BRUSSELS -- Was Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo a glorious moment in France's history? In a best-selling account of Napoleon's final days published two years ago, France's multi-talented foreign minister, Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin, argues that, yes, even today, Napoleon's defeat "shines with an aura worthy of victory."

This is something to contemplate as we watch France twirl the globe on its fingertip. The Times of London recently reprinted excerpts of de Villepin's book, implicitly suggesting that the spirit of Napoleon -- that is, Napoleon at Waterloo -- might well be driving French foreign policy today. Certainly for de Villepin, the spirit of Napoleon still lives and inspires. The foreign minister's office is adorned with portraits of the Corsican, and the remarkable poet-politician writes in his book, "There is not a day that goes by without me inhaling the perfume of the discreet violet," the flower worn by Napoleon's loyalists after his escape from Elba. "This Napoleon guides and transcends. He has carried, ever since his fall, a certain idea of France, a superior vision of politics. His gesture inspires the spirit of resistance. . . . Victory or death, but glory whatever happens."

Today France is marching toward another glorious Waterloo, taking on the assembled forces not of Wellington and Blucher but of Blair and Bush. Insofar as France's goal is to stop the Americans from going to war in Iraq, it is certain to fail, as President Jacques Chirac and de Villepin both know. But even in defeat there are victories to be won.

There is, above all, the victory of a principle. Americans make a serious mistake if they believe France is simply engaged in petty churlishness. Chirac and de Villepin believe they, and ultimately they alone, are defending the European vision of world order against that vision's most dangerous enemy -- the United States. "In this temple of the United Nations," de Villepin declared at the Security Council a week ago, "we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. . . . France has always stood upright in the face of history before mankind." The French expect to fail in their effort to prevent war, but they expect the war and its aftermath to bring disaster both for the United States and for those European leaders who have thrown in their lot with Bush. When the dust settles, the French believe, their brave stance will be vindicated before the court of European public opinion.

For France the larger game has always been the struggle for mastery in Europe. The United States may win the battle over Iraq, but who is to say that France will not ultimately win the war to chart the direction of Europe in the years and decades to come? Already France speaks for the vast majority of the European public. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar may have the United States on their side, but at the moment a majority of Blair and Aznar's constituents are on France's side. As for the Eastern Europeans, one poll shows that 75 percent of Latvians oppose war in Iraq, too. And while Chirac's recent undiplomatic spanking of Poles, Czechs and others who dared to support Bush may today seem a self-inflicted wound, Chirac may still succeed in making the "new" Europe think twice before crossing the old.

Americans should not count too heavily on Eastern Europe's serving forever as a pro-American fifth column in Europe. In coming years, as Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Romanians become economically and politically enmeshed in the European Union, and as geopolitical insecurities and memories of Soviet occupation, the wellsprings of today's pro-Americanism, begin to fade, the "new" Europe may come to resemble the Europe of France and Germany. The present idea of "new" and "old" Europe, pleasing though it might be to Americans, may prove inaccurate. Perhaps it is really France that represents Europe's future, while those trying to preserve the transatlantic relationship represent Europe's past. That, at least, is what France can hope.

In realizing this great dream, of course, France is prepared to wreak some destruction, as Napoleon did, and even to the very international institutions France claims to cherish. First NATO, which France does not cherish, was brought almost to its knees by France's opposition even to planning for the defense of Turkey. Now the European Union, which France values highly, has been badly shaken by Chirac's threats, and at a time, as one senior EU official recently told me, that the fragile institution can ill afford such pressures. Finally, there is the U.N. Security Council, de Villepin's "temple." Will the international order France seeks be strengthened or weakened if a new generation of Americans becomes convinced that the Security Council is a spineless debating society? Perhaps France is prepared to pull the temple down "in the spirit of resistance" to the American behemoth.

It's not just a question for Americans to ponder. On a visit to Berlin last week, I found Germans vehemently opposed to war with Iraq but also wondering aloud whether Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has been wise to chain German fortunes so closely to France. French leadership is exhilarating, but it can be unnerving to follow a leader whose motto is "Victory or death, but glory whatever happens." This may provide the opening for the United States and its stalwart allies in Europe. Success in Iraq, both during and, just as important, after the invasion, might help keep and attract some support in Europe. Not everyone finds glory in defeat.

The writer is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of "Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order."