Glenn Reynolds points to a bit of advice from Iraqi President Iyad Allawi to Jacques Chirac:
The French, like all democratic countries, can’t content themselves with adopting a passive position. The Americans, British and other nations that are fighting in Iraq are not only fighting to protect Iraqis, they are fighting to protect their own countries.
The governments that decided to stay on the defensive will be the next targets of the terrorists. Terrorist attacks will occur in Paris, in Nice, in Cannes or in San Francisco. The time has come to act against terrorism, in the same fashion…that Europe fought Hitler. Every day, tens of people are killed in Iraq. They are not dying because we are going through a major national crisis, but because we have decided to combat evil. That’s why the entire international community must assist us, as rapidly as possible, to improve the security of our country.
…the U.S. decided to disembark in Normandy, to eliminate Hitler. They suffered heavy losses to accomplish this objective. The same thing is happening today. People must assume their responsibilities. The decision to assist Iraq is courageous. Let me tell you that the French, despite all the noise they make–‘We don’t want war!’–will shortly have to fight the terrorists.
Indeed Paris is as much a target as New York or Madrid – and the anti-war, bordering on pro-Saddam, opinions of the French intelligentsia give them no protection against the coming storm. The French believe that terrorism is an issue that doesn’t effect them, and that the “war on terrorism” is really just a ploy for other imperial ambitions.
Unfortunately one wonders just how much it would take before they realize that they too have a stake in this war.
I expect that your black-and-white worldview disables your capacity to look at things from any other angle than the one-dimensional plane you stand on, but let me pose this question to you just in case you’re capable of answering anything objectively….if you were France or Germany, would you align yourself with the United States and run the risk of setting off a civil war in your own heavily Arab country while simultaneously allowing your chief economic competitor to absorb another large chunk of the global economic pie at your own expense? Does that sound like a good deal to you?
If I were Chirac or Schroeder, I would gladly risk the possibility of a terrorist attack from an enemy that has no grievance with my nation long before I would dance with the Americans and risk political and economic instability in my country. Are you really suggesting that if you were the Prime Minister of France or Germany, you would put the political and economic interests of America ahead of your own?
Mark, please:
-arabs represents no more than 9% of the french population. It wouldn’t launch a civil war!
+arab does not mean islamo-fascist, and France opposes terrorists with the full support of its population, including those with arab origins. The proof is that today, as two journalist are held hostages in Irak, the whole muslim community is condemning integrism. The ban on headscarves has been understood, and muslims living in France (as well as other religious community) know to well the rights they can enjoy in France in comparison to many other nations, and are grateful for that.
Jay
-You title “from Baghdad to Paris” is really an abuse of words. This text is “from Washington to Paris”, even if it was read in Irak. That was the main problem of an unilateral action in Irak: the rebuilding also is unilateral. Do you know about that minion of Putin in Chechnya that has just been elected? It’s the same shit in Irak! For example, the constitution proposed by the “provisory council” (with a strong reference to islam) has been rejected by american authorities. Are you conscient this is propaganda, or do you actually believe these lies your government is creating?
-Eventhough some terrorists do exist, the fact that people fighting for their basic rights as in Chechnya, Tibet and many other locations of the world are called terrorists by their oppressor is very telling! The war on Terror is starting to look more and more like a “war on freedom”: one should not put all activism on the same level. How do you fight a dictatorship if not with weapons? Would that not be the principal caracteristic of a totalitarism to crack down on any opponent on a fallacious reason, and imprison them without any trial at all?
-Could you quote ONE french pro-saddam personality? If not, give some apologies for this lie above.
-we have nothing to do with Bush’s crusade for the “oily graal”. This war had our full support until it was limited to real terror. Now that the fight has been extended “against all enemies”, we are not concerned with this marketing campaign for american interests any more. Paris remains of course a potential target for terrorists, but we shall deal with this threat in an adequate and proportionate way: filing all individuals for their whole life, phones and internet wires recording and arbitrary detention is not part of our understanding of democracy. One cannot pretent fighting for democracy by violating its most essential properties.
Do you not realise that the world is not safer now? Maybe a few iraki lives have been sparred (maybe, because the war is so not over…) but at what cost? Already 1,000 american soldiers, 15,000 irakis, to which you can add all victims of terrorists attacks since march 2003. Creating a rift between populations is building the wars of tomorrow. Bush’s actions and supports are going down that road of communitarism.
Vincent, civil war was an inappropriate term, but you know what I mean. Chirac and Schroeder have nothing to gain by embracing America in the war in Iraq putting a terrorist target on their backs while simultaneously risking a Muslim uprising on their own soil. That’s aside from the economic implications of aiding and abetting America’s colonialization of an oil-rich Arab empire. The fact that Jay refuses to answer my question is a good indication he would choose not to practice what he preaches if were the Prime Minister of France or Germany.
Indeed!
France thinks its immune from terror? That’s absolute rubbish!!
Let us not forget all the terror France faced from the Algerian War. And most of it was not from Arabs but from the fascists in OAS who wanted to launch a coup and take over the state. How much destruction did these disaffected pro “Algerie Francaise” generals inflict upon their country? Who can forget ther attempted invasion of Corsica by OAS forces? After the bloodletting that France suffered both in its own borders and in Algeria, it’s foolish to claim France is naive to terrorism.
It’s also faced Basque Terrorism, Corsican Terrorism, Breton Terrorism, and terrorism from Armenian extremists who were targeting Turkish interests in France.
In the 90’s Algerian groups have struck with bombs, and the extremists in Basque, Corsican and Breton communities still lurk in the background. France is well prepared to meet these challenges. It has taken on extremist Imams in Marseille, Paris, and Lyon.
France doesn’t want anything to do with Iraq, but in reality France has been there and done that when it comes to an Iraq type situation. While motives for the Algerian War and this Iraqi War may have been different, the results are beginning to look quite similar.
I’m with Vincent on this one.