While a Smug Kristof Snickers, Friedman Points Out that the Real Culprits Are Not Those Who Act (Even If They Did But Little) But Those Who Do Nothing

So France and Germany are no longer our best buddies. But we have found new pals, like the Baltic countries. Of course, they are kind of small…

I suppose that any time someone complains about a joke, the idea pops up that the joking was effective.

Still, I will speak up to say that what is the worst thing about Nicolas Kristof's joking about the coalition allies (listen to his snickering throughout his "interviews") is the New York Times writer's double standards.

If one can make a joke about countries supporting Uncle Sam while admittedly doing relatively little, where are the jokes regarding countries opposing Uncle Sam while not doing anything at all?

Where are the (well-deserved) jokes towards countries sitting on the sidelines and haughtily criticizing America (and the members of the Coalition of the Willing) while not acting in any way at all?

Where are the jokes regarding those allies' supposed sincerity when it really hides (at least a fair amount of) duplicity?

Why is the word "arrogance" never applied to the chatterboxes freely offering criticism from the safe seats of their (figurative and real) armchairs in the safe dens of their (figurative and real) homes?

And how about the smug Kristof's arrogance towards the Baltic countries… Whose citizens he interviews with a smile, enjoys a laugh with, and then disparages?

And you will notice that I have not even gone into his basic ignorance of the fact that it would be far more real to state the problem thus: to France and Germany, the United States is no longer (if it ever was, or if it ever was regarded as such) their "best buddy"…

In this perspective, it is far more instructive to listen to Kristof's colleague, Thomas Friedman, who points out that "a determined minority, more worried about an American success than an Iraqi failure, is holding NATO back" from participating in Iraq (emphasis mine):

I couldn't help but wonder to myself: Let's see, there are now 26 countries in NATO. If each NATO country contributed just 100 soldiers, roughly speaking we could have five NATO soldiers guarding every polling station in Iraq for the January election. That would be a huge help. After all, what does NATO stand for today if not for helping to protect a free and fair election in Iraq that is being opposed by a virulent minority whose only motto is: "You vote, you die — elections must fail." Is it so much to ask that each NATO country contribute 100 soldiers for a long weekend to advance the prospect of Iraqi elections?

… The Arab League has been sniping at the U.S. from the minute it toppled Saddam's tyranny, constantly barking that the Iraqi government there was not representative. Well now we're trying to help elect one that would be the most representative in the Arab world, and what is the Arab League doing? Virtually nothing. Why couldn't it offer to send some Arab and Muslim soldiers to protect polling places in the Sunni towns of Iraq?

If only we could call the Iraqi election, "A Seminar on the European Defense Initiative: Why NATO Is Passé and E.D.I. Is the Future" [the European Defense Initiative is the E.U.'s quest to build a military force independent of NATO and America]; then we could get thousands of Europeans to take part. If only we could call the Iraqi elections, "A Seminar on George Bush and Genghis Khan: Why Bush Is Worse"; then the Arab League would send so many people, we'd be turning them away. We'd be talking pay-per-view on Al Jazeera.

… is it such a hard call for Arabs and Europeans to figure out on whose side they should be? Do these people really feel good about not lifting a finger?

"We in Iraq have a lot of disappointment with many of our neighbors," Ghazi al-Yawar, Iraq's interim president, told me the other day while he was visiting Washington. President Yawar described Iraq's neighbors as sitting on a fence "dangling their legs and munching on pistachios," while "the forces of darkness" try to rip Iraq to shreds. "We do not understand why a vicious suicide bomber who claims the lives of innocent civilians is a terrorist in one country and in Iraq he becomes a freedom fighter," added Yawar, a bright and decent man.

… Most NATO countries (I hope) would prefer a decent outcome in Iraq, but a determined minority, more worried about an American success than an Iraqi failure, is holding NATO back.

So let the record show that when Iraq finally decided to hold a free and fair election, all the bad guys decided to come and "vote" and all the good guys sat on the fence, dangling their legs, eating pistachios.

Back to Kristof: You appear to have a great sense of humor, Nick. Isn't it time you learned to apply it in a fair and impartial way?…