France has declared war on al-Qaida, and matched its fighting words with a first attack on a base camp of the terror network’s North African branch, after the terror network killed a French aid worker it took hostage in April.
The declaration and attack marked a shift in strategy for France, usually discrete about its behind-the-scenes battle against terrorism.
“We are at war with al-Qaida,” Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Tuesday, a day after President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the death of 78-year-old hostage Michel Germaneau.
Vive la France!
Not so happy.
During the war in ex-Yugoslavia, France was quite trigger-happy and not careful about avoiding civilian installations, and had to be talked down by the U.S. on a number of occasions. When France goes to war, it can be quite belligerent, and belligerence doesn’t always bring about victory. They could get major blowback which would be more of a victory for al-Qaida than a loss.
There was a cartoon in the “New Yorker” recently with the caption “I always wanted to live the American Dream–I just never realized I was going have to move to France to get it.” #2–While I share your concern, Al-Quida and militant Islam only understand and respond to one thing–violent death. Don’t forget that we had several chances to take out Ben Laden, and failed to do so. If there is collateral damage opr death, it would be appropriate to blame Al Quida and militants, who are evil and black hearted people.
I applaud the French declaration. The French Army and intelligence services are very good at this sort of thing.
I don’t believe it. This must be a poisson d’avril.
only 9 years after the rest of the western world
I predict they will be more effective than the rest of the western world, the US, UK and Canada excepted.
France has been in the thick of this fight for a long time. Back in the ’04 election it would have been very easy for GW Bush to toss his base some ‘red meat’ by dissing on France.
There’s a reason he did not. France have been covertly with us — and effectively so — for a long time. France cannot project a lot of power over long distances, but they are very tough customers in a dirty fight, especially in their back yard.
For those of us who read French and follow such things this is unsurprising, old news. The surprising part is that they’ve decided to be much more public about it.
My experience of French military personnel is quite distinct from the perception of the French as Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys. They are bad-to-the-bone warriors. Somewhere someone is losing sleep over their entrance to the fray.
Amen, #9!
As one involved in humanitarian work in West Africa who had a close friend and colleague killed by terrorists, I’m certainly thankful for an increasingly serious effort by the French, US and local governments in the region, to fight the spread of terrorism across the Sahel. But I and my colleagues would appreciate prayers for safety. NGO workers like Michel Germaneau who was killed, and the two Spanish hostages which AQIM are still holding in Mali, have become quite frequent targets of al Qaeda. So I and my colleagues are anxious about possible reprisals if AQIM are feeling threatened.
#9, I would not have characterized the French as “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys”. I think they are more a cross between Cirque de Flambé and the Kestone Cops. Perhaps they will muster their WW II anti-nazi fighting prowess and…oh, wait…well, perhaps they will rally their NATO anti-communist fighting prowess and…oh, never mind.
Somewhere General Petraeus is losing sleep over their entrance to the fray.
The word was that when the Germans were given a choice as to who they’d rather surrender to near the end of World War 2, they picked the Americans and British rather than the French……for a very good reason. French troops can be vicious fighters, and especially when the fight’s in their own back yard. The Legionnaires have no love for such as al Qaida…..of that you can be certain, and they will meet in mortal combat. Personally, I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for an al Qaida fighter’s chances of survival.
Yes, I never worked with the French military, but some colleagues did, and they have a great deal of respect for them.
I think it was an American general early in the Vietnam War who said something like “The French haven’t won a war since Napoleon; what can we learn from them?”. No doubt he was eating his words ten years later.
Anyway, the French contribution will be very welcome. I hope they work with the Australians in Afghanistan now that the Dutch are pulling out. I have colleagues there now, plus a son-in-law likely to get posted there in the next 12 months and a son about to enlist – knowing that the French may be there with our diggers alleviates a little of my anxiety.
Another useful thing about the French – they have diplomatic and military connexions in many areas that we Anglophone countries don’t have – Syria and large parts of Africa, for example. I wonder if the recent decision by Syria to ban face-covering veils in its universities is connected with this?
