What about French and German people?

Great Debates
1

Bush is being repeatedly criticized for ‘failing to bring our allies to the table’ on Iraq, another words for failing to secure a military coalition that would include unspecified number of French and German troops. All those criticism are based on Bush unable to make a deal with Chirac and Shroeder administrations. It is said even that Bush failure to build such a coalition made the world more dangerous. The question is: suppose Bush would be able to make some kind of deal, just how stable and productive such a coalition would be?

The basic fact is that use of force by US is very unpopular proposition for great many people in Europe. Look how hard life is for Tony Blair in England. Look what happened in Spain, where opposition took power due in large part to domestic disagreement on Iraq issue, and recalled Spanish troops back home right away? It is quite possible that were Chirac and Shroeder join Bush in Iraq, their parties would be out of power next election, more radical parties would come to power in France and Germany explicitly on anti-US ticket, coalition would immediately collapse, and the whole of Europe would be put in a great state of unrest on top of that.

Considering all this, how could US benefit from building a coalition with France and Germany? How building such a coalition would make the world safer?

2

I think that you are getting somewhat confused between the past, the present and the future. Mainly when people criticise Bush for not having established an international consensus, they are referring to the period before the invasion happened. Of course, this was because the majority of the major powers referred to did not accept the prospectus for military action (with good reason it turns out as this has been proved to be at best hopelessly inaccurate and arguably fraudulent).

Now, if you are asking whether it would be possible to build an international coalition involving these powers now, then that would be perceived as a different matter in public opinion terms - we are talking about looking to the best solution to the mess that has been created, rather than the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. However, it would not be inaccurate to suggest that there will need to be significant work on the part of the US to achieve this - with regard to sharing decision-making and operational control as well as just the risks. Nothing I’ve seen from Bush shows that he is willing to contemplate this.

3

I think the point here is not that Bush should have done the exact same thing but with a coalition that included France and Germany because that simply would not have happened. The French and Germans did not want to cut off diplomacy and inspections at the time that they were fruitfully leading to results (although not the results that the administration wanted since they were showing that the U.S. intelligence was based on fairytales rather than facts).

The point is that if Bush had not had this “go it alone” attitude then we likely would never have gone into Iraq because the inspections would have made it pretty clear that Saddam did not have WMD…or at least nothing significant…and that the U.S. intelligence on the matter was completely out-to-lunch. That is part of the reason that you build coalitions when you do these things…because your coalition partners will help to keep you honest if you are too blinded by ideology and are simply deceiving yourself and others.

And, by the way, it is not really our responsibility to worry about the internal political situation in France and Germany. They are both stable and vibrant democracies and their leaders are adults (wish that ours were!) who are capable of making their own decisions in regards to their domestic politics.

4

Yet this is exactly the essence of Sen. Kerry charge: Bush rushed to war without securing ‘our allies’ participation. Sen. Kerry is not saying that Bush should not have gone to war, pure and simple. Sen. Kerry is not saying that Bush should have listened to ‘our allies’ and not go to war. Sen. Kerry says that if he were President he would make sure ‘our allies’ would join us in the war.

Sen. Kerry, of all people, must have a good understanding of international political situation, including how remote and difficult was the prospect of bringing ‘our allies’ ‘to the table’. Yet he keeps accusing Bush of failing to do that, as if it was an elementary thing to do. Is Sen. Kerry lying?

And what about French and German people? Aren’t we forgetting about them, while abusing Chirac and Shroeder from the right and praising them to the skies from the left? This whole altercation in US just reeks of elitism and ignorance. Many of those people clearly were against the war. Chirac and Shroeder could go the way of our Spanish ‘allies’ in the heartbeat, were they to make a deal with Bush.

So I wish to forget for a moment about Bush and Kerry, both of whom are awkwardly dancing around the obvious truth, pretending it’s not there.

I love Europe, especially France, and as soon as opportunity arises, it’s “Adieu, les Etats Unis!”. Still, the question remains, should US people be concerned what French and German people wish? Particularly, so concerned as to make it a decisive issue in US presidential election? I don’t think French and German people will ever be so concerned about what American people wish.

5

I’ve just been reading a transcript of the second Bush/Kerry debate and can’t find anywhere where Kerry says the things that you paraphrase him as saying. Do you want to try for some actual quotes?

6

I don’t think that the prospect was as “remote and difficult” as you have been lead to believe.

The fact is that France (as I’m sure our other allies) wasn’t completely against using force in Iraq; they simply thought that more could be done, diplomacy-wise, before finally resorting to force. And this is exactly what Kerry has been saying, all along.

You sank my battleship.

I think that, if we aren’t concerned about the wishes of the French and Germans, we are digging even further into that hole of elitism and ignorance. Iraq is much closer to Europe, than it is to North America. Our actions are going to provoke reactions that will certainly affect the region surrounding Iraq. We have to realize that our actions are not conducted inside a bubble, or a vacuum; they will affect people, aside from ourselves.

Since our president is our “head diplomat” with foreign states, I believe that we should take his/her diplomacy skills into account; especially in a “time of war”.

