Posted on 04/03/2005 10:00:59 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
They're back! Just when you thought it was safe to start calling "freedom fries" French fries once more, the anti-Gallic thought police are back on the job, avidly pursuing those "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." The American right's recurrent infatuation with French bashing, quiescent for a time after the Iraq invasion, has returned with a vengeance. This time, it has an intellectual twist.
In bookstores now are at least two accounts of our purportedly harmful interactions with France over the years, both serving to denigrate the historic French-American friendship. The titles tell it all. There is "The French Betrayal of America" by Kenneth R. Timmerman (Crown Forum, 2004), a journalistic "expose" of France's supposed efforts to undermine the U.S. war on terror; and "Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France" by John J. Miller and Mark Molesky (Doubleday, 2004), a very selective survey aimed at proving the French have always been obstructionist rivals rather than true allies.
The Timmerman book claims to show the corrupt, deceitful inclination of the French and their consistent efforts to frustrate America's Middle East policy. Motivated by a desire to trade arms and nuclear technology for Iraqi oil, Timmerman writes, France has always been at heart a supporter of Saddam Hussein. France's economic investment in prewar Iraq is well known, of course. What Timmerman fails to acknowledge, however, is that the U.S., Iraq's ally and patron during the 1980s, also had designs on Iraqi oil and also supplied arms to Saddam. In the winter edition of The Wilson Quarterly, eminent diplomatic historian Andrew J. Bacevich provides chapter and verse on the Reagan administration's military support of the Baathist dictator during the Iran-Iraq War, as well as its efforts to establish him as a regional proxy in the Persian Gulf.
NOT TO BE TRUSTED
Timmerman's belief that the French, who unforgivably did what we did and not what we said, cannot be trusted is reinforced by the Miller and Molesky assertion that they never could be trusted. To "prove" this assertion, they start with the dim colonial past, citing frontier massacres of Americans in the French and Indian wars of the 18th century. Continuing on in this vein, Miller and Molesky distort most of what follows, eventually going so far as to blame the French indirectly for, among other things, the rise of fascism and the necessity of America's involvement in the European theater of World War II. Forced to review this semi-fictional account of 300 years of sinfulness, the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs termed it "shoddy and biased."
The scurrilous nature of these one-sided tracts is unsurprising given the sources. Timmerman, a dependable conservative flack, is notable for penning "Shakedown," a salacious profile of Jesse Jackson as nothing more than a con man. Miller, co-author of "Our Oldest Enemy," is a national political reporter for the conservative National Review. And what is France's real crime in the eyes of these authors? It failed to support George W. Bush's incursion into Iraq. More than that, it led the international opposition to it.
Other governments opposed the Iraq invasion as well, including those of Germany and Russia. And virtually the entire population of Western Europe rejected it. So why the particularly venomous reaction to French policy, especially from the right of the political spectrum? Largely, it's ideological. France maintains a generous welfare state, has been known to elect democratic socialists from time to time, and has had the temerity to offer an alternative economic model to the world that is antithetical to corporate America's vision of unregulated free-market globalization; conservative columnist Robert Novak calls it an "anti-capitalist" country.
A CERTAIN ... EFFETENESS
Then, too, the French are admittedly prone to overly celebrate the virtues of their culture, which in theory values secular intellectualism and a relaxed lifestyle over striving Anglo-American materialism. This plays into certain cherished American beliefs about the French: that they're indolent, effete, haughty and proud, and that they condescend toward regular, plain-speaking, God-fearing heartland folk. Memories of prominent figures like the insufferable Charles de Gaulle haven't helped this image. Nevertheless, when the culture warriors of the right attempt to spread an intellectual gloss over their selective xenophobia, peddling historical lies and unfairly savaging the reputation of a valued, if occasionally flawed, ally of long standing, it's past time to set the record straight.
In the first place, the United States of America would simply not exist without France's help in the Revolutionary War, as the Founders plainly recognized. In 1778, Thomas Jefferson (a lifelong admirer of the French by the way) wrote that doubts about the eventual success of the revolutionary project had been "totally removed by the interposition of France and the generous alliance she had entered into with us." Three years later, Jefferson was proven correct when French forces, including an expeditionary army and a blockading naval fleet, enabled George Washington to win the war's decisive battle at Yorktown, Va.
A NOBLE RESISTANCE
In the more recent past, the French have been accused of inherently lacking the stomach for a fight and hiding behind diplomacy. Tell that to the 1.4 million French dead of World War I, 12 times the number of American fatalities. Even in World War II, France's casualties approximately equaled those of the U.S. — this in a country with one-fifth our population. Add in Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower's observation that, during the post-Normandy invasion of Europe, the French resistance, which suffered losses in the tens of thousands battling the Nazis, was worth 15 regular army divisions. These same French resistance fighters rescued, at great risk, 6,000 downed Allied fliers, including Americans, and arranged for their escape. (For a gripping account of the fight against the Nazis, and a contrasting view of the French character, read "Resistance and Betrayal. The Death and Life of the Greatest Hero of the French Resistance" by Patrick Marnham, Random House, 2002. It relates the inspiring story of Jean Moulin, who organized and directed resistance forces until his capture by the Gestapo in 1943.)