I suppose one could say that the French troops are known for their professionalism and their utter ruthlessness in combat, and I would not care to be on the receiving end of their efforts. It would not be the least bit pleasant.
Oh, I wait with bated breath to hear the exploits of the French troops! What feats of daring-do lie in store for the world to marvel at? /sarc
Do you actually have much or any military experience Sick and Tired?
17 1/2 years (7 as a combat engineer). How about you?
I also served 6 months on a Special Reaction Team during my time as an Engineer. Essayons!
Sick-and-tired-of-nuance wrote:
[blockquote] “Oh, I wait with bated breath to hear the exploits of the French troops! What feats of daring-do lie in store for the world to marvel at? /sarc” [/blockquote]
This sounds like boasting in reverse – the implication being that the French are not as good soldiers as sick-and-tired was (once upon a time). Just go into any pub and you will find lots of old soldiers in a corner saying the same thing.
Thanks for letting us know how good you were, mate.
In the meantime, as I wrote above, Australian soldiers will be very glad to fight alongside the French.
sorry, I slip too easily into slang; “pub” = “public bar”, i.e. a tavern or beer joint.
No troubles MichaelA. No troubles. BTW, I don’t generally frequent pubs, so I’ll have to take your word about how old Australian soldiers behave.
Where did you serve?
Sick & Tired of Nuance,
My service was many years ago and I don’t usually discuss it. I now just pray that my son-in-law and my son will be kept safe (whilst at the same time being intensely proud of them).
Here is a bit of background on France’s military involvement in the 20th century, which might give a bit of an insight into their attitudes:
1. First World War
France suffered twelve times as many military deaths as the USA, and more military deaths than the entire British Empire.
French soldiers who died were 4.29% of their entire population – it is difficult for us today to comprehend the effect this has on a population, but we have to remember that these are just the deaths – it doesn’t account for the maimed, the insane, the permanently traumatised. Then think of the families who had to mourn/care for them, and the effect on succeeding generations.
By contrast, Britain’s deaths were just over 2% of her population, and USA deaths were 0.13% of her population.
Whilst the victory in 1918 was an allied victory, more fundamentally it was a French victory. They earned it.
2. Second World War
French combat death were approximately 50% of those of the USA, which is quite extraordinary when you consider that France had less than one quarter of the population of the US, only fought in one theatre and was under enemy occupation for most of the time. France also lost a similar number of civilians due to repression during the occupation.
As a percentage of population, France’s combat deaths in WWII were about twice those of the USA, and a little below those of Britain. (Of course, none of this rates next to the Soviet Union – about 6% of her population died in combat and about 8% from repression).
Viewed in that light, the “War against Terror” is still pretty mild. Pray that it gets no worse and give thanks for any allies we can get!
Does your citation of French casualties during WWII include the Vichy French? You remember, those facist French that opened fire on US troops as they landed in North Africa during Operation Torch. Because, after Petain saved France for the Nazis, the French army was disbanded except for 100,000 that were retained to keep domestic order under the Vichy government. Perhaps you are referring to the 1.5 million French that were German prisoners of war. Their military prowess is quite evident in that statistic. Perhaps your casualty statistics include losses to the 35,000 member Milice, the secret police in Vichy that took their cues from the Gestapo. Now I know that AFTER the allies D-Day invasion that the “Free French” forces swelled to 400,000…but then, over half of them (230,000) were safely tucked away in Algiers and never lifted a finger to liberate France. So, perhaps you are referring to the 170,000 Free French. They mostly served in static security or garrison roles. Oh, there was the French 2nd Armored Division, that landed in Normandy on D-Day. They were in the 2nd wave…after all the Americans, British, and Canadians had stormed the beaches to liberate France.
I could go on, but what is the point. We each have our own opinion of the French military. Time will tell. I would gladly be wrong and enjoy seeing the French re-assert their once genuine military prowess.
