Redstate

dogging the french.  how refreshingly clever.

..trying to siphon off votes from the National Front?

Personally, I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't have gotten France into this mess in the first place.

"French military activities in the post-World War II have been long on ignominy and short on heavy lifting"

They were rather heavy handed in Algeria and Suez and fought well at Dien Bien Phu, they just took a terrible tactical position there.

I don't think that the problem is the French military, just the French politicians.

Of course, Dien Bien Phu was fought by the Foreign Legion so maybe that doesn't say much about the regular army.  ;-)

...is to not come out the gate flailing away.  It ooks-lay inda-kay umb-day.

the opening graf again.

I openly admit this is a painful addiction for me.

What really happened? Aside from the hilarity you've pointed out, what is the serious basis for this speech?

I suppose it could be a random collision of a previously scheduled appearence fitting into a MSM narrative of "our traditional allies" the French. But I wonder if it's more ominous - in either direction - French intelligence sees something bad coming and wants to get ahead of the curve (France swinging back into line w/ US-NATO-"the west" vis Iran?) or this is a duplicitous show of bravado as another milepost on the road to capitulation toward a nouvelle France?

What is it - random or purposeful, encouraging or portentuous?

My problem with the rampant anti-Frenchery of our country is that I think people grossly confuse French politicians with the French.  Not claiming you did here... just my opinion that the vast majority of anti-France posts/articles/comments/etc I read are misinformed (again, not saying yours) and generally ignorant (ditto).

With all these "not saying yours" disclaimers, it's clear I shouldn't have posted under your thread.  Apologies.

Serious policy statement or dupicitous bravado? Serious policy statement or dupicitous bravado? Serious policy statement or dupicitous bravado? Serious policy statement or dupicitous bravado?  Serious policy statement or dupicitous bravado?  

I'll take duplicitous bravado for $500.

So everyone else who doesn't like the French is a moron who can't tell the difference between the government and the people? Does this also apply to all the America haters out there?

I've been to France. I still don't like the French. Going back is not on my list of things to do in this lifetime.

This is a good sign, and consistent with a framework I've been thinking about. I unfortunately do not have time make the full argument, so just a jist:

France is closer to this problem goegraphically, but the U.S. is the great Satan, and therefore closer to the desires of Iranian agression. If we can become more neutral in our defensive posture, making it clear that the U.S. will fully defend ourselves, but may not defend europe, then europe must step up to the plate.

It seems that a lot of recent U.S. policy can be viewed through this framework.

Redeployment of european based troops.

Carrot and sticking nato.

Forcing the EU3 to lead in negotiation.

Nothing like self preservation to get someone to grow up.

the French people are a bunch of jerks too. From polls and news stories I've seen, the French citizens don't like America or America's policies. Ungrateful @#$%^$##@$%@#$s! How soon they forget.

I am sure they like our tourist dollars though.

Chirac`s comments are related to recent and ongoing events in Ivory Coast? IIRC, government blames the the French for helping the rebels, plus there is a large immigrant population in France, many of whom were involved in the recent violence. Saber rattling?

And now that I look at it, I kinda like the spelling error - Chirac sort of deserves his own variant, and dupicitous has a certain Chiracian quality.

it isn't clear that they could actually deliver a strike on a target much further away than say the Channel Islands, I'd guess you could safely double on that bet. Unless of course they could contract the job out to someone.

That's what I wondered, but Streiff doesn't buy into this much - see our exchange immediately preceding.

Hope your right though!

but I really think this is Gallic bluster.

If the Brits had said they would nuke someone, I'd listen. I think Chirac is selling woof tickets.

forthright statement by Chirac that prompted bin Laden to release is latest tape. Now that the French are threatening nukes bin Laden is quaking in his sandals, so much so that he has offered a truce. It now simply remains to see which Democrat is first to suggest that we open truce negotiations with the Right Honorable Osama bin Laden.

How about a pool to see which Dem and how long?

"We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war.

"There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America," he said.

I think he is just afraid of what Halliburton is going to be doing with all that money.

So the "we like Arabs more than the rest of the West" tack didn't work so well--month long Muslim riots and no leverage in the Iranian negotiations.  Hard to starboard!  Now we'll give them the, "Attack any other Western Country instead of us, because we'll nuke you! (and let's face it, it's really the Americans you want, non?)"  

I think people grossly confuse French politicians with the French.

I wasn't aware that French politicians were neither French nor elected by (the) French (people so as to represent them and their interests).

There are undoubtedly many areas of France (Normandy comes to mind) and French people who do not deserve the ridicule. However. The majority have elected the very politicians who do deserve that ridicule and those who elected them do so as well.

makes you think those riots are over?

