An Ode to Chirac

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont think he is. In fact he wants the French state to provide financial support to mosques, IIUC, to lessen the influence of radical imams and their foreign backers.

OTOH, he religion-baits on the issue of Turkey, stoking up fears of 100 million Turkish Muslims coming in like a horde.

And providing financial support to mosques is part of his plan to lessen the seperation of church and state.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

6. I suspect Mr Judts strong hostility to US policy in the ME, and to Israel, colors his remarks.

I'm not sure how Israel factors into any of this. As far as US policy in the ME, it doesn't take a genius to see that Chirac placed himself on the winning side. Judt is absolutely right that the failure of France to oppose the US invasion would have only resulted in the UN sharing America's embarrassment. I don't know how principled the stand was, but it was the right stand to take, and it makes Chirac look pretty good in hindsight.

1. Thats a difficult What if to answer, esp given as the game isnt over in Iraq yet. If France and the UN had supported us, and the Turks had let the 4th Id move into the Sunni Triangle in the opening days of the war, and if there were more non-US troops, and if the occupation had more UN legitimacy behind it, would the early days of the occupation have gone as poorly as they did? Would Iraq have developed a virtous cycle, instead of a vicious cycle? I think thats very possible.

2. Judt is asking from the US perspective, and even if French support had done not one thing to improve the situation on the ground in Iraq, it would certainly have lowered the soft power cost to the US.

3. Israel factors in because Judt is strongly opposed to Israeli policies and to US support for Israel, (And IIUC not just for that of bush and the neocons, but that of the Clintonians). Both Sarkosy and Royal are expected to have policys more sympathetic to Israel than Chiracs was, and I dont believe that Judts view doesnt at least in part reflect that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


It does seem unimportant to this article - or did I miss something?

Youre correct Judt doesnt mention it - I was merely suggesting its part of Judts motivation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Judt

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


OTOH, he religion-baits on the issue of Turkey, stoking up fears of 100 million Turkish Muslims coming in like a horde.

And providing financial support to mosques is part of his plan to lessen the seperation of church and state.

can you give me a quote on Turkey, thats religion baiting?

he may well be lessening the seperation of church and state, but thats not the same as muslim hating.

I dont suggest such a thing for the US. In the situation France is in, Im not sure its a bad idea.

[Fake Boris]

A point worthy of comment.

The French labor 'problem' —
Unemployment figures are indeed skewed by France's smaller military (soldiers don't count in the active population) and the much lower carceral population.

The myth of labor laws paralyzing economic growth is a lie.
a) there are mechanisms in place for non-penalized massive layoffs (i.e. when profits diminish)
b) a boss in France can fire anyone, any time, without special penalties. The real difference is that a fired employee can contest the decision to a labor tribunal, in which case the boss is asked to produce evidence of incompetence. Most employees don't bother when they know they'll lose, because the procedure is very long and can be exhausting.

[Cyclotron]

1. The planned UN approval of the invasion was always a farce. Somehow I don't think the Iraqi insurgent groups would have seriously reconsidered their positions in light of "more UN legitimacy" or France's involvement. France's involvement would have meant, as usual, some added diplomatic clout and a fairly token amount of soldiers that would be withdrawn within a few years once France's politicians came to understand how little the French population supported the war. In any case, the US never really planned the Invasion as a UN offensive - the UN was utilized as a possible diplomatic rubber stamp, not as an actual mechanism of military sanctions or nation-building. The US would have still insisted on running the show and would have made the same mistakes that we, in fact, did make.

2. Maybe, but at the price of torpedoing what remains of UN legitimacy and permanently tainting the institution, not to mention implicating the EU as a whole in the Iraq folly. Judt seems equally interested in those reprecussions, not just the impact of Chiraq's policy on US policy and politics.

3. Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't see any indication that Israel is involved here and I don't think it's very appropriate to ascribe totally hypothetical motives to the essay without any grounding besides "well, he's been critical of them before." Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes waxing nostalgic about a maligned French leader is just that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
1. The planned UN approval of the invasion was always a farce. Somehow I don't think the Iraqi insurgent groups would have seriously reconsidered their positions in light of "more UN legitimacy" or France's involvement. France's involvement would have meant, as usual, some added diplomatic clout and a fairly token amount of soldiers that would be withdrawn within a few years once France's politicians came to understand how little the French population supported the war. In any case, the US never really planned the Invasion as a UN offensive - the UN was utilized as a possible diplomatic rubber stamp, not as an actual mechanism of military sanctions or nation-building. The US would have still insisted on running the show and would have made the same mistakes that we, in fact, did make.

2. Maybe, but at the price of torpedoing what remains of UN legitimacy and permanently tainting the institution, not to mention implicating the EU as a whole in the Iraq folly. Judt seems equally interested in those reprecussions, not just the impact of Chiraq's policy on US policy and politics.

3. Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't see any indication that Israel is involved here and I don't think it's very appropriate to ascribe totally hypothetical motives to the essay without any grounding besides "well, he's been critical of them before." Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes waxing nostalgic about a maligned French leader is just that.

1. a division of French troops, (as much as UK sent) and a division of US troops arriving on the scene much earlier could have made a huge difference. If it had made a big enough difference early, it might not have have snowballed into later quagmire, as the early destruction of infrastructure could have been avoided, which in turn would have lessened the negative reaction of large parts of the Iraqi pop, etc.

As for the UN, I think its legitimacy would have helped with significant parts of the Iraqi pop, the sea in which the insurgents swim. It also would have made it easier to keep Syria and Iran from allowing the flow of resources and people to the insurgency

The US in OTL was quite willing to have extensive UN involvement, and was disappointed when the Brazilian UN guy was killed and the UN withdrew. Rummy never wanted to do nation building, and would have been quite willing to cede some degree of control.

2. It would certainly have improved UN legitimacy in the US. In what countries do you see UN legitimacy as being particularly weak right now?

Anyway, if the occupation had succeeded, it might well have added to UN legitimacy.

3. Tony Judt has not just been critical of Israel. He supports a one state solution - IE he doesnt think Israel should exist. That is very widely at variance with a core principal of US for policy, one that was strongly held by the Clinton admin. In viewing his article about a French politician who was anti-Israel (if not so much as Tony Judt is) and who is well known for his disagreements with the US on the ME, and who is going to be succeeded by a pol (either Sarkozy or Royal) who is likely to be more sympathetic to Israel, I think its quite worth mentioning.

[Dinner]

When rioters (reguardless of race) are burning other people's cars, breaking into shops, and attacking police it is right to call them scum.

[Dinner]

If Sarkozy can liberalize France's economy and reduce the unemployment rate so that 10 years from now people don't refer to France as a economicly stagnate country in slow decline then he'll have done well.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. a division of French troops, (as much as UK sent)

Suppose that Chirac caved to US pressure and agreed to support the war. That doesn't mean the war would be any more popular among the French people, or among the rest of the French political elite - I find it unlikely that France would contribute a British-sized force to the invasion.

As for legitimacy, I repeat that in no way would UN presence have any meaningful impact on insurgent activity. Securing infrastructure and such might have helped early on, but there's no reason to think that French involvement would have substantially changed the game plan. Islamists certainly don't care about the UN, and I find it unlikely that the Shiites and Sunnis entering into a deepening ethnic conflict would be suitably dissuaded from violence by some pretence of international approval given by the UN.

I see no reason to believe that a US occupation under UN pretences would be substantially different from a US occupation and administration by fiat.

It would certainly have improved UN legitimacy in the US. In what countries do you see UN legitimacy as being particularly weak right now?

All of them. The "legitimacy" of the UN would have been improved in the US, insofar as "legitimacy" means "the degree to which we like this institution because it does what we tell it to do." The US was always intent on treating the UN like a diplomatic hurdle to be cleared rather than a real community of nations, or even a useful tool - and when France set the bar too high, we just kicked the hurdle over and kept on running.