Sick and tired,
Of course the citation included the Vichy French. My uncle fought them in WWII and they fought well. That in no way detracts from my argument.
As I wrote above, the French suffered 12 times as many combat deaths in WWI as the USA, and proportional to their population, twice as many casualties as the USA in WWII. You do not confront those points because you cannot.
As an American, you have no right to blame the French for surrendering to Germany in WWII (nor do I as an Australian) – neither of our countries were there to defend France when it stood alone against Germany. Or perhaps your grasp of history is so inadequate that you actually believe that America was fighting Germany in 1940?
“We each have our own opinion of the French military. Time will tell.” – The difference is that my opinion is based on fact. And time will not tell – it already has. The French have long been active in the fight against terrorism, but you obviously know nothing about that.
Sick and Tired wrote:
[blockquote] So, perhaps you are referring to the 170,000 Free French. They mostly served in static security or garrison roles. Oh, there was the French 2nd Armored Division, that landed in Normandy on D-Day. They were in the 2nd wave…after all the Americans, British, and Canadians had stormed the beaches to liberate France. [/blockquote]
You clearly know almost nothing about the Free French involvement in WWII. I suggest having a serious read about the history of the African, Sicilian, Italian and French campaigns (and not just on 6 June 1944). Try to steer clear of self-aggrandizing accounts by senior allied generals, and don’t take Saving Private Ryan as the full sum of WWII history (its maker certainly didn’t intend it that way).
Also, the D-Day landings on 6 June 1944 did not “liberate France”, in any sense. They were but one of many small steps that were part of that great endeavour. And, as the French would no doubt wryly comment: If the West had been there in 1940, France wouldn’t have needed liberating in 1944.
Well MichaelA, I was done commenting here. I thought I made it clear when I said that we held differing opinions, but you don’t appear able to be satisfied with that. So, here we go…
Suffering casualties is not the measure of military prowess…inflicting them is. So telling everyone how many French casualties there were compared to everyone else is sort of a self-defeating argument. The point of war is to win and to do so with as few losses as possible. The French lost and took enormous losses in doing so. That does not impress me. Get over it.
I blame the Maginot Line and the lack of thinking it represented for the French defeat. Clearly, the French were not paying attention during WW I or they would have learned the value of armor and aviation assets used in a combined assault.
If America had stayed out of WW I, there most likely would never have been a Hitler or a WW II. The French sowed the seeds of WW II at the Treaty of Versailles.
Clearly, we have a difference of opinion. I don’t appreciate your personal attacks: “Or perhaps your grasp of history is so inadequate that you actually believe that America was fighting Germany in 1940?” And, “You clearly know almost nothing about the Free French involvement in WWII.” Your allegations are as false as they are offensive, so stop it.
French forces actually outnumbered the German forces by 6 Million to 5.5 million in 1940. The Germans had less than 3,000 tanks and self proppelled guns and around 7,000 artillery pieces while the French and Allied forces had nearly 6,000 tanks and over 14,000 artillery pieces. So the French had numerical superiority and were defending. They should have won. Their poor military performance is what cost them, not their numbers or equipment. The Germans attacked them with less than 1 to 1 odds overall and with a 1 to 2 inferiority ratio in armor. The Germans most numerous tank was the Pzkw II, which packed a tiny 20mm cannon. The most numerous French tank was the Renault R35, which packed a 37mm cannon. The second most numerous French tank was the Renault FT 17, which also packed a 37mm cannon. The problem with the French was that they failed to concentrate their armor forces and use them to good effect and the fact that they were stuck in a WW I war fighting paradyme as evidenced by the static defenses they spent enourmous sums to make…that were completely flanked and turned out to be useless, as the country was overrun in about a month.
So, I will try again. We have a difference of opinion about the military prowess of the French. Time will tell. If you are able to, let’s just agree to disagree.
Oh, yes…Saving Private Ryan is fiction set to a historical theme. Save the snarky comments for someone that cares what you think.
[i] Many off topic and personal comments removed by elf.[/i]