QandO
Questions and Observations| « National Sales Tax: It's not all fuzzy kitties | Main | Constitutional, Shmonstitutional » |
|
August 03, 2004 Mimsy were the Euro-Goves John Kerry gets mixed reviews from his strongest voter base .....Europe: The belief across Europe seemed to be that a Kerry administration would be more multilateral than the Bush administration has been, more willing to listen to the views of allies and take them into account.From the perspective of a European, this makes perfect sense, of course. After all, who doesn't want more of a say in the world? It has been a historic fact-of-life that France engages in balance of power politics the way children play parents against each other....not out of any overarching moral principle, but as a utilitarian cost/benefit game. Of course, not all Europeans are satisfied with John Kerry. For some, nothing less than a European Veto will solve the US problem... Noting the line in Mr. Kerry's speech about not needing a green light from abroad before taking actions to defend its interests, Mr. Vaïsse said: "In France, they don't have overblown expectations. Kerry would be like the second Clinton administration, not as arrogant and unilateral as Bush, but it would be no multilateral paradise either."Our "allies" are "disappointed" that a US President promises to defend the United States against a threat. We are, apparently, obligated to wait meekly for the trains to round us up. Euro-weenies, indeed. Meanwhile, John Kerry has yet to find a war that could not be postponed at the first sign of European disgruntlement. And that, it seems to me, is the problem. Under a President Kerry, we can expect to fight wars of imminent necessity, if the need arises. What we cannot expect are wars--even battles--of strategic value. We will be in a 4-8 year state of containment and reaction, rather than a more proactive war on terrorism. Meanwhile, let's recall that--even during the glory days of Clinton's Multilateralism--the Europeans were not satisfied when our actions did not coincide perfectly with their interests.... "The position of the leader of the Free World is vacant."--Jacques Chirac (1996)European interest in multilateralism seems to require US subservience, rather than genuine partnerships. When alliances exist, they do so as a matter of coincidence, rather than dedication to multilateral cooperation. Still, some European writers exhibited a bit more clarity.... "What he would have done differently and what he might aspire to achieve if elected are disturbingly unclear," The Times said in an editorial. "His entire case for being entrusted to take on Al Qaeda seems to rest on his service in Vietnam three decades ago."You don't say... UPDATE: Pejman delves into this a bit further... There has been much debate over the past few years regarding the proper creation and use of alliances. Democrats are fond of saying that we must consult with our traditional allies before taking on a particular action. The Bush Administration and Republicans respond by saying that we determine a particular mission and then create the coalition that supports that mission. This may mean shifting coalitions for different missions, but that's better than having the mission hamstrung by a prearranged and static set of allies whose interests may differ with those of the United States, and who may therefore either alter a particular mission, or cause it to be stillborn. |
Let's give the French some credit:
-- "Boots on the ground" in Dafur. (About 600 boots, 300 troops, detailed away from the French mission in Chad. Not many, but they're THERE!)
-- Support to replace Aristide in Haiti. The U.S. military commandos did the actual mission, but the French were THERE!)
-- Intervention in Cote d'Ivore (Ivory Coast) attempting to secure the world's chocolate supplies.
-- Leadership in writing a new constitution for the EU. ( a bad deal for everybody but France, but a much better approach to the historic problem of unifying Europe than the approaches of Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler ... )
-- Counter-attacks on Greenpeace's eco-terrorists.
-- Uhm....
But still, credit where it is due.
Posted by: POUNCER at August 3, 2004 08:49 AM
"historic problem of unifying Europe"
There's no historic problem, there the problem that state leaders keep trying to force the various seperate demos of europe into one (inevitably failing) state.
Posted by: Rob Read at August 3, 2004 08:56 AM
Oh Yesss, the French were there. The entire 30 man compliment of the French embassy military guard. And they never left the grounds of the embassy.
Big Deal!
Posted by: JohnM at August 3, 2004 09:05 AM
Do the French actually have boots on the ground in Darfur? Aren't they actually firmly on the Chad side of the Chado-Sudanese border?
Posted by: Martin Adamson at August 3, 2004 09:07 AM
Pouncer - what's your problem with Charlemagne? We'd all be speaking Arabic if it wasn't for him.
Posted by: Sterling at August 3, 2004 09:33 AM
At least the Fwrench are only going so far as the border..for now we can rest assured, if that's the extent, they won't assist in the disaster as in Rwanda.
