1. Had we not "bulldozed" their opinions--a term that presupposes that America's interests should be held hostage to French interests--Saddam would still be running Iraq. Maybe this is what the U.N. wanted, but that doesn't make it right.

2. The alternative is more than just "U.N. troops vs. coalition troops." Rumsfeld's option is calling up more Iraqis to handle their own security. We are up to 50,000 from zero a few months ago. Target is 200,000 sometime next year. How many U.N. divisions would that be?

Absolutely nothing would really change if half the troops there were from France and Germany. Like I have pointed out countless times, I don't think the Baathists would avoid shooting someone just because they weren't American. On the other hand, if the idea is that better some damn foreigner bleed his life out on the sand than an American, you might have a valid point, but it doesn't sound like the sort of opinion a liberal would normally admit to.

Sure, Rumsfeld's plan sounds similar on the surface. It just means dead Iraqis instead of dead Americans, right? But from the point of view of the average Iraqi, having your own people defending your country from the Baathists is a completely different story from having occupying troops doing it. The civilian support for the effort would be much higher, and anyone over there now will tell you that civilian support is a lot of the battle right now. And from the point of view of the soldiers themselves, there's going to be a huge difference between Iraqis fighting for their own country's freedom, and some Frenchman bitching about the heat and bad food.

BTW, don't get too excited about that WMD report. Most of this information was funneled through the BBC from a single, anonymous source. Let's wait and see.