Thursday, August 24, 2006
Just try saying "French leadership" with a straight face.
A Jim Hoagland column almost always involves a bit of name-dropping as it seems that any prominent leader worthy of the title is an FOJ and so we read today in the Washington Post:
“An open letter to the French president -- even a president who has been an acquaintance for 30 years -- risks drawing resentment as its main response.” It's Up to You, President Chirac
Mr. Hoagland is being achingly polite as he urges President