Posted by: Vlad at August 3, 2004 09:35 AM
Actually, I think it was Charles Martel at Poiters (Charlemagne's grandfather?). But that's a minor beef, you've already exhibited more knowledge of history than 99.9% of Americans :-)
Posted by: TimF at August 3, 2004 09:42 AM
Niall Ferguson a "Haaaaaavard" History professor writes in the UK's Telegraph;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/31/do3101.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/07/31/ixopinion.html
"Well, here’s another reality for you, Mr Kerry. Even if you are elected in November, and even if the European leaders do fawn over you in a way not seen since the days of JFK, I don’t expect much in the way of burden-sharing, least of all from the French. Sure, with you in the White House, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder would spout all sorts of fine words about restoring transatlantic harmony. But I would be quite astonished if practical support, whether in the form of money or men, were to be forthcoming."
Posted by: Marc at August 3, 2004 10:04 AM
Has it occurred to the Europeans that a victory for Kerry means that France and Germany might commit troops to Iraq?
That is the plain meaning of Kerry's stance, isn't it?
Shouldn't isolationists in Europe *oppose* a Kerry victory?
Posted by: thoughts at August 3, 2004 10:12 AM
If Kerry is elected France and Germany will commit one troop each to Iraq. That is all they can afford, given their failing welfare states.
Europeans do not know or understand history, and are going the way of all failed civilizations.
Posted by: Fleming at August 3, 2004 10:42 AM
I live in Belgium. Have been since 1997. I can attest, Western Europe will hate America no matter who the Commander-in-Chief is.
Yes, that includes Clinton.
I know. I received plenty of bad vibes back then. Not to mention the odd physical threat. *Yawn*
It's called sour grapes, if you ask me.
No surprise, though. They can't get along with each other, much less anyone else in the world. Y'all wouldn't believe the circus that goes on in European politics. Makes Kerry/Bush look like Smoky and the Bandit.
Come to think of it, that might be what they're jealous of. Despite our differences, we've held together for about 140 years, so far. (I'm counting from the Civil War.)
They haven't been able to even diplomatically unify in the first place, something they are really pushing for. And it drives them nuts. 'Specially the French, who would really like to run the show at this stage, if it wasn't for those "smaller" countries.
Expect some upheavals in Europe, soon. I predict. 'Till then, nobody's going to establish lovely jubbly relations with them.
Nobody.
They're just too much into themselves, right now, to care.
Posted by: Chadster at August 3, 2004 10:49 AM
Would troops from France & Germany in Iraq be nice? Yes. But when France refuses to send NATO troops to Afghanastan for their elections (an invasion that they initially supported), why would they send troops to Iraq, an invasion they opposed? France is NEVER sending soldiers to Iraq and we aught to accept that and write them off.
Posted by: Geoff Matthews at August 3, 2004 10:50 AM
But if you want to be picky, neither Charles Martel nor Charlemagne were French, since France didn't exist as a country until a couple of centuries later.
You know, in just over two hundred years, the French have burned their way through two kingdoms, two empires, and four republics. Seems kind of wasteful to me.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 3, 2004 10:52 AM
Sterling:
As TimF points out, it is Charles Martel (the Hammer) whom we have to thank for stopping the Moors at Tours (Poitiers).
Posted by: rob at August 3, 2004 11:01 AM
The historic problem of unifying Europe is that people won't stop trying to unify Europe. If Napolean, Hitler, and their ilk hadn't touched off unthinkable slaughter by trying to "unify Eueope", then there wouldn't have been any problem.
Posted by: R C Dean at August 3, 2004 11:14 AM
When I was in the sixth grade in Lubbock, Texas, my teacher was trying to demonstrate a principal to us. The point was is if you tell someone something and then tell them to forget it...they WILL remember it. By way of demonstration, she wrote on the board something for us to forget..
Charles Martel defeated the Moors at the Battle of Tours in 732.
I have never forgotten it.
Posted by: ann garrison at August 3, 2004 11:21 AM
Niall Ferguson is only visiting at Harvard. He's really a Brit. His "Pity of War", "The Cash Nexus" and most recent "Collosus: The Price of America's Empire" are worth reading.
I don't know who Kerry thinks he's kidding about getting men and materiel out of France or Germany.
Posted by: eric at August 3, 2004 12:13 PM
The last thing we need is French troops in Iraq. Our fighters have enough on their hands dealing with insurgents, and shouldn't have to deal with a stampede of retreating French warriors.
