Those irritable French...or are they?

[davywavy]

In 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.

Comments

Re: Walkies!

[applez.livejournal.com]

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

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!

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

wrt Blair, I agree with the points you make, but the point I was making was if Blair backs out of a war, yet Bush goes ahead anyway then he looks bad assuming the war is swift and decisive. If things then went wrong Blair would indeed seem like a visionary who had the courage to change his mind. As long as he stays with Bush he knows that Bush is ultimately the one making the decisions and he can at least claim to have tried to have restrained him and found a peaceful solution. Even so, the British press can be an unforgiving lot, especially if they think they have an angle that will yield results i.e. destroying someone’s reputation/career.

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!

[applez.livejournal.com]

I agree with the points you make, but the point I was making was if Blair backs out of a war, yet Bush goes ahead anyway then he looks bad assuming the war is swift and decisive.

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!

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

The best potential replacements for Blair would be his key allies such as Brown, Straw or Blunkett. I would not expect them to be complicit in overthrowing him as it would tarnish their image amongst the modernisers, though if the 'men in grey suits' were to provide a candidate who attracted support, then one of them could step in if Blair lost credibilty as leader. I would expect Gordon Brown would be the favourite as he would have more appeal amongst the left of the party. There seem to be many in the Labour movement who seek a return to left-wing policies of nationalisation and trade unionist power, which would make the party unelectable without a similar change in public opinion.

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.