-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Josh Rogin
Friday, December 18, 2009 - 3:26 PM
Share
Have you heard of the French ship called the Mistral? Well, you're about to. Several senior members of the U.S. Congress are becoming heavily involved in trying to thwart the possible sale of the Mistral from France to Russia.
The Mistral is France's state-of-the-art amphibious assault ship, and discussions of selling it to the Russian Federation have been causing angst in European capitals for months. The sale would be the first significant arms transfer from a NATO country to Russia and what's more, the Russians have already indicated that it could be used in future operations in countries in its near abroad, such as Georgia, which it invaded last year.
Russian Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotskiy said in September that "In the conflict in August last year [against Georgia], a ship like that would have allowed [Russia's] Black Sea Fleet to accomplish its mission in 40 minutes, not 26 hours which is how long it took us [to land the troops ashore]."
This is just one of the concerns that prompted Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to introduce a bill late Thursday that would express the sense of Congress that "France and other member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union should decline to sell major weapons systems or offensive military equipment to the Russian Federation."
The resolution alleges that Russia remains in violation of the French-brokered ceasefire that followed the Georgia invasion. Also, Russia is expanding its military presence in a way that threatens Georgia, and has made a number of aggressive moves toward several countries in the region, according to the text. The sale of the Mistral to Russia "would enhance that country's ability to potentially wage aggression against its neighbors," the resolution states.
Ros-Lehtinen is calling on President Obama, as well as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to urge France not to sell major offensive weapons systems to Russia until Russia completely withdraws from Georgian territory and makes broad reforms in areas ranging from rule of law to human rights.
The bill has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee for consideration, but that's only the beginning of coming U.S. congressional involvement on the issue. Multiple Senate aides tell The Cable that several senators from both sides of the aisle are busily drafting a letter to the French Embassy calling on France to hold off on the sale. That letter is expected early next week.
There goes the neighborhood?
The 650-foot long Mistral is the second largest vessel in the French Navy and each one is capable of carrying up to 16 helicopters, tanks, land assault vehicles, and 900 troops.
In addition to Georgia, the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are also concerned about the Russians buying such a ship, especially from their fellow NATO and EU member France. Serious discussions have been initiated within NATO by these states about the possible deal.
"I'll say it quite bluntly --it has implications for NATO's security, because of what we saw last year," Marko Mikhelson, chairman of the European affairs committee in Estonia's Parliament, told the New York Times.
Despite that, the French sailed a Mistral directly past these states to the port of St. Petersburg last month to show off the ship for the Russian government. And Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin refused to rule out using the ship against the Baltics on his recent trip to Paris.
"Whoever we buy it from, we will reserve the right to use it where and when we consider necessary," he said.
The Baltic states have protection as part of NATO and the EU. Georgia? Not so much. A senior Georgian government official spoke with The Cable about that country's concerns about the sale.
"We have experienced ourselves that Russia is capable of using military force against its neighbors," the official said, pointing out that Georgia has less ability to build international support for their opposition to the deal.
A French Embassy spokesman told The Cable that the sale of a Mistral-class ship to Russia is still a project and no decision has been made by either the Russians or the French.
"There is a Russian request and we see no reason to refuse considering that request, which will be examined with all the necessary precautions as part of the military equipment export control regulatory procedures and will take time," the spokesman said.
He pointed out France has used Mistral-class ships for humanitarian missions and to evacuate nationals from dangerous situations.
The French have also have made the argument that selling arms to Russia is needed for peace and stability in Europe. "It would be impossible to call for continental stability in partnership with Russia if we refuse to sell armaments to Russia. A refusal would amount to contradicting our own discourse," French Prime Minister Francois Fillon reportedly said.
And while the French have said they would sell a scaled-down version of the Mistral without some weapons and advanced-control technologies, American defense experts warn that the sale could start a chain reaction of European states selling sensitive military technologies to Russia to shore up their struggling defense industries.
"Given the shrinking defense budgets of European countries and the pressure to keep domestic defense firms from going under by expanding exports, there is little question that less and less restraint would be shown by competing governments and companies on what could be sold to Moscow," wrote Gary Schmitt, defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
Moreover, "there is the signal such a sale would send Moscow about just how unserious the West is in holding Russia's feet to fire over its invasion of Georgia and the terms of the subsequent agreement," he said.
KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is from Florida, not Louisiana.
