Posted on 03/08/2003 12:36:33 PM PST by Destro
Why the French behave as they do
Posted: March 5, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Having rescued France in two world wars, Americans are puzzled. Why are they organizing the Security Council against us? Why are they sabotaging the president's plan to bring democracy to Iraq, as we restored democracy to France? Why are they doing this?
What the French are up to, however, is not unreasonable, if one can see the world from the perspective of Paris.
To understand what France is about, and perhaps deal with our French problem with more maturity than dumping champagne in the gutter, let us go back five centuries.
In 1500, there was born in Ghent a future king who would come to dominate the world as we do today. At six, the death of his father Philip of Hapsburg gave Charles the crown of the Netherlands. At 16, the death of his grandfather Ferdinand made him Charles I of Spain and of all its dependencies in Italy and America. At 19, the death of his grandfather Maximilian brought Charles all the hereditary lands of the Hapsburgs and the expectation of being elected Holy Roman Emperor.
In 1519, that title had been in the Hapsburg family four generations. Yet it remained an elective office. And two young and ambitious rulers challenged Charles for that title: Henry VIII of England and Francis I of France. Francis was by far the more formidable.
He set about bribing the electors. But Charles had access to the Medicis and the Fugger bank of Jacob the Rich, the strongest in Europe. Charles bought up more electors and was chosen Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
France was surrounded. Charles ruled almost all of what is today's Spain, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Hungary and Italy, except for the Papal States. What did Francis, seething with resentment, do? Exactly what balance of power politics dictated. He began making alliances with the nations not under Charles' control, and went to war.
In 1525, Charles' armies crushed the French Army at Pavia and captured the French king. "Nothing is left to me," Francis I wrote to his mother, "except honor and life."
By agreeing to humiliating peace terms, Francis won his freedom and returned to France. There, he began preparing at once for a new war, winning the support of the pope and the Italian states that were coming to resent the dominance of the hegemonic Charles.
Defeated again, Francis made alliances with Scotland, Sweden and Denmark, with rebellious princes in Germany, even with the infidel Turks, an unprecedented act for a Christian king. Francis fought Charles until his death in 1547. Point of this history: For Francis I, read Jacques Chirac; for Charles V, read George W. Bush.
Again, consider the world from the Paris point of view.
French was once the language of every court in Europe. I speak German only to my horses, said Frederick the Great. But now, because the Americans speak English, English is the language of diplomacy, of the Internet and the Global Economy.
Once, French culture was predominant. Today, it is not even competitive. It is American television and cinema Europeans watch, American books, magazines and newspapers they read. The Cannes Film Festival cannot compete with the Academy Awards.
Jealous they have been displaced, resentful of having had to be twice rescued by the Americans, France is following the dictates of balance-of-power politics, trying to form up and head up a coalition of the resentful, who equally oppose America's military, economic and cultural hegemony.
When Americans began braying about being the "last superpower" and the "indispensable nation," and tossing our weight around all over the world, it was predictable that this would happen.
Now, the French are trying to assume the leadership of the anti-Americans, and there are hundreds of millions worldwide who would relish seeing the haughty Americans taken down. And with the Red Army back in Russia, France no longer needs us to defend her, nor does she need NATO as a constant reminder of her past dependency.
We brought this on ourselves. Had we packed up and come home after the Cold War, and dissolved NATO and other outdated alliances, America would today be the most courted country on earth.
Instead of our bribing nations to fight their wars, they would be begging us to defend them. Instead of our spending national treasure on bases all over the world, other nations would be buying our arms to defend themselves. Instead of yelling "Yankee, go home," they would be pleading, "Yankee, come back."
As has been said before, we Americans are lousy imperialists.
The sole consolation of our mismanaged diplomacy is that it is the harmless French who have taken up the anti-American banner, not a more formidable strategic rival like the Russians or Chinese.
Related Offer:
Buchanan's latest book is here! "The Death of the West" is an eye-opening exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America. Both autographed and unautographed copies are now available at WorldNetDaily's online store!
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Partys candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books. See what else Pat Buchanan is doing these days.
"The promise that was made it was support for the Albanian dreams of Greated Albanian that would include the western part of the Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania."
Not in comparison to Iraq. As I've said, the two places are as different as the sun and the moon.
The first to respond was the local police. All the units were later reinforced.
There was no kicking of Albanian butt because the troops did not go in an offensive at any stage but just defended certain areas.
One of the most single examples of presidental inaction was the closing down of the valves of the Lipkovo Artificial Lake. It provides water to Kumanovo a city of 50000 people. The lake was taken over by the Albanians the water supply was cut for 3 months and at no stage there was an attempt to take over the position by the army or even bomb their positions. The water was used as a bargaining chip during the negotiations for a ceasefire.
In the attack near Radusa, Trajkovski did not allow for the overflying Su-25 to bomb the Albanian positions. All they did is fly by to scare them away.
In Karpalak where some of my neighbours died in an ambush, Mi-24 helicopters were sent with no ammunition on them.
