In the Independent, of all places, Bruce Anderson takes on the perversity of French foreign policy.

They believe that their foreign policy is not only more compatible with a desirable balance of global forces; they think that their superior intellectual and moral stance also expresses French self-interest. They are thoughtful and independent; we, muddled and subservient.

It is easy to make that argument on paper, as many French commentators have recently demonstrated. There is only one problem. It has no purchase on reality. When Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the Franco-German position on Iraq as "Old Europe", one French minister retorted that in growing old, Europe had acquired wisdom. But this apparent intellectuality is just so much flummery; the French are still desperately seeking compensation for their loss of global influence.

If the French had been more sensible, the EU could have exercised some influence for good. From late 2001 onwards, three points were clear: the Americans were going to invade Iraq; this would have wider consequences for the entire Middle East; and the Americans had not thought through those consequences. That is where old Europe could have played a role. Over the past 15 months, European diplomacy should have had one overriding aim: access to American policy-makers, especially over Israel and Palestine. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, American officialdom realised that it did not know nearly enough about the Arab world. The Europeans should have put themselves in the market to remedy that deficiency. They failed, and it is now too late.

"In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, American officialdom realised that it did not know nearly enough about the Arab world. The Europeans should have put themselves in the market to remedy that deficiency."

LOL! Yeah, the Bush Administration would learn how to wear keffiyehs, learn to chant 'death to the jews' and the proper method of burning synagogues. Yup, Europe is our teacher.

What is this obsession w/the Palis with them?

It's always the US which must be brougt to heel. Maybe if they brought Yassir to heel by auditing the books and slowing down if now outright stopping payment????

"From late 2001 onwards, three points were clear: the Americans were going to invade Iraq; this would have wider consequences for the entire Middle East; and the Americans had not thought through those consequences."

A statement of breathtaking condescension and ignorance.

"Over the past 15 months, European diplomacy should have had one overriding aim: access to American policy-makers, especially over Israel and Palestine."

Israel and Palestine are a symptom of what we are trying to defeat in the Middle East, not a cause. "Old Europe" is clueless.

"During the Bordeaux conference, I was asked what Mr Rumsfeld had meant by his references to Old Europe. I said that the implication was clear, fully intended, and would instantly be grasped by Americans who interest themselves in foreign affairs. By Old Europe, Don Rumsfeld meant two things, and they were not culture and haute cuisine: he was referring to the Second World War and to anti-Semitism."

Completely wrong. What Mr. Rumsfeld meant, and what every American immediately grasped, is that we have more European backing than "Old Europe" supposes: Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czechs. France and Germany no longer speak for Europe, if they ever did.

Here's something interesting from the Anderson article:

The French sought solace in Europe. They hoped to obtain a surrogate for empire in the EU, by harnessing its economic power to French purposes: a French jockey on a German horse. We British found our solace in the special relationship. We hoped that it would not only prove to be an equal partnership, but one in which we could provide the intellectual direction: a British jockey on an American horse. They might have the moneybags; we would supply the brains.

Thus far the French horse, though less powerful, has proved more biddable. The American nag will tolerate no foreign jockey. Far from being a partnership of equals, the special relationship has barely been a partnership at all. The Americans have been happy to have us with them, but only as long as we did their bidding. In terms of broad retrospect, the special relationship may seem harmonious; the detailed history makes it clear that the UK found it much harder to manage than most of our politicians were prepared to admit at the time. With the possible exception of the Falklands, there has been no instance of America supporting the UK when it was not in their interests to do so.

WTF? Did you see how unselfconciously he stated that the UK saw as a horse to be ridden? LOL then he's incredulous that we refuse "foreign jockeys."

Let's make something clear, WE WILL NOT BE RIDDEN! It's not just foreign jockeys that are rejected either.

Was it the Cold War Realpolitiking that enabled such a gross mis-evaluation of American character and intent?

Well, we are no longer restrained by Soviet-containment. If the Old World still desires relevancy then they need to recognize, and quick, the true America. If not; then they can join the calvacade of also-rans.

Atlas awakens and his shoulders begin to twitch. Are they worth the effort?

If Europeans want to have any say in the new pax-americana / foward moving, anti-terrorism driven foreign policy they had better realize that they not only can't ride this horse, but that we don't have a president who needs a bandwagon like the last one ( Clinton ), and that polls showing euopeans displeasure with our behavior is just water off a ducks back. So Franco-Germany, sit down and shut up or get out of the way!

Let me get this straight: We're supposed to take advice from the French about how to deal with the Middle East? The FRENCH? Picot-Sykes Redux, anyone?