Does anyone else get the feeling that America'a Western European allies have become more of a strategic liability than a valuable partner? The falling apart of their stupid colonial empires got us involved in all sorts of useless conflicts in the third world. In many ways we are still cleaning up the messes left by their imperial legacy. This has tied us to them in the eyes of many of the worlds people. They are much more vulnerable to terrorism. They basically kowtow to the Chinese and Russians, our biggest competators. They depend of us for their strategic defense and we dont seem to receive any benefits for all this. Some of our pacific rim allies do the same thing in terms of strategic defense, bu trade with them has been massively beneficial to both our economies. The Europeans just seem to sit in our wagon and complain. Usually I am more subtle and nuanced in my opinions than this but this is a sore spot for me.
A. Who ever asked to the US to deal with former colonial empires? It was their own call, so they can't complain. And considering that the US has never really won a single war since WWII, they cannot really say they helped to preserve world stability.
B. Europe uses American protection ? Against whom? Last time I checked no country in the world wanted to attack Europe.
C. French technology belongs to the French. If they want to sell it to Russia, that's their right. It's not very smart maybe, but it's legit. Just as legit as when the US sells weaponry to Pakistan.
D. The EU kowtows to China? Well, at least the UE has some financial means not depending on China will. Seeing Obama going to China just like a broke blue collar would go to his banker was painful to see.
E. From a European point of view, the US have threatened their peace by invading Irak and setting a mess in the Muslim countries. Europe and the muslim world are nearby, Europe has numerous muslim minorities, thus Europe is much more vulnerable to terrorism. When exactly the US took this into account before starting its useless wars?
I could only find figures from 2002 but back then, military budgets where (in billion):
USA : 329
Europe : 179
China : 33
Russia : 13
I can't really see why the UE would need any protection from the US when its budget is almost 6 times China's budget.
"When exactly the US took this into account before starting its useless wars?"
Two stupid ideas don't make a smart one.
Josh, the French plan is not to sell "the Mistral" to Russia, they're keeping that ship, but to sell a new built Mistral-class warship along with the technology for Russia to build up to four more on its own.
" Despite that, the French sailed a Mistral directly past these states to the port of St. Petersburg last month..."
Seriously, how dare they sail that ship from France to St. Petersburg instead of taking it around the globe to Vladivostok? I guess Norboose is right, it's them Europeans "kowtowing" to the Chinese again...
I thought the US' whole point over the last 50 years was free enterprise and liberal trade. Or does that only apply to US arms sales to Saddam, Pakistan and the Taliban?
Defense spending killed Russia once...
...it can do it again.
"American defense experts warn that the sale could start a chain reaction of European states selling sensitive military technologies to Russia to shore up their struggling defense industries."
Please, let them - if they're stupid enough to destroy their fragile, corrupt, wasteful economy with excessive defense spending when they need to focus on infrastructure and education, they deserve to sink into a deeper depression. The average Russian male dies at about 50, right?
Its ridiculous that they think they could tough-guy their way out of their current problems. No-one will let them derive any benefits from invading any useful territories - they're boxed in, and cannot possibly arm up enough to fight themselves out.
The world we live in is a little more complicated. Europe will have to take a stance and decide where their future is going to be.
“French technology belongs to the French. If they want to sell it to Russia, that's their right. It's not very smart maybe, but it's legit. Just as legit as when the US sells weaponry to Pakistan.”
1.To say that French technology is their technology is inaccurate. The best example I can give is The Dassault Rafael jet fighter. The jet engine that was initially used to power the Rafeal was the General Electric F404-GE-400. When it was replaced by the SNECMA M88 engine it had much of the technology included in the General Electric engine. The R550 Magic is a short-range missile and is a basic copy of the American AIM-9 Sidewinder.
“Europe uses American protection? Against whom? Last time I checked no country in the world wanted to attack Europe.”
2.Vladimir Putin has warned Europe that Russia's energy reserves will flow to the Far East if the continent's leaders seek to punish his country for invading Georgia. The new threat is not always going to be war it can be energy. That’s a big reason not to sell weapons to Russia.
“From a European point of view, the US have threatened their peace by invading Iraq and setting a mess in the Muslim countries”
3.Please take the time to read “A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. The Middle East was always a mess and I think will always be a mess.
I would like to know what should the United States do about countries like Russia and China that activly trade with Iran?
1. "To say that French technology is their technology is inaccurate."
One example is not much, but even though, the French created the first car, so next time the US sell a car, let's ask France permission :)
I can't really see the point you're trying to make.
2. "The new threat is not always going to be war it can be energy."
