[omega4179]

if just half the 15% turned on their comrades and took one out, they would lose 15% of their forces outright, half of that to casualties and half to desertion+joining enemy theoretically speaking. an army that loses 20% is no longer combat effective, in theory (the marines proved that wrong in iwo jima but this is the french, no offense intended)

[Dark Skies]

20% is no longer combat effective

An army that can't be used against all enemies of the state is no longer combat effective either. The French are sitting on a nuclear arsenal. They need to know who they can trust and who they can't within their own military. If soldiers who are muslims will not fight other muslims who are threatening the country's sovereignty, they need to be identified and discharged.

[SauronOfMordor]

if just half the 15% turned on their comrades and took one out, they would lose 15% of their forces outright, half of that to casualties and half to desertion+joining enemy theoretically speaking. an army that loses 20% is no longer combat effective,

In most armies, troops in garrison in their native countries do not have their guns issued. All that's needed is to confine the Muslim troops to barracks, and only issue guns and ammo to non-Muslim troops. Sort the Muslim troops out at leisure

[IonImplantGuru]

Here, let me fix that for you:

if just half the 15% turned on their comrades and took one out, they would lose 15% of their forces outright, half of that to casualties and half to desertion+joining enemy theoretically speaking. an army that loses 20% is no longer combat effective, in theory (the Marines proved that wrong in iwo jima but this is the french, no offense intended)

There. Better?