... that bin Laden is simply concerned about war profiteering on the backs of the American taxpayer. I guess that could be it :-)

Good point.  They won't be over until they surrender their culture or reclaim it.

... the press isn't covering them, ipso facto they must be over, non?

:-)

A bit more analysis, from Le Figaro and Le Monde:

Chirac's comments came in the context of an address to nuclear naval forces in Brittany.

In part, the evocation of an anti-terrorist role for nuclear weapons is a way to rationalize the continued existence of the French nuclear branch. In recent years, lots of people have been arguing that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the French nuclear arsenal could be done away with completely.

Interestingly, he also said that French nuclear weapons could be used to defend vital sources of supply and for the support of allies. This is a departure from traditional French doctrine, which held that a nuclear response would be solely limited to direct threats to the French mainland.

Links in French:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20060119.FIG0247.html?154043

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-732336@51-732337,0.html

On a side note, having lived here for more than three years, I couldn't disagree more strongly with the "all French hate Americans" comments above.

the only hits on a page-search for "hate" as in "all French hate Americans" is your comment (except for a  single non-specific comment about "America haters").

The French are rather nasty to anyone who crosses them or their perceived national interest.

"I have tried to lift France out of the mud. But she will return to her errors and vomitings. I cannot prevent the French from being French."-Charles de Gaulle

I recognize that French politicians are French.  That said, I think it's patently obvious that politicians on either side do not always reflect well the citizenry.  

French people, at least in my experience, do not dislike Americans.  They dislike a lot of American politics.  I consider these things entirely separate.  So, too, with French and French politicians.

I promise not to stray anymore from this topic, but this story is just too good not to share.  It will make you laugh out loud.

France Surrenders to Texas High School

By David Burge

CNSNews.com Satire

January 31, 2003

Paris (CNSNews.com) - What began as a six-day chaperoned music tour by a group of suburban Houston teenagers ended in an epic conquest in the pre-dawn hours of Friday morning as French military and government officials offered their unconditional surrender to students of the Aldine, Texas Eisenhower High School Music Department.

Full story here

My guys took Russia.  I myself personally captured Vladivostok: mind you, I wanted Volgograd, but the line was too long...

Interestingly, he also said that French nuclear weapons could be used to defend vital sources of supply and for the support of allies.

AwRIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!  Dooode - anyone messes with US, better be ready to mess with the FRENCH!

Wait...

We DO count as an "allies", right?

On a side note, having lived here for more than three years, I couldn't disagree more strongly with the "all French hate Americans" comments above.

It's one thing to take a political stand against "them" and another to be confrontational to a guest.  I daresay a lot of Europeans fall into the category of hating "the" Americans and being completely charming with "those" Americans (as in, "the ones in the parlor").

On the other hand, I've been reading the Italian media online for the last three years, and aside from The Usual Suspects (the socialists who've been mounting weekly anti-American protests since 1944), I haven't been picking up on a lot of anti-Americanism.  Anti-Bushism, certainly, but not much anti-Americanism.

He's probably just trying to change the subject from speculation that he's dying.

I think it's patently obvious that politicians on either side do not always reflect well the citizenry.

Citizenry is not people? Change the terms as you will, this is still just wrong. Your point may be that politicians may not represent individuals (and in that I would agree) but they certainly represent the people/citizenry/(majority of) voters.

(Individual) French people may not dislike individual Americans when they meet them, but that is irrelevant. The majority (or a sufficient plurality) of French people have elected their buffoons and thus made themselves and their nation the topic of ridicule. If that bothers them, they should elect other politicians who are not such magnets for ridicule.

As it is, I don't think it bothers the French at all... well, until Americans stop buying their wine, cheese, etc.

I wonder if that's the guy who used to be chairman of the piano department at the Eastman School. Figured he was dead by now.

French Officers who put them in that untenable position in the first place.

Don't matter how good the guy in the trench is. If he's led by a baffoon, the results are predictable.

and as a further note to myself, all three examples I gave were political losses since the French don't run Algeria, Suez, or Vietname anymore. No matter how well the soldiers aquitted themselves, the generals and politcal blew it.  I'm just saying that the French military is capable of 'heavy lifting', just not winning. ;-)

Frankly, I think this is great news.  If Kerry manages to win in 08, it means that we will then be allowed to use nukes.

I guess the similarities are even more marked than I considered at first glance.

The French, all joking aside, have the next-best military in the world. They produce their own major components (tanks, planes, ships, missiles, etc.), their forces are large, well-balanced and can reach globally (unlike China). Their leadership is political, but they do have some fighters in the O-5 and below ranks, so that can be fixed if there is need and a few days of time. Get the people behind them, the politicians out of the way, and France can indeed be a powerful ally. BTW, this isn't my analysis, it came from a guy I know at the Pentagon War College.  

