Was trashing France a good idea?

Great Debates
1

It seems that the scathing hatred which many American conservatives felt for the French, in the wake of France not supporting a U.N. resolution for war against Iraq three years, has started to die down. At the least, I see fewer Francophobic articles posts when I visit conservative sources these days than I used to. So now that the emotions have died down and the freedom fries are getting stale, lets us debate rationally whether the reams of France-bashing and the boycott of French goods were sound ideas.

(Actually, as we all know, as soon as leading Republicans declared a boycott, American imports from France actually went up, suggesting that however strong it was in the media, anti-French sentiment was pretty weak among the American people. If I were in a sarcastic mood, I might suggest that other countries should also spurn the United States in the hope of being “boycotted”. But I digress.)

All but the most unilateral of the unilateralists agree that it is important to build alliances with other nations, and in a general sense to remain on good terms with as large as chunk of the world as possible. How do we do that? Making friends on the international scene works much the same way as making friends at a personal level. You have to show that you appreciate your friends and are willing to work together with them. If you regularly backstab, then you get as reputation as a backstabber.

France was the USA’s first international ally, and has been our most consistent ally for over two centuries, through two world wars and in many other situations. Moreover, from the 80’s up to about Sept. 10, 2001, France was the only major western country making an effort to battle Islamic terrorism. They took on Algerian extremist groups and led the effort against the pro-terrorist Assad regime in Syria. (Even Christopher Hitchens admits as much.) When American politicians and commentators threw this history of strength and loyalty out the window in 2003, they sent a clear message to the rest of the world: don’t bother doing favors for America, because we won’t remember or care.

2

I went to France. If I recalled 1944, they reminded me of the Marquis de Lafayette. They have a point. It’s like a debt was repaid. Should nations relate to one another as equals, or should one get to boss around all the others?

The right-wing spin machine blows too much hot air. It’s annoying. They run a risk that some Republican zealots of little discernment might actually take some of that hot air seriously.

3

France has been a big contributor to most of the big problems of the last century (at least as far as the US is concerned). We’ve spent almost 100 years and the better part of a million lives (directly) taking care of problems the French either caused (colonization in Vietnam), contributed to (WWI, armaments dealings with Iraq & Iran), or stood idly by watching when they had the power to stop it (WWII European Theater- France had an army of 100 divisions when Germany moved to violate the Versilles Treaty- it would have been a walkover if they would have had the sack to enforce the treaty). For some reason, they were given a permanent seat on the UNSC, and allowed to develop nukes with impunity.

I’d say our debt (from 2.3 centuries ago) is paid- it was written off by France. Our debt, in any case, was to Louis XVI, who backed the US, not the republicans who overthrew him. That whole alliance business was thankfully thrown out more than 200 years ago (done on France’s initiative, out of self-serving reasons).

I’m only half joking here- I’m not sure France is actually evil, but their incompetant bungling has killed millions of people. They don’t deserve to sit at the grown-up’s table- they should be at the kid’s table with the other 3rd rate banana republics.

4

I hope my English is making me mistake ironic reply as serious.

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]

We’ve spent almost 100 years and the better part of a million lives (directly) taking care of problems the French either caused (colonization in Vietnam), contributed to (WWI, armaments dealings with Iraq & Iran), or stood idly by watching when they had the power to stop it (WWII European Theater- France had an army of 100 divisions when Germany moved to violate the Versilles Treaty- it would have been a walkover if they would have had the sack to enforce the treaty).

[/quote]

So, it is the habit of the political Right in America to blame their own decisions on others?

The American intervention in Viet Nam, that was not an American decision based on American interests based on American fears of Communists? And with or without French rule in Viet Nam, I think the Communists who had come to rule China would have had an influence.

The First World War of course was partly French fault, partly German, partly English, etc. Is it not childish to blame France, and the United States, did she not decide to intervene in Europe on her own accord?

Given how much arms the Americans sell around the world, it is funny to point a finger at France over two countries, just becuase of some new political obsessions Americans have.

