Sure. Interesting articles. But hardly "mind-blowing."

Somehow I don't see the WSJ running a similar post-CAFTA story with the headline, "At Expense of E.U., Nations Of North America Are Drawing Closer."

Does the EU have thousands of troops posted in North America? Does the EU lead a regional security organization here?

No?

Oh.

Part of why I think the Ukraine drew Poland and the E.U. closer together is that it gave Poland a better sense of who would be "in their foxhole". Not that the US was on the wrong side of the issue, but US officials and their responses were generally more tentative (except for Powell who is on his way out). Certainly President Bush's initial comments on the issue were quite ambiguous. And I think it was clear that the US disapproved of what happened in the Ukraine it was not at all clear whether they really would (if the chips were down) force a confrontation with Putin over it. The E.U., on the other hand, didn't really care what Putin thought...

As much as I respect Walensa, I disagree with us "failing" as a superpower. Is Europe going to let one war create such a schism, or is Europe looking for an excuse for separation? I believe it's the latter. I can understand their anger, but there's other reasons out there.

Let's focus on the important things.

So, Dan, just what is your favorite bar in NC?

Doesn't surprise me too much. Heck, you can even look at Louisiana for an example in America!

French systems are just less stable and more complicated, making entrepreneurialism tougher. And entrepreneurialism is the basic economic growth driver.

Let's hope that over the next few years and decades, we have democratically elected, and then democratically removed, leaders in central asia, the middle east and elsewhere, also talking about the US's moral failings as a superpower.

And as far as Europe being in Poland's foxhole, well... I think Poles have a good enough appreciation of their own history to be more than a bit skeptical about that. Three partitions, a phony war and an iron curtain will certainly create a very healthy respect for a far-away friend with the wherewithal to actually do something, as opposed to allies who cluck-cluck-cluck disapprovingly and then shrug. Let's face it - what could the EU have done if Putin felt strong enough internally to move on Ukraine ? Especially if he decided to play hardball with natural gas deliveries from Russia to the West ?

"They are a military and economic superpower but not morally..." Not morally? Har-de-har! At least we are trying to help build an Iraq that has some freedom and human rights, while the rest of the world sneers or does nothing.

It's a good thing that Europe prevented that 'ethnic cleansing' in Yugoslavia; after all it was right in their own back yard. Oh, wait; my mistake. The 'moral' Euros just sat around while the killing continued. How'd THAT happen, Lech?

Les:

The Euros have not lifted a finger to help anyone in Iraq. But they also haven't tortured anyone in Iraq.

In this country, we are doing an ostrich with respect to what those torture allegations in Iraq and Guantanamo are doing to our moral standing in the world. I'm sure Lech, who knows a thing or two about superpower torture, has this in mind when making his statements.

Les -- your claim to a surerior moral position would have a lot more force if it had been advanced as the rational at the start, rather than after several other rationals had been proven false.

your claim to a surerior moral position would have a lot more force if it had been advanced as the rational [sic] at the start

Of course it was, as anyone who was actually listening at the time would know. That other rationales were proferred at the same time does not diminish this fact.

One wonders why the left has such a difficult time with the idea that it is possible for there to exist multiple rationales for an action.

"The Euros have not lifted a finger to help anyone in Iraq. But they also haven't tortured anyone in Iraq."

I don't get this argument. They can 'opt out' of responsibility for Abu Ghraib because they weren't part of the coalition. But doesn't that make them party to what would have happened in Abu Ghraib if Saddam were left in power? Even Kerry conceded to some extent that the 'magic wand' position on Iraq (against the war, in favor of removing Saddam with a magic wand) didn't hold water.

"In this country, we are doing an ostrich with respect to what those torture allegations in Iraq and Guantanamo are doing to our moral standing in the world"

The 'ostriching' you're reporting is simply seeing this event not in isolation but in relation to the norms of the Middle East. The attempt to make Abu Ghraib a 'show stopper' failed in the Spring, despite the backing of the US Media and Al Jazeera. The attempts to convince the Iraqi people that the US was just Son of Saddam failed because, bluntly, they weren't as stupid as the Media thought them to be (the argument really amounted to Abu Ghraib = US).

On the comparative legal systems:

If an independent judiciary is the cornerstone of economic greatness, then shouldn't Republicans champion judges willing to strike down legislation?

Also, to what extent will the British economy shrink as it adopts civil law as part of European integration?

Matthew:

To use an analogy I think you'll get, equate the US activities at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo to the Left's embrace of Michael Moore, and by extension, the wilder charges in Far. 911. I think you'd agree the Left en masse does not believe all the tinfoil natterings about the Bushes and Carlisle Group in that movie. But by embracing Mr. Moore, they have covered themselves with his dirt. Similarly, I doubt Rummy got on the phone to the guards at Abu G and said, let's make a porno flick with guards, dogs, and recalcitrant insurgents. But, with all the bureaucratic memos about acceptable levels of coercion, failure to provide adequate training and supervision to prison guards, and failure to staff appropriately, the US created a bureaucracy suffused with a reckless indifference to torture.

"One wonders why the left has such a difficult time with the idea that it is possible for there to exist multiple rationales for an action."