Posted by: Jim at August 3, 2004 12:22 PM
The Atlantic Alliance is dead, folks. Has been since 1991, and it makes no difference who occupies the White House.
The crucial fact is that all of our security problems emanate from the near and far east (aka ASIA). And in those regions, the (former) allies offer us nothing of value: no bases, no troops, no intel assets worth mentioning, no political influence. At the same time, their fervent desire to appease jihadists and win multi-billion $ contracts positively undermines us.
I know this is a hard lesson to accept for gray-haired Europhiles at the NYT and the other aging east coast intelligentsia, but in this century, all of our major threats, and most of our opportunities, arise from ASIA. To coin a phrase, let's Move on, people. Asian Century now.
Posted by: lex at August 3, 2004 12:40 PM
I think that the Europeans, like the Boston Democrats, understand that all of Kerry's warlike posturing is only to deceive people into believing that he intends to continue the War on Terrorists no less than would President Bush. In this sense, the entire Boston convention was a deception. That is why the Europeans, as well as the various anti-war groups are willing to support Kerry, despite his professions of support for the war. The Europeans understand that while they would be called upon to support the Americans in a war, there will be no war to support during a Kerry administration.
Posted by: toot at August 3, 2004 12:50 PM
Correction to the above: the Brits have Diego Garcia--very useful.
But really, in the near and far east, how much more useful is Germany or France than Poland? What purpose has been served by all the kowtowing to the mullahs in Teheran by the Little Three these last several years?
Wouldn't it make more sense to shift diplomats and research and cultural spending away from Europe and toward Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, India, China, Korea?
Posted by: lex at August 3, 2004 12:51 PM
I agree with the implications of toot's comment, namely, that the Europeans are against a war against Islamic terrorists. In that seemingly simple statement, however, lies the fundamental horror that lies on the other side of a Kerry election: An Islamic western Europe run by people with the mentality of the Iranian mullahs. That's it, and that's all of it.
Actually, it seems to me that the elaborate dance that liberals on both side of the Atlantic are carrying on is intended to draw attention away from another, related catatrophic fact: these people despair of a successful war against terrorism. IOW, they are in despair. The French scholar of Islam, Bat Yeor has written several books detailing historically the state of "dhimmitude" to which Islamic rulers reduce populations that don't accept Islam and Islamic rule. That state is slavery, nothing more or less. Nothing that the Nazis or the Soviets could do is going to be worse.
America is alone in this--there are no allies save perhaps the Brits and they are hamstrung by a strong left-wing socialist enclave with a taste for self-immolation.
Posted by: Michael McCanles at August 3, 2004 01:08 PM
Why can't Americans see that the French and any other country that wants to unify Europe as a Socialist collective are actually the enemies of freedom and therefore of the US? I predict that in not very many more years we will be contemplating military action to free the Poles, Czechs, Bulgars, etc., from the oppression of the European Union. France and Germany will try to keep them in the EU by force and we will overwhelm them. France will stab Germany in the back and then surrender to us.
Posted by: Robert Speirs at August 3, 2004 01:12 PM
Destruction of Afghan sanctuary and AQ hierarchy + European demographic collapse and desperate need for young workers imported from Africa/ME = huge opportunity for jihadists in Europe.
The smarter Euros have figured this out, but it makes little difference. The Euros are screwed by their own reluctance to bring children into the world. If they wish to preserve a generous welfare state-- or even simply preserve their health care systems-- they have no choice but to import in coming years many millions of young Arab and African immigrants, the vast majority of them muslims, many of them radical muslims.
Watch for European politics to increasingly adopt the pandering Bambi Zapatero/ChIrak posture.
One word, Benjamin: demographics.
Posted by: lex at August 3, 2004 01:19 PM
Actually...I prefer to live in Europe than in the USA. The reason is that, because they are mooching off the American taxpayer by NOT having decent militaries, they've been able to afford elaborate indoor swim/sauna centers and the like. As an American taxpayer, I may as well enjoy both American military protection AND the socialist extras. :-)
That said, I always have to work for an American company over there. Their's are too caught up in socialist rules that hamstring operations.
