From today’s Washington Post…
Tom DeLay is trying a more personal approach. “I was at a celebration of India’s Independence Day,” he told reporters, “and a Frenchman came walking up to me and started talking to me about Iraq, and it was obvious we were not going to agree. And I said, ‘Wait a minute. Do you speak German?’ And he looked at me kind of funny and said, ‘No, I don’t speak German.’ And I said, ‘You’re welcome,’ turned around and walked off.”

Nice.

I think you are not portraying what the Europeans are saying correctly. They want to not put troops in Turkey until a war is definitely going to happen. It depends on what the French’ definition of war definitely going to happen is. Could the U.S. be prepared to attack Iraq in minutes and not wanting to announce it, therefore prompting France to stall and assert that the US cannot unilaterally aid Turkey if they are not under attack, by the NATO chartr bear in mind. Maybe. Maybe Bush just wants to have troops in Turkey to defend if and when he does declare war, which will need NATO approval under the NATO charter.

Why would war need NATO approval? It’s ostensibly either a) a US operation to protect itself, or b) an effort to enforce UN resolutions regarding the end of the Gulf War and Iraqi disarmament—or both. Neither of these requires NATO approval.

NATO’s role here is supposed to be to protect Turkey in case of Iraqi counter attack. NATO is a defensive alliance—it guarantees collective security from outside assault on member states. Thanks to France et al, NATO may fail in that duty.

I don’t see why Bush is playing nice about this. Why are we required to bend to the will of France, Germany and Belgium and simply allow Turkey to be attacked by Iraq? Turkey has been a reliable alley. It should be as simple as us saying we’ll be there, and then being there, whether some group that is helping terrrorists kill Americans likes it or not.