| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| French Troops to Help U.S. in Afghanistan |
| 2003-06-02 |
| In a sign of reconciliation, French President Jacques Chirac told President Bush on Monday that he will send French special forces to operate alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan. "This decision taken by France corresponds both to a wish from the United States and a wish from our country to take part in the stabilization of Afghanistan, so it's a shared interest,'' said Chirac spokeswoman Catherine Colonna. She would not say how many special forces would be sent. The new troops will be separate from several hundred French soldiers already in Afghanistan. Those troops are part of an international force operating in the war-torn country or are working as advisers training Afghan soldiers. Why is it I don't think this is a good thing? |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #17 Read a great book awhile back on WW1,been to many years to remember the details.Seems the German General Staff estimated that the Army's swing through Belium into Northern France would cost 10 German soldiers/per meter of ground seized. In one battle the German dead were stacked so high British soldiers had to push the bodies over so they could continue firing. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2003-06-03 07:07:37 |
| #16 JFM: if your rebuttal is that French political leadership in WW I caused the mutinies, no argument here. But there was a fair bit of bloodshed in putting the mutinies down. That forty men went to a firing squad tells you only that the general staff was bound and determined to create an example for everyone else. I might also add that the Ami forces in 1918 were the straw that broke the back of the Germans: but without them, the Germans would have taken Paris, and all the French and British blood spilled to that point would have been for nought. I'm sure there are good units in the French army. There were good units in the French army at the beginning of WW II (DeGaulle's division fought particularly well). That doesn't change the fact that the outcome was spectacularly poor. Ditto Vietnam 1954: I'm sure Fred is right about the acts of heroism, but some clear blunders were made at the beginning that doomed the French. In one way we're all in violent agreement, as Ptah notes: bad leadership undoes an army quicker than anything. The quickest way for the French to shake the perception/meme that their army isn't up to modern warfare is to take on missions as Fred suggests: go to the DRC and fix the place. Nothing talks like success. One more thing, JFM: nobody here wants to nuke France. Honest. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-06-02 23:59:35 |
| #15 And I'd add Alastaire Horne's To Lose a Battle and The Price of Glory. The first is an account of the Battles of the Frontiers and France in 1940. The second is about the Battle of Verdun. Shirer's book is more focused on politics. Horne's books are more military oriented. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-06-02 23:31:37 |
| #14 I'd also recommend Bernard Fall's "Hell in a Very Small Place," if you can find a copy. It's an almost hour-by-hour dissection of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Fall was matter-of-fact in his treatment of the shortcomings and problems the Frenchies faced in Viet Nam. De Castries and Navarre weren't incompetent, but Navarre didn't inspire confidence in many of his officers and Castries was remiss in fortifying two key positions. If they'd won, nobody would have cared about either. Of the troops at Dien Bien Phu, as of March 13th, before the final reinforcement, 1400 were from the French mainland, 3000 were Legionnaires, 2600 were North Africans, and 3500 were Viets or tribal Thais, all of which presented hideous problems with coordination - something the true believers in multilateral forces tend to discount because they've never tried to communicate in three or four different languages and cultural references at once. There were some awsome examples of heroism, and there were the usual examples of not-quite-heroism and things that didn't work the way they were expected to. We had the same thing in Viet Nam, by the way - Con Thien and Khe Sanh were supposed to be replays of Dien Bien Phu, and the North Vietnamese were able to bring off either one, but neither was a cakewalk. It's quite true about the problems with leadership. The example that pops to mind is the South Vietnamese 25th Division, which was pretty dreggy until Do Cao Tri took it over. He turned it around in a very short time, and it performed outstandingly in operation Lam Son 719, which was some tough fighting, indeed. He was killed in a helicopter crash shortly afterward and the unit returned to being nondescript. All the Frenchie bashing is fun, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are some very good units in the French army. There are the usual problems associated with a conscript force (I believe they're still draftees - correct me if I'm wrong). The qualitative difference between a professional force and