About their political beliefs: I find that left wing Europeans are more curious about listening to a conservative American's point of view than liberal Americans. In their interest of being "multicultural", they often (on the street, not in the press) afford the same respect to an American's opinion as they would a pro-Arafat Palestinian's opinion. I find that I have to reject them as friends when they behave too "neutral". NOT SO with an American liberal. American liberals behave like they secretly wish for the rest of us to finally just die off. I can count dozens of American liberal friends I've lost since 9-11, people who decided they no longer wished to know me because I was a "reactionary" after 9-11. American liberals aren't neutral. That makes them more our enemies than Europeans.
So this is why I am leaving, perhaps permanently, to live in Europe this week. I won't come back until you wussy Republicans finally stop complaining about the Liberal Media and CHANGE IT...either by financial means or whatever other means necessary to save the social fabric. That being said, I believe that the Liberal Media will start coming down hard on Kerry in the next few months because I assume a deal has been made to allow the Dems to have the White House in 2008 if they throw the election this time around.
Think about it: why would the Far Left suddenly want "their man" to become the focal point of Al Qaeda's wrath? What would happen to the left if, after a Kerry Victory, Al Qaeda repositioned itself marketing-wise to be only after destroying "the decadent liberal western left" that obviously had the power over the ineffective little loser Bush all along?
If Bush loses the election, expect Al Qaeda to pretend that they knew America was really soft ice cream all along. Can you imagine the effect on morale in the US Military if Al Qaeda then expresses sorrow for the loss of an enemy they could respect (Bush) while resolutely standing (with the secret backing of Pakistan, China and Russia) against the "real America"...a collection of back-stabbing weaklings who couldn't help but put someone Al Qaeda couldn't respect back in power.
About Germany: if elections were held today, a pro-Bush conservative government would be elected. If an Iranian Revolution occurred within the next year, a majority of Europeans would see that this was because of Bush's policies. America really needs a second Bush term to bring about a conservative reaction to leftism world-wide.
Europe is just like the USA: about 50:50 in politics...but with a liberal media and education system that, like here, needs to be changed from the top down.
Posted by: Jennifer Peterson at August 3, 2004 01:54 PM
Lex, honestly what is it with you people rabbiting on about demographics. India is surging ahead econimically because it got a handle on controlling its population, ditto the PRC and then there's the phenomenon of post-war Japan. The renaissance came after the decimation of the European population after the black death. The Philippines have declined in prosperity because of uncontrolled population growth. As for the importation of Islamics to work in Europe. Pardon me while I laugh cynically. In every European country with Islamic immigrants, the majority of these `workers' are playing the welfare game. This is also true in Canada and probably in the US. Those who haven't found a way to play the system are active in petty crime. You mention paying attention to Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan. Why? The zero times table says it all. Zero times whatever comes out as zero - read Islamic culture. The stab in the back, the use of ambulances to ambush civilians - the list goes on and it's all there in the Arabian Nights - the playbook for Islamic perfidy and deceit.
Posted by: Millie Woods at August 3, 2004 02:47 PM
WOW, don't get to this site too much, but I always like to read blogs from across the water and laugh at what the peps of Europe think of us yanks. Today is no different. I'm not sure if it is envy, jealousy, or just out right hatred, all I know is when the "crap" hits the world fan, everybody looks our way for some type of resolution, and I am ok with that. We have a big economy and large military that can handle most anything, but what I do hate is the overall bad attitude shown to the American people after all this country has done to make this world a better place. France, Germany, and Russia did not support the Iraq invasion and liberation of their people from a brutal dictator, hmmm, now where finding out it was because they were getting oil for food money through the wonderful UN. You know what, shut up, clean your own back yards before you even think of digging in ours. And if you feel you need to say something, make sure your country is making the same sacrifices as the American boys in Iraq are making today, as we blog and surf! Two more of the “good guys”(for the euro’s who don’t know the difference) paid the ultimate price today and did it with honor. Try not to step on that!
Posted by: Brian at August 3, 2004 03:21 PM
Millie Woods,
It's simple math. You cannot pay pensions or afford a rapidly increasing health care bill when the ratio of those paying into the system (active workers) to those taking out of the system (retirees) is declining rapidly.
Europe's problem is Japan's problem and to a lesser extent our problem: medical technology allows people to live longer and also pushes up overall health expenditures. Combine this with a rapidly declining birthrate (most European nations now stand at about 1.4 per person, which is far below the 2.1 per person needed to replenish the population) and you have a population that is shrinking and aging rapidly. In other words, the ratio of those paying in to those taking out will invert, from the 3:1 ratio seen in the 1960s to something like 1:2 or even 1:3. In other words, disaster.
