They basically accuse us of being racists and want us to give up on our anti-Russian bias. This is not a big change for Le Monde. They are basically communists.
Pearl Harbor marked the end of isolationism, so firly anchored in America that it could even resist intervening to end the barbarism of Hitler. (This is SUCH a French myth. You always have to remember that the French STILL love Jerry Lewis). When in 1941, Charles Lindbergh (a freaking Nazi-sympathizer as it turns out) was making the rounds at conferences in Europe to plead against any American interest in the war, a large part of the opinion on the other side of the Atlantic was dreaming of a curtain over the western hemisphere, leaving Europe to its ruins and crimes. (This is total horseshit coming from a country that bent over for Hitler and deported their Jews to die in Poland.) After Pearl Harbor, everything changed. And America accepted the full burden, the Marshall plan like sending GIs to all four corners of the globe. Next came the shredding in Vietnam, which uncorked a new doctrine, that of the massive and rare use of force, accompanied by the concept of "no dead American" as was illustrated during the Gulf War. All of which has been swept away at this point: no one doubts that every means necessary will be used against these adversaries who to this day remain uncatchable. This new approach which is written in the blood has brought to the world stage at least two predictible consequences. Both are linked to alliances: the Cold War strategy conceived entirely to contain the Russians, then the Soviets, is as good as dead. (I totally disagree here. My anti-communism is mostly focused on China now, but I do not discount the likelihood of a return of the Soviet threat in the future). Russia, at least in it's non-Islamic areas, will become the principal ally of the U.S. It's a change that President Putin seized on the night of the attack. Perhaps it is also the end of an alliance that the U.S. had drawn up since the 1930s and solidified during the 1950s with the fundamentalist Sunni Muslim, such as it is notably defended (forbidden?) in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. In the eyes of American public opinion, and in those of its leaders, Islam, in all of its forms, risks being portrayed as the new enemy. Certainly the anti-Islamic reflex has already been seen, witness the ridiculous, if not obnoxious, condemnations of Islamic radicals following the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. But, this time, the inextinguishable hate which fed these attacks just like the choice of targets and the military character of the required organization limits the number of possible culprits.
Read these paragraphs and I will summarize what they are saying afterwards.
Beyond their apparent murderous folly, these culprits are nevertheless captured by a way of thinking. It is evidently a barbaric way of thinking, one of nihilism which is rejected by a great majority of those who believe in Islam, a religion which no more favors suicide than does Christianity; let alone suicide coupled with the massacre of innocent people. But it's a political way of thinking which, by going to extremes, forces muslims to "pick a side", against those who are often referred to as "The Great Satan". In so doing, their strategy could well be to cause an unprecendented crisis in the entire Arab world.
In the long run, this attitude is clearly suicidal. Because it attracts lightning. And lightning can strike them without discrimination. This situation requires our leaders to rise to the occasion so that their people (us) can avoid what the terrorist warmongers want, our entry into their suicidal way of thinking. For we can say with fear: modern technology enables our leaders to go even further. Madness, even in the face of despair, is never a force that can rebuild the world. That is why, today, we are Americans.
When I was in France and discussing translations over way too much alcohol with the father of a French student I knew, we came to the conclusion that you just couldn't understand everything unless you knew a gzillion languages and you knew them fluently. Here's a great example of why.
The writers at Le Monde used two words separately in this editorial in a way that conveys what they mean precisely, but you wouldn't know it unless you knew something of French history over the last 40 years.
The two words are "frappe" and "force". Separately and literally these words mean "strike" or "hit" as in, "the terrorists struck at the symbols of American power"; and "force" as in "Madness is never a force that can rebuild the world".
What they don't need to tell their French readership is what they are referring to when they use "force" in this context and what they really mean by "madness" or "folie". After WWII when France almost ceased to exist as a separate country, Charles de Gaulle realized that (in addition to having a century-long inferiority complex with respect to the British) the French needed to have an independent nuclear force in case the U.S. should ever return to its pre-war "isolationism".
Well, Charles de Gaulle coined a term for their nuclear weapons capability which was "force de frappe". I would translate it as meaning "strike force".
Le Monde, in their way too subtle French way, is advocating that the U.S. (and its allies), not use nukes in their battle with bin Laden. They start out by sympathizing, and almost empathizing with how everyone is angry, but they want cooler heads to prevail before we turn the Middle East or Afghanistan into a hot zone.
And I must say that, as long as the nukes are tactical, I completely disagree. We are the only country to ever fire a nuke in anger. We fired them "to prevent thousands of American deaths", but also to avenge the deaths of servicemen and women at Pearl Harbor. We've done it once before. We can do it again, especially if it means that we can save American lives by doing so. And this time there are civilian lives to avenge, including at least one 2 and one 4 year old on Flight 93.