There are many reasons why France opposed the Bush administration in Iraq, some principled and some guided by self-interest. But, fundamentally, a country that bled so much during two world conflicts is bound to have a highly developed sense of the cost and ultimate futility of war. The French reluctance to accept armed hostilities as the very first policy option is not only understandable, it's commonsensical. That's a lesson Americans are now learning the hard way, and scapegoating or demeaning a sometimes balky ally will not make learning it any easier.
Wayne M. O'Leary is an Orono writer specializing in politics and economics.
Vietnam in Iraq: Bush insanity theory-by Wayne M. O'Leary
The Domino Quagmire - by Wayne M. O'Leary found readers of CommonDreams.org -News and views for the Progressive Community - Portland, Maine. "CommonDreams.org is a "must" in my life and work" says Bill Moyers.
Ending Tyranny and All That by Wayne M. O'Leary - O'Leary writes:"God to Bush: "What are you doing?" Bush to God: "I'm changing the world." God to Bush: "And you started with Iraq?!"
"It's funny and at the same time it isn't, because this president really does mean to change the world. What the world thinks about it is pretty much irrelevant, as is the opinion of the American public at large."
Wayne M. O'Leary did once bio his Special to The Progressive Populist columns with: " a research associate in history at the University of Maine in Orono, more recent: "Orono writer...". Besides writing for the Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. Portland, ME; his articles appear across the net for "Progressive" political thinkers - just "an Orono (ME) writer specializing in politics and economics".
The reviewer has failed to include "Vile France" by Denis Boyles.
Effete Snail Eating Sniveling Maine Lumberjack Bump
Agreed. Another point is that if their Generals share the attitude of war as being futile, then we can understand why they tend to lose and surrender rather than fight for their own nation. Quickly, without looking on the 'net, name a famous French General since WW2 (other than DeGualle and LeClerc).
Ever since the XYZ Affair, the perfidy of the French has been manifest.
That's absurd. Years of diplomacy, warnings, UN resolutions, and economic sanctions preceded the war.
And even in Nam, we had to go in and clean up after the French. We support their military moves (however laughable they are) Our own liberals over here are why we failed then. We never lost a major battle over there. The Left defeated us then, and hold it against us today!
Who is LeClerc?
oui, oui.
good post.
He conflates history to develop his point. In particular, he makes no distinction betwen 1980 and 2005. Early on Bush wanted smart sanctions on Iraq. European refusal to cooperate is what pushed us to war.
"Going to war without France is like going hunting without your accordian"
Or for that matter, name a victorious one.
I fart in France's specific direction.
"I fart in France's specific direction."
LOL! Too funny!
Before we classify Timmerman as a conservative hack, let's check some facts. I used to subscribe to Foreign Affairs until they, in all seriousness, proposed a global minimum wage, so don't overrate its "prestige". As to the "salacious" characterization of Jesse Jackson as a con man in "Shakedown", check out the well documented history of corporate extortion by the Rainbow Coalition, this at the behest of the man who has proclaimed that "Dr. King died in my arms in Memphis", an outright, proveable lie. Jackson was in Memphis, but he fo' shore was not on that balcony. More recently, note his ever-so-effective timing jumping into the Schiavo matter. Didn't even go through the civil disobedience formality of forcing an arrest, must have been late for a meeting with somebody's bagman.
Yes the French were invaluable in our revolution, but I doubt any credible historian would claim they would have invested a sou in our behalf absent the motive to poke a finger in Britain's eye, which they lacked the naval prowess to do back home. As further evidence of their heartfelt dedication to freedom in the New World, see French and Indian War, a terrorist operation before the term had been invented, then look at what they did with their own murderous revolution shortly after ours. Seldom has so much conceit been accompanied by so little substance. So sorry, the French operate in no one's interest but their own, and that mostly incompetently. See Louisiana Purchase, Maginot Line, or their only aircraft carrier, the Degaulle, which is safest tied to the dock.
Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Delysee? So the Germans could march in the shade. Forgive my spelling, it ain't worth looking up to get it right. I refuse to study a language in which Fido can be spelled Phydeaux.
In bookstores now are at least two accounts of our purportedly harmful interactions with France over the years, both serving to denigrate the historic French-American friendship. The titles tell it all. There is "The French Betrayal of America" by Kenneth R. Timmerman (Crown Forum, 2004), a journalistic "expose" of France's supposed efforts to undermine the U.S. war on terror; and "Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France" by John J. Miller and Mark Molesky (Doubleday, 2004), a very selective survey aimed at proving the French have always been obstructionist rivals rather than true allies.
LeClerc was the highest ranking Free French field general in WWII. He led the first troops into Paris-although it took some machinations to ensure his unit of Frenchmen got to the right place on time. That said, he and DeGaulle were real men as were many of the French resistance fighters. Their culture has changed and so have their men.
They have men? Then why do they need a foreign legion?
That was more of a bite at humor... Glad to know others know their stuff though :p
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.