thing.

And the "Gang of 8" were also criticized for turning Europe into America's lapdog:

The chairman of the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee, German Christian Democrat Elmar Brok, said any chance of Europe's voice being heard had been undone.

"This way the Americans will lead and some Europeans will follow. The race of the vassals has begun," he said.

Which is a strange thing to say. What it implies is something which has come through before: the only way Europe can matter internationally is by becoming America's chief critic and opponent and trying to oppose America in all things. Issues don't matt