The French Act Isn't Funny Anymore:

[MMMMMM]

In this article, Krauthammer points out Chirac's recent willful obstructionism regarding the deployment of peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan in the runup to September elections there, and regarding the training of Iraqi security forces.

Krauthammer then suggests that the old Gaullist strategy remains intact and has merely morphed with the times, and that the USA can expect many more such clashes with France.

"Why the French Act Isn't Funny Anymore
Their resistance to helping in Afghanistan and Iraq is now downright dangerous

by Charles Krauthammer

Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2004
"It is easy to make fun of the French and their pompous pretense to the grandeur they shed a half-century ago when their loss of honor under Vichy, and then their loss of empire, relegated them to the rank of second-class power. But the fun is over. Before Sept. 11, France's Gaullist anti-Americanism as a form of ostentatious self-aggrandizement was an irritant. With a war on — three, in fact: Afghanistan, Iraq and the larger war on terrorism — France's willful obstructionism becomes dangerous and deadly.

That obstructionism was on amazing display at the recent NATO summit in Istanbul. The supremely courageous President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, flies there to beg for our troops to protect his country in the run-up to September elections. Two female election workers had already been murdered and some 16 men had been shot to death by insurgents for registering to vote.

NATO responds with an offer of a small number of troops to be sent around September. Karzai pleads for a more immediate deployment. Britain and the U.S. request deployment of NATO's new rapid-reaction force created precisely for such contingencies. France's President Jacques Chirac vetoes it, saying the force should not be used "in any old way."

Any old way? As if the NATO troops were off to visit the Kabul Disneyland. Afghanistan is the good war, remember. The war of undeniable necessity. The war everyone supported. It is hard to imagine a more important mission for NATO, or for the civilized world for that matter, than assuring free elections in Afghanistan, crucible for the worst terrorist attack in history. Yet with a flick of a hand, Chirac dismisses Karzai — and, of course, the U.S.

On Iraq, Chirac was similarly destructive of any realistic NATO help in democratic nation building. He spearheaded the vetoing of any NATO troops going to Iraq. The most that President Bush could get was an agreement to train Iraqi troops, but Chirac insisted the training be undertaken not by NATO as an organization (only by NATO countries individually) and not in Iraq itself. He suggested Rome. Nice for sightseeing, but hardly the most efficient and cost-effective way to train the Iraqi police and army.

Chirac knows America's stake in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It is so great, and so obvious, that even in the midst of a bitterly fought election campaign, the opposition presidential candidate embraces the current Administration's objective of democratic reconstruction in both countries. Why then is Chirac making things as difficult as he can for the U.S.?

It is not just pique. It is not just antipathy to George Bush. And it is not just France's traditional and reflexive policy of trying to rein in, cut down and domesticate the world's greatest superpower so that ultimately secondary powers like France could emerge as leaders of a multipolar world.

There is something far deeper going on here. Beyond the anti-Americanism is an attempt to court the Muslim and Arab world. For its own safety and strategic gain, France is seeking a "third way" between America and its enemies. Chirac's ultimate vision is a France that is mediator and bridge between America and Islam. During the cold war, Charles de Gaulle invented this idea of a third force, withdrawing France from the NATO military structure and courting Moscow as a counterweight to Washington. Chirac, declaring in Istanbul that "we are not servants" of America, has transposed this Gaullist policy to the struggle with radical Islam.

Explosive population growth in the Arab world coupled with Europe's unprecedented baby bust presages a radical change in the balance of power in the Mediterranean world. Chirac perhaps sees a coming Muslim future or, at least, a coming Muslim resurgence. And he does not want to be on the wrong side of that history. The result is a classic policy of appeasement: stand up to the American presumption of dictating democratic futures to Afghanistan and Iraq; ingratiate yourself with the Arab world. Thus, for example, precisely at a time when the U.S. and many Western countries are shunning Yasser Arafat for supporting terrorism and obstructing peace, Chirac sends his Foreign Minister to the ruins of Arafat's compound to shake Arafat's hand for world cameras.

This is pure pandering but with an agenda. Chirac wants not only to make France the champion of the oppressed in general against the great American hegemon but also to make it in particular the champion of Arab aspirations against American imperialism. Even the left-leaning French newspaper Le Monde criticized Chirac for acting the "killjoy" in Istanbul. But Chirac's behavior was no mere outburst. It is a strategy for a French future. Chirac is charting a course — a collision course with America. Istanbul was just one accident scene. There are many more to come."