The statement about WWII would be very funny if it were not so insulting to the intelligence of any reader, showing ignorance of the real situation and chauvinism together. Of course it is not true the French would have ‘walked over’ the Germans, and it is disgusting to realise what narrow thinking would lead one to discount how the French population was afraid of warmongering after giving more of its blood in percentage of population than Americans have ever given in war.

Spoken with the authority of the Masters.

Incredible, this statement. It is no wonder the United States is losing friends everywhere now.

5

I think stirring anti-French sentiment met a short-term need, but in so doing the US suffered a long-term loss.

The short-term need that anti-French sentiment filled was to discredit American allies who thought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. It also helped discredit domestic critics. The conservatives who pursued the Iraq war had to find away around the deep ambivalance many NATO members had about the endeavor. By tapping into anti-French feelings in the US and in Europe (remember Rumsfeld’s “old Europe” comment) they were able to essentially discredit the entire debate.

Of course, this course of action alienated our allies and now that things are going badly in Iraq and the Iran situation worsens, America finds itself with resentful allies. That is the long-term loss of the anti-French policy pursuedin 2002-2003.

6

[QUOTE=maziiadar]

The First World War of course was partly French fault, partly German, partly English, etc. Is it not childish to blame France, and the United States, did she not decide to intervene in Europe on her own accord?
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t put any of the blame for WWI on France-it was Germany and Austria who started the war over the Balkans.

7

French-bashing has been a favorite parlor game in the US for decades. Whenever we have a major foreign policy diagreement, the more conservative element in the US ramps that up a notch or two.

I’d hardly call Bill O’Reilly “leading Republicans”, or even a leading Republican (singular). He’s a popular media personality, and his rabid French-bashing is more a reflection of his own personal opinions than of the Repulblicans in general. Were there any leaders of the Republican party that jumped on that bandwagon? I don’t remember any doing so, but I could be wrong.

I never thought the boycott made sense, and I think O’Reilly was an idiot to call for it. I don’t know where he got his numbers from, but your rebuttal cite (mediamatters) got theirs wrong. They claim that US imports from France went from $2.18B in Feb '02 to $2.26B in Feb of '04, but that was the number for Jan '04, not Feb. Feb’s number for '04 was $2.16B. Cite and Cite. But what’s so magical about those two dates anyway? You can muddie the waters with statistics like that by cherry picking dates. Apparently they picked the wrong cherries and either didn’t realize it or delibrately tried to pull a fast one.

Now, I don’t know how you measure the effect of a boycott, taking into account currency fluctuations, etc. And I don’t know if just looking at imports tells the whole story. It might be better to look at how many Americans vacationed in France, but even then there are lots of things that can cause those numbers to fluctuate. The US economy was much stronger in 2004 than in 2002, and the Euro was much stronger in 2004 than in 2002, so how do you factor in those competing forces?

8

[QUOTE=maziiadar]
So, it is the habit of the political Right in America to blame their own decisions on others?
[/quote]
I guess we could go the way of the American Right of the 1/2 half of the XX century, and seek to ignore the rest of the world. In that case, Europe would be either a Nazi German realm, a Soviet Russian realm, or WWII would still be going on.

[QUOTE=maziiadar]
The American intervention in Viet Nam, that was not an American decision based on American interests based on American fears of Communists? And with or without French rule in Viet Nam, I think the Communists who had come to rule China would have had an influence.
[/quote]
Had the French not insisted on the return of their colonial holdings, Vietnam might have gone completely Communist (where there wouldn’t have been a South Vietnam for the US to try to prop up), or it might have been a more moderate socialist state- Ho Chi Minh wasn’t always a tool of the Soviets & Chinese, he was kinda forced that way by circumstance.

[QUOTE=maziiadar]
The First World War of course was partly French fault, partly German, partly English, etc. Is it not childish to blame France, and the United States, did she not decide to intervene in Europe on her own accord?
[/quote]
I said France contributed to WWI- they (along with all the other European powers) had such a screwy interwoven system of ironclad military alliances, the “Germany and Austria who started the war over the Balkans” leading to a big continental multi-power war was inevitable. If it hadn’t been some Serbian nationalist capping an inbred Austrian, it would have been something else. France contributed about as much as Russia, the UK, Germany, and Austria-Hungary to that CF.

