Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
303
Location
Seattle
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.

But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers. Last November France did vote for Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors verifying that Iraq has indeed dismantled its programs for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people," Perle said, referring to the sharp electoral defeat suffered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party in state elections Sunday.

Although he is not an official of the Bush administration, Perle's position as the Pentagon's senior civilian adviser gives his harsh remarks a quasi-official character and reflects the growing frustration in the White House and Pentagon with the French and German reluctance to support their U.S. and British allies.

"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.

"But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium."

Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."

"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added.

*full story*
 
Last edited:
The French just soiled their messkit. They sandbagged Powell and lied to Bush. Not a good way to influence these guys.

France stands to lose bigtime with their stunt. The French oil company has an exclusive agreement to develop a 30 billion barrel oil field in Iraq. Gone.

Infrastructure construction after the war? French need not apply.

Post war occupation? Most likely not.

The French have a long standing history of siding with Islamists. Now they will pay the tab. At some point the French will try to get back on board before the war begins. I hope Bush tells them, "Too late."
 
And to think that the US Army had to stand aside to allow DeGaulle to be the first to enter Paris.

Lafayette has been paid back in full several times over, thank you very much.

Adios
 
I picked up a snippet of talk radio from Houston today while coming back from the woods here in East Texas. Some Talk Jock down there is beginning to organize a boycott of French goods. Besides wine I can't afford, I don't remember ever seeing anything from France for sale around here, but if I ever do, I will avoid it and mention it to the seller.
And from now on, we are eating British "chips" instead of French Fries! Of course, without the vinegar (!) they are the same thing.:D
 
February 4, 2003, 10:30 a.m.

Old Habits
The game France is playing.

By Amir Taheri

How long can one milk a cow? This is the question that France's President Jacques Chirac will have to answer within the next few days. The cow in question is Gaullism, a pseudo-ideology that has marked French politics since the late 1950s.

Domestically, Gaullism is one version of the corporatist ideologies popular in the last century. These ideologies are based on the myth of a nation that transcends class and other boundaries. The myth is embodied in a charismatic strongman. The late General Charles De Gaulle, the father of Gaullism, often echoed Louis XIV's notorious dictum: "I am the state!"

De Gaulle was a good face of political corporatism; more malevolent ideologies would be lead by Franco, Salazar, Peron, and Mussolini.

In foreign-policy terms, Gaullism means a mixture of feigned grandeur, a homeopathic dose of anti-Americanism, sympathy for other regimes built around a "strongman," and a great deal of posturing.

For Gaullist foreign policy the way things look is more important than the way things are.

When the Algerian war of independence started in the mid-1950s it was clear that the Cold War rivalry between the West and the USSR was the real subtext of the conflict. The Soviet bloc and its Arab allies supported the Algerian uprising against France in order to weaken the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

De Gaulle, who seized power in a coup in May 1958, understood this and worked hard to bring the Algerian war to an end. He succeeded in 1962. That, in turn, enabled him to withdraw from the military section of NATO while remaining a member of the treaty.

The move, meaningless in practical terms, helped strengthen the myth of Gaullism as a "third way" between the rival Soviet and American "hegemonies."

De Gaulle has often been accused of harboring anti-American sentiments. But his actual record does not support that charge. Whenever it came to the brass tacks De Gaulle was firmly on the side of the United States. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis for example, De Gaulle informed President John Kennedy that France would be one hundred percent on the side of the U.S. in a third world war. De Gaulle's support for the U.S. was also consistent through the Vietnam War (that, incidentally, the Americans had inherited from the French).

The Gaullist game was played by President Francois Mitterrand, the socialist politician who led France for 14 years (1981-1995). Missing no opportunity for making some anti-American gesticulations, Mitterrand always ended up firmly on the side of Washington on all major issues of international existence. In the early 1980s he acted as Washington's point man in the campaign to persuade the Europeans to accept the installation of American long-range missiles in Germany and the Benelux countries. It was also in close consultations with the U.S. that Mitterrand planned and intelligently executed the destruction of the French Communist Party.

Mitterrand also played the Gaullist game in the first Gulf War against Saddam. He kept sending emissaries and messages to Baghdad and came out with half a dozen formulae to prevent war, even to the point of letting Iraq annex part of coastal Kuwait.