Charles Krauthammer writes a syndicated column for the Washington Post that appears in more than 125 newspapers worldwide. He writes an essay each month for TIME.


http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,661053,00.html

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is easy to make fun of the French and their pompous pretense to the grandeur they shed a half-century ago when their loss of honor under Vichy, and then their loss of empire, relegated them to the rank of second-class power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr. Krauthammer is overly generous to our French "friends". The French have not been relevant to global politics since Napolean, except as the perpetual maiden in distress needing to be rescued by the British knights and American cowboys. Krauthammer is really sucking up to them, calling them a second-class power.

[ QUOTE ]
There is something far deeper going on here. Beyond the anti-Americanism is an attempt to court the Muslim and Arab world.

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting coalition. French and Muslim anti-Americanism are both based on, and symtomatic of, a deeper underlying problem. Both cultures are in deep decline from the good old days when each was the big frog in the pond. (Couldn't resist the frog methaphor.) The French were on top of the world much more recently, but both cultures still remember when each was at the top of the heap politically, economically, militarily, and culturally. The French are now geopolitically irrelevant except for their legacy of a UN Security Council seat, and the Arab world's main claim to fame and power is oil. They are like a bunch of over-the-hill jocks, drinking beers and talking about glory days. And they deeply resent the USA government for being the last superpower, and resent the American "culture" (not much to be proud of, to be sure) for corrupting their children.

Yo, Chirac, c'est la vie! Deal with it.

[nothumb]

It's common practice among conservatives (see William Kagan, et al) to assert that everything Europe, particularly France, does is rooted in some psychological weakness and need to reclaim the days of their Empire. None of these amateur psychiatrists believes it could be possible that the French have no interest in sending sons and daughters to get their heads lopped off on camera fighting for a cause they don't support. Why would France want to send troops and spend money on a war they bitterly opposed? America went to war without the support of its allies, but wants them to chip in (and go against their constituencies) for the long, brutal effort to rebuild everything we blew up.

"Obstructionist" implies that the French are blocking an effort backed by popular demand and undermining a cause they have a duty to support. "Appeasement" is a World War II term that means letting an aggressive, expansionary power have small gains in the short term in hopes of satisfying its insatiable greed. How did we appease Saddam? By bombing his country daily, decimating his military and forcing him to sleep in a different bed every night to escape his enemies? He had no hope of expanding. The guy couldn't have invaded a 7-11.

By no means do I support everything France does. I think we need more cooperation from Europe to manage the growing problem of radical Islam. But the fact is, conservatives like to act as if Europeans are acting this way solely to snub us, make nice-nice with the mullahs and have a laugh at the stupid Americans' expense. Most Europeans actually believe that the so-called 'war on terror' is being stunningly mis-managed and refuse to get involved in Iraq when they have little to no say in the overall strategy and don't want to die for the most bungling, inhumane, nepotist nation-building effort known to man.

Krauthammer's not as bad as some of these clowns, but his opinion here is off-base and counterproductive. If these unilateralists actually wanted any help - or wanted it more than a chance to snipe at Europeans - they would can this rhetoric and start making it worth their while.

NT

[andyfox]

"For its own safety and strategic gain, France is seeking a "third way" between America and its enemies."

Doesn't every country attempt to act in the interest of its own safety and strategic gain?

[MMMMMM]

You did not address France's obstructionism is Afghanistan, in the lead-up to elections there in September. France certainly has an interest in seeing a democratic, modern Afghanistan.

America went to war with the support of many allies--England, Australia, Poland, Italy--to name just a few--not "without the support of its allies", as you erroneously assert. It just so happens that France wasn't among those allies. I suspect France may no longer be an "ally" at all, even in the larger sense.

Even now France has a significant interest in seeing Iraq and Afghanistan become relatively peaceful, relatively democratic countries. Unfortunately Chirac's desire to obstruct appears to trump most everything else.

Krauthammer also makes the point that all this is not merely a churlish sort of obstructionism, but part of a larger, modernized Gaullist-type strategy.

Krauthammer used "appeasement" in regards to radical Islam and expansionist Islam in general--not in regards to Iraq, as you seem to try to argue and refute.

