the rest of the world, I do think that French participation was not in
fact out of the question.
First, as Jochem says, French is French. Officially, anyway. There is
(or was, it's been a while) in fact some prejudice against Algerians,
so no, I do not believe that Muslims are a political force.
Second, and more importantly, the freedom fighter is a very important
element of French culture. Look at the way the Resistance still
resonates there. Although the French are contrarian internationally,
if they were convinced they were in fact fighting for freedom they
might well have stepped up. I base this on two years in-country and
another three years in French communities in other parts of Europe.
Dana
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:49:23 -0400, Jochem van Dieten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Ousterhout wrote:
> > I think that it is naive to think that Germany or France would/could have
> > ever supported an invasion. Under any circumstances. Germany because of
> > it's post WW1/WWII anti-war culture
>
> That would probably prevent Germany from political support and
> participation. But then again, they didn't participate in the war in
> Afghanistan but have a seizable contingent there right now, so supporting in
> other capacities isn't that unlikely.
>
> > France because of economic conditions, their large Muslim population, and
> > their wish to take over leadership of the EU(show UK who they really
> > should be aligned with).
>
> You are missing one very fundamental issue about the way the French state
> works: it does not recognize a Muslim population in that way.
> France is not about 'equal, but not the same', France is about 'equal'. For
> instance, policies specifically aimed at minorities are pretty much
> unthinkable in France: by definition there are no minorities, because
> everybody is French and that is the only relevant criterium.
> (This position might explain why their banlieus are such a mess, but that is
> a different issue.)
>
> > We had some visitors from Germany earlier this week and I asked them this
> > very question. They stated that under no circumstances outside of
> > another invasion by Iraq would they support an invasion. And they
> > believed that their view was consistent with the majority of Germans.
>
> I think so too. But lets not forget that although against an invasion of
> Iraq, the Germans moved troops to the South-East of Turkey to help defend in
> case of an Iraq (counter) attack. There are many different ways of not
> supporting an invasion, and the German government supported it in every way
> they could while maintaining their population they did not support it.
>
> (I can not find any reference for these numbers, but at the time there was a
> poll that showed over 80% of all the EU inhabitants were against it. Yet
> about 50% of the EU governments expressed political support.)
>
> > While I don't have any similar perspective from France, I also haven't
> > seen any reports saying "gee, if we'd just waiting the X days/months as
> > recommended by the French, all would be well with the world."
>
> Actually, the French named 90 days and a few days before the war reduced
> that to 60.
>
> But you are missing one crucial aspect: nobody was interested in a 2 month
> delay. A 2 month delay had effectively been a 8 month delay: nobody fights a
> war in the summer in Iraq. Could the US have sustained the amount of troops
> they had in Kuwait for 8 months? And attack a year before elections? Or
> would that have put Bush in the position of having to attack in the middle
> of the Iraqi summer at increased risk?
> Decisions made much earlier about troop buildup made it a 'now or never'
> situation. The US could not afford the delay.
>
> If we step aside from your implicit assumption that the rest of the world
> follows the French: yes, that would have helped. Several other European
> countries, mainly the ones that currently have forces in Iraq, would
> probably have decided differently. But the process of psycologically
> preparing a population for war, preparing them for seeing bodybags with
> their own troops, takes time. With 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and the view
> on te world the US media showed, the US population was far more prepared for
> that as many European populations. The US simply moved too fast for them.
> And even if it hadn't helped, it would have allowed the Germans, Dutch and
> several Scandinavian countries to move more troops into Afghanistan, freeing
> up US troops tied there (while officially maintaining their position on an
> invasion of Iraq of course).
>
> > This left Bush with the reasonable expectation that if he waited another
> > 6 months or a year that no changes would occur and we would still be
> > going in without French or German support and UN resolution.
>
> That depends on your definition of support. I do not find it far fetched to
> believe there was room for a resolution with a six month time-table and
> automatic military consequences, that would have passed the Security Council
> with the French (because of their believe the US lacked the will to execute
> it on those conditions) and the Germans (because they are not unreasonable)
> abstain.
>
> I agree that there is no way there would have been participation in the
> military campaign on Iraqi soil from them. That such participation was not
> required for success has never been doubted.
>
> > So when both countries continue to be very messy (yes, that means
> > killing, outlawlessness, challenged elections, etc) no one should be
> > surprised or blame the US for loosy execution.
>
> Everybody should blame the US for lousy execution. That is the only way the
> US will learn basic lessons like 'guard arsenals so they do not get looted'
> , 'you can not occupy a country with less that 1 soldier per 50 inhabitants'
> and 'you can not remove a leader without chaos, you need to replace one'.
>
> Everybody should also remember that it took 46 years in Germany.
>
> Jochem________________________________
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
