Not only did France carry her weight during the War on Terror; her expertise on Arab and Islamic terrorism was invaluable
Hmm yes and no. French foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century up until Iraq had been a catalogue of unmitigated disasters, failed interventions and decolonisation projects.
To paraphrase a friend of mine; sure you can learn a lot from failure – but you learn a f**k-load more from success.
I think for the UK at least Blair was seduced in part by our military’s post war track record – which was by and large exemplary – from Malaya, to Borneo, Oman to Belize, the Falklands to the first Gulf war. Sure, the UK was in decline but that fact didn’t seem to be apparent to the military.
Then more recently “Blair’s” own successes in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Macedonia had convinced him (and us to a degree) that we were the more effective, capable and humane little brother to America’s “World Police”. Add to that Northern Ireland – which was a mixed catalogue of results but Blair had (in his mind no doubt) “fixed” that too.
We would be proven awfully and terribly wrong on all of this, not least because the political and military establishment categorically underestimated the task in hand in Iraq.
But back to the point – France’s history of failures was why they didn’t want to get involved. Not really because of some savvy politicking. They weren’t good at it and they knew it. At the other end of the spectrum we had started believing our own hype.
France was also grappling with FIS, GIA and other more proximate threats on its doorstep with advance 9/11 terror waves ahead of our own. Failure or not, and cynical maybe, it probably saw the risk of Iraq escalation as it tried to assimilate a new and largely-Algerian popn of 3m from its ex-colony – quite apart from the risks of launching wars on false premises outside the law. Little has changed in some respects and France is very divided still.
Last edited 2 years ago by Matt B
Mark Falcoff
2 years ago
I always say it’s possible to be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons. In this case France was in the first category, the US and Britain in the second.
Personally I don’t think the US, or the neo conservatives wanted or expected democracy in Iraq. That was a lie for the plebs. They just wanted a power vacuum.
No mention of the fact that Saddam and the US (Rumsfeld & Co.) were best buddies as long as Saddam danced to the US tune: like Bin Laden was the US’s ally in the war against the Russians. Why not accept:
1. The US makes friends with the most reprehensible monsters on Earth, to protect US interests, ie commercially rape those countries.
2. When finished using them (or they become non US arselickers) they discard them at their peril.
3. The US then unleashes crude all-out war and ends up alienating the civilian population (largely as a result of murdering and torturing so many: duh).
4. And are then surprised that everyone hates the US. If they invade my country and kill thousands of my countrymen (for any reason).. I will hate them too: surprisingly?
Or is it that American dependence on oil means that the Arabs have them by the short and curlies?
Matt B
2 years ago
Another good article, and an interesting reminder of French realpolitik amid its recent engagement in Mali. France’s Algerian experiences of the 1990s were a prototype of terrorism later expanding to the wider EU/US – with attacks on the Metro, airliners and (foiled) the Eiffel Tower. The Algerian ‘Afghans’ returning to France in the early 1990s from their part in fighting the USSR launched their second Algerian war at home and in France – in parallel with the ’90s attacks by others on the US. The question now is what happens next in the Sahel – with Macron seeking re-election next year and post-coup Mali’s poll looking set to be bumped, to the glee of Russia and chagrin of the UN. Perhaps Mme Moutet can help on that side?
Last edited 2 years ago by Matt B
Giles Chance
2 years ago
France was in a very good position to know the truth about Saddam’s WMD programme – that the WMD’s did not exist. That’s why Chirac exercised a French veto at the UN Security Council against attacking Iraq – an important fact which the article omits to mention. A veto is meant to be just that. But Bush, aided by Blair, thought they knew better, and decided to ignore the veto. So much for a rules-based international order !
I usually appreciate Moutet’s articles about France, but this one, which attributed base reasons to France’s non-involvement in Iraq, showed too clearly the author’s underlying fundamental dislike of France.
Best to ask Mme Moutet about her love of France or not. Strikes me that she tailors her words, phrases and references for this audience, just as she could gear the same points to a French reader. The mark of an astute writer perhaps? Allez Moutet!
Eh? She is French. Not supporting every single thing your government does doesn’t mean you dislike your country or are unpatriotic, except obviously in China.
Given that Hans Blick and his ilk had spent several years searching for evidence of WMD, it makes you wonder why the French didn’t just say “nothing to see there, mate”
In which case, did the French share that intelligence or just decide to veto? I don’t remember any such argument being presented at the time. Was it also anything to do with the large amounts of money owed to them by Saddam that would have no chance of ever being repaid if he were deposed?
Christopher Barclay
2 years ago
A major French newspaper (I can’t remember which) reported soon after 9/11 that the Pentagon explosion was caused by a lorry and not by an airliner flying at ground level with the precision that required a highly expert pilot.