I really have to disagree with you here. I strongly believe that if France had gone on a tirade against Mexico, presenting talk of possible war (or invasion), they would seriously take into account the thoughts/wishes of the United States. Well, I can’t really say that for sure, anymore, seeing as how we didn’t give them that “luxury”.
LilShieste

7

Forgot to give the cite for this. :smack:
LilShieste

8

Kerry from the transcript of the first debate:

(Bolding mine.) Any questions?

9

And, just in case it wasn’t clear enough for you in the first debate transcript, here is a relevant statement from Kerry in the second debate transcript:

And, speaking of rushing into things, may I suggest that you do a little checking of your premises before you rush into starting a thread?

10

Straight from the horses mouth:

How is that different from what I said:

Once again:

Clearly, ‘our allies’ would help ‘our troops’ ‘with the mission’. By the way, how Sen. Kerry would make sure that would happen? Simple, he ‘would have fought’ for it! Fought WHO?

Also, how could Bush ‘push our allies aside’ if he ‘failed to bring them to the table’?

11

So when he calls the war in Iraq a mistake, he’s not saying that it was a mistake, he’s actually saying…

What the hell are you saying he’s saying?

What is there to lie about? Do you mean he doesn’t believe the criticism he’s making?

This sounds to me like a regurgitation of Bush’s criticism that Kerry just wants to do things that are popular in the halls of “Old Europe.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re driving at with all this. Could you explain it? Let me go back to your OP and take a stab.

Yes, it’s possible. And if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas. The people in those countries didn’t want to go to war, but I think you’ve overlooked the fact that Bush and the attitude of his administration were a big part of the reason why.

12

Is the fact that there are different directions in these analogies confusing to you? He made it clear to them that their opinions didn’t count before the war. After Baghdad fell, he had a second chance to get some of them involved and didn’t even try. If you want, the first time was ‘pushing them aside’ and the second was ‘failing to bring them to the table.’ What is the contradiction here?

13

New Iskander, the President of France was willing to join the coalition if we first allowed the inspectors to finish the inspections. He said that he was asking for only a month or two. (I posted a link elsewhere to a CNN/CBS interview the week before we invaded Iraq.)

Think for a moment what the outcome might have been if we had agreed to wait those two additional months. (Actually, France had some really detailed plans for securing the peace in Iraq prior to the invasion. Knowing what we know now, of course, it is hideously sad that we didn’t give them a chance to work.)

I believe that we must respect France’s right to look out for their best interests just as we expect them to assume that we will look out for our best interests.

I’m glad that you like the French. They are very friendly and kind despite our reputation.

14

No he is saying that Bush should not have gone to war at the time that he did so.. You’ve even quoted him saying this, so I’ll use the same quote you did.

Is this hard for you to understand? Kerry voted to give the President the right to use force if it became necesary. That’s what you’ve quoted him as saying, that’s what jshore has given you several quotes of Kerry saying. At no point have you substantiated what appears to be your charge that, if Kerry had been President, he would have done exactly the same thing, in exactly the same way, at exactly the same time, but would somehow have been able to do it with full UN support.

15

'In light of this progress, Barno said the coalition still has challenges ahead. These include expanding the capability of local government, eliminating narcotics, demobilizing regional military forces, expanding the NATO presence and continuing ***‘s reconstruction.’

http://nyjtimes.com/Stories/2004/0617AfghanElections.htm

Oh look! It’s an international coalition, under US leadership, fighting terrorists and bringing democracy.
And it has no demonstrations against it.
Of course the country is Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Where Osama bin Laden (remember him?) was being sheltered by the repressive Government.
Which the international coalition succesfully defeated.

Of course now the situation is deteriorating, since Bush has moved most troops out of Afghanistan, so he could invade Iraq without much support.

And the reason Tony Blair is under such pressure is because Iraq was a lie.
There were no WMD’s.
Sanctions and inspections were working.
Saddam had no connection to 9/11.

So the answer is very simple.
Yes, countries will support the US in rooting out terrorism.
We want to be consulted, since an unjustified war leads to many casualties and causes bitter resentment. Note that the French were completely correct over Iraq and Bush was wrong.

See the difference?

16

Thanks for bringing that debate back to the point. Quite true, Bush personality is a big factor in European people aversion to US initiatives. How should American people react to that? Should we say, “OK, you don’t like this President, we give you another one, will you feel better now?”

17

Didn’t Bush go to UN to ask for help at least twice, maybe more times? Disn’t he issue statements welcoming help? Bush tried, just not every day.

18

The only reason inspections were making any progress at all was that US troops were poised on Iraq border. How many French troops were there in the desert, applying pressure to Saddam?

19

Yes, if you count, ‘please send some of your troops to die instead of mine, I’m still not giving you any say in the operation’ as asking for help.

20

If France sends a 100 troops to supplement 130,000 US Army, how much ‘say’ should it get? If France sends 60,000 troops to Iraq it would get a whole lot of ‘say’. That’s where the numbers do all the talking.