TIRED OF BLOGGING ABOUT WAR. If you want to read about it tonight, go to Vinod Valopillil’s for some interesting observations on Europe, and to Donald Sensing for some more. There’s also some interesting discussion over at Jerry Pournelle’s, including the observation — with which I heartily agree — that we could have spared ourself a lot of trouble if we had gotten things right back in, say, 1988 or even 1990. But I also agree that that’s water under the bridge, now.

This Gregg Easterbrook piece on homeland security is good too. Back later.

TONY BLAIR:

But there are also consequences of “stop the war”.

If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people. A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal. A country where today, 135 out of every 1000 Iraqi children die before the age of five – 70% of these deaths are from diarrhoea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable. Where almost a third of children born in the centre and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition.

Where 60% of the people depend on Food Aid.

Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water.

Where every year and now, as we speak, tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam’s jails and are routinely executed.

Where in the past 15 years over 150,000 Shia Moslems in Southern Iraq and Moslem Kurds in Northern Iraq have been butchered; with up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain.

This isn’t a regime with Weapons of Mass Destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.

There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.

I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.

But I ask the marchers to understand this.

I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.

But as you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this:

If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.

If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.

I’d like to see the “peace” movement take some responsibility for the likely consequences of its views, and the deaths that may come from doing nothing. But those don’t count, you see, because the United States isn’t involved.

(Emphasis added. Via Andrew Sullivan). Meanwhile David Pryce-Jones writes that the protesters’ lack of concern for Arab lives and freedom is, well, racist. “Behind the demonstrators’ slogans lies the assumption that Arabs should be left alone: they don’t mind being brutalised, tortured and murdered by a fascist thug like Saddam. Where they come from, it is the natural order of things.”

You’d think that they could manage a few hundred folks to march to the Iraqi mission and demand that Saddam step down, at least. And they could — if they cared.

UPDATE: Here’s more about that from another chap named Blair.

And there’s this, with photos.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s what Iraqis think of the protests. Short answer: not much.

AMILAND reports that Gerhard Schroeder may be facing what amounts to a no-confidence vote. Meanwhile The Observer has a report (though it’s largely based on anonymous sources) that the United States is planning to withdraw troops, bases, and industrial cooperation from Germany.

BURYING THE LEDE: This story is about Iraq rejecting the French peace plan, but here’s the real news:

As 3,000 Iraqis took part in a protest against the war in Baghdad, the inspectors visited nine sites, including a Baghdad facility that produces rocket parts, as their hunt for chemical, biological or nuclear weapons continued.

They could only get 3,000 Iraqis to turn out against the war — in Baghdad? Then there’s this line:

Mr. Sabri claimed that any peace initiative that did not have Washington’s backing was doomed to fail.

Here’s your headline: Iraqi Diplomat Tells Truth! But wait, as Ron Popeil says — there’s more! Apparently, the Axis of Weasel is in danger of fragmenting, as Germany and Belgium are wavering. And the New Europe is standing up to the French:

In the meantime, Bulgaria has vowed to resist French attempts to bully it into withdrawing support for America’s plans to disarm Iraq. Last week the French ambassador to Sofia warned Bulgaria that its pro-American stance could jeopardise its efforts to join the European Union.

“Bulgaria has to consider carefully where its long-term interests lie,” Jean Loup Kuhn-Delforge said last week. “When people live in Europe they should express solidarity and think European-style.”

Solomon Pasi, Bulgaria’s foreign minister, condemned the French as neo-appeasers. “We all remember the hesitancy of the Allies, who weren’t sure whether to attack Hitler. They could have prevented so much,” he said.

“We’re in a situation where we have a moral imperative to act and act now.”

Perhaps Bulgaria has considered where its long-term interests lie. Because, ultimately, the French don’t bring that much to the table.

GOOGLE BUYS PYRA: Hey, maybe Blog*Spot will start working now.

A RENEWED TALIBAN WEB PRESENCE? Stephen Aquila does some cyber-sleuthing.

READER BERNARD YOMTOV sends this link to a story from my own hometown — er, well, not far away, anyway. (Yeah, I get the Saturday paper, but I didn’t even open it yesterday.)

You can count on Union County to embarrass itself this way every few years, sadly. But my former student Margaret Held is on the case, and I expect she’ll clean their clocks.

However, if the facts are as this story indicates, this case may be ripe for a Justice Department civil rights investigation. How about it, General Ashcroft?

MERDE IN FRANCE reports that fewer French demonstrated against war than were marching over retirement benefits just a couple of weeks ago, in worse weather. Meanwhile Martin Lindeskog reports from Gothenburg. “Make Tea, Not War?” What kind of slogan is that?

UNILATERALISM: Here’s a history of the Rainbow Warrior bombing.

HEY — did I mention I’m on IndyMedia?

THE DIPLOMATIC COUNTEROFFENSIVE HAS BEGUN:

SYDNEY, Australia, Feb. 15 — A security alliance with the United States is more important strategically for Australia than an alliance with the United Nations, Australia’s prime minister said Sunday.

Can this be true? Looks like it.

