Those irritable French...or are they?
Mar. 12th, 2003 09:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyIn the last few days, several people have sent me amusing slaggings off of the French by email in the light of their unwillingness to get involved in an invasive war of a foreign country. This mail has contained the following story:
In 1966 upon being told that Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. Troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson told Secretary of State Dean Rusk:
Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!
So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldier buried in France from World War I and World War II.
DeGaulle never answered.
All very amusing and so on, but also unfair as it neglacts to mention *why* de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO, and I'm the sort of person who gets irritated when someone tells only half a story to make someone else look bad (unless it's me doing it, in which case it's perfectly normal and justified).
Earlier in 1966, de Gaulle had got wind that the US was storing nuclear weapons in their airbases in France. Irritated that he had not been told about this, he met with General Norstad (Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe) and asked if there were US Nukes in France, and if so, how many and where. As head of state, he felt he really ought to know.
Norstad replied that he was unable to answer the question, as it would be contrary to the interests of the US (note again the phrase 'allied forces' in Norstands rank). de Gaulle glared at him and said that nobody would ever be able to say that the a French Premier again, and so pulled France out of NATO, rightly pointing out as he did so that the US position was in contravention of articles 2 and 4 of the NATO treaty.
All of a sudden, the original story looks very different. Suddenly to me it looks like the US forced a confrontation, and then moicked de Gaulle for rising to it - no surprises that he acted the way he did, then. If you add insult to injury when dealing with your treaty allies, don't act all surprised when they withdraw from the treaty - and don't try to make jokes about a situation you precipitated.
Now, I don't like being pushed into a position in which I agree with the French, but it strikes me that de Gaulles actions were perfectly justified. I can't help but wish, at the moment, that the UK had someone like de Gaulle or Thatcher in charge, who were at least capable of standing up for their own national interests, unlike the trotting poodle that the fuckwitted electorate have inflicted upon us at the moment.
Whilst I still think that giving Hussein a damn good kicking is a damn good idea, I can't help but wish we had someone who'd made up their own mind to do it and not just because George told him so.
In 1966 upon being told that Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. Troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson told Secretary of State Dean Rusk:
Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!
So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldier buried in France from World War I and World War II.
DeGaulle never answered.
All very amusing and so on, but also unfair as it neglacts to mention *why* de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO, and I'm the sort of person who gets irritated when someone tells only half a story to make someone else look bad (unless it's me doing it, in which case it's perfectly normal and justified).
Earlier in 1966, de Gaulle had got wind that the US was storing nuclear weapons in their airbases in France. Irritated that he had not been told about this, he met with General Norstad (Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe) and asked if there were US Nukes in France, and if so, how many and where. As head of state, he felt he really ought to know.
Norstad replied that he was unable to answer the question, as it would be contrary to the interests of the US (note again the phrase 'allied forces' in Norstands rank). de Gaulle glared at him and said that nobody would ever be able to say that the a French Premier again, and so pulled France out of NATO, rightly pointing out as he did so that the US position was in contravention of articles 2 and 4 of the NATO treaty.
All of a sudden, the original story looks very different. Suddenly to me it looks like the US forced a confrontation, and then moicked de Gaulle for rising to it - no surprises that he acted the way he did, then. If you add insult to injury when dealing with your treaty allies, don't act all surprised when they withdraw from the treaty - and don't try to make jokes about a situation you precipitated.
Now, I don't like being pushed into a position in which I agree with the French, but it strikes me that de Gaulles actions were perfectly justified. I can't help but wish, at the moment, that the UK had someone like de Gaulle or Thatcher in charge, who were at least capable of standing up for their own national interests, unlike the trotting poodle that the fuckwitted electorate have inflicted upon us at the moment.
Whilst I still think that giving Hussein a damn good kicking is a damn good idea, I can't help but wish we had someone who'd made up their own mind to do it and not just because George told him so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-12 05:56 am (UTC)Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-12 08:51 am (UTC)In terms of 'b' ... it does say a lot that Blair is doing a decidedly unpopular thing by suggesting attacking without UN approval - he has built his entire career by adhering to the popular.
Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-12 08:54 am (UTC)Re: Walkies!
