It is interesting to note that the current crisis seems to have brought many an established international institution to a rather parlous state. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost say it was by design, like some one or some group, who we can't see, is calling the shots on this.
Take, for example, the current brouhaha at the UN. All at once, as if by magic, there appears from nowhere substantial and vociferous oppostion to a course of action everyone had previously agreed to! And in response, the administration, determined as much as anyone ever has been to go to war, seems increasingly content to give this organization the necessary rope with which to hang itself, as it appears it most likely will do.
And then there is the quixotic turn of events at NATO. Now, ordinarily in a situation like this (1) France wouldn't even bother to be involved, because it's not, and has not for a long time, been part and parcel of NATO day-to-day goings-on; and (2) even if they had, we'd ordinarily tell them to sod off.
However, that hasn't happened. I can countenance an attempt by the Germans to oppose, at least initially, the efforts in Turkey, but in the absence of French posturing they would simply be shouted down, or worse yet, ignored.
Then, too, there is the question of political partitioning of the EU because of this issue. Is the war as an issue bigger than the viability of the EU as an issue? Is it worth berating and belittling the newcomers, getting the expanded union off on the wrong foot, just so France can appear to be leading other European nations around by the nose? Can the schism that is being created between Old Europe and New Europe be worth the price, the renting asunder of the Grand Union that the EU pretends to be?
Of course, when it comes to the French shooting themselves in the foot, anything is possible. They have a grand and glorious past in this regard, so let's not sell them short.
Actually, in an historical sense, if Europe is left to it's own devices this is what they invariably do. There are people over there who can see things differently, and know that the short term expedient is no substitute for a long-term coherent view, but typically their voices are drowned out, primarily because there aren't enough of them.
For the nonce we must stay on plan. If the UN dies (i.e., becomes the reincarnation of the League of Nations), then so be it. If NATO collapses, then we'll have to find something to replace it, or better yet, determine if in fact it does need replacing. The EU? Really, who gives a s***? This union wasn't going to work anyway, let's not kid ourselves. If the dream (of some) of a pan-European entity is to work, they'll have to find some way of overcoming hundreds of years of European history. If they're going to fracture over an issue like the US going to war with a middle eastern dictator, they're going to have a very hard time in the future seeking and stressing commonalities. Apart from being on the continent, what do the Spanish have in common with the Poles, who have what in common with the Bulgarians, who have....well, you get the drift.
Back in the 80's, there was a small book out called "Last Waltz of the Tyrants". Well, we're not there yet. We may in fact be a long ways from that exalted state. But if war is the continuation of politics by other means, then the new paradigm of 21st Century warfare demands a parallel development of 21st Century political thought, and we simply aren't going to get that by relying on institutions that seem to have outlived their usefulness.
CA....