Once again I can't see your point. Europe has a military budget more than 15 times bigger than the Russian one. Isn't it enough ?
3. Living in Europe (surprise surprise) I could see how everything changed with the war in Iraq. Relations with the Muslim minorities have never been that tensed. I'm just saying that when the US reproaches France to sell weapons to Russia without asking its allies, it's laughable, because the US brought war to the doorstep of Europe in spite of the UN veto and the big no of many of its allies. Yes, two wrong don't make one right. I would just quote the great philosopher Michael Jackson "if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change".
HUH to RONCERAIE did you read.
In response to the “one example is not much”. I provided two examples of military technologies created by the United States being used by France. I could have provided more examples I did not think it was needed. To compare the Automobile to Military technology used and designed for the military for the specific j0b to conduct warfare is another. I think even you can understand the implications of that action.
Living in Europe (surprise surprise) I could see how everything changed with the war in Iraq. Relations with the Muslim minorities have never been that tensed.
Are u kidding me! Through out Western European culture their has always been culture clashes. The riots of the Muslim minorities are only one of a long list of culture clashes in Europe. The reason why Muslims rioted in France was because of failed multiculturalism and integration. To prove the point the Iraq war began on March 20, 2003 and the Muslim riots began on October 17, 2005; further more Protesters told The Associated Press the unrest was an expression of frustration with high unemployment and police harassment and brutality. Not one comment of the Iraq war.
I have noticed since the end of the Cold war Western European countries have been week at doing any kind of fighting in any war. This includes Germany and France so it really does not matter how much Europe spends on the military it only matters that they don’t have the stomach to use their military. But if you think selling weapons to Russia is a great idea as a European then fantastic. I mean no disrespect
Have a happy Holiday and I wish you and your family well.
Okay 2 examples, but still, no direct connection with the Mistral affair, and what I meant is that a technology never belongs to a single country, but is always the end result of a long string of different inventors. The only right on a technology comes from a patent. No patent, no right. As simple as that. But anyway it's a minor point.
About the "Muslim riots" I can tell from that expression that you're probably American, because I've only heard that expression in American media. It was even considered as racist in France, because rioters were just people from poor suburbs, but not all of them were Muslims. (I guess you don't say "black criminality" even though most people in American prisons are black). I wasn't talking about those events, but once again it's a minor point.
Where I deeply disagree is when you say "I have noticed since the end of the Cold war Western European countries have been week at doing any kind of fighting in any war. This includes Germany and France so it really does not matter how much Europe spends on the military it only matters that they don’t have the stomach to use their military."
1. It's obviously not true: see operation tacaud, operation daguet, operation turquoise, etc.
2. and here is the most important point: Europe is no longer a war-monger.
a. for the first time in 3000 years of History, Europe is not at war inside its borders. So its first reflex is not to bring war outside.
b. Europe started 2 world wars. Europe slaughtered half of the world. That's true we're tired of that childish behavior.
c. I don't think the US have any idea of what a war really is. They've lost less than 5000 soldiers in Iraq, and they're starting to pussy out. My four great grand fathers fought in the battle of the Somme. 1.5 million dead people. In one battle. And by the way the battle wasn't in some country far away. It was in their fields, their gardens, their lands. In every village through Europe, even the tiniest ones, we have stones with the names of our fallen sons written on it.
d. Today we have the biggest army in the world after the American one, enough nuclear bombs to instantly destroy any country, and the smallest dependence on foreign energy among industrialized countries. So can you tell me why the heck we'd send our kids to die in some lost deserts?
I'm well aware the US thinks Europe is weak. You should just know that from a European point of view, the US is just an immature kid playing with a gun, and who doesn't have enough History to really understand what war, peace and life mean.
To conclude I'll say that I agree with you: selling military technology to Russia is probably not a good idea.
But all remarks about Europe being a burden to the US are, I think, plainly stupid.
Merry Christmas to everyone!
To Ronceraie again the Facts please
“US are just an immature kid playing with a gun, and who doesn't have enough History to really understand what war, peace and life mean.”
•I have no understanding of what you mean by that. Maybe this immature kid has to act like an adult because the real adult is doing nothing.
•It seams you had no problem accepting our money through the Marshal Plan I would assume that someone who accepts so much of our aid and not have to pay it back would be a little more passive in your response. But hey call me crazy.
