Before I discuss this story, let me give you some background. There are two internationally respected business papers in Europe. There are many good papers, but the Financial Times and the European edition of the Wall Street Journal stand well above the other contenders IMO. As you might expect, the European version of the WSJ has an American bent to the news. So the Financial Times is THE daily source of perspective on what most European businessmen are thinking. To be very specific, most of the perspective is British, but they have a better handle on eurothink than American papers. In addition, European business papers are more conservative than typical European papers. So when you see the Financial Times using phrases such as “politicians lashed out”, don’t take it with a grain of salt. Rather, interpret it as “The politicians couldn’t believe someone used plain speech so they threw a public tantrum.” Keep this in mind, along with the British love of understatement, as you consider the following.

Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld berated the media for continually implying all of Europe (sans England) is against forcibly solving the problem of Suddam Hussein. In his comments to the media, he criticized France and Germany as being part of the problem and specifically pointed out that there were many other countries in Europe including those who supported the United States. Not as diplomatic as many politicians, the words of Rumsfeld made quite an impact. The Financial Times interpreted Rumsfield as saying that Germany and France, which failed to back US policy on Iraq, were no longer modern states or important allies of Washington. The FT continues: In response Jacques Chirac, French president, and Gerhard Schröder, German chancellor, tried unsuccessfully to calm tempers, as senior politicians from their countries lashed out at Mr Rumsfeld for "misunderstanding Europe" and for breaking diplomatic protocol.

Assuming Chirac and Schröder continue on their path to international irrelevance – at least from the perspective of the United States – I wonder how these leaders will react when an international coalition starts forcibly resolving the problem of Saddam Hussein without them.