[QUOTE=maziiadar]
Given how much arms the Americans sell around the world, it is funny to point a finger at France over two countries, just becuase of some new political obsessions Americans have.
[/quote]
Ever since I was cognizant of world politics, it seems that France has been selling “dual use” technologies to rogue states.

[QUOTE=maziiadar]
The statement about WWII would be very funny if it were not so insulting to the intelligence of any reader, showing ignorance of the real situation and chauvinism together. Of course it is not true the French would have ‘walked over’ the Germans, and it is disgusting to realise what narrow thinking would lead one to discount how the French population was afraid of warmongering after giving more of its blood in percentage of population than Americans have ever given in war.
[/quote]
Of course they were war weary- that’s why they didn’t march a good chunk of their ~100 divisions straight into the industrial heartland of Germany when Germany started to remilitarize (in violation of the treaty that ended WWI- the provisions being there to keep Germany from contributing to similar problems) when Germany was all but defenseless. For what reason France kept that army around, I can’t say- it wasn’t used to any effect (I know, I know… they lost 60,000 men when Germany repeated their opening move- going through Belgium, this time all the way to Paris- couldn’t see that one coming).

[QUOTE=maziiadar]
Incredible, this statement. It is no wonder the United States is losing friends everywhere now.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t claim to speak for the US gov’t, and I know I don’t fit in with a majority of the people here. Where is it you’re from (your location doesn’t show, since you are a “guest”)? That “incredible” statement was mearly a restatement of “never attribute to malice that which can be better explained by incompetence.” France has been bungling things on a global scale for a long time (at least 2 centuries, by my count). The US is only starting to catch up.

9

I always though the French bashing would have been more fairly directed against Germany, however to claim France fought Islamic terrorism or opposed Assad or did any other thing, as a favour to America is missing the point. France, like any other country, acted out of self interests and continues to do so. And France in the run-up to the Iraq war, did very much stand in the way of US interests as formulated by the US president – and as such the situation clearly required a firm response from the US. And France should have known it would come.

Also this peculiar US preoccupation with France predates Bush by many years and has many elements of humour.

10

We inherited our rivalry with France right from the first Englishmen who set foot on American soil. It goes way the hell back, to the days of knights in shining armor. As long as we speak English we’ll be playing this game with the French.

It will end only when America speaks Spanish and France speaks Arabic.

11

[QUOTE=Rune]

Also this peculiar US preoccupation with France predates Bush by many years and has many elements of humour.
[/QUOTE]

I suspect they inherited it from the British. Anglo contempt towards all things Gallic is one of the finest old English traditions, dating back to the Battle of Crecy (if not to Hastings)

12

Rubbish. While the Balkans may have been the official “cause”, the British, French and Russians played as significant a role in the build-up to war as did Austro-Hungary and Germany. By creating the Triple Entente, they encircled Germany with hostile regimes (including what was though to be the greatest military power of the day [Russia] and the greatest naval power [Britain]). In addition, the French were militiaristic and had never made any secret if their intent to take Alsace-Lorraine. In addition, Britain’s nervousness over losing her role as pre-eminent naval power led to an aggresive series of policy decisions and a bellicose foreign manner. While certainly not absolving the Triple Alliance of blame, you have to remember that Germany’s wish to expand (not necessarily in Europe- most of Weltpolitik [German imperialism] was focused on gaining colonies) was based around her desire not to fall behind Britain and France, both of whom possessed huge colonial empires; it was no better, or worse, than the decisions that guided the actions of the Triple Entente.

The invasion of France and Russia was, to the Germans (and to military historians), the only logical way of fighting both powers at the same time. Despite being painted as the aggressor, the Triple Alliance (through an escalating series of alliances) had already declared war on Austria (who was trying to protect her territorial integrity- admittedly, not a very good excuse, but an excuse nonetheless) when Germany attacked. All that Germany was guilty of was mobilising faster- “war guilt” was invented by the victorious powers after the war to justify reparations.

13

Sorry, the Triple Entente.