But when it became clear that the U.S. was determined to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait by force, Mitterrand changed course and sent the French army into battle under American command. (To do so he had to force his pro-Saddam defense minister Jean-Pierre Chevenment to resign.)

That episode demonstrated not only the limits of Gaullism but also its ultimate irrelevance in the post-Cold War world.

France paid heavily for its Gaullist gesticulations in 1990-91.

French businesses ended up with crumbs in the lucrative regional reconstruction market that followed the liberation of Kuwait. France was also excluded from the Madrid Peace conference of 1992. The Arabs ended up with a deep distrust of French motives and methods while the United States clearly identified the United Kingdom as its sole sure-fire ally in Europe.

Chirac's first opportunity for his own Gaullist gesticulation as president came in 2001 over the war in Afghanistan. He played the usual Gaullian "yes-but" game in the hope that either the war against the Taliban will not happen or that the U.S. will become bogged down in a conflict lasting years.

But when it became clear that the Taliban would run away without fighting, and that the U.S. was heading for a complete victory in Afghanistan, Chirac performed a Mitterrandian U-turn and dispatched ships, planes, and troops to the area. They arrived when the war had practically ended. The Americans said merci beaucoup, but made sure that France was excluded from decisions concerning the future of Afghanistan and Central Asia.

It is a mystery why Chirac would want to play a game that can only harm France's long-term interests in the Middle East.

Last week Chirac's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin openly threatened to use the French veto to prevent a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The French insist that all they want is a delay of a few months after the council has received and debated a report from the U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq. That means postponing war until climatic conditions, especially high temperatures, render fighting far more difficult for any coalition led by the U.S.

Chirac's choices are narrowing by the day. Soon he will have to choose between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein.

He could come out with a clear "no" to a war against Iraq, just as Germany's Gerhard Schroeder has done, thus winning the esteem of the antiwar movement. The price would be the exclusion of France from shaping the future of Iraq and the new political architecture of the Middle East.

On the other hand, Chirac could help the U.S. obtain the green light of the Security Council, thus keeping the inevitable war under some form of international control. The U.N., and not the U.S., would then appoint the transition government in Baghdad, giving France a say in future developments in Iraq and the region as a whole.

The worst option for Chirac would be to continue his anti-American gesticulations until the 11th hour, and then rush to seek a side chair at the high table. If he were to do so, Chirac would show that while he roars like De Gaulle he has the heart of Rene Coty, the ineffectual politician who acted as France's president in the 1950s.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri020403.asp
 
France, allies? Since when?

WW1, where the USA finally sent in troops in 1918 to bail those fools out? (Not trying to dog on the British, who seemed to be doing a helluva fine job, as opposed to the French,)

WW2, where the French frelling SURRENDERED to the Germans, AFTER their stupid Maginot line was simply BYPASSED?
Not to mention how they basically thumbed their noses after the frelling war. "Oh, well, gee, we had it all under control! "

Then we went into Vietnam, to finish up THEIR war, after all, that was THEIR colony that fell apart.

When we went into Afghanistan, where were the French? About 6 months behind, if I remember correctly.
"Bonjour! The shooting, it is stopped? Ok, we'll stay for some coffee and crumpets!"

I do believe the last time the French helped us at all was during the Revolutionary war (I also think they did in the War of 1812, but my memory is a bit fuzzy.. , )... I'm kinda wondering if all their brave kids got killed back then, and the cowards survived to reproduce...

You watch, though. The MINUTE something threatens France, they'll be back in our pocket, begging for help, meanwhile, they'll 'bravely' surrender to hold the enemy off...... :banghead: :banghead:
 
Speaking as a French descendant, the last good Frenchman was Lafayette, and he's been dead a long time. :rolleyes: They can go to :cuss:
 
I'm sure after we kick Sadaams butt, all the French will come out of the woodwork saying that they were in the resistance.



"Ya bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys"
 
Think of the boon to collectors of Military Curios & Relics after the Iraq issue.............

French Military Surplus Rifles Very Good to Excellent condition Never Fired....only dropped once.

$10 extra for "Hand Select" with your choice of truck, half-track, or boot marks on stocks and forends.

$5 extra for matching bent bayonet.

:neener:




Never been to France, but wife went (years before we met) and said the Paris folks are the rudest she has ever had the misfortune to meet. Attitude was along the lines of "Yankee go home and stay home. Just send us your Greenback Dollars".
 
