PORPHYROGENITUS writes that the breaking of the old Atlantic Alliance is sad, but that it was also inevitable. I think he’s right about that. Josh Marshall is trying to spin this as a failure of American (i.e., Bush) diplomacy, but I think that this response is enough to undo the spin:

For all that people like to claim that this is a “Bush problem” and “we didn’t have this when Clinton was in office”, that’s not quite true. Sure, everyone was more jovial. But (again as I’ve mentioned before) while there was more good cheer and bonhomie on the surface when Clinton was in office, that didn’t stop them from designing treaties (rather deliberately) stacked against the United States. Clinton would say “hey, buddies. You know, if we could just get a clause in that treaty on land mines allowing us to have them along the Korean DMZ, I could get the Senate to pass it” and they would refuse to compromise. Clinton would say “you know I want a good Green record. I’d love to have this Kyoto pact ratified. Any chance we could negotiate for America some of the cozy deals you stuck in for yourselves?” and they would say “no”. They liked Clinton just fine as a person. But they weren’t about to do America any favors, and even during that period were (openly among themselves, reported in the European press if not given much notice in the American press) talking about building the EU so as to oppose the United States. So this isn’t really out of the blue, all the sudden.

It’s just that the disagreement over Iraq has precipitated a breach that is so public it cannot be ignored or minimized with the usual platitudes. It was bound to happen sometime, over something, and this is it, now.

I think, in fact, that it’s unfortunate that these problems were papered over during the Clinton years. Because if the rift had come then, the Franco-German behavior today wouldn’t be perceived as a betrayal — just as the less-than-supportive behavior of Russia isn’t perceived as a betrayal.