I think Krauthammer's analysis is likely dead-on with regards to France.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't every country attempt to act in the interest of its own safety and strategic gain?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly the standard theory among realist political philosophers (i.e. conservatives). Which is what makes it so funny when they get up in arms about how their 'allies' don't help them.

If we actually treated them as our allies instead of our lapdogs, gave them any say or even showed the least bit of respect for them, they might help us. If you want to go unilaterally into war, that's fine (well, it's not, actually) but it's a bit of a contradiction to then act as if the 'allies' you brushed aside are forsaking you.

NT

[MMMMMM]

Of course Andy--but do you really think the Gaullist-type strategy has much merit? Don't you think it is more harmful than beneficial overall--even to France?

[MMMMMM]

nothumb, you have got to get off this "unilaterally" nonsense. How many allies and supporters did the USA have? 25? 32? 17? 85? How many?

[nothumb]

This will be long, just a warning. Interesting post.

[ QUOTE ]
America went to war with the support of many allies--England, Australia, Poland, Italy--to name just a few--not "without the support of its allies", as you erroneously assert. It just so happens that France wasn't among those allies. I suspect France may no longer be an "ally" at all, even in the larger sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

America went to war without the support of over 90% of the world. We received real support from one ally - Britain - and bribed others into giving token support. Australia sent a few troops but they are not a military power. We did not have the support of most members of NATO (and I would include any members of a mutual defense treaty as our allies), including two of its most important members aside from Britain (France and Germany). Those governments that did support us did so in the face of overwhelming popular opposition.

[ QUOTE ]
Even now France has a significant interest in seeing Iraq and Afghanistan become relatively peaceful, relatively democratic countries. Unfortunately Chirac's desire to obstruct appears to trump most everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before, I think much of the reticence of European nations to commit serious funds/manpower to the occupation in Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) comes from the fact that they are not equal partners in the project and do not support the manner in which it was managed. France in particular and Europe in general are dragging their feet in using any NATO forces in Iraq or the 'Stan because these operations are not NATO-run - they are US operations. NATO has always been heavily dependent on the US and weighted towards the US in command and funding, but Europeans are still contributors and demand some access to command and planning. Withholding support is not purely 'obstructionist' - it is also a way of demanding input into the process.

[ QUOTE ]
Krauthammer also makes the point that all this is not merely a churlish sort of obstructionism, but part of a larger, modernized Gaullist-type strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but not until after he has been describing it in the former manner for several paragraphs. And even the Gaullist strategy is described as focused on 'reining in' American power as much as it is about France's well-being. Also, should this government ever desire to act multi-laterally (I highly doubt it) they will need the support of European allies that have more than a token relationship with both moderate and Islamist Arab regimes. We can't get all of our intelligence from Israel and Ahmed Chalabi.

[ QUOTE ]
Krauthammer used "appeasement" in regards to radical Islam and expansionist Islam in general--not in regards to Iraq, as you seem to try to argue and refute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But what Islamic nation is trying to 'expand' into our territory? Mostly they are unstable regimes trying to hold on to their own power and exploit their control of resources, notably oil. I'm not saying that they're not seeking more power - that's what nations do - but they are not seeking more territory (with the exception of those who wish to decimate Israel, of course). Appeasement in the WW2 sense referred to a nation - Islam is not a nation, but an ethos. I don't think it translates here. The alternative to defeating Germany was appeasement. The alternative to appeasing radical Islam, then, would be war, correct? Or some sort of coercive force? But we have seen that radical Islam in most cases multiplies and hardens when met with aggressive force. And we have also seen that Iraq did not even pose a threat vis-a-vis radical Islam prior to invasion, but now it is a hotbed of such activity. So France's opposition to Iraq, which I think Krauthammer would see as a sop to the Islamists in other countries, really did no favor to radical Islam because Saddam had such a lid on it. (By the way, I don't think you implied the opposite in saying that France appeases Islam, this is sort of tangential point).

[ QUOTE ]
I think Krauthammer's analysis is likely dead-on with regards to France.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's fair enough if conservatives want to withdraw from NATO and act unilaterally in the world. If you really believe that sort of use of force is in our best interests, that's your ethos and I respect it. I disagree vehemently, but you are making a principled argument.