Yes, Blair's credibility *might* be hurt on the world stage, but actually Britain stands to come out a damn sight better than the US should there be a back-down (or a war, for that matter) ... largely because of Blair's alleged herculean 11th hour diplomatic efforts.
Domestically, Blair still doesn't have any real opposition. The Conservatives are yesterday's news (and I'm being generous on that count), and the Lib-Dems still have miles to go before they can present real alternatives to a skeptical public.
Within Blair's government, there is some risk of a Thatcherite-styled PM replacement effort, but there are no alternatives there either. What, that bruiser of a man, that Deputy PM? (I forget his name at the mo) Certainly not Brown, or Hoon, or anybody else in the current Cabinet. Even Blair has to be better than some darkhorse 'Hacker' MP/PM. ;-p
Incidentally, got to my LJ to find out which dictator you are!
----
Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-13 01:54 am (UTC)Yes, Blair's credibility *might* be hurt on the world stage, but actually Britain stands to come out a damn sight better than the US should there be a back-down (or a war, for that matter) ... largely because of Blair's alleged herculean 11th hour diplomatic efforts. .
If Blair backs down, he will be seen as a weak leader here by both the press and the public. A British PM needs to be seen to be strong and principled, and I would be surprised if he could stay in office as he would be seen by the anti-war camp as the man who wanted war and was defeated by the popular movement, and by the pro-war camp as the weak leader who buckled under pressure. History may be prepared to take a kinder view, noting his courage in backing down because he accepted he had been wrong
Domestically, Blair still doesn't have any real opposition. The Conservatives are yesterday's news (and I'm being generous on that count), and the Lib-Dems still have miles to go before they can present real alternatives to a skeptical public.
Agreed. The Tories have been in real danger of going the same way as the Liberal party when the Labour movement became popular in the early 20th Century, and are still in a crisis of confidence. The main reason the Lib-Dems haven’t replaced them yet is a lack of press coverage and political experience, though they have been gaining ground in provincial elections. Incidentally, I am sure Ian Duncan Smith would have castigated as Bush’s poodle just the same as Blair, had he been in office. I do wonder what stance Blair would have taken had he still been in opposition.
I managed to Dig this little beauty up (http://www.livejournal.com/talkpost.bml?journal=boog&itemid=17126/) off the internet. A close inspection gives the clue to what America’s real strategy is in pursuing war with Iraq. I remain pro-disarmament, pro-freedom, pro-democracy, anti-tyrant, anti-proliferation, but there’s no way I’m supporting this.
Re: Walkies!
I think you underestimate the ability of spin in this regard. If there's a war, and it turns out to be 'justified,' then Blair will come off as not only a visionary leader, but also a principled one who rode out the difficult path of diplomacy to its very end. Indeed, one could even make the argument that Blair has attempted to influence America by riding that wild bull of belligerence. If there isn't a war, with a diplomatic 'victory' - the credit is virtually entirely his. If there isn't a war, and there is no resolution vis-a-vis Iraqi arms (unlikely as that is), he can still spin it on the grounds of successes already achieved (approx 80% reduction of Iraq's relevant military infrastructure) by the deployment of the MoD and aggressiveness of his demands.
So, just as it seems he can lose everywhere, so too can he 'win' everywhere. He's taking a great gamble with his political career, for sure - but thanks to the US, is actually in far less a perilous position than he'd be otherwise.
re: British political parties
Yeah, personally, I have high hopes that the Lib-Dems can become *the* major alternative to Labour in a decade, when a host of provincial politicians can demonstrate their record and run on it. By that point, there will be a desperate need for real alternatives, since single-party rule is almost always an unhealthy enterprise in the long-run.
Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-13 09:21 am (UTC)The Lib-Dems are in a great position. The Tories are discredited with large parts of the electorate, much as Labour was in the 1980’s and show little sign of hauling themselves out of the political mess they are in right now. They don’t really have the baggage or history of a Thatcher or Trade Unionist support and are likely to be reaping some political capital from their sceptical stance on war. With the exception of Thatcher, their have been very few PMs who have won elections on radical agendas, and even she was forced to abandon her monetarist experiment after a couple of years in office. I would expect either the Tories or Lib-Dems to come good again sooner or later (unless Labour implodes and tries to move out to the left).
Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-13 02:20 pm (UTC)Fair point, I suspect there are more Euro-sceptics than -supporters in the UK, in general society. So de facto EU solidarity doesn't earn him much domestically.
re: British press
True, but in the absence of any true competitors within or without the party, I don't think Blair stands to lose much besides pie in the face. How that might impact the next provincial election cycle - now that's an issue, though distant (I think).
Labour analysis - good points. Even with this ridiculous policy right now, I sincerely hope Labour doesn't implode ... there's quite enough right-wing movements in Europe now without having to accept a party that jettisons even the pretense of balanced policies and social consciousness.
Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-14 02:12 am (UTC)I don't think there are any Tories who would make a credible alternative with the public, Portillo might have done, Ken Clarke could, but has too many enemies in the party. The Lib Dems haven't enough experience yet.
re: link concerning American strategy
The problem, as I see it, is a combination of factors. And put quickly and simply, it goes something like this:
1) There is an American cultural value that firmly believes that in a dispute, if the other side is dead, the dispute is over. It is the ultimate fulcrum of 'winning' your case.
2) In the longer term, the US will be removed as the primary force in the world ... it doesn't have the same volume of people as others, has a decreasing industrial base, which is becoming as subsidised and protected as agriculture. Both are highly productive, but cannot compete openly and fairly with anyone else in the world. Moreover, the US's definition of wealth is almost entirely expressed by consumption now - a fact that not only makes the economy brittle, but has lead to a permanent trade deficit which is literally pouring the wealth of the nation to the world-at-large. Sure one can still log 'income' due to foreign production acquisition, but this then leads to a veritable power imbalance (not unlike the Ottaman Empire being largely dependent on Europe for its advanced arms, with little indigenous development). The US still capitalises on foreign wealth and 'takes the cream' from it ... but this cannot go on forever. Worse, there is the additional worry that environmental factors are starting to really play a real role in limiting growth (on a timescale of centuries).
3) Thanks in large part to the Cold War, the US has invested much of its capital wealth in what is beyond dispute, the best military in the world. Even during low points of preparedness, it still has capabilities beyond almost all other aggressors, in combination even.
These two have combined to produce this absolutely diabolical philosophy that, behind all the fluffy rhetoric is 'might makes right' and that national 'survival' is at stake.
This lot, in my opinion, are fundamentally the new isolationists. They abhor the idea of the end of the nation-state, and the end of history, and all those other quaint 'liberal' 1990s concepts. Their desire to strengthen the nation into the coming century and beyond ignores the international reality of fusing borders, mass migration, and the community of nations.
Another thing
Personally, that shit makes me heave. Another reason why I like Britain so much is that they already went through that crap, and discovered just how crap it was - so much is owed to Gandhi in that regard. What a lesson, high in embarrassment, relatively low in bloodshed.
An elaboration
I suspect the reason for its cultural popularity is that as a people, a nation, a culture, it never had to develop a more sophisticated concept of success, especially not from the position of loss or 'loser' - as in the case of Germany, Britian, France, China, Africa, Russia ... well, most everyone else I suppose.
The exceptions to this very broad generality are, 'the south' of the lost Confederacy. A culture that has adapted to becoming the strident moral heart for America as a whole, as well as the actual footsoldiers of the US military machine in most cases.
The other exception are the natives, but they are effectively ignored and kept imprisoned on reservations denied opportunities for advancement. One of the worst example perhaps being Hawaiians, with no legal recognition after having their kindgom annexed.
Re: link concerning American strategy
Date: 2003-03-14 06:29 am (UTC)Re: link concerning American strategy
Date: 2003-03-14 09:19 pm (UTC)---
Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-14 04:26 am (UTC)Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-13 04:27 am (UTC)Prescott as PM? God, I'd need emergency resuscitation if that happened...
I did the dictator test ages ago. Predictably, I'm Hitler.
It depends on how Machiavellian Blair is being: Machiavelli says 'Never make empty threats' - you always have to carry them through. It's a good principle to work by, IMO.
Re: Walkies!
----
Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-13 02:35 pm (UTC)Re: Walkies!
---
Re: Walkies!
Date: 2003-03-14 02:16 am (UTC)Related Article
Date: 2003-03-13 08:51 am (UTC)Why Blair is being so supportive of the US position...