You mention WWI and the Battle of the Somme 650,000 Germans, 420,000 British, and 196,000 French died at that horrific battle. The Somme is located in France I would have figured More French casualties; someday you will have to explain that to me. In WWII France did not even fight till the end. The War was basically between Germany, Russia, England, Japan and the United States. My statement still holds true France and Germany do not have the stomach for fighting explain why they have a standing order of not fighting at night in Afghanistan and that is true. So when you say we pussy out you better rethink that comment. Some facts below:
•Operation Tacaud was from 1978-1979 only 18KIA.
•Operation Daguet was the Gulf War only 9 soldiers died France only committed 18,000 soldiers. Interesting the United States had 550,000 soldiers, United Kingdom contributed 43,000 even Oman contributed more soldiers than France. But that is not the funny part their operation was to the North of where the real fighting occurred. Effectively they really did not fight. Nine French soldiers were killed during the operation, including two before the beginning of the conflict and five afterwards.
•Operation Turquaise are you kidding me.
Regarding WWI and the battle of the Somme’ “That was then this is now! “
Now you made a mention with regard to the Muslim Riots and you only heard that in the American media.
•News Flash the BBC and El Tiempo reported the same story. Unfortunately I can’t speak more than two languages so I can’t read other newspapers.
“Europe being a burden to the US are, I think, plainly stupid”
•I read my statements several times and in no place did I mention the Europe was a burden to the United States. Do you want to know why? It’s not because my mother is French (surprise surprise). It’s because I did not say that. With the exception of the statement of France and Germany not having the stomach to fight I never maid any negative comments on Europe. I pointed out facts with regard to French technology, French riots, and more important the mistake in selling French military weapons to Russia.
Have a happy holiday I am really sorry that I may have offended you or your culture in any way.
**"I have no understanding of what you mean by that. Maybe this immature kid has to act like an adult because the real adult is doing nothing."
Once again, what do you mean? What are the adults supposed to do? Can you tell me what the US did since WWII that Europe should have done? Maybe I'm wrong but I have the impression that the US was so afraid of communism that it preferred to encourage dictatorships. That's how the US created such nice fellows as Ben Laden.
What I meant is that once you know what war really is, you understand deeply that war is always the last solution, and that you should kill only when your life is in danger, not when your oil supply is.
*
**"It seams you had no problem accepting our money through the Marshal Plan I would assume that someone who accepts so much of our aid and not have to pay it back would be a little more passive in your response. But hey call me crazy."
I call you... partially blind. the Marshall Plan was indeed a good thing for Europe but the US did it as an investment, not as a gift. Most American companies entered the European market thanks to the Marshall Plan. Don't make the US more generous than it really was. (more about it there : http://askafrenchman.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-have-french-historically-been-so.html)
*As a European I'm thankful to the US for WWII, but I'm not forgetting that:
-military speaking the USSR did most of the work
-the US wanted to consider France as an occupied territory after the war, and France had to fight to remain completely independent.
-France was invaded in june 40. the French Free Forces asked for help from the US. The US was the ally of France for centuries. But the US abandoned France, telling them it was their problem. It's only after Pearl Harbor in december 41, when the US realized that this war was also theirs, that it finally came. That's right, the US abandoned an ally.
-the US bombing in Normandy killed thousands of French people, and I know a bunch of cities in Normandy where people are as thankful for their freedom as the Iraqis of today are.
*
**"The Somme is located in France I would have figured More French casualties; someday you will have to explain that to me."
Sure: there were more Brits than French people in that battle, so more Brits died. A matter or proportions. This battle had few civilian casualties because most of the civilians fled the area.
But if you look at the big picture, 3.5% of the French population, 3% of the German population, 2% of the British, Austrian and Russian population, an only 0.1% of the American population died in WWII. So yes, you can tell from the figures that the war took place in France.
*
**"In WWII France did not even fight till the end."
I wonder what you mean here. The French army conquered Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, Ulm, Sigmaringen, etc. It even went to Austria. General Leclerc was the first to reach Berchtesgaren, he brought back from there to Charles De Gaulle Hitler's sabre. Then France stayed in Germany and occupied it for 50 years. (My grand father stayed there for 10 years) What do you exactly call "the end"?
*
**"My statement still holds true France and Germany do not have the stomach for fighting explain why they have a standing order of not fighting at night in Afghanistan and that is true."
I don't know, maybe because it's dangerous and useless? That such a pity I can't find back this interview where a American general praised the French troops in Afghanistan as the most efficient and smartest on the field.
*
But anyway you want to talk about current issues? (let's leave History alone for a while).