draftees will always show (read up on the Falklands operation), but the professional units add enough heft to give the force punch; the problem is that it won't have staying power with a draftee base. It's my opinion, and I could be wrong, that combat arms and combat support should be professionals and draftees should provide service support. I don't know how much the French army has adopted the combined arms concept - I've been out of the business too long to be up on it, and never had much contact with them when I was in it. I don't think that standing on their own, and with their level of military spending, they're capable of it. The U.S. has put the money and the R&D and the training into making it work, and the result is as different from the rest of the world's forces as Guderian's was from the Polish or Soviet armies. It's a different class of warfare, and the tools to counter it haven't been invented yet. The only counter available now would be to mount the same kind of operation as an immovable object. 'Tain't gonna happen, not even with a Euroforce - see above, re coordinating multilateral forces. That being said, professional French forces, under competent officers can do wonders in places like Bunia and Ivory Coast, provided they're not hamstrung by orders from on high not to kill anybody. And I think that's what they're facing today. If I was in charge, I'd call for an adequate all-French force for DRC, with orders to kill anyone waving a gun or a machete. They'd clean the place up. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-06-02 22:23:01 |
| #13 Historian Anthony Komjathy, a Hungarian Freedom fighter of 1956, onetime instructor in Tactics at the Hungarian Military Academy (later a history professor in two US colleges) was researching some aspects of WWI, and asked for some information from a branch of the French military archives. The archivists were so rude and so evasive--they contradicted themselves a dozen times--that Komjathy came to the conclusion that they must have had something truly embarassing to hide. Shirers The Collapse of the 3rd Republic is indeed an excellent work. Thanks to JFM for telling us what's happening. The regular US media don't have a clue. |
| Posted by: Mom 2003-06-02 22:05:12 |
| #12 I agree with JFM: An army can't or won't fight if their leadership, military and political, are stupid as hell. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-06-02 19:08:41 |
| #11 JFM: Don't get too put out by these guys. Put downs are very much part of the American sense of humor. When I was in high school, we used to call it "capping." (Example: Student one: "Your mama is like a freshly poured cup of coffee. Hot and steaming and waiting for the cream." Student two: "Well at least my mama gets out of bed to go to work." Etc., ad infinitum.) Getting back to France and Europe, there is this huge gap between the so-called elites and the regular folks in Europe that most Americans just cannot grasp. You understand it because you live it. In my opinion, the biggest failure in American foreign policy is our failure to address that gap -- indeed to exploit it, tear it open, and free all of the unused human potential. If we could succeed at this, then we would have true European allies, instead of cynical fools like Chiraq and Schroeder. At any rate, I hope you stick around. I appreciate and enjoy your sense of history and viewpoint. Rantburgers: If you want to get some appreciation of what JFM is talking about, read William Shirer's The Collapse of the Third Republic. I highly recommend it. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-06-02 18:58:15 |
| #10 Some points. First: I am not a Canuck. I am a French. That is how I know of French politics and of the hate speech spilled day after day by French media both leftist or willing to build a pan-european nationalism through hate of America. (Look at http://merdeinfrance.blogspot.com for translated examples of what the French are being fed). Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe, in my case that the French will be friends of America after the lies of their press are exposed and they go through a desintoxication period. I am also a friend and an admirer of America (but see below) and author of a post entitled "My name of Jean-Francois and I am an anti-American" shaming those people who look at the straws in America's eyes and not at the beams in her ennemies eyes (or in their own) Second: To Mike N. Vietnam: the French left in 1954. Excuse me if I don't understand why they got you into it by 1963. And the fifty thousand American dead translate into ten to twelve thousand French given the difference in population. I doubt there is any war where the French were trying to escape the draft after only twelve thousand dead. Even when it was not their homeland. BTW: in fourty days of combat in 1940 the French Army lost one hundred and twenty thousand dead. In American terms those would have been five hundred thousand dead. The problem was not about French soldiers not willing to die for their country but their uneffectiveness in making the Germans die for theirs: only thirty