The peace plan was presented by Trajkovski to the waring sides as if he was a by stander in the whole war.
At this very moment only the Macedonian refugees have not gone home. All the Albanians are back in their restored homes.
There is one single difference between the wars in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. Bosnia and Kosovo got their International UN Administrators to run the countries but Macedonia did not. Trajkovski is the NATO chosen administrator even before the actual war.
At this moment the only one who is opposed to replacing the American led NATO mission in Macedonia with a European force is Trajkovski.
As far as I am concerned the man is a traitor who sold his soul to the Americans.
Sorry Pat, assumes facts not in evidence. Quite a leap, even for you.
We could very easily be back on top if we went back to funding the federal government with the constraints of the constitution: duties, imposts and excises.
It is? Please explain. We handed Afghanistan over to the UN with a lot of grumbling from the Germans and Dutch. There's lots of precedent for it.
The Iraq war is humanitarian intervention (a la Kosovo) as well as an attempt to put the squeeze on Saudi Arabia (and help Israel) by creating a Democratic Iraq. No links to 9-11 have been proven. At best, WMD is a side issue IMHO.
If you are looking for links to Al Qaeda, you are more likely to find evidence for such a link in Saudi Arabia.....but then nobody is going to war with that country! Certainly, the Saudi state more closely Bin Laden's utopia. Women wear the veil there. They don't in Iraq.
When I used the term "imminent," I meant imminent. Not even Powell or Rumsfeld have presented evidence that an attack on the U.S. by Iraq is imminent, certainly not if we stay the heck out. Basically, their claim is that Iraq might build WMD and these WMD "could" someday be used against us. I could make a similar "might" argument about China, Pakistan, India, or Brazil (which is contemplating building nukes) but that doesn't make it imminent.
Well...of course, Saddam is evil and tortures people. Thousands (sometimes millions) of people die in Africa every year from even worse political horrors. It doesn't follow from that, however, that we should be spreading ourselves thin in endless and (if recent history is any guide) futile interventionist rescue operations. The mission of the U.S. military is to defend the U.S. and its citizens. It only detracts from that missions if our troops are bogged down in "nation building" and policing operations. Such operations only serve to create new trip-wires for conflict.
Ultimately our best weapons are free trade (which tends to break down dictatorial regimes) and an an end to taxpayer support for these regimes. These weapons are not as "sexy" as the dream of creating a "Democratic Iraq" asap through through foreign bayonets...but they are ultimately more viable and realistic in the long term.
Now....the fact that Saddam is evil isn't proof (as is often implied on FR) that he he will use WMD. Saddam is not about to commit suicide if he doesn't have to. Mao and Stalin were evil too but they didn't use nukes to "take out" American cities though they certainly had that ability.
The U.S. maintains 4,000 military bases on just about every continent of the world, plus we have had a standing army (in direct violation of the Constitution) getting into all kinds of mischief (like the Korean and Vietnam wars) for close to 60 years, since the end of WWII.
Oh no, of course we're not an empire.
Time to get 'em out - and send 'em to Iraq. Then on to Korea.
[Preamble]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[Art I, sec 8, cl 1] The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
[Art I, sec 8, cl 12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (This clause specifically gives Congress the power to raise and support armies, the only limitation being that appropriations are limited to two years with no prohibition on renewing appropriations as often as Congress desires.)
[Art I, sec 8, cl 13] To provide and maintain a Navy;
[Art I, sec 8, cl 13] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
There is no Consitutional prohibition on the maintainence of standing federal military forces. In fact, Congress is expressly empowered to do so. It is only the several states that are prohibited from maintaining standing armies --
"The U.S. maintains 4,000 military bases on just about every continent of the world..."
Proof please. And after you provide proof of this claim, tell me how our presence in these countries constitutes an army of occupation and is used to colonize, annex or otherwise dictate to these countries.
The state militias were to be called up to form a standing army if and when the U.S. is threatened or invaded (read Section I, Clause 15). That is "providing for the common defense". Since Pearl Harbor, there has not been such a situation -- until 9/11.
So what has this standing army of ours been doing for the last 50 years? Invading countries whose politics we don't like (Korean War: 36000+ American troops dead; Vietnam War: 57000+ dead). Last time I looked there were still two Koreas, and Vietnam went communist in 1975 after we left anyway. Of course, we've taken to picking on smaller countries lately (Grenada, Sudan, Balkans, Mogadishu), since prolonged bloody "police actions" with many American soldiers and many more innocent civilians killed for no discernible national purpose get unpopular extremely fast.
The first and still most egregious victims of our empire have been the American people, who are seeing the bills finally coming due now from a half-century of misadventure by their elected (and unelected) officials.
And the "no prohibition" on continually funding a standing army after two years is something you're reading into the constitution; it's not enumerated there. Perhaps if we are in a "continuous state of emergency", but that has not been in the case ("orange" alerts and duct tape from the Homeland Security chief notwithstanding).
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.