*
Only 2 cold hard facts:
**France is the country fighting the most efficiently against terrorism in the world (this very magazine says it)
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4316
**France is leading and inspiring the US on how to fight against pirates
http://www.newsweek.com/id/194049?digg=1
This thread began with Europe being a burden, so I was answering to that. Sorry if you took it personally.
But I still think saying that France and Germany don't have the stomach to fight is incredibly wrong. (and really insulting)
They don't fight for stupid reasons any longer. That's all.
Just to conclude, Europe tried to create a more powerful army by joining all the national armies. Guess who tried to prevent that? The US. (because it's cool to have several less powerful allies, uncool to have someone as powerful to talk to)
Have nice holidays too (and no worries, no personal offences were taken)
To RONCERAIE please read the entire comment
OK my response: Regarding your article below that you had me read.
Key tactics: Though many Americans view them as softies when it comes to the war on terror, the French actually have some of the world’s toughest and arguably most effective antiterrorism laws. In France, terrorist investigations are overseen by a special unit of magistrates with unprecedented powers to monitor suspects, enlist the help of other branches of law enforcement, and detain suspects for days without charges. Additionally, prosecutors have a mandate to pursue terrorists abroad if the suspect or victim is French. France is also not shy about deporting Muslim clerics it views as threatening. It shouldn’t be surprising that French law enforcement is well set up for counterterrorism: France was the first European country to fall victim to Middle Eastern terrorism during the Algerian war in the 1950s.
In action: France has not had a terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11, but it claims to have foiled several, including a chemical attack planned by Chechen operatives against Russian targets in Paris, a planned bombing of one of Paris’s airports, and a 9/11-like airline plot against the Eiffel Tower.
The article above says that France has arguable the most effective laws on anti-terrorism. The key word is arguably this is not a matter of fact it is basically a statement of opinion.
More importantly this article goes on to say that France fell victim to Middle East terrorism in 1950’s and also on 9/11; do you remember saying it was the US fault for the rise in Muslim violence; does not sound like it.
Now I am going to answer your comments as brief as possible because my wife thinks I am crazy responding to you.
“The US bombing in Normandy killed thousands of French people.”
1)You mean Allied bombing including French navy shelled the coast line. The people in Normandy prefer to be under Nazi occupation, please.
“France is leading and inspiring the US on how to fight against pirates.”
2)Fact France receives improved training in counter terrorism and counter insurgency from the Lanceros School in Colombia South America; their names are Capt. Christophe Degand and Staff Sergeant Freddy Phalampin of the 9th marine infantry regiment. With them, two Legionnaires from the 3rd foreign infantry regiment: Staff Sergeant Jacques Riesen and Sergeant Jeannus Richter. Now we know why France is so good. Guess who originally trainined the Lanceros?
Now I unfortunately can not comment on the page http://askafrenchman.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-have-french-historically-been-so.html) It tells me it does not exist is that the write link please advise.
Regarding the Marshal Plan
3)Western and Eastern Europe basically had no industry they had nothing so yes it did open up American access to Europe. Now do you remember Eastern Europe? That access gave countries the ability to prosper; or would you have preferred France to be Communist and receive no aid.
I did not respond to all your comments because it’s late but please don’t use blogs as a matter of fact. Use news or history to prove your point.
To CARDENAS697, please read everything too
I'm sorry you wife thinks you're crazy. I wouldn't mind if you'd prefer to stop this conversation. All men in my family have been soldiers since the Napoleonic wars (no kidding), many of them died in harowing battles, so when I hear some accusations of cowardness, I just can't stand it.
*
**first of all the French army was also there in Kosovo and for the first war in Afghanistan. And I remember a US general saying that the work was divided as follow: the US destroys the opponent army, France keep the peace. Those are facts, please check.
*
**"The article above says that France has arguable the most effective laws on anti-terrorism. The key word is arguably this is not a matter of fact it is basically a statement of opinion."
The article also comes with a few cold facts. And it's not a French newspaper, so it has no reasons to be particularly kind to France.
*
**"More importantly this article goes on to say that France fell victim to Middle East terrorism in 1950’s and also on 9/11; do you remember saying it was the US fault for the rise in Muslim violence; does not sound like it."
Terrorism in the 50's was because of the Algerian war. Terrorism of the Aughts is because the US had the genius idea to encourage Muslim extremism for decades to fight against communism, and to invade Iraq when they were attacked by a terrorist from Saudi Arabia, and all that against most of its allies opinion and advice.