three thousand and this counting those who were killed by the Dutch, Belgians and British. I highly doubt your quote about De Gaulle. I have read the "Memoires de Guerre" and I also know a bit about the guy's ego, his faith in the innate superiority of the French soldier over the German one (he believed that provided they had six armored divisions the French would make mincemeat of the ten german ones due to Frenchmen's greater adaptability and creativity), his pride (he had France refunding Allied equipment lent to the Free French and that before the end of war), his obsession about having Free French earning laurels in combat, his mysticism about France ("I imagine France like the princess of tales or the madone painted on (church)walls"). Sorry but your assertion doesn't compute. I fear your source has lied. Third: Steve White. The French mutinied in 1917 but it was because soldiers were tired of politicians and generals who treated them as expendable. And given that only one division remained loyal I doubt the rebellion could have been put down by force. What restored loyalty was the nomination of general who had a reputation of being economical of the life of his soldiers/ Philippe Petain. Under fourty soldiers were sent to the firesquad: do you really believe so few people would have been shot if force had had to be used? While we are at it it was the British, not the US who saved France. Germany had two times the population and over three times the industrial production of France so it was British help who kept it in the war. And now after the British and French went through Marne first, Ypres, Paschendaeele, Verdun, Nivelle's offensives, suffered gas attacks for months without protectio (until gas masks were designed), designed and mass produced the decisive weapon of the war (tanks) it would be Americans who would get the credit because in the last yeaqr of war they sent a force a fraction of what the French and British were fielding and who was mostly equipped with French and British weapons? America put the straw who broke the camel's back (OK it was several pounds) but the main load were tons of French and British blood. Fourth: Mike. About attitude of French citizens during occupation. There were two important factors tilting the balance tge wrong way. The first one was July 3, 1940 when the British attacked the French fleet at Mers el Kebir. Twelve hundred French sailors were killed on the battleship Bretagne alone. Since there was ever the danger of either by black mail ("Give me the fleet or I kill one million citizens"), ruse or Vichy switching sides the Germans could seize the French fleet it is my feeling (and De Gaulle's) that better those ships sunk than fighting for the Germans: with the French fleet on their side the Nazis wouldn't have needed air supremacy for invasion of Great Britain. But the French and specially the Armed Forces and specially the Navy were quite angry about the dead sailors and thus for most of the war they looked at Resistance people and Free French as traitors for siding with the British. The second factor was that there was a French governement and that government had sued for peace and was calling for collaboration. So even before Mers el Kebir many officers who otherise would have gladly gone to Britain and continued the fight felt that they had to keep discipline and obey the legal governement. But people would have shrugged if it had been say, Laval, who had been calling for it. But it was Marshall Petain, the victor of Verdun, the only WWI general who seemed to care about his soldiers lives so he was an idol for all the WWI combattants. And that means that all teh people who had proven their patriotism in WWI, all the people who had got medals for heroism under fire instead of calling to resistance were calling for obedience to Marshall Petain and he was telling the French that it was the people, not the elites who wre guilty for the defeat and that in atonement for its sins the people should reject republican values and obey his governement who was collaborating with the Germans. Fifth: "There is no such thing as bad soldiers. Only bad officers". Since begining of time some armies have found themselves in situations where rtheir sacrifice would cause grievous losses to the ennemy or could buy give valuable time to their fellows (eg El Alamo or Belfort). And there have been times where errors of high command puts troops in situations where further resistance only brings slaughtering of the defenders with minimal casualties on the enemy. The Japanese used to suicide in such situations. Others, including George Washington, surrendered. Fifth: To all of you. I understand Americans being angry about the French. Say all what you want about 2003 French. Want to nuke France? OK, just grant asylum to my wife and daughters. But I am fed up with disparaging of French soldiers be it the 1914 ones or even the 1940 ones whose defeat was mostly not theirs but the one of incompetent or downright traitorous generals and politicians. People who have been long dead don't deserve the scorn brought by the French of 2003. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-06-02 18:21:41 |
| #9 Interesting admissions about Chira(k?) by JFM (French Canuck?) Maybe the French problem goes deeper than anyone short of Condoleezza knows. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-06-02 13:46:12 |
| #8 Our best and brightest will probably be unwilling to serve next to those Benedict Arnold yellow-weasles. How could a Frenchie possibly run a Cladinstine operation with their stench??? |
| Posted by: matinum 2003-06-02 13:11:58 |
| #7 First of all, when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, they were not defending their homeland. France was when they folded in WWII. The only thing that France could have done to make them look worse in WWII, is turn on the British. "Hitler Pleased to see Unconditional Surrender already prepared for him" "Welcome back!" "We kept your rooms the way you left them" De Gaulle calls Capitulation "An example of the finest French military tradition." |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-02 13:03:42 |
| #6 JFM: As a citizen of Rantburg, it is my inalienable right to engage in the telling of French jokes and other smartassery in the public square. On a serious note, I am well aware of WWI history, and I yield to no one in my respect for the armies of Napoleonic France. The French in 1940 had a decent army betrayed by spineless and inept leadership--but you cannot deny that after the surrender, the French people in the aggregate were more than willing to accept German occupation, if not collaberate actively with it. (I recommend you look up excellent article on this point in the military history journal MHQ from a few years ago called "The Myth of French Resisitance." Unfortunately not on line, or I'd give you a link.) As Steve writes above, it's been all downhill from there. France today has a respectable army (at least the Legion) and builds some nice airplanes, but its political leadership is, not to put too fine a point on it, a pack of weasels. I can't respect people like that. |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-06-02 12:20:25 |
| #5 JFM, counter-balancing this of course is the near collapse of French forces in the summer of 1917, with wide-spread mutinies that were put down by force. The US army truly saved France then -- remember the German offensive of 1918 was stopped short of Paris in large part by American forces. Then of course there is 1940, when a French army superior in numbers and equipment were decisively beaten by the Germans. This was due in part to the near-revolution by the French left and the sabotage they inspired. Tack on Vietnam and 1954 (who was the genius who decided to put a French airfield in a valley floor?), and that's three in a row. I don't doubt the bravery of the French soldier when he's competently led and equipped -- the Free French forces of 1944 did well, but they were American trained and supplied. But you'll excuse the average American for having some scorn for the French army -- it's been a while since they won one on their own. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-06-02 11:51:53 |
| #4 JFM....your point on WWI is well taken, but you lose me on the rest of it. The French HAD a tradition of toughness if one is willing to go back a couple of centuries. Also, regarding Vietnam, just who do you think we inherited that garbage pit from anyway? I stand by Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey until the French prove otherwise. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-06-02 11:48:33 |
| #3 Keep Chirak as far of Afghanistan as possible. He has been a backstabber for all of his life. I don't trust the individual soldiers and officers either: the French are submitted to a such incredible barrage of anti-americanism by their press that it would take years of de-brainwashing before they could be trusted. It is not the fault of the base Frenchman but it is a sad reality. Now about Mike's surrendering comment I think I have had enough. So Mr Mike let's me remember you that despite what happened in 1940 the French have quite a tradition of toughness at war: WWI cost them about one and half million dead and eight million casualties on a male population (children included) of sixteen million. And they didn't surrender. Contrast this with America conceding defeat in Vietnam after only fifty thousand dead (on a population over six times larger than WWI France) and of people demonstrating or fleeing to Canada because they feared to be hurt in Vietnam. Ah, and if you look at history you will see that the usual outcome has not been the French surrendering to their ennemies but the other guys surrendering to them. Take a one dollar note and you will see the picture of one guy who surrendered to the French. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-06-02 10:51:38 |
| #2 They'll probably rat out all of the coalition plans like they did in Yugoslavia. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-06-02 10:47:57 |
| #1 They're going to teach the last of the Taliban how to surrender. |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-06-02 09:59:23 |