Anyway, if the occupation had succeeded, it might well have added to UN legitimacy.

You can't be serious. The idea was pitched to the UN on the basis of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. How would UN legitimacy have been improved by the eventual revelation that the entire affair was based on false pretences? That the entire reason for entering the conflict was a sham? It would have only demonstrated that the UN was an effective puppet of the imperial affectations of the US. I'd hardly call that legitimacy.

3. Tony Judt has not just been critical of Israel. He supports a one state solution - IE he doesnt think Israel should exist. That is very widely at variance with a core principal of US for policy, one that was strongly held by the Clinton admin. In viewing his article about a French politician who was anti-Israel (if not so much as Tony Judt is) and who is well known for his disagreements with the US on the ME, and who is going to be succeeded by a pol (either Sarkozy or Royal) who is likely to be more sympathetic to Israel, I think its quite worth mentioning.

Yes, but I could make an equally valid argument that your pro-Israel stance is one of the substantive reasons that you disagree with Judt in the first place, and thus that all your arguments may in fact be motivated by that bias. What is the point? Why not just address the points brought up instead of questioning motivation like that? How does noting Judt's anti-Israel sentiment make a meaningful contribution to the discussion?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cyclotron

I find it unlikely that the Shiites and Sunnis entering into a deepening ethnic conflict would be suitably dissuaded from violence by some pretence of international approval given by the UN.

the "civil war" aspects of the conflict didnt really intensify until spring of 2006. from winter to summer of 2005, despite the many mistakes, there was real political progress. Had the entire thing gone better from the beginnning EITHER due to better US planning, or to different French policy, there might well have been momentum for a good outcome. Due to a combination of more US troops earlier, more French and other troops, greater legitimacy with ordinary Iraqis, and with the region.




[q]All of them. [q/]
Really? Japan? Kenya? Jamaica? what evidence is there of that? I dont see it.

You can't be serious. The idea was pitched to the UN on the basis of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. How would UN legitimacy have been improved by the eventual revelation that the entire affair was based on false pretences? That the entire reason for entering the conflict was a sham? It would have only demonstrated that the UN was an effective puppet of the imperial affectations of the US. I'd hardly call that legitimacy.

If life had improved for the Iraqi people, as it would have had things gone significantly better than they have, that would have been the dominant story, not the WMDs.

Yes, but I could make an equally valid argument that your pro-Israel stance is one of the substantive reasons that you disagree with Judt in the first place, and thus that all your arguments may in fact be motivated by that bias. What is the point? Why not just address the points brought up instead of questioning motivation like that? How does noting Judt's anti-Israel sentiment make a meaningful contribution to the discussion?

I made 6 specific points, of which that was only the sixth. I dont see how you can claim I am ignoring the substance of the article, such substance as there is.

And of course one could mention my stance. However I do not write with the authority of Tony Judt, so questioning my bias is of less worth. The day I publish on the Oped page of the NYT, i may even drop my anonymity here and let you know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
can you give me a quote on Turkey, thats religion baiting?

It's bolded in the OP. About the 100 million Turkish Muslims.

[Victor Galis]

Yeah, you keep seeking that, Traian - good luck. Maybe in a few decades, the average congressman will actually know where Bucharest is.

Ironically, no one in this thread seems aware that he was suspended from his duties last week and is facing removal from office next month if parliament has its way.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Ironically, no one in this thread seems aware that he was suspended from his duties last week and is facing removal from office next month if parliament has its way.

Well, I was aware of it - but I think it just further illustrates my point.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Considering I believe Sarkozy is an out and out racist (or religion-ist, if you prefer), I think it's a very big indictment. Also I agree that he'd be far more cozier with the Le Pen elements a la Mitterand's hope. Sarkozy scares me and I'd far prefer Chirac.

I don't like that aspect either (you would think that some are trying to create a modern-day Holy Roman Empire), but you have to admit that this negative evaluation of Turkey holds sway in much of mainstream European thought. It's not as if the likes of Le Pen are the only mouthpieces on this.