To M. Jacques Chirac

It has often been said that Americans take a short view of History. This American does not. This American remembers that France was the first nation to recognize our Independence, in 1778. French soldiers fought side by side with Americans in our Revolution. Without the aid of the Marquis de Lafayette, Count Rochambeau, and Admiral Comte de Grasse, we might have lost the struggle. These men are considered heroes in our country. Their names adorn our streets, our warships, and our public squares. The treaty that sealed our Independence was signed in 1783, in Paris.

Our nations were born of the same Age of Enlightenment. Liberté --“Give me Liberty or give me Death!” Égalité – “all Men are created Equal” Fraternité – E Pluribus Unum We are spiritual siblings.

This American recalls that a French architect, Pierre L’Enfant, designed our capital city. He is buried within sight of that city, in Arlington National Cemetery. Our largest territorial expansion occurred in 1803, when Napoléon Bonaparte sold the vast Louisiana Territory to the United States for the bargain price of 80 million francs. This American remembers that it was a Frenchman, Alexis De Toqueville, who penned the first definitive analysis of “Democracy in America” in 1840. Two talented Frenchmen, the sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi and the architect Gustave Eiffel, designed and constructed one of our most treasured icons, the Statue of Liberty. Dedicated in 1886, it was a gift from the people of France to the people of America, acknowledging our lasting friendship.

This American recalls that in 1917, when Paris was in danger of being overrun by the Kaiser’s armies, President Woodrow Wilson sent two million men and pledged ten billion dollars to save France. Over 30,000 of those men did not return home. Twenty-eight years later, American forces, side-by-side with Free French forces, liberated France from the scourge of Nazi occupation. Cemeteries full of tens of thousands of American soldiers who died in that struggle dot the French countryside. This American remembers that France was present at the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, French forces joined America in the coalition to reverse his unprovoked aggression. French aircraft subsequently participated in the enforcement of the no-fly zones over Southern Iraq. After the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, France lent material and intelligence support to the American campaign against the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

For well over two centuries, we have been friends and allies. So how, sir, do you explain your recent behavior?

It is not unprincipled to be opposed to war. War is terrible. But we have been in agreement, for over twelve years now, that Saddam Hussein must cooperate with the United Nations and abandon his weapons of mass destruction. Together, we passed seventeen resolutions in the Security Council demanding as much. The last resolution, which was approved unanimously, called for “serious consequences” if Iraq failed to disarm. But the regime of Saddam Hussein continued to play games of obfuscation, denial, and deception.

Yet, when the United States and United Kingdom presented an eighteenth resolution with concrete deadlines for compliance, you opposed it. When some of our allies expressed support for our position, you called them “infantile” and “reckless.” You actively lobbied nations in opposition to our efforts. Had we presented a united front against Saddam Hussein, armed conflict might not have been necessary. But your intransigence has made that outcome impossible. In the process, you undermined the very foundations of NATO and the United Nations. Your actions have grave consequences, sir. Like so many others, this American had to leave his home and family and go to war – a conflict from which over one hundred Americans will never return.

Today, in a newly liberated Iraq, we are learning the true extent of your betrayal.

Damning documents have been discovered. Reputable media outlets have reported that your government provided intelligence assistance to Saddam Hussein. This assistance allegedly included briefings covering confidential conversations between yourself and President George W. Bush.

click

Here's an excerpt from 3/14/03 that summarizes France's U.N. actions:

"Acting in good faith, however, is required of an ally, especially a fellow democracy. France is a member of NATO (not on the military side) and a partner of the United States in the war on terrorism. And it was France and the United States who last fall jointly drafted U.N. Resolution 1441, which ordered new weapons inspections in Iraq.

Since then, France has acted in bad faith. The sole intent of Resolution 1441 was immediate disarmament, and it gave Iraq a final chance to comply or face "serious consequences," a phrase widely understood to mean a war to depose Saddam Hussein. Now, France has changed its mind and reinterpreted the document as if it required only containment, not disarmament. French President Jacques Chirac has explained further that disarmament must be achieved peacefully, never by war. (The French ambassador to the United States, Jean-David Levitte, insists France hasn't totally ruled out the use of force, it just isn't willing to use it for the foreseeable future.) Thus France would let Saddam off the hook. In refusing to disarm, Saddam would no longer have to worry about serious consequences.

An ally should also respect the national security of a friendly nation, as defined by the friend, unless it clashes with the ally's own security. Clearly, war with Iraq and the ouster of Saddam would not threaten the security of France. Those outcomes might harm French commercial interests in Iraq in the short term, but that's a different matter. France could easily protect those interests by simply not challenging the United States and then negotiating to save some or all of its stake in Iraq.

And of course it's no secret to the French that the attacks of September 11 led Americans to regard terrorism as a national security threat to their homeland. The Bush administration realized as well that the threat was all the more grave because terrorists might gain access to weapons of mass destruction from an enemy who possesses them, Saddam. Terrorists could penetrate America's border and provide Saddam what he lacked--a delivery vehicle for his weapons. And for terrorists, Saddam could provide funds and sanctuary in addition to chemical, biological, or radiological weapons.