I'd be willing to bet both the Israeli and British  militaries could beat the French hands down.

I essentially agree with the position stated, and perhaps arrive at a different conclusion. Basically, it says less about the French military that it does about the rest of the world.

Even arguing that the British may have the "next best" military, and it's probably arguable both ways, what this really highlights is the extremes - namely, how far ahead the US military has gotten across the board, and more notably, how far the rest of the world has fallen behind or mightily struggling to catch up.

In a sense, while the French may be second or third best, they're still almost useless, considering they won't have to defend France anytime soon. While their force projection may still have some ooomphh to it, even that is hamstrung by self-inflicted political imperatives.

All in all, the conclusion unwittingly exposes the problem - what situation could arise which would "get the people behind them, the politicians out of the way," and allow them to prove their mettle?

Does the strength of the threat matter?

What we are looking for is a pattern of emergent European usefulness.

What would the precursers of a new seriousness look like?

and

How could we encourage it?

Exmples of Encouragement:

Bolton appointment

Rice realignment of state (arguable)

Examples of Effects (not related directly to the encouragement:

EU holding back Palistinian funding.

etc.

There are other reason for these policies to be sure.

I haven't looked at it in enough depth decide if encouraging eurpean vigor is a strategic goal, a welcome side effect, or just an insignificant side effect of other policy decision.

My opinion at this point is that the promotion of a strong europe is a strategic goal.

I would like to see a list.

If Kerry wins in '08, the nukes will spontaneously combust.

When it is in France's best interest.

certainly matters.

Which country could France plausibly nuke considering radioactive fallout, etc.?

4-5 other armies superior to the French. Their tanks are inferior to Brit and German tanks. Their credible aircraft are actually joint ventures. Roland was good a decade ago but is long in the tooth now.

They have a handful of battalions who can hold their own in line of battle but let's not pretend either the French Army or Air Force covered itself with glory in the Gulf War. It didn't.

And there is no "Pentagon War College".

for a great man...CVN 76 USS Ronald Reagan.

credibility matters from a deterence standpoint.

I'm asking if Chiracs statement can be viewed as evidence of a movement toward a less dysfuntional europe.

Even to take the stance is an improvement, relative to the nonsense thats recently been advanced by the european organs.

Is Iraq a functional democracy - no.

But its moving that way.

Are we seeing movement toward a more responsible european foreign policy, and the requisite internal logic needed to drive such policy.

Is U.S. foreign policy partially tuned to advace the movement?

You seem to be unable to distinguish, streiff, which is atypical.

easily enough.

I think you are striving to place this rather bizarre statement by Chirac into a geopolitical context rather than a Chirac-is-a-lame-duck-and-the-French-economy-is-in-the-tank context.

First, let's dispose of the geopolitical context.

For a threat to be credible it has to be... credible. Who could possibly be the target of a French nuclear strike? This is a very serious question and I contend, as with the US nuclear arsenal (sans the proposed nuclear earth penetrator) that there is no real target for our nukes other than Russia and China. Do we really think that France would take the international heat and the cancellation of Airbus orders to pop a nuke? No.

Were this statement a serious gesture towards a more helpful French position internationally, then we'd see more than 500 French troops in Afghanistan.

What drove this statement is the fact that the French defense budget is about to fall upon hard times because their economy sucks. The only claim to military exceptionalism remaining to the French is that they possess an independent nuclear arsenal. I say independent because few, if any, would claim the Brits would use their nukes unless we were also popping them. Their army is not deployable with French assets in any reasonable amount of time and what use the French navy is is clearly an open question. So if they give up their nukes, which is what they will have to do to maintain their force structure so they can create the multitude of de-NATO-ized Franco-German brigades they want to create, they will become just another down in the heels member of Old Europe.

So while I completely understand your argument, I think that argument falls apart really quickly in the cold light of day.

is having the second or third best military "useless"? Unless one is contemplating fighting the top military power (which would be a bad idea) being second or third means something in a world of 190 sovereign nations.

Who are they going to fight? What use will they make of their military?

Their action in the Ivory Coast doesn't say much, one way or the other, and they essentially remain, in someone's phrase, part of "Old Europe" for collective security and shared resources.

I'd never really considered it in this light, but in many ways theirs is the most ornamental military - used primarily, if not almost exclusively as a prop for diplomacy/national standing. Many, many others are in similar situations, but this is where they really excel. (Canada is perhaps second in this category).

Good arguments.

But you didn't make them before.

Not everybody has the same information...

I still am looking for a pattern, but I agree that this data point is suspect within the framework I'm advancing.

Is done by the Foreign Legion!  :D