14

[QUOTE=Rune]
I always though the French bashing would have been more fairly directed against Germany, however to claim France fought Islamic terrorism or opposed Assad or did any other thing, as a favour to America is missing the point. France, like any other country, acted out of self interests and continues to do so. And France in the run-up to the Iraq war, did very much stand in the way of US interests as formulated by the US president – and as such the situation clearly required a firm response from the US. And France should have known it would come.
[/QUOTE]

France acted? fought? France is currently active. And I have to point out that as the evidence showed, France was actually attempting to prevent America from making a big mistake. The big picture is avoided when we ignore France is still in Afghanistan:

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2004/defense_budget111504.asp

Knowing that, their opposition to the Iraq war was one of the first things that made me realize that something was rotten, and not in Denmark.

Before, allies like France saw the intelligence and concluded Afghanistan was a valid target against terror, later those same allies saw their intelligence on Iraq but this time concluded there was little reason to invade Iraq, and very little connection with the war against terror.

Their position was the more accurate one, indeed trashing France was a bad idea, more so today when they are still working with us in Afghanistan.

15

Not only was it a good idea, it was necessary.

The GOP has carefully positioned itself as the party of prejudice, nativism, the ill-educated and misbegotten. Hence it retains a majority.

France’s position was informed, balanced, rational, sound and ultimately correct. Whereas the US was entirely wrong on every particular through deceit and evil-intention. Now people of good character would humbly admit their error, offer apologies and make amends to their ways.

Obviously, to keep faith with its constituency, this course of action was closed off to the GOP. Instead, it was required to evidence the true qualities which govern America. And it did.

16

Your argument fails to hold water. Even after the French had made their disastrous attempt to hold onto Vietnam, their was nothing forcing the Americans to intervene. Had they sat back and allowed South Vietnam (what little their was of it) to “fall”, it’s likely that the Communists would have taken over, Vietnam would have been unified and history would have continued on its present course- without the millions of deaths caused by the American intervention.

Just like America selling (or in some cases, giving) weaponry to “rogue states” and oppresive regimes around the world (Iraq, Nicargua, Cuba pre-Castro… the list goes on).

It’s something of a tangent, but the French knew full well Germany would try to come through Belgium- but politicial expediency prevented them extending the Maginot line across the Franco-Belgian border. What they didn’t anticipate was Germany doubly outflanking their troops by going through the Ardennes- something thought impossible for vehicles.

Well, French (and German, and British, and Italian, and American) incompotence/malice has being going on as long as that country has existed. That America is younger doesn’t mean it wasn’t making silly decisions from day 1 (like that War of Indepence thing…what was that all about? :)- Or on a more serious note, Indians)- just that it’s had less time to make them in. I’m not saying France is better than America- I’m saying nearly every country is equally bad, with the best thing you can say about them being that they usually acted from foolishness, not deliberate maliciousness (“never attribute to conspiracy what can easier be attributed to cock-up”).

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
We inherited our rivalry with France right from the first Englishmen who set foot on American soil. It goes way the hell back, to the days of knights in shining armor. As long as we speak English we’ll be playing this game with the French.
[/QUOTE]

Not true- France was America’s firmest ally up to about 1860. In fact, it’s arguable that without the French blockade of British troop ships, America would have been flattened in the War of Independence. Then there was the French revolution and all that Statue-of-Liberty stuff about free republics, the purchase of the Louisiana, uh, purchase area from Napoleon, the mutual egging-on whenever one of the two fought Britian- it was Anglophobia and Francophilia that was the common thread of American foreign policy up until at least the War of 1812. When (and why) the current thread of French-mocking in America grew up is a mystery to me.

17

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
France acted? fought? France is currently active. And I have to point out that as the evidence showed, France was actually attempting to prevent America from making a big mistake. The big picture is avoided when we ignore France is still in Afghanistan:
[/QUOTE]
If you have any problem with the past tense, direct your response to the OP which I was replying to. And trying to paint France as some selfless and self sacrificing nation trying against own best interests to help an ally in need is again missing the point, since all France did was try to protect what it saw as its own best national interests. A completely legitimate policy for any nation state of course, but one that carries consequences and naturally will provoke those whom it opposes.

18

Unfortunately my English was good enough to be right, it was not irony, but seriousness. At least there is an illustration of the thinking of those who think this kind of chauvinism is rational and good, even if it is discouraging.

