Mr. Rubio,

I appreciate that you took the time to formulate a response to Mr. Hanson and I read your letter with great interest.  Like many Americans, I'm always looking for the European viewpoint from an actual European without having it filtered through the media.  However, I think there are some aspects of this conflict that you have overlooked or distorted, so much so that I feel compelled to reply.

First, I feel that the argument against invasion on the basis of potential WMDs is easy to make in hindsight, but the fact remains that at the time there was no disagreement that they were likely there.  Europe and America both concluded that Hussein was likely hiding something, we only differed on what we were willing to do about it.  For Europe to take an "I told you so" attitude is to distort the facts and disown your own responsibility.  Given Saddam Hussein's pattern of deception and sleight of hand, the fact that Europe seems willing to interpret the fact that no weapons have yet been found as absolute proof that they never existed is simply naive.

Additionally, let's not forget that Europe threw diplomacy on the tracks when France, Germany and Russia announced they would never support military action, effectively declawing the threat of invasion as a bargaining tool and leaving us with only the act.  I believe this disavowal of arms was motivated purely by their own political and financial interests, which makes the "War For Oil" protests even more irritating.

As for alliances, I believe that no one was more surprised than George Bush when our European allies decided to back down and leave us hanging in the air.  Had our European allies stood firm and joined us in taking the necessary steps to remove a dangerous man from power things would appear much different today.  God knows, we could certainly use the help over there and it goes without saying that Iraq would be more stable and it's citizens better protected if Europe would pitch in and do it's share.  Politically, the position of all Western nations would have been strengthened by displaying a united front showing that we are universally resolved to not tolerate threatening and deceitful behavior by dictator states.  As it is, Europe's inaction and willingness to rend alliances in order to protect it's own short term interests have seriously weakened our hand in dealing with Iran and North Korea.

Finally, in response to your assertion that Europe prudently abstained from participation because she was smart enough to recognize a war that couldn't be won I can only raise my eyebrows in wonder.  This war in Iraq can certainly be won, but only if all freedom loving nations do their part.  You all have a stake in this and we in America are not oblivious to the fact that we're being taken advantage of.  I agree that it's unlikely that the United States alone can dismantle every terrorist organization or overthrow every cruel dictatorship, but we shouldn't have to go it alone and eventually we won't need to.  You can't escape this war and your only choice is to decide how much of an advantage you're willing to give these terrorists and dictators before you're forced to deal with them.

In any case, I respect your right to your opinions and thank you for entertaining mine.  I remain confident in the hope that our nations will smooth over these differences and find our bonds of friendship, trust and understanding strengthened and renewed.

Yours,

William Bichteman

USA

The following is my reply to Mr Bichteman:

    Hello!

    Let me start out by saying that one of the reasons that I went to the effort of writing the response in question to Mr Hanson, is that I deeply respect his earlier historical work, on Greek antiquity in particular. My recent piece on Epaminondas and Thebes for example (Available here, at Bitsofnews.com and here, at The European Tribune) should make abundantly clear that on many subjects our inclinations coincide.

    My feeling though is that Mr Hanson's political sympathies, becoming more pronounced in recent years, have taken on such a strident character as to not only cloud his view on contemporary matters, but to also skew his judgement on historical research. His latest, and to my mind inferior, work, on the Peloponnesian war comes to mind, in which he draws overt, but tenuous, parallels between ancient Athens and modern day America, but fails to notice the eerie analogy between that state's catastrophic Sicilian venture and the Iraqi campaign of today.

    Now as regards the intelligence reports from various agencies of different nationalities on Iraq's alleged WMD programs, there are a couple of points to be raised. First, the reports on this from French, German and Italian intelligence were arguably exaggerated by US analysts and political circles. But aside from that (and here we may be touching upon very real cultural differences), Europeans, being of a, some times too pronounced, sceptical nature, understood that intelligence work is about throwing a wide net and then sifting through the information collected, using sound judgement. Some source, with motives of his own, intimating that Iraq is a couple of years away from acquiring nuclear weapons, or Angelina Jolie carrying the spawn of lizard people from an alien planet, does not make it so. And the claims when it came to Iraq sounded to most Europeans, who after all have closer ties to, and more of a shared history with, the Middle-East, well, dubious, to say the least.

    As to the nations of Europe throwing a spanner in the works of the diplomacy ahead of the war, that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. France, being perhaps the poster-boy of European reticence in this case, were quite clear that they would support this action, with troops, as they did in the first Gulf War, if the inspection teams, given the time they asked for, were to report back that they had either found evidence of WMDs or been hindered from fulfilling their task by the Iraqis.

    But in the end, the US being determined from the outset to invade, all this is moot. It was obvious, from a European perspective, having had, as I've pointed out, some previous experience with conflicts in these areas, that, no, you could not "win" this thing, at least not in a manner which the US defined as a victory. Yes, it was obvious to anyone of sound mind, you would beat the regular Iraqi army handily. Belgium could have done that. But occupying the country, now that's another matter entirely. Then we're talking about a bleeding sore that will not heal, and I'm speaking now more of economic losses, than losses in terms of casualties. Europeans, politicians as well as common men and women, I think, immediately saw, played out like a predictable movie in front of their inner eye, the disintegration of the nation, nascent civil-war and theocracy resulting.

    Can you blame them for wanting no part of that?

    All the best.

        Alexander G. Rubio