Europe has no choice but to do most or all of the following:
1) scale back its welfare payments (won't happen);
2) raise the retirement age (already happening);
3) change its attitudes toward bringing children into the world (could happen but IMO unlikely, as even the Catholic Euros are now resolutely feminist, postmodern and anti-family);
4) accept many millions of immigrants from Europe's borderlands ie middle east and north Africa.
Given that #1 and #3 are so unlikely, Europe cannot get out of its mess simply by raising the retirement age. Italy already has the world's oldest population and the lowest birth rate; adding a few years to retirement age won't affect its actuarial profile much.
There is no question that we will see European nations adjusting their foreign policies to make them more amenable to a swelling immigrant population that is overwhelmingly muslim. The only question is whether European nations' success at assimilating them will be more like the UK (not bad, overall) or France(shitty). If the latter, then we're all in for a very bumpy ride.
Posted by: lex at August 3, 2004 03:43 PM
I'm an American, writing from the French/German border, and I just wanted to back up what Jennifer said: they have GREAT swimming pools here!
And, yea, their politics are wussy and whack.
Posted by: Louis Dixon at August 3, 2004 03:58 PM
hey Jennifer Peterson...,
dont let the door hit you on the way out.
Posted by: gijoe at August 3, 2004 04:24 PM
Patton said the only thing worse than Germans at his front were French at his side.
Brian,
Think monkeys, think alpha male fight. Every tribe wants a strong alpha male. But not too strong.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 3, 2004 04:25 PM
I like lex's alternative way of doing in the Euros. They can eat massive crow via terrorists taking, say, Chirac hostage and then saying "we'll cut off Chirac's head if you don't hand over total control of France" (I get the shivers imagining what the possible reactions to that move would be). Or: they can watch their socialist economies implode. Comes to the same thing in the end: Euros become "dhimmis," slaves (and janissaries) of their Islamic overlords.
Just remember: this game has been played out in all the Al Capone films. It's called the "protection racket": feed me or I'll kill you; if you feed me, then I won't kill you. In short: I'll protect you." Euros make love to that employmement.
Posted by: Michael McCanles at August 4, 2004 12:06 AM
Oh, yes: Jennifer is right: American liberals are the true enemies of America. Haven't seen such animosities splitting the country since the middle of the 1850s. And as they say: the Civil War is not over, it's just in abeyance. If Kerry wins and does his thing, I foresee some serious restiveness in the "blue" states. Would the U. S. military stand by a president they hate worse than Clinton? Would it stand aside in a serious split in political opinion if Kerry shows himself incapable of fighting the Islamofascists? Interesting times.
Posted by: Michael McCanles at August 4, 2004 12:13 AM
I am a European, and above are some misunderstandings and some correct observations about Europe. My points:
1. Chiraq and Schroder will never be real allies to any US administration. They prefer Kerry, not because they will work with him, but because he is easier to avoid than Bush.
2. Europe (as always) is SPLIT on these issues, like WOT and Iraq. (So is the US, btw.) There are - albeit a minority - a couple of hundred million Europeans that SUPPORT the US efforts. I am among them.
3. Unfortunately, right now, esp. France and Germany is run by anti-US administrations. France will always be anti-US, but then again, France is mistrusted, not only by the US, but by us, the rest of Europe also. Nobody trusts France in security matters.
4. The government in Germany, however, could change, and what do you have then? UK, Germany, Italy, Poland and lots of other European countries supporting the US efforts. In reality, this would then be the majority.
Committing troops is another matter. Europe simply has not got the technology and organization to commit more than a small number.
5. The conservative faction is the biggest in the new EU parliament. Translation: The majority of Europeans support parties that are US-friendly. Sure, we have a liberal press that says otherwise. Just like you have in the US! (NYT, WaPo, LAT etc.)
6. The fact that Europe is, and always was, split, is sometimes a weakness, but sometimes a strength. It was inter-European competition that lead to the discovery of the new world.
7. Europeans will face some difficulty in demographics, but will cope. Economic growth (yes, also in Europe) will make sure that even at a skewed populations, retired people will be OK. Same thing in Japan. The US will probably be better off, but Europe wont be poor.
Posted by: KH at August 4, 2004 12:33 AM
Mr McCanles wrote: "Would the U. S. military stand by a president they hate worse than Clinton?"
As an former US military man myself, I am not aware of any instances where the military failed to "stand by" Clinton.