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]

I guess we could go the way of the American Right of the 1/2 half of the XX century, and seek to ignore the rest of the world. In that case, Europe would be either a Nazi German realm, a Soviet Russian realm, or WWII would still be going on.

[/quote]

So, this says “Yes” to my question?

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]

Had the French not insisted on the return of their colonial holdings, Vietnam might have gone completely Communist (where there wouldn’t have been a South Vietnam for the US to try to prop up), or it might have been a more moderate socialist state- Ho Chi Minh wasn’t always a tool of the Soviets & Chinese, he was kinda forced that way by circumstance.

[/quote]

Had the Americans not paid for almost all the cost of the French combats in Viet Nam and pressurised the French to continue fighting the feared Leftists/Communists/Reds, then the French government might have ended its engagement in Indochine years before Dien Bien Phu convinced them not even American bribes made it worth while.

But you are right, it was this American support and fear of Reds of all kinds that pushed Ho Chi Minh deeper into the arms of the Communist movement.

But of course, it is all the French fault, I am sure the devious French must have fooled the Americans into subventions for the Indochine war, for it is the French who are incompetent, and the Americans who are righteous and good.

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]

I said France contributed to WWI- they (along with all the other European powers) had such a screwy interwoven system of ironclad military alliances, the “Germany and Austria who started the war over the Balkans” leading to a big continental multi-power war was inevitable. If it hadn’t been some Serbian nationalist capping an inbred Austrian, it would have been something else. France contributed about as much as Russia, the UK, Germany, and Austria-Hungary to that CF.

[/quote]

This at least is reasonable, but it is hardly ‘French’ incompetence, but all-European incompetence. Blaming France for WWI is stupid, as is blaming only the Germans.

But few people understood what horror would follow, the technology had made old ideas of war ridiculous.

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]

Ever since I was cognizant of world politics, it seems that France has been selling “dual use” technologies to rogue states.

[/quote]

Cognizant would seem the wrong word, but I think I understand “rogue state” to be the American phrase for “a state my country does not like at the moment.”

Funny, the US sells lots of weapons to unstable countries with nasty governments that can go wrong. I think of Egypt, the Arab Gulf. Is it not US 2 billions to Egypt for arms?

So the French have committed the same sin.

At least they tend not to be falsely pious about the act.

It is my bad character I think that I prefer honest mercenary habits to false piousness and preaching.

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]

Of course they were war weary- that’s why they didn’t march a good chunk of their ~100 divisions straight into the industrial heartland of Germany when Germany started to remilitarize (in violation of the treaty that ended WWI- the provisions being there to keep Germany from contributing to similar problems) when Germany was all but defenseless. For what reason France kept that army around, I can’t say- it wasn’t used to any effect (I know, I know… they lost 60,000 men when Germany repeated their opening move- going through Belgium, this time all the way to Paris- couldn’t see that one coming).

[/quote]

Americans are so brave in boasting when they have not lived personally in dangerous places, but I would say that the French rightly did not wish to engage in wild action - like America did in Iraq. Invading is easy, but then the occupation tends to make hatred and you put off the same problem for only a few years.

No solution, only making things worse.

In the case of Hitler, in looking back this was a mistake, but at the time any same person might have said rightly there is a 90 percent chance the Germans will stabilise, and we must realise our conditions in 1919 were too hard, and humiliating.

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]

I don’t claim to speak for the US gov’t, and I know I don’t fit in with a majority of the people here. Where is it you’re from (your location doesn’t show, since you are a “guest”)? That “incredible” statement was mearly a restatement of “never attribute to malice that which can be better explained by incompetence.” France has been bungling things on a global scale for a long time (at least 2 centuries, by my count). The US is only starting to catch up.
[/QUOTE]

The French have had good governments and bad governments. Like any nation. To claim they have only been bungling, because of a present and superficial political annoyance is very sad and shallow.

19

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
It will end only when America speaks Spanish and France speaks Arabic.
[/QUOTE]
Dear, the Arab-Spanish conflict is much older and more serious than that French-English tiff. We really don’t want to go there. What next, replay Rome vs. Carthage? I have Civilization III for that.

20

Carthage delendo est.