what allies?

I love the NYTimes lead headline early this morning in the print edition. And how much of it is editorial sarcasm?


Actually, as far as anyone seems to know, only Britain and Australia have dispatched troops to serve in a war with Iraq, so the headline should properly begin, "BUSH AND ALLY . . . ." Hey, yeah, why wasn't Australia with the other guys in their Canary Islands hideaway?

It doesn't bode well for Bush that the people of Spain are overwhelmingly opposed to the war [polls indicate 80% of Spain’s population is against it]. The Partido Popular, the party of Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, has already lost the next election according to commentators. Moreover, Aznar's support of Bush is seriously jeopardizing Spain's carefully nourished special relationship with Spanish-speaking countries around the world, all of whose peoples, and governments as well, oppose the war and are taking great risks by offending the government of the powerful U.S. All of this is very bad for Spanish business, and for Spain's status in the world outside of Dubya's head. There is no future for this frail little gang of the willing.

Elsewhere among the "allies," the parliamentary leader of Tony Blair's government has resigned to protest the war, and there will be more defections, perhaps even the defection of an entire allied government.

But don't expect resignations in Washington. Americans don't maintain principles in government. It costs them too much to get there in the first place.

About this Entry

Published on March 17, 2003 2:19 PM.

previous entry: ISM activist murdered by Israeli government

next entry: Rachel Corrie writes home