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: link concerning American strategy

[applez.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've read it before, it is horrible, and in fact their philosophy has been more explicitly defined along militarist-hegemonic lines in speeches to the American Institute and others (webbified, I don't know).

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

[applez.livejournal.com]

I suspect, that a sizable number in this faction truly and forthrightly believe that the US *is* the beacon of light and civilisation in the 'dark world.' (dare I mention divinity in the same breath?) That the US is the embodiment of all that is good and therefore has a superhero-styled responsibility to show the 'right' way to the world, even to those weak-kneed Europeans.

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

[applez.livejournal.com]

On that 'ultimate' fulcrum.

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

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

The statement is a justification for pursuing world peace through world dominance: militarily, economically and politically. I certainly agree that the signatories are all idealists who firmly believe that the agenda they are pushing is beneficial not just to America but to the entire world. I think it stems from a belief that the constitution is the pinnacle of political achievement, or at least vastly superior to anything else. This means an institution such as the UN is merely a side-show, and their true moral authority derives from the principles which founded the US state. Hence they beleive what they are doing is for the good of all mankind convinced of their moral superiority over those oppose them. Unfortunately, high-minded idealists convinced of their own moral superiority are often a cause for great concern as they are often determined to push their view on everyone else. Give me a healthy dose of cynical self-interested democratically elected politicians any day, they are far more likely to base their decisions on pragmatic considerations.

Re: link concerning American strategy

[applez.livejournal.com]

No disagreement from me there. I would add that it is a terribly short-sighted and simplistic view that they share, since the peace of the gun is no peace at all.

---