Sadly, France has been unwilling to accept America's fear of terrorists with WMDs as legitimate enough to mandate French acquiescence at the United Nations. Instead, the French have relentlessly countered American efforts to gain multilateral backing at the U.N. for imposing Resolution 1441's serious consequences on Saddam and his regime.

As an ally, France could have been expected to voice its doubts about American policy, then graciously step back and abstain in a Security Council vote. But France has chosen to undermine the United States. Rather than increase pressure on Saddam to disarm, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin focused last Friday on refuting every American claim about the threat posed by Iraq. Then he hop-scotched across west Africa to seek the votes of Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea against the American-British deadline for Iraqi disarmament. Ambassador Levitte says Iraq simply isn't an "imminent threat."

French President Jacques Chirac has committed his country to a final hostile act. Last Monday he said that a majority vote in favor of the British-American plan to set a deadline for Saddam to complete the disarmament of Iraq will not stand. France will veto it, using the gift given the beleaguered French at the U.N.'s founding to make them feel like an important nation.

Lastly, it's the obligation of an ally not to blow up its relationship with a long-time friend if at all possible. On Iraq, maintaining the French-American tie is quite possible. The problem is France doesn't seem interested, though Levitte says the French-American tie is critical to France. If so, France might have outlined its opposition to U.S. policy in a closed-door session of the Security Council. On the contrary, France brushed aside an American request and insisted last Friday's session be held in public, thus on worldwide television."

France was freed by the Allies with little French help, and while many French were collaborating with the Nazis. Many Jews died from that collaboration. When the Vichy French shot at us in North Africa and North Africa, we looked the other way, explaining that the Nazis made them do it. When De Gaulle took off on his own to liberate Paris, placing American troops at risk, we looked the other way, explaining that Gallic pride required him to break formation to lead the way into the French capital.

When Nato was formed, we made France a charter member, as though it had never left our side. When the UN was formed, we gave them a Veto their power did not deserve, to preserve the fiction of France as a world power and assuage that Gallic pride.

When France developed its own nuclear weapons, we looked the other way at the "force de frappe", since we could trust the French, and they'd be there if we needed them. When France then left Nato in 1965, we chuckled at their Gallic pride, telling ourselves that they would be there if we needed them. When France sheltered the Ayatollah, we looked the other way, since France would be there if we needed them. When France opposed deployment of the MX missile, we knew it was just the French being French, but that they would be there if we needed them.

When we bombed Libya in retaliation for a terrorist attack on a German nightclub, the French refused our overflight request, forcing the pilots to go many hours out of their way to get to their target. We were unhappy about it, but did not make too much of it, since the French were known to be difficult, and they would be there if we needed them.

On September 11, 2001 the US was attacked by a terrorist group using airplanes. 3,000 Americans died. We were lucky; it could have been 20,000, and it could have been the President if the White House had been hit. The terrorist group was backed, we now know and always suspected, by an Iraqi thug named Saddam. Saddam has, as France knows, biological and chemical weapons, and is very close to having nuclear weapons. Saddam is willing to use them on the US. On September 25, 2001, France was giving Saddam intelligence about the likely US response to the attack, and there is every reason to believe that the duplicity and aid given to Saddam continued up to the start of the war, if not after.

The French gave Powell a hard time in the Security Council on 1441, but in the end, we got a resolution. It was just the French being French, but we knew they'd be there when the time came.

Folks, they were not there for us at our time of need. Never had any intention of allowing us to remove Saddam from power, of freeing the Iraqis and giving us a big gain in the war on terror. Now, retrospectively, I don't think they would have ever been there for us had we needed them in the cold war. I think one of our major assumptions all along has been shown to be suspect. Let's just thank God that we never before needed the French, and let's make sure that we never consider them a friend or ally again.

France under its current regime has become an opponent, not much different from the Chinese, in that they lack the power but not the desire to create a region free from American influence and therefore are willing to do things to interfere with US interests, cause us loss, harm our interests and develop long term strategies for our defeat.

Never again will we chuckle at the "French being French". From now on, until decades of honorable conduct prove otherwise, we will grit our teeth at "French being ungrateful, treasonous weasels." When they screw with us, we will know--if we need them, they won't be there. Their residual goodwill will therefore cease to exist. Actions will have consequences.

It is not we who held several large muslim countries as colonies, nor we who hold several million of their kin close to our bosom in the suburbs of our capitol city, unassmilated and confined to sweltering ghettos of murder, theft, and gang rape. I suspect you've never been to my country but I've been to yours many times so please don't even try to tell me I'm wrong.

For the brief time you are permitted at this site (oh yes, it's a privilege not a right to participate here - you see it is privately owned) enjoy it and perhaps try to learn how free people think and speak.

Your country and ours used to be the closest of friends. That is no longer true. When your muslim fifth column rises, and among their first acts executes all communists and atheists, we will not help you nor in all likelihood shed a single tear. Whatever happens, it will be richly deserved.

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.