One wonders why the Right always accuses anyone who even questions any part of our strategy in Iraq of being the Left. You know, there are people not on the Left that opposed the war, including me. I happen to agree that, in fact, the real rationale for the war was that the Bushies thought it would be a good idea to transform the Middle East. However, they knew damn well that if they used that as a reason, there is no way the public would support such a war. So they made up the stuff about the WMD. So, according to Al, we should congratulate the Administration for lying to the American people in service to a higher goal.

And, oh yes, from now on, it's the United States's right and duty to launch wars to free opppressed peoples. By the way, when do the troop ships leave for Darfur? Or Uzbekistan? (Whoops,they're on our side!) Or Saudi Arabia?

Frankly, if Bush's policy is to use American troops to fight wars to impose democracy, he is on a fool's errand. Promote political reform? Absolutely. Launch invasions to overthrow governments we don't like? NO.

"One wonders why the left has such a difficult time with the idea that it is possible for there to exist multiple rationales for an action."

One wonders why the Right always accuses anyone who even questions any part of our strategy in Iraq of being the Left. You know, there are people not on the Left that opposed the war, including me. I happen to agree that, in fact, the real rationale for the war was that the Bushies thought it would be a good idea to transform the Middle East. However, they knew damn well that if they used that as a reason, there is no way the public would support such a war. So they made up the stuff about the WMD. So, according to Al, we should congratulate the Administration for lying to the American people in service to a higher goal.

And, oh yes, from now on, it's the United States's right and duty to launch wars to free opppressed peoples. By the way, when do the troop ships leave for Darfur? Or Uzbekistan? (Whoops,they're on our side!) Or Saudi Arabia?

Frankly, if Bush's policy is to use American troops to fight wars to impose democracy, he is on a fool's errand. Promote political reform? Absolutely. Launch invasions to overthrow governments we don't like? NO.

Appalled Moderate:

"The Euros didn't lift a finger to help in Iraq, but they didn't torture anyone in Iraq either."

Point taken, but I would argue that the Europeans, specifically the French and Russians, did more than simply "do nothing"--in fact, they actively profited from and attempted to perpetuate Saddam's vicious fascist regime because political cronies, kleptocrats, Paribas and Total Fina Elf were making out like bandits on the Oil-for-Palaces program.

Sins of commission are out there for all to see, critique, and condemn, but sins of omission, which often occur under the radar screen entirely, can be far more deadly in their effects and consequences. UN inaction in Darfur and Rwanda, The failure of the West as a whole to critique China or Russia for their human rights records, and the cynical status quo ante in the Middle East, in which the West let repressive Arab rulers of the hook as long on repressing their peoples as long as they ensured the uninterrupted flow of cheap oil, come immediately to mind.

Mr. Drezner--
what is your favorite bar in NC? mine is the west end wine bar, on west franklin street in chapel hill. very relaxed atmosphere, good wine, occasional live music.

Results matter. That "help the Iraqi people" canard doesn't fly anymore. The war has killed 100,000 Iraqis. Stop living in lala land.

Lech Walesa doesn't think we've done the superpower thing well. So that means we need to re-examine our foriegn policy? Are you nuts?

Lech Walesa thinks we're a moral failure? How so? By the way, Walesa opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. How is that the morally upright choice?

This seems all too common a trend in foreign leaders who are respected for the work they've done in their own countries: they seem to care nothing about any other country, even if they face similar problems. Once (If) problems are solved in their own country, their work is done. Ireland fought for years for independence from Britain. Then they started this neutrality thing and now hold the dubious honor of being one of the very few European nations that somehow managed to shed all moral clarity and remain neutral during WWII. Hell, de Valera even expressed his condolences to the German ambassador on the occasion of Hitler's untimely demise. Once South Africa ended apartheid, did Nelson Mandela or Desmond Tutu give a lick about plight in other African nations? Hell no. Tutu told Rwandan Tutsis to stop complaining after 800,000 of their family members and friends were massacred, b/c he didn't want to publicize any atrocity where it wasn't the whites commiting the atrocity. Now Lech Walesa spends his life fighting for political freedom for the Poles, only to turn around and oppose the liberation of Iraqis living under just as harsh, if not harsher, political and personal repression.

In his new book, Natan Sharansky speaks of Jimmy Carter pushing for the status quo when it comes to dealing with dictators, in the name of stability and under the misguided view that many being killed and tortured was somehow more morally upright than the few being the unavoidable casualty of a mission to free the many. Sharansky mentions that, while he believes Carter is a good man, it is often the case that those who have never known life in a dicatorship or totalitarian state often lose all sense of moral clarity. Well, I would make the argument that men (and women) who fight so hard for freedom in their own country lose some of this moral clarity as well in that they fail to recognize that the promotion of freedom doesn't end when THEIR country becomes free. Not that I'm saying that they have to be active advocates for every other country on the planet, but, even despite all the good they have done, it is nevertheless reprehensible when they actively oppose any sort of liberation for other countries under the assumption that to spare the few who would inevitably be casualties of any independence movement, it is better and somehow more morally upright to keep everyone under the threat of indiscriminate torture, rape and murder.