I suppose you mean that a lot of them (like me) disliked him intensely and wouldn't vote for him.
But they always obeyed his lawful orders when he was the commander in chief--to include orders that meant some of them had to face death.
What more do you expect from them?
We don't have a tradition of "men on horseback" in the US. We have had no Cromwells, Napoleons, or Hitlers. "Seven Days in May" remains nothing more than an entertaining novel and movie (as do its many more recent overblown Hollywood imitations, such as "The Rock").
To understand us better, you would be well-served by reading one of the many excellent bios of George Washington.
After that, I recommend you read what I consider to be the very specific formalization of Washington's legacy (as regards military involvement in politics) in military regulations. For the Army it's USA Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy). Available on the net at
http://docs.usapa.belvoir.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r600_20/head.asp.
See Paragraph 5-3. Dry stuff to clever commentators such as yourself, but it encapsulates the principles all of us are sworn by oath to uphold.
Our military's faithful service to whatever administration is in power is a source of our national strength. I offer the results we've achieved recently in mortal combat as proof to you (as well as the rest of the world).
Posted by: Paul H. at August 4, 2004 01:49 AM
would have loved to read the quotes, but they came out as 4 point type on my computer, even at the highest resolution setting...could someone please email me a copy of this with a larger typeface????? Thanks
Posted by: Rich Vail at August 4, 2004 09:15 AM
I appreciate Paul H's statements, and am not unaware of the tradition, as well as constitutional mandate, of the U. S. military's neutrality in political matters.
I am conceiving of a "doomsday" scenario, however. The crux of the present terrorist threat--that which makes it qualitatively different from "terrorism-to-make-a-point" in the past--are (at least) the following elements: (1) a stated commitment to destroy the capacity of the U. S. to function economically and politically independent of manipulations of terrorist threats. As I stated in an earlier post, it constitutes a protection racket on a global level.
(2) An obvious willingness to use WMDs to achieve this goal. (3) The reasonable expectation--won't know until we get there--that use of WMDs will go a significant way to achieving America's subservience to terrorist control.
Under those circumstances, unparalleled otherwise in this nation's history, it seems reasonable to suppose that a "Kerry administration" would collapse into ineffectuality due to its unwillingness to "do what was necessary" to defend the country militarily. Under those conditions, where the government of the U. S. would in effect have betrayed its citizens to its enemies, it is not unreasonable to wonder aloud whether or not the U. S. military would stand by and do nothing.
What your response dealt with is past history and present policy. It doesn't, however, address these future contingencies.
Posted by: Michael McCanles at August 4, 2004 09:27 AM
If I understand you correctly, you're postulating a scenario of numerous WMD's of whatever type being used to attack the US while whatever President is in power dithered ineffectually.
I just can't see it. The numerous problems associated with the actual field use of chemical and biological weapons dictate against their successful use on a large scale, against a prepared and well-armed military opponent. Even at his most desperate, Hitler never tried to redo WWI-type chemical warfare; the Allies were prepared to retaliate with mass chemical attacks from bombers on Germany.
And our political system is more responsive than you give it credit for. Even a weak President would be forced into decisive action by pressure from the voting populace and the Congress, long before it was necessary for some hypothetical military strongman to act.
A single nuke smuggled in -- the "sum of all fears" scenario -- is very possible, particularly once the Iranians start cranking out bombs. But if they did get one in and detonated it somewhere, the Constitution provides for suspension of habeas corpus. A martial law situation would be dictated by civilian authority, not military. You're also underestimating the executive authority of the governors of the states in such situations.
And once a single nuke was detonated I would think the US govt would attack and destroy all possible Iranian and North Korean nuclear sites using our own nuclear force -- regardless of civilian casualties on the other side, but under civilian authority and direction on ours.
Perhaps Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North is your model? I'd bet you any amount of money that 99.9 % of his fellow US military field-grade officers at the time (and now) were (and still are) both astonished and horrified at his presumption, in doing the things he did during "Iran-contra".
If an ambitious military officer such as Wesley Clark thinks he knows best politically, his obligation is to resign or retire and then run for office. See the referenced regulation quoted above.
Posted by: Paul H. at August 4, 2004 12:36 PM
You might also be interested in this closely related current post at "Intel Dump" blog.
http://www.intel-dump.com
Scroll down to "Old soldiers never die...they just make political speeches".
Posted by: Paul H. at August 4, 2004 02:01 PM