DAVE WINER, NO WARBLOGGER, ISN’T BUYING THE “IT’S ABOUT OIL” ARGUMENT:

And we all know what he does with the oil money — he uses it to build nukes, missiles to deliver them, etc etc. He is one major asshole, a dangerous one. Why anyone would stand up for him is beyond me. Yet that’s what the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese (and others) are doing. This makes no sense. (Unless you consider the possibility that they have conflicts of interest.)

You know, I’ve been getting email from antiwar folks claiming that they’ve got the momentum now. But I’m seeing more, not less, skepticism toward their claims from people who have been paying attention. (If you missed it, see Thomas Nephew’s lengthy post on how he’s reluctantly decided in favor of war).

French obstructionism and guys on stilts don’t translate into a moral or intellectual case in favor of leaving Saddam alone.

UPDATE: Reader Allen S. Thorpe emails:

“It’s all about oil.” is the right answer to the wrong question. The correct question is “Why is France being obstructionist in the U.N. and NATO?”

Indeed. Another reader sends this link, from which we learn:

In recent weeks and months, Iraq reportedly has signed a flurry of deals with companies from Italy (Eni), Spain (Repsol YPF), Russia (Tatneft), France (TotalFinaElf), China, India, Turkey, and others. According to a report in The Economist, Iraq has signed over 30 deals with various oil companies, offering generous rates of return (“on the order of 20%”) as part of its “Development and Production Contract” (DPC) model. Iraq introduced the DPC in 2000 to replace the previous “Production Sharing Contract” (PSC) arrangement. . . .

The largest of Iraq’s oilfields slated for post-sanctions development is Majnoon, with reserves of 12-20 billion barrels of 28o-35o API oil, and located 30 miles north of Basra on the Iranian border. French company TotalFinaElf reportedly has signed a deal with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon. Majnoon was reportedly brought onstream (under a “national effort” program begun in 1999) in May 2002 at 50,000 bbl/d, with output possibly reaching 100,000 bbl/d by the end of 2002 (according to Oil Minister Rashid). Future development on Majnoon ultimately could lead to production of up to 600,000 bbl/d at an estimated (according to Deutsche Bank) cost of $4 billion. In July 2001, angered by France’s perceived support for the U.S. “smart sanctions” plan, Iraq announced that it would no longer give French companies priority in awarding oil contracts, and would reconsider existing contracts as well. Iraq also announced that it was inclined to favor Russia, which has been supporting Iraq at the U.N. Security Council, on awarding rights to Majnoon and another large southern oil field, Nahr Umar.

TotalFinaElf apparently has all but agreed with Iraq on development of the Nahr Umar field. Initial output from Nahr Umar is expected to be around 440,000 bbl/d of 42o API crude, but may reach 500,000 bbl/d with more extensive development. The 2.5-4.6 billion-barrel Halfaya project is the final large field development in southern Iraq. Several companies (BHP, CNPC, Agip) reportedly have shown interest in the field, which ultimately could yield 200,000-300,000 bbl/d in output at a possible cost of $2 billion.

I guess Thorpe’s right — it really is all about oooiiiilll — but it’s a matter of what the meaning of “it” is. . . .

I THINK THAT THIS A.P. STORY EXPLAINS WHAT’S NEXT:

If the United States and Britain propose a resolution before March 14 they would run the risk of a veto by France, Russia and China. It would be a punishing diplomatic setback that Bush may not want to risk.

Nor is there any guarantee of success later on.

Going to war without a fresh resolution would not mean going it alone, however. Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, Turkey, Romania, Greece and Poland are among the nations that have indicated they would support the United States.

“If Saddam Hussein is not disarmed and is allowed to develop his capabilities he could strike Romania and the rest of Europe,” Romanian Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana said this week as the parliament in Bucharest agreed to provide noncombat troops to a U.S.-led coalition and to permit use of Romania’s air space and airports.

Bush in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly last September suggested he considered the United Nations (news – web sites) on the edge of irrelevance.

Declare the U.N. irrelevant, go to war, then set up a parallel organization of, you know, legitimate governments. Will Bush have the balls?

It’s riskier not to, isn’t it?

IF LIFE WERE FAIR, or if the New York Times were a meritocracy, Cathy Seipp would have a regular Times op-ed slot. But it’s not. As a consolation prize, though, we get to read her Maureen Dowd deconstruction in The Washingtonian.

WANT TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ? Here’s one way.

BILL WHITTLE has an essay on Columbia, and courage, and love.

INTERESTING REPORT from The Grille:

A fascinating poll conducted in the United Kingdom suggests that Britons are not as anti-war as normally believed. While only 28% of Britons would strongly or generally support an attack on Iraq if overwhelmingly rejected by the security council and if British troops are asked to take part, if the Security Council approves of the action support climbs to 82% with only 6% strongly opposed. But here is the most interesting thing – if a majority of the council votes in favor of the war yet action is blocked by a French, Russian, or Chinese veto, support for action only drops to 62% and, perhaps more importantly, the strongly opposed number rises to just 11%. Perhaps even more importantly for Blair, while Tories are generally more hawkish than Labor voters, it is not his own party but Liberal Democrats who make us the disproportionate share of doves – Labor voters are still 60% in favor of action given the third scenario with only 12% strongly opposed.

In case of blogspot problems (no, surely not) here’s a direct link to the poll story.

A PICTURE worth a thousand words.

Maybe two thousand.