Is there any way we can get our money back from the Marshall plan? :)

Chirac is a chump and the French have no clue how the world works. Look at both world wars and Vietnam.
I just hope the US remembers this the next time someone overruns their country.

The NR article has it right - France can posture all they want, but no matter which way they go now, they will have little to no input on the future of the Middle East.

MJ
 
I know some French folks and have worked with them in grad school. Many french are fairly nice people. Their politics are to the left of an Americans but they're Europeans so you have to expect that. They like to have a good time just like everyone else. Not as cool as the Germans mind you but good people nonetheless.

I say many because a lot of french people are unfortunately bastards. They resent that the "lingua franca" in the world is now english and now encroachment of english on their native french. They resent being treated like a second rate power even though they are. They resent that American economics is superior to their own socialist systems.

The center of bastardy in France is Paris. The center of population in France is Paris. The center of politics in France is Paris. This means that France has lots of bastards, especially in the touristy parts most Americans visit. This also means that the bastards run France to the detriment of everyone including the french.

There are nice frenchmen and frenchwomen out there. You just have to go into the hinterlands of france to find them and they are so beaten down by the bastards and parisians they are afraid to move.
 
Why is it that the French always seem to have an 'underground resistance' When was the last time that France mobilized against an enemy? Not activated troops (troups? :p ) in the area but actually actively sent soldiers away from France to another country to start fighting as soon as they arrived?
 
Well, say you're in a group of equals. Two out of the group storm away towards an enemy and call the others to follow. Two out the rest choose to stay where they are, because the action of the first two was not discussed about and decided upon by the whole group of equals.
The question is not whether or not France is still your ally. The question is whether or not the USA still believes in the NATO being a group of equals and whether or not the USA respects the other members' opinions.
We are not your auxiliaries and we do not have to follow your will.
 
That is quite correct. Germany and France can do as they please, no one is saying otherwise and I would not have it any other way. But make the decision and live with the consequences. If they want to stay out, stay out. But don't whine when we examine that decision and call it lacking.

For us, this has nothing to do with making Germany or France 'follow our lead', but it seems to be important to them that they are not seen as 'following our lead'. If Germany stays it's hand because they disagree, as honest and intelligent men often can, then make your choice, stand by it and prepare to defend it. The part that bugs me to no end is that the justification for the decision is that they don't want to follow. "Let's just wait a couple more months" For what? Simply to feel that they had an influence on the course of this thing.

- Gabe
 
Well, say you're in group of equals. For more than a decade, someone has been threatening the group. Your group of equals has discussed what to do about this fellow many, many times over the decade and has attempted to deal with the situation in many ways. Finally, two of the group of equals say, "Look, we've had enough. Let's deal with this guy with some finality." For months, they attempt to persuade the others to agree. They discuss it many, many times. Then they discuss it again. They even go to another, larger group of equals to get its blessing ... twice. But two of the group of equals resist because they fear risking their business deals with the threatening party, so the group of equals discusses it some more out of respect for the opinion of the resisters .... and some more. Finally, the two wanting to take action tell the resisters that they can do what they want, but action will be taken. The resisters say, "Hey, stop trying to tell us what to do." The two leaders say, "We're not telling you what to do; we're telling you what we're going to do with or without you." Then they walk slowly but purposefully toward the threatening party. Everyone follows except the two resisters, who apparently suffer under a delusion that nothing was ever discussed with them and that the slow, purposeful walk of the others is "rushing." The resisters stamp their feet and shout after the slow, purposeful walkers, "See! You don't respect our opinion because you didn't follow it!"
 
Equals? EQUALS??? Nope. Ain't now, and never was. I bet the US spent more defending Yurp from the Sovs than the Yurpeans did. NATO has quickly evolved into something unrecognizable from the Cold War. This is understandable, since the Cold War is no more. The US foreign policy should not be subordinated to the good graces of the UN or NATO. We have gathered un-earned and ungrateful antipathy from both, and neither are worth the treasure we have poured into them.

THEY weren't attacked on 9/11, WE were. THEIR military might didn't displace Saddam from his stranglehold on Kuwait, OURS did, with minor - from a military standpoint, contribution from the rest of the coalition.

To the degree that they (NATO, UN, take your pick) agree with us, they are un-needed, and to the degree that they disagree, they are unwelcome.

They can all go urinate up a rope. See my sig-line to describe France.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top