The French were also owed money by Saddam Hussein, I believe, debts which evaporated with the invasion.
Hmm yes and no. French foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century up until Iraq had been a catalogue of unmitigated disasters, failed interventions and decolonisation projects.
To paraphrase a friend of mine; sure you can learn a lot from failure – but you learn a f**k-load more from success.
I think for the UK at least Blair was seduced in part by our military’s post war track record – which was by and large exemplary – from Malaya, to Borneo, Oman to Belize, the Falklands to the first Gulf war. Sure, the UK was in decline but that fact didn’t seem to be apparent to the military.
Then more recently “Blair’s” own successes in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Macedonia had convinced him (and us to a degree) that we were the more effective, capable and humane little brother to America’s “World Police”. Add to that Northern Ireland – which was a mixed catalogue of results but Blair had (in his mind no doubt) “fixed” that too.
We would be proven awfully and terribly wrong on all of this, not least because the political and military establishment categorically underestimated the task in hand in Iraq.
But back to the point – France’s history of failures was why they didn’t want to get involved. Not really because of some savvy politicking. They weren’t good at it and they knew it. At the other end of the spectrum we had started believing our own hype.
France was also grappling with FIS, GIA and other more proximate threats on its doorstep with advance 9/11 terror waves ahead of our own. Failure or not, and cynical maybe, it probably saw the risk of Iraq escalation as it tried to assimilate a new and largely-Algerian popn of 3m from its ex-colony – quite apart from the risks of launching wars on false premises outside the law. Little has changed in some respects and France is very divided still.
I always say it’s possible to be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons. In this case France was in the first category, the US and Britain in the second.
Personally I don’t think the US, or the neo conservatives wanted or expected democracy in Iraq. That was a lie for the plebs. They just wanted a power vacuum.
No mention of the fact that Saddam and the US (Rumsfeld & Co.) were best buddies as long as Saddam danced to the US tune: like Bin Laden was the US’s ally in the war against the Russians. Why not accept:
1. The US makes friends with the most reprehensible monsters on Earth, to protect US interests, ie commercially rape those countries.
2. When finished using them (or they become non US arselickers) they discard them at their peril.
3. The US then unleashes crude all-out war and ends up alienating the civilian population (largely as a result of murdering and torturing so many: duh).
4. And are then surprised that everyone hates the US. If they invade my country and kill thousands of my countrymen (for any reason).. I will hate them too: surprisingly?
Or is it that American dependence on oil means that the Arabs have them by the short and curlies?
Another good article, and an interesting reminder of French realpolitik amid its recent engagement in Mali. France’s Algerian experiences of the 1990s were a prototype of terrorism later expanding to the wider EU/US – with attacks on the Metro, airliners and (foiled) the Eiffel Tower. The Algerian ‘Afghans’ returning to France in the early 1990s from their part in fighting the USSR launched their second Algerian war at home and in France – in parallel with the ’90s attacks by others on the US. The question now is what happens next in the Sahel – with Macron seeking re-election next year and post-coup Mali’s poll looking set to be bumped, to the glee of Russia and chagrin of the UN. Perhaps Mme Moutet can help on that side?
France was in a very good position to know the truth about Saddam’s WMD programme – that the WMD’s did not exist. That’s why Chirac exercised a French veto at the UN Security Council against attacking Iraq – an important fact which the article omits to mention. A veto is meant to be just that. But Bush, aided by Blair, thought they knew better, and decided to ignore the veto. So much for a rules-based international order !
I usually appreciate Moutet’s articles about France, but this one, which attributed base reasons to France’s non-involvement in Iraq, showed too clearly the author’s underlying fundamental dislike of France.
Best to ask Mme Moutet about her love of France or not. Strikes me that she tailors her words, phrases and references for this audience, just as she could gear the same points to a French reader. The mark of an astute writer perhaps? Allez Moutet!
Eh? She is French. Not supporting every single thing your government does doesn’t mean you dislike your country or are unpatriotic, except obviously in China.
Given that Hans Blick and his ilk had spent several years searching for evidence of WMD, it makes you wonder why the French didn’t just say “nothing to see there, mate”
In which case, did the French share that intelligence or just decide to veto? I don’t remember any such argument being presented at the time. Was it also anything to do with the large amounts of money owed to them by Saddam that would have no chance of ever being repaid if he were deposed?
A major French newspaper (I can’t remember which) reported soon after 9/11 that the Pentagon explosion was caused by a lorry and not by an airliner flying at ground level with the precision that required a highly expert pilot.
The French were also owed money by Saddam Hussein, I believe, debts which evaporated with the invasion.