Okay. France is out. Germany's out. The UN has no power nor consistancy, but frankly, due to our "allies". They approved a resolution in which Iraq had to disclose all WMD, and Iraq clearly has not done so. Eternal weapons inspection is nice (but only effective due to MI6 or US intel), but its not what the UN security counsel agreed upon. If they wanted unlimited time for weapons inspection, they shouldn't have agreed to a resolution with a deadline, duh.

So now the problem has been transfered from what to do about Iraq to what to do about a security counsel which won't abide by its own resolutions. We're no longer having to deal primarily with the bully, but with our various "friends" on the playground.

My favorite answer would have been the removal of Iraqi scientists. That would have kept WMD out of Hussein hands for quite a while, while avoiding war. As I mentioned, the downside would have been for the poor Iraqis. Do they prefer the devil they know to one they didn't? That's the bet we would have foisted upon them.

The next best answer would have been an armed coalition to remove Saddam from power. Many of the protestors this weekend recommended "arresting" and "trying" Saddam. How do you arrest a criminal? When they're a small-time crook, you send a bunch of armed individuals, guns drawn. When they have a whole country at their disposal, you need more "officers" and "guns". That more "robust" arrest process is called, quite simply, warfare. Two cops and bullhorn, or a polite invitation to turn one's self in, won't do it. (Why does this even need to be explained? Sigh...)

Leaving Saddam in power has several major drawbacks. First, it further emasculates the UN directives which are being ignored. If one believes in the UN (that's a good question on its own) then that's bad. Second, its not nice for the poor Iraqis. Do we leave sanctions in place? Then multiply that starvation figure by however long the Hussein reign will last. That'll be our culpability -- all of us; and the alleged number of deaths could easily be greater than the military option. Do we drop sanctions? Count on another Iraqi military buildup, just as Germany did under Versailles. And of course, we've seen in the past that Iraq can do WMD while inspections go on. One nuke and a scud aimed towards Tel Aviv is all the powder keg will take to ignite. That would be our responsibility as well. Not to mention the possibility of a nuclear field-test in NYC or DC.

So now we have this third situation, where can have none of the above. The band of friends have split -- some want one thing, some want another. My preference? Stuff it. We're going home. 'Been nice all. Have fun with the mideast. Don't cry at us about how it goes. You want Saddam, Quasay, and whoever comes next? Great, all yours. Tell us all how moral y'are, oh, and how much you respect UN resolutions. Use your own intel to find his WMD. And if you later get wiser and learn to say "I'm sorry" we'll be all ears.

And sent Tony Blair a big bunch of flowers and sincerely thank him for his time and support. Offer him a favor or five should he ever need one.

Sadly, we're probably going to plunge in anyway. Yeah, it does follow the UN resolutions, one literally, and one within a Bush-specific interpretation. I don't agree with the protestors: its not immoral. But I do believe it to be a strategic mistake. I'd rather have the US vindicated than allow for the PR coup our critics will talk themselves into after this is all done.

This way, it doesn't matter what the outcome is, we'll lose either way. If we don't find WMD, we'll look like idiots. If we do, many will claim the evidence is fabricated. And that the means were immoral, anyway. And no matter what the resulting situation looks like, it will be "our" resulting situation. Which means the backseat drivers, who never make mistakes (by bravely not taking any stands nor taking any decisive action), will continue to take cheat shots. (Just as the French ambassador did right today, saying the Iraqi WMD program was -- not nonexistant, no, no, as we claim when we say Saddam is "no threat" -- but "frozen".)

So why the heck do I care what people in Germany or France think? I don't crave their approval, if that's what you're thinking. But ultimately, this battle is, as the cold war was, about hearts and mind. Yes, you have to worry about short-term gains. But ultimately, its the reasonable people of France, Germany, the UK, Africa, Asia, and yes, even the mideast we have to reach. Not the socialist elites, the kind who miss Stalin, but the common, intelligent folk who take the time to examine the data, but also care a bit about how your actions come across.

And if we plunge ahead at this exact moment, as things stand right now, that message will be forever lost. Smart guys like Stephen DenBeste will be able to reason that the answer was the most optimal one -- looking at security -- but their calculus forgets the tremendous value of PR.

My vote: Withdraw from the process, temporarily. Don't leave the UN, but don't supply intel. Take the back seat, and let France and Germany drive, or stall, or whatever. Partial military pullback. Start pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia. And threaten to start cutting funding and support for the house of Saud, Egypt, Turkey, and Syria. We're not gonna force our will on others, but that doesn't mean we've gotta subsidize their every whim either.

See how fast international opinion will turn around. I'm not sure that Bush understands that as long as we push, certain Eurocrats keep pushing back, because, frankly, obstruction is the only power bureaucrats have, and because that's the level this has sunk to -- a stupid playground quarrel where the original objective is now less important than posturing. We must not join those already operating at that level. Yes, we have a bigger stick, but if we use it wrong, we'll be hated for it.

Is this really the right answer? I don't know. Honestly, I don't really have enough information to know for sure... none of us do. That information is classified, and also is hidden in the private negotiations of our governments. So we all have to trust that our various administrations are doing what's in our best interests, and extend the possibility of the benefit of the doubt until we know otherwise for sure.

But the fat lady hasn't sung yet, and there's still some room for hope. But its not looking very good, and the answer key I read from indicates it won't all end well. Sorry for an interruption in the happy-fun tone, but, well, sometimes reality sets in.