Regards, Ivan
The flag of Canada...before the trouble started
Posted on 03/06/2003 4:51:26 AM PST by MadIvan
We've seen the Empire strike back in the last couple of weeks -- that is, the empire of what U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called "old Europe." Stung by accusations that Franco-German obstruction of the Bush administration's efforts to bring about a regime change in Iraq is motivated by invidious feelings of rivalry with the sole superpower in the post-Cold War world -- phallU.S.-envy for short -- European commentators have made spirited efforts to defend German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's and French President Jacques Chirac's position.
The latest salvo is a witty piece by Justin Vaisse, a visiting fellow at the Centre on the U.S. and France at the Brookings Institution. In an article that originally appeared in The Washington Post, M. Vaisse sarcastically apologizes for being ungrateful to America that liberated France in the Second World War. "It's just that I learned in school," he writes, "that France and Britain declared war on Nazi Germany in September 1939, while the United States was enacting isolationist laws, and that America entered the war two years later, only after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. But now I see that was just Gallic propaganda. How could I have believed it?"
M. Vaisse is evidently wounded by the suggestion that his country's attempt to thwart U.S. designs for the removal of a particularly nasty and dangerous tyrant from a volatile region may be due to old Europe's resentment of America. "I have been interested to learn," he offers in his piece, "that my hesitation in endorsing war in Iraq is mainly a product of my nostalgia for France's past glory. As Thomas Friedman writes in The New York Times, being weak after being powerful is a terrible thing. Perhaps he is right. I had been deluded into thinking that my doubts about military intervention in Iraq had something to do with fears of civilian casualties, the use of weapons of mass destruction, increasing terrorism or Middle East instability. But apparently we French are really just longing for the time of Napoleon or Louis XIV."
Oh, very droll. The only trouble is, as Sherlock Holmes famously remarked, if one eliminates the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. M. Vaisse can't possibly oppose deposing Saddam Hussein for "fears of civilian casualties" -- Saddam has been the direct cause of more civilian casualties than anyone in the region -- so he must have some other reason. "The use of weapons of mass destruction," or "increasing terrorism," not to mention "Middle East instability," would all be arguments for the removal of Saddam, not against it. Hence M. Vaisse's problem. Once his proffered reasons are eliminated as impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is likely to be the truth -- even if it's as far-fetched as French nostalgia for Napoleon and Louis XIV.
But of course one needn't go back to Louis XIV as the sole reason for the stance of President Chirac and his allies. While UN inspectors have been scouring Saddam's archives for a paper-trail leading to his weapons of mass destruction, they might with more benefit have been going through French, German, Russian (or even American) archives for the same evidence. Saddam may pose as the defender of Islam these days, but his technology comes from Christendom. The French, the Germans, the Russians didn't need UN inspectors to unearth Saddam's WMD capabilities: They supplied most of it themselves. They're still due some payments from Iraq, in cash as well as in fossil fuel. Collecting from Saddam is as much a French reason for protecting him as nostalgia for the Sun King and his times.
What can't be France's reason is the string of nonsense expounded by M. Vaisse and other Saddamites (as Mark Steyn has called them), to wit: "war would help Osama bin Laden recruit more followers" or "war would trigger more terrorist attacks at home and abroad" or "containment can work" or that "it would be hard to impose stability -- let alone democracy -- on Iraq, especially when you look at Afghanistan."
This last argument is a winner. Assume Afghan democracy is less than perfect: Would the French favour the Taliban to continue being in charge in Kabul, merrily hosting al-Qaeda? Do M. Vaisse and his fellow appeasers actually prefer Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden to Hamid Karzai?
What makes the French tick? Perhaps it's the curse of Selim Khan III. In 1798, when Napoleon invaded Egypt, the Turkish Sultan proclaimed the French "rebellious infidels and dissident evildoers" and asked God to "debase their banners." The hex half-stuck, it seems to me; ever since the French have had the worst wars and made the best movies about them.
Or maybe the French just have a lot of Gaul. I used to think that Pope Boniface VIII was somewhat intemperate when he remarked, following a lengthy dispute with the French king Philip IV, that he'd rather be a dog than a Frenchman, but after reading M. Vaisse and his fellow apologists, I wonder if the Holy Father was just being practical. After all, having no souls, dogs can't suffer eternal perdition for bearing false witness.
Regards, Ivan
The flag of Canada...before the trouble started
To the French, Germans, and Russians, he's a customer.
LOL Not only do I know what that means, I know how to pronounce it!
Have you experienced this? Many conversations with Socialists and the bureaucracy simply make no sense.
Don't waste your energy. Instead, realize that the debate is no longer about the children, the environment, the economy, the poor.
No, it is about power and control. That is, the State's power and control over you.
Don't let it happen. Your best stategic position is knowing this from the outset. It is disarming to the weasels when you know their game and stop responding like a naive sucker.
Like the Trent Lott affair, attempting to debate the ridiculous details of that unholy 'Rat coup was the first mistake. Pubbies needed to call the 'Rats on their sleazy game from the outset and stop playing pious wimps to their street bully.
Have you experienced this? Many conversations with Socialists and the bureaucracy simply make no sense.
Don't waste your energy. Instead, realize that the debate is no longer about the children, the environment, the economy, the poor.
No, it is about power and control. That is, the State's power and control over you.
Don't let it happen. Your best stategic position is knowing this from the outset. It is disarming to the weasels when you know their game and stop responding like a naive sucker.
Like the Trent Lott affair, attempting to debate the ridiculous details of that unholy 'Rat coup was the first mistake. Pubbies needed to call the 'Rats on their sleazy game from the outset and stop playing pious wimps to their street bully.
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.