*
**"The people in Normandy prefer to be under Nazi occupation, please."
Of course not, but it's harder to be fully grateful when people who just got you freed have also killed your wife and sons. If you don't understand that, you probably don't understand why everbody hates the US in Iraq.
*
**"Guess who originally trainined the Lanceros?"
I guess this is the US. Guess who created the very first counter-terrorist units because of the Algerian wars and trained US counter-terrorist units in the 60's? Actually my uncle is a vet of the Agerian war, and what he saw there was so dirty he moved to Canada. All your dirty stuff in Guantanamo is French style. Nothing to be proud of, but please check the facts.
More importantly, we're not talking about who taught what to whom, but who has the guts to use it. And France has obviously the guts to fight pirates. That's all.
*
**"or would you have preferred France to be Communist and receive no aid."
As I told you, the Marshall plan was a good thing. But it came with a lot of strings attached (like the Blum-Byrnes agreement for example), and the US did it because it was interesting, not only because it was generous. When the US invests in China, it's not only to help Chinese people.
And even though, should we accept to be called coward today by the US, because it lent us some money 50 years ago? With the same type of thinking, how the US dares calling us coward when you owe your very existence to France? Your Bill of Rights exists only thanks to the French Philosophers of the Enlightenment, without France you’d still be the Western Colonies of England. (Whose statue is in front of the White House, by the way? It’s not Washington, it is Lafayette) Even DC was designed by a French architect (Pierre Charles L’Enfant). What's your symbol in the world? The statue of liberty...
But i don't have that type of thinking, I think allies should respect eachother, and doublecheck their facts before starting to throw insults. (in France there's no US bashing, can you say the same about the US?)
*
**To conclude I'd like to quote James L. Jones, current United States National Security Advisor, retired United States Marine Corps four-star general, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) from 2003 to 2006 and 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps from July 1999 to January 2003:
"France has probably the most expeditionary army [i.e., ready to deploy to distant battlefields] in Europe. And writ large. They have impressive military capabilities across the whole spectrum of operations. They’re good at peacekeeping; their Air Force is modern, state of the art; their Navy is modern; their land Army I know about because I served with them in northern Iraq 11 years ago, and I know their generals—this is a very, very fine army."
And about US/France tensions:
"It saddens me, to be honest with you. I grew up in both cultures. I identify with what France went through in the difficult times of Algeria, of Indochina, the postwar reconstruction, which I lived through starting in 1947. I remember the big green buses with the white stars driving all over Paris—only Americans could get on those buses. It was possible for American families to come and be stationed in France and never speak French, or never even have contact with French culture. I think that created perceptions and divisions that perhaps contributed to the state of affairs—I don’t know what it is. But I regret it, and I can tell you that at the military level it does not exist."
So it seems that those accusations of France being coward are just in your head, not in your current national security advisor's head.
But maybe I'm wrong?
I am as always open to the discussion.
To CARDENAS697, about France not fighting till the end
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-14059-0018,_Berlin,_Oberbefehlshaber_der_vier_Verb%C3%BCndeten.jpg
4 supreme commanders in Berlin in 1945: a Brit, a Soviet, an American, and a Frenchie.
Here is the family picture.
In Responce to Ronceraie check your facts please.
All men in my family have been soldiers since the Napoleonic wars (no kidding), many of them died in harowing battles, so when I hear some accusations of cowardness, I just can't stand it.
1. I will say this one last time I am not saying you are a coward or your family. But you have never answered the question why does France not conduct military operations at night in Afghanistan? Just answer that question you of all people should know that war happens 24 hours a day.
Guess who created the very first counter-terrorist units because of the Algerian wars.
2. Wrong again it was actually England back in the 1930’s The Prevention of Violence Act 1939 was brought in response to an Irish Republican Army (IRA) campaign of violence under the S-Plan. This lead to the creation of counter terrorist units long before Algiers. This was the 1st counter terrorist unit. But there are some reports that it occurred long before in the Americas during the revolutionary war but they did not call it that.
Of course not, but it's harder to be fully grateful when people who just got you freed have also killed your wife and sons
3. So then why not blame the British and the French for those casualties. I have never heard of any French being blamed for any casualties on Normandy especially since they to were part of the attack.
France has obviously the guts to fight pirates.
4. Are you comparing Somali Pirates with Religious fighters who have no problem dying for their cause? Come on I know you can do better than that they are not even in the same league. Maybe that’s why France does not fight at night.
