I don’t really think there will be long term reprisals. The war is a big deal this month, but the relationship between France and the U.S. has been close for a very long time (remember the Revolutionary War?). IMO, we might hold it over their heads when going through this or that negotiation, but realistically, all parties are politicians, and politicians have selective memories. When it’s in the United States’ interest, we’ll agree with them or support them; when it’s not, we won’t. I have no feel for long term diplomatic strategy, but just because they embarrassed us politically in this instance doesn’t mean that it’s in our best interests to respond in kind. Inflammatory news outlets (sorry, that may be redundant) may gleefully try to keep the “old Europe” stuff in the news, but in the long run, trade will probably trump everything.
Remember, we move countries back and forth between Friend and Foe columns all the time. Sometimes we put them in both columns at the same time.
I think that within a couple of years we’ll go back to our traditional stances (drastically stereotyped to keep it short): “The French are snooty, but some of their food is quite tasty,” and “The Americans are boors, but it was nice to have them drop by in 1944.”
No, not really surprising at all Sam, France and Germany’s military industries have long been at a disadvantage to American companies. Even with large multinational co-operation several European answers to next generation US equipment are WAY overbudget and are being produced in ridiculously limited quantities. The fact that several EU nations have signed onto the JSF program was a blow to the Rafale and Eurofighter programs. The USA is currently spending twice that of the combined nations of the EU on it’s military and it clearly shows. I believe they feel a consolidated military (and consolidated military INDUSTRY, feel sorry for all the small Spanish, Italian and Eastern European firms… they don’t stand a chance) will allow them to use their limited resources more effectively, perhaps even squeezing out some more money for their social programs to keep EU citizens nice and happy.
Spain and Portugal voiced their approval. That’s their right. The USA and the UK, on the other hand, actively lobbied for the war, including leaning on the “undecided” countries-especially in south america.
Allies can disagree with you and wage a war you’re opposing. What they can’t do is actively work to destabilize you.
IOW, France didn’t act in a different way than the US.
The point you’re missing is that the french position is that the war the US is waging is an agression war, isn’t justified, is creating a precedent of “preventive attacks” based on flimsy reasons, is subverting the international order, is threatening the stability of the middle east, is undermining the international institutions, etc, etc…In other words, that it’s an “evil” “agression” war, and the US has no reason at all to wage this war (simplifying, of course).
What I mean is that your point only makes sense if the war is justified, if you assume that the US is right. If you don’t make any assumption, then you have two countries one doing everything it can to gather at much support as possible for a “good” war and another doing exactly the same things to prevent an “evil” war.
The french position was that the US (with the agreement of Turkey, of course) deliberatly choose to ask for these defensive equipment some days before an UNSC meeting about the Irak issue in order to undermine the “anti-war” camp position, and that agreeing with this request meant agreeing that there will actually be a war. French officials stated that there was no way France would agree with this request before the UNSC meeting.
Well, yes, Sam, I do, in fact, believe our policy is self-destructive. You got it in one!
I find it hard to imagine a policy that is more likely to serve as a recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden, short of nuking Mecca. Luckily for us, with Iraq out of the picture there’s no place that OBL could get any nasty weapons. Well, Iran. And Syria. Pakistan, of course. Maybe buy them from N Korea.
But he won’t get them from Saddam! What a relief! One down, about 15 to go! Alert Status green in about, oh, 2052.
(Gee, I’m a bit worried now. You don’t think GeeDubya reads the SDMB, do you? I wouldn’t want to be responsible for him getting that “nuke Mecca” idea.)
“If you don’t make any assumption, then you have two countries one doing everything it can to gather at much support as possible for a “good” war and another doing exactly the same things to prevent an “evil” war.”
In addition to this there is the fact that French policy today is roughly the same as US policy for more than a decade. The Bush administration may feel that it has good reasons to change its mind but common sense suggests that it shouldn’t condemn other countries for believing what the US government itself believed for 12 years: that removing Saddam wasn’t worth the troube it would cause.
Even within this administration there was a massive debate after 9-11 which was widely leaked in the press and there were many within the professional military, the CIA and the
State Department who didn’t support the war. If the Bush administration itself had so much difficulty choosing to go to war it doesn’t make sense to condemn other countries who are still not convinced.
The whole nonsense about retaliating against France assumes that there is an open-and-shut case for this war whereas the history of US policy on this issue itself demonstrates exactly the opposite.