"The French Were Right (http://www.dailykos.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2003/11/7/16628/6627)", so the National journal titled last week. Some excerpts: "Be careful!" That was the exclamation-point warning French President Jacques Rene Chirac sent to "my American friends" in a March 16 interview on CNN, just before the Pentagon began its invasion of Iraq. "Think twice before you do something which is not necessary and may be very dangerous," Chirac advised "A war in Iraq could trigger more frustration, bitterness, in the Arab world and beyond, in the Muslim world," Jean-David Levitte, French ambassador to the U.S., warned in remarks on February 7 at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington.The article offers much more than just quotes but insight in the whys and hows of the french position, probably something that got a little lost in all the wardrumming.

In an interesting add-on, the Washinton Times interviewed the french foreign minister de Villepin about it (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031113-052344-5896r.htm).

PS: And the cheese eating surrender monkeys seem to eat smart too: "How do the French - with all their butter-rich croissants, tasty chocolates, rich foie gras and cellars of wine - stay so slim?". Here's the secret (http://www.middleeastexpatonline.com/News.asp?Article=1965) ;)

Let's review. The French got it right in Iraq for three basic reasons. First, the French, by virtue of their own experience, had the best of all prisms with which to view the Iraq showdown: Algeria. Second, the French, because of the improvements they had made in their counter-terrorism efforts, were in a position to make their own independent determination of the threat posed by Al Qaeda and related groups versus the threat posed by Saddam's regime. And third, the French possessed good antennae; they had a clear reading of world, and in particular Muslim, public opinion on whether a U.S.-led intervention would be viewed as legitimate. They were better listeners than the Americans were.I am loathe to contradict any pro-French article - vive la France! - but here goes.

1) Algeria is a lousy comparison to Iraq. Algeria had more than a century of French occupation, some two million French settlers, and direct representation (for the pieds noirs) in the French government. What about the "occupation" failed, exactly? It lasted for more than a century! Algeria was, for all intents and purposes, part of metropolitan France. The result was something similar to the current Israeli-Palestinian situation, with a hostile majority population that supported the terrorists in their midst.

If the US starts moving boatlands of immigrants to Iraq and lays plans to stay for a few decades, then sure, we can make some legitimate comparisons with l'Algerie Francaise. But the American occupation is not anything so ambitious. And the reason the French lost Algeria was its own lost ambition - unlike in Vietnam, the French had both the firepower and manpower to keep the place under control.

2) If the main intent of the Iraqi war was to cripple al-Qaeda, then yeah, the French were right. But Iraq was invaded as a target separate from al-Qaeda, as part of the broader effort to keep America safe from WMD attack (by states or terrorists).

3) Maybe a sweet-sixteenth UN blessing (instead of just the first fifteen resolutions) would've made the Iraqi invasion more legitimate to Muslim opinion - or maybe it just would've continued to delegitimize the UN, which proved impotent during Kosovo, freed Catholic East Timor from Muslim Indonesia, perpetuated the punishing Iraqi sanctions, collaborated with Hussein's corruption, and endorsed America's invasion of Afghanistan. The UN has certainly not gained any respect by its refusal to remain in the face of terrorist attacks.

Looks to me like the US was listening pret' closely indeed - and from what it heard, it knew it had to not only exit Saudi Arabia post-haste, but also deal with the Iraqi issue once and for all (either releasing Hussein from sanctions or dealing with him permanently). Now the US is almost completely gone from Saudi Arabia (leaving the terrorists to murder Arabs instead of Americans) and is striving to pass power to an indigenous Iraqi leadership.

Note to the world: invasions are ALWAYS viewed as illegitimate by those being invaded. It doesn't matter how many outsiders or collaborators give their permission. Even now Iraqis insist that, if we'd held off just a li'l longer, they would've been able to throw off Hussein themselves, in their own way. Pride and patriotism forestall any kind of rational understanding of the necessity of external intervention in the face of parasitic and perverse power.

So I'd say that the US was listening, like the French - but although both the US and French knew that the invasion would be unappreciated by its main beneficiaries, the US was listening to the broader current and looking farther ahead.

The Bush administration, by contrast, approached Iraq the way the French are often thought to approach large world problems -- with a grandiose sweep of the theoretical hand, a tack exemplified by the big-ideas neoconservative crowd, whose own thinking, ironically, draws on European political philosophy.Exactly. I'm not neoconservative - I'm paleo-French.

[ November 16, 2003, 23:38: Message edited by: Grey Magistrate ]

What a horrible thing to say! IMHO, the French are NEVER right!

Sorry, had to be said. In seriousness, I have to go with the Magistrate, though -- France has enough of a record with it's own foreign affairs that it should seriously think twice about broad based criticism of other countries foreign policies.

And while it is hardly evidence, there has not been a repeat of a 9/11 scale attack since George and the Boys decided to take their firepower to the middle East.

LKD, you are right, since "George and the Boys" turned up on the streets of Iraq, Baghdad has not been a safet place to live, right? They have managed to reduce the total amount of loathing of America (and freedom!) and terrorism generally worldwide. Great job "George and boys", might is right, as usual...

Grey Magistrate,
I think that Algeria is an excellent comparison when looking at Iraq, actually much better than Vietnam. While Vietnam was a communist based ideological insurgency in the broader context of the cold war with Russia and China supplying North Vietnam as their anti-US proxy, Algeria was a domestic nationalist-islamic resistance- and independence movement aiming on de-colonisation.

That IMO much better fits the situation in Iraq where suddenly US troops popped up to oust Saddam, declaring to bring freedom and democracy (on US terms) - and declaring in the same breath that they intend to stay 'as long as needed' (and that's to be determined in Washington).

The neocons have developed no exit-strategy because they don't want one. They have an interest in having a base right there, next to Iran, Syria and Saudi-Arabia. That was a major reason for the war in Iraq. And to go to a country to install, unasked, military bases there, well, that actually *is* an occupation.
Looking at the 'french ambitions' in Algeria is pointless, what counts is the perception of the locals. They will give a rats ass for declared US 'ambitions' when they *feel* or notice they are occupied.

I find it very interesting that Chirac actually had wartime experience in an occupation role, while the relevant decisionmakers in Washington usually lack military experience. He has made an observation and tried to bring it to Bush: Once the people see the 'liberators' as occupation forces, game's over.