I will be the first to point out one of my mistakes yes France did fight through out WWII but also let me explain most of the French forces saw action from June 6, 1944 through May of 1945. So when I explained that France did not fight until the end I meant from D-day. Not even a year but you are correct.
Stop blaming the U.S. for all your problems. If it angers you that I say France has no stomach for war. Then you can see my feelings towards your statement that European problem was because of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It negates what Wahhabism is and how it leads to the rise of fundamentalism. It negates the animosity of the Muslims towards France and England after the first WWI. I find it interesting that your still willing to blame the US for the French riots when the Muslims who rioted in France made comments to the contrary it seams you will also negate the BBC and El Tiempo.
Here is my question for you when Russia used chemical weapons on Afghanistan people what was French response? Do you remember? I bet we both know the answer to that.
Does the French have a strong military yes for the record it does. Is the military technology 1st class yes it is. Are the French or Germans cowards no they are not. But can they be doing more yes they can. Finally do you really feel it is a great idea for France to sell their technology to Russia? Considering that you have been willing to bring up US involvement in Afghanistan when the Russians were their?
Finally I am surprised that you have no problem ending our debate that hurts. I have rather enjoyed and learned a lot doing reading on France :-)
To RONCERAIE do you remeber China
Even with the EU embargo in place, China purchased over $260 million worth of military equipment from France, the U.K. and Italy in 2002
China already fields some French-made equipment such as the Crotale air defense missile system and French-made sonar systems installed on attack submarines. China has also used a variant of the French Navitac command and control network for its newest warships.
The latest Chinese warship, the Jiangnan destroyer, dubbed the "magic shield of China," is reportedly outfitted with a wide array of French-developed electronics and stealth features. The warship is armed with a Russian missile defense system modeled after the U.S. Aegis battle platform.
Paris has not changed course in recent years, moving closer to selling weapons to the largest empire on Earth. China will not use its French weapons for peaceful purposes, and the targets are likely to be American.
So with regard to the selling weapons to Russia I just hope for France sake it’s not used against the French because they will have no one to blame but them selves. That’s why you use discretion when selling weapons to other countries. That is why selling weapons to Russia is a bad idea.
To CARDENAS697 (sory for the long post)
1. “I am not saying you are a coward or your family.”
I’m not saying that you said that, I’m just explaining why I felt I had to take part to this conversation.
2.“why does France not conduct military operations at night in Afghanistan?”
Honestly I have no idea, I even didn’t know that. Maybe you could send me a link with more info? If it’s true I can just guess it’s for tactical reasons: you don’t go out in the mountains in an unknown territory at night, when opponents can be hidden anywhere. What’s your explanation? French soldiers are afraid of the dark?
Maybe you could watch those video, it’s less than 10 minutes long, and it shows the French army fighting in Afghanistan and sometimes, surprise surprise… at night! And they don’t really look like sissies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4rAzYcRbQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXMALh4ilQs
3. “Wrong again it was actually England back in the 1930’s The Prevention of Violence Act 1939 was brought in response to an Irish Republican Army (IRA) campaign of violence under the S-Plan. This lead to the creation of counter terrorist units long before Algiers.”
Well actually France created “les brigades du Tigre” in 1907 to fight (among other things) against Russian terrorism in Paris. It was the first unit in the world to use anthropometry, fingerprints, as well as cars and phones. But what I meant with Algerian war is that it was the first methods created specifically to fight against Muslim terrorism on a foreign soil. And it doesn’t change the fact that French officers went to teach at West Point. But once again, it doesn’t really matter, that’s what allies do, they exchange knowledge and tips. Once again, remember that France is the oldest ally of the US.
4.” So then why not blame the British and the French for those casualties. I have never heard of any French being blamed for any casualties on Normandy especially since they to were part of the attack”
The British are also blamed, but not the French because there was no French aircrafts during the Normandy battle. So no French bombings. But anyway, I was just explaining why France has mixed feelings toward the US about WWII. Mixed feelings, but mostly positive nevertheless.
5. “Are you comparing Somali Pirates with Religious fighters who have no problem dying for their cause? Come on I know you can do better than that they are not even in the same league. Maybe that’s why France does not fight at night. »
Am I dreaming or are you still being insulting? And I’m not comparing anything, I’m just giving you an example of when France took the lead in a matter of global security. And then the US followed France. Don’t try to discard my arguments with cheap bullets like this.
6. “So when I explained that France did not fight until the end I meant from D-day. Not even a year but you are correct."
