The whole editorial is worthy, but here is an important snippet:
The French and Germans are right about war: It is always terrible, it can have unpredictable results, and democracies can embrace it only as a last resort. Yet their posturing, combined with the waffling of Mr. Blix, has made war more rather than less likely. Saddam Hussein can draw only one message from the current debate: that the Security Council no more has the will to force disarmament on him now than it did in the 1990s. Mr. Blix’s report and the European reactions will encourage him to cooperate not more, but less. He might be contained for a while, but in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world, another failure by the world’s powers to enforce Iraqi disarmament would be a disaster even worse than war: It would touch off a rush by rogue states for nuclear weapons. Consequently, the absence of firmness by the council will only force the Bush administration to conclude that it has no choice other than to bypass the United Nations and lead a “coalition of the willing” into Iraq. That coalition likely would include half or more of the members of the NATO alliance; France and Germany, more than the United States, would risk isolation.
One more time now- appeasement and weakness is a recipe for disaster. Go read the rest.
*** Update ***
From the comments, we find this excellent link to the Tocqueville Connection stating that when push comes to shove, the French will be with us.
Wim de Vriend
At the end of the road, in the fullness of time, when push comes to shove, we cannot be so sure that France won’t join the war. that’s becasue the French, above all, want to be seen as a world power – which they haven’t been for some time. Prestige is everything for them. So if we go to war without them, beat the crap out of Saddam and then set about steering Iraq in the direction of civilization, where would the French be if they ahd not participated? For a reasoned comment on this go to http://www.ttc.org/da30126a.htm