However, I think said conservatives should then stop complaining when they don't receive the help they haven't properly asked for. If we don't believe France is our ally, and don't have any interest in dealing with the Europeans (basically everyone but Britain now that Spain's conservative government has colapsed) who oppose our actions, why do we still go to them for help? Why go to the UN at all? Why go to NATO at all? All the members of NATO who we supposedly count on are already in Iraq. Those that we don't, aren't, and don't want to be.

If Bush and co. really don't believe Europeans are our allies anymore, they should stop appealing to them for help.

BTW, I think this is an interesting thread and I can see how one would fall on either side. I do believe there are solid, principled arguments for the course you advocate. However, I think there are also some - at best - logical fallacies (and at worst, downright corruption and opportunism) in the actions of our government that supposedly represent those principles.

NT

EDIT: And in response to the 'unilateral nonsense' of your previous post, I do not believe our decision to invade was multilateral. It was substantially supported by one nation, Britain, which is desperate to maintain its favored-nation trade status. Most of the other countries that 'supported' us were pursuaded to do so with aid packages, loans, promises of other support, etc.

Multilateral means incorporating the opinions of nations that do not automatically walk in lockstep with US policy (Australia, Israel, Britain in most cases) or require bribery.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
"For its own safety and strategic gain, France is seeking a "third way" between America and its enemies."

Doesn't every country attempt to act in the interest of its own safety and strategic gain?

[/ QUOTE ]
What France is doing is protecting themselves and essentially turning their back on everyone else. Appeasing a growing threat or danger might help their country but it certainly doesn't help anyone else.

[andyfox]

I really have no idea. I assume France is acting in what it perceives as its best interest. I don't know what the Gaullist type strategy is. If it means doing what is right for France instead of what is right for the U.S., it is to be expected.

I guess what I don't understand is the title "The French Act Isn't Funny Any More." If they are indeed acting in their own perceive self-interest, it's not an act.

[MMMMMM]

Call it a schtick not an act then...now does the title make any more sense? I think "schtick" or "gig" is what Krauthammer intended by "act" anyway.

[Utah]

Yes. Exactly.

And when France acts in a way that is inconsistant with our self interest then we should act accordingly.

[andyfox]

"For its own safety and strategic gain, France is seeking a 'third way' between America and its enemies."

This is news or insightful? Of course France is seeking its own safety and strategic gain. So is the United States. Sometimes those two converge, sometimes they conflict.

[MMMMMM]

And you don't see anything peculiar about the way France has chosen (and may be choosing) to do this?

Do you think Gaullism during the Cold War was valid, good, productive, beneficial--even for France?

[Utah]

its not. However, I like your point because it more appropriately frames the situation.

The US doesnt need to look at France as good or bad. They need to anticipate France's actions and to understand its decision making framework. Then, the US needs to act appropriately to secure its own interests.

Do you disagree?

[Zeno]

Some thoughts on France [With thanks to Alexander Dumas (and Andy Fox)]

"From what fabulous crossing of a slug with a peacock, from what genital antitheses, from what sebaceous oozing can have been generated, for instance, this thing called France? Under what gardener's cloche, with the help of what manure, as a result of what mixture of wine, beer, corrosive mucus and flatulent oedema could have grown this sonorous and hairy pumpkin, this aesthetic belly, this imbecilic and impotent incarnation of the Self, called France? Wouldn’t one say France was a force of God, if God--Whom this country of France has wanted to destroy--were capable of playing pranks, and could have mixed Himself up with this?"



The real problem of course is to actually pay any attention to France – the vilest cesspool of imbecility in Europe. The only things that smell worse than the country itself are the hairy and ill formed people that dot the lackluster and putrid landscape.

I feel Great /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif


-Zeno

[andyfox]

I don't know enough about what they're doing to say one way or the other. If indeed Mr K. is correct in what he is saying in his article, that they're trying to steer a "third way" between us and our enemies, I see nothing peculiar.

If Gaullism meant a 3rd way between us and the Soviet orbit, yes, there were many productive, useful things that were done. I remember France was the first western power (and in those days, they were something of a power) to recognize "Red" China. The United States was furious. Yet a few years later we realized the futility of ignoring China and reversed course, following France's lead. When two sides are at each other's throat, it's sometimes helpful to have somebody steering a middle course, able to modify both sides' behavior.