Even that is wrong, because you’re forgetting the French resistance, estimated to be between 1 and 1.5 million people who engaged in military actions since day one. They fought alone for one year actually, against the most powerful army in the world, you know, when the US thought WWII wasn’t its business.
(side fact : I’m from Corsica, an island who liberated itself without the help of anyone)
7. “Then you can see my feelings towards your statement that European problem was because of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I’m not saying that. I’m saying it made our existing problems worse. And just for one second, please understand the French point of view. We are the US oldest ally (French oldest ally is actually Scotland), and we knew better than anyone else in the world the strategic issues of Muslim extremism because we were the first to deal with them. We’re saying to our friend, the US “don’t go there, it’s a mistake, you’ll just make things worse for anyone, you’ll not be safer, and you’ll make the world a more dangerous place” And suddenly everywhere in the US we’re called cheese-eating surrender monkeys, and everyone in the US seems to spit on the graves of all the French soldiers who ever died.
And what about a few years later? No WMD and the world is more dangerous than before both for the US and Europe. I’m not saying it, the US media say it
8.” I find it interesting that your still willing to blame the US for the French riots when the Muslims who rioted in France made comments to the contrary it seams you will also negate the BBC and El Tiempo.”
I think you misunderstood me. I never said those riots were because of the US. I even said it was not even especially Muslim. I’m talking about a higher risk of terrorism. As you might have read it in the article I sent you earlier, French secret services stopped several terrorist attacks on French soil. Those attacks are much more common now that Bush transformed local tensions into a general fight between the Western world and Islamic fundamentalism. I’m not saying this is the only reason, but it played a big part and the worst of all is that we warned you it will happen.
9.” Russia used chemical weapons on Afghanistan people what was French response?”
Actually I don’t know. Can you enlighten me?
10. “Finally do you really feel it is a great idea for France to sell their technology to Russia?”
I don’t think it’s a good idea, as I said it before.
11.” China will not use its French weapons for peaceful purposes, and the targets are likely to be American.”
I thought Chinese and American economies were too tightly tied up.
But anyway, generally speaking I am against selling weapons to countries that are not your ally. What France does, just like the US does. I think both are bad, I don't have double standards.
Maybe you could watch those video, it’s less than 10 minutes long, and it shows the French army fighting in Afghanistan and sometimes, surprise surprise… at night! And they don’t really look like sissies.
• Wait this was an attack on a French base not the same as conducting a night time operation in enemy territory But fair they are fighting at night. I have included some links for you to read. Regarding NATO forces which includes France and Germany when it comes to restrictions
• http://www.slate.com/id/2183944/pagenum/all/
• http://www.slate.com/id/2237385/
• http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/06/05/in-afghanistan-the-nato-led-force-is-underresourced-for-the-fight-against-the-taliban.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/03reax.html
I am not trying to comedown on Europe what I am trying to say is it seams that some European countries are committing the same mistake we committed in Vietnam. Either you fight to win or not fight at all. I think you can understand why some American soldiers are bitter. Maybe it was the US mistake for training the mujahedeen against the Russian’s maybe if Russia never invaded Afghanistan none of this would have ever happened.
France is the oldest ally of the US.
• Yes it really is you did come to our aid when we battled the British and for that we will always thank you.
Don’t try to discard my arguments with cheap bullets like this.
• Your right it was a cheap shot but the Devil made me do it ?
We’re saying to our friend, the US “don’t go there, it’s a mistake, you’ll just make things worse for anyone, you’ll not be safer, and you’ll make the world a more dangerous place” And suddenly everywhere in the US we’re called cheese-eating surrender monkeys, and everyone in the US seems to spit on the graves of all the French soldiers who ever died.
• I don’t think that anywhere in the US they attack French soldiers whom have died. I think in reality the truth may be in the middle it might be more of frustration with some countries. A friend of mine from Guadalupe once put it best if you are an outsider the French are snobbish. If you are French the Parisians are snobbish. Maybe we may not understand your culture; but we do understand dead soldiers on the field that’s bad for everybody.
I thought Chinese and American economies were too tightly tied up. I will remind you of a famous quote
• Treaties are like roses and young girls -- they last while they last.
I have enjoyed our debate and have learned a lot. I do think before Foreign policy bans us from these blogs maybe we can take it off line. If you would like my email is my name at gmail.com. If not I wish you well.
Wish you well
This is a really good read for me, Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw.Thanks for posting this informative article.
It is very bad that the French arms trying to sale the ship to russia and highly
appreciate and captaincy
John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(24)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE