NEW WORLD ORDER: Via Instapundit -- President Bush 41 used the phrase "new world order" when the USSR collapsed, but only now is that new order actually taking shape. So says Michael Ledeen in this New York Sun article. He describes therein how France and Germany pressured Turkey to refuse America's request to deploy troops into Iraq from their territory by threatening that if they did so, "Turkey would be locked out of Europe for a generation." Thanks, friends.
And in the Times, Anatole Kaletsky tells us what form this new world order is taking by telling us which countries/organizations he believes will end up winners after this conflict, and which will be losers. I don't particularly agree with his analysis on several points. He claims that the UN will be a loser, and that is certainly true, but he also believes that "Nato will probably cease to exist in its present form." I'm not sure what he means by this exactly, but I doubt that NATO will be disbanded or changed significantly in structure. This is not the first time that NATO has been tested and found wanting, and in fact two of its own members have fought each other in the recent past: Greece and Turkey over Cyprus. NATO may be weakened, as is the UN, but it will not change substantially over night.
France and Germany will obviously come out as losers in the long run. He also writes that Europe as a whole will suffer as American money moves ever eastward into Asia. This is probably true, but I don't think it's strongly connected to the Iraq situation. Europe is a poor investment because of its largely socialist economic systems, not because some of its countries back the US and others don't.
Russia will fare poorly, and that to me is a mystery. It would have been easy for Russia to stay mostly neutral (as China has done) or even to support the US, and there would have been little cost other than lip service. Why did they so vehemently oppose us? Merely for money? I suppose it's possible, but if that's the case then it would appear to have been a gross miscalculation since it will cost them far more in the long run than they could have ever hoped to collect from Saddam Hussein.
Kaletsky also believes that Israel will come out a loser because the Bush administration will abandon it in order to create peace, so as to give its newly reconstructed Iraq the best possible chance to survive. I don't think this is likely, and I think Kaletsky underestimates "the fanatical attachment to aggressive Zionism among many of Bush's neo-conservative supporters." As of this moment, Israel is the only democracy in the region; soon there will be two, and I doubt that the US will throw the first to the wolves just as the second is coming on line.
Finally, he claims that the only sure winners, other than Iraq, "are the governments of Iran, North Korea and other rogue states. After this unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq -- and the even more difficult occupation -- America is most unlikely to be able to summon up the political will, the money, or the military resources to attack any of its other perceived enemies." Frankly, this is absurd. It will certainly be a year or so before we take on the next of our enemies, but I doubt it will be more than six months before the next domino falls, be it North Korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia. Our terrible, swift strike against Saddam himself in the first hour of this war should give every ruthless dictator reason to tremble.
We can find you, we can kill you, and we don't need to fight through all your cronies to do it.