It's to be expected that a country does what it thinks is in its own interest and that sometimes it won't correspond with our interests. I'm not knowledgable enough to determine if its the right thing for that country or not.

[andyfox]

I agree.

[ACPlayer]

Good post and right on the money.

Those who are willing to listen to fact should understand this, those who cant see past their opinion only want to hear opinions that match their own.

Here is an opinion about European behaviors: Europe not taking orders from the US (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FG09Aa02.html)

[ACPlayer]

The US doesnt need to look at France as good or bad. They need to anticipate France's actions and to understand its decision making framework. Then, the US needs to act appropriately to secure its own interests.

Yes. And we can substitute France for any other country. Unfortunately we never seem to try and understand why others have certain positions. If the positions are aligned this year then they are friends, if the positions are not not aligned next year they become enemies.

[Cyrus]

What a truly funny interview!

O'Reilly, that big bumbling fool of a man, invited a Georgetown professor who had supposedly "safe", conservative views on France/America and started asking him all sorts of loaded questions. But the prof kept answering politely and calmly with facts, such as that (ouch!) America has only itself to blame for "the mess in Iraq".

Here's my transcript:

O'REILLY: The French are cowards!
KUPCHAN: No, the French are actually brave and tough on terror!
O'REILLY: The French have let America down!
KUPCHAN: Well, it's America's own fault that it finds itself isolated.
O'REILLY: But we did the right thing in Iraq.
KUPCHAN: Actually, we didn't.
O'REILLY (desperately): But remember the oil-for-food scandal!
KUPCHAN: Careful about pointing your finger to Chirac on this!
O'REILLY: ...
KUPCHAN: However, the French should be sending some troops in Iraq now.
O'REILLY (relieved): Alright! Viewers, wear your Boycott France bumper stickers proudly. Goodbye!

...And here's the whole interview, verbatim:

O'Reilly Makes A Fool Of Himself About Iraq (Again) (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,124320,00.html)

[Cyrus]

"France – the vilest cesspool of imbecility in Europe. The only things that smell worse than the country itself are the hairy and ill formed people that dot the lackluster and putrid landscape."

Merci, Zeno. I will let your concoction of hot word jumbling dry in the sun for a day and then will serve it to the neighbors' French poodle. Poor thing's not been getting its little merdes out so regularly, of late.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[jokerswild]

Blame every one but your Fuhrer.

[MMMMMM]

I blame France for obstructing a good cause in the war over a year ago--and for now obstructing a more obviously good cause in training Iraqi police and troops.

I don't blame Bush for the war: I credit him for the war--with 4 out of 5 stars, that is.

[ACPlayer]

Do you also blame the majority of the US population that now thinks the war was not worth it and were duped by GWB?

The war was never a good cause, unless you are a muslim hating bigot. Are you?

The biggest beneficiary of the war is the terrorist.
The biggest loser in the war is US.

[MMMMMM]

"Do you also blame the majority of the US population that now thinks the war was not worth it and were duped by GWB?"

Blame them for what? I think the war was worth it.

"The war was never a good cause, unless you are a muslim hating bigot."

Non sequitur.

"Are you?"

No.

"The biggest beneficiary of the war is the terrorist"

Doubtful; I think they have been hurt.

"The biggest loser in the war is US."

I disagree.

[ACPlayer]

You live in a strange world of unreality. I am not surprised.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
"The war was never a good cause, unless you are a muslim hating bigot."

Non sequitur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with MMMMM pretty strongly on this one, but he's done nothing to indicate that he's a bigot. His arguments are mainly about American security, not that "clash of civilizations" garbage. (Maybe he believes this too, who knows.)

[ QUOTE ]
"The biggest beneficiary of the war is the terrorist"

Doubtful; I think they have been hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's always interesting to me when people talk about terrorists 'benefiting' from things. Because terrorists mostly blow themselves up or live in hiding plotting their various acts. So are all the terrorists currently in Iraq 'benefiting' from the war? I doubt it. They (along with civilians unlucky enough to live near them) are being shot at pretty regularly, some are dead, and I can't imagine anyone is having much fun.

Rather than saying terrorists benefit from the war, I would say that there are more of them active in Iraq after it than before it. I don't care what benefits terrorists; I care what encourages them or causes them to multiply. They are unlikely to 'win' anything in the long run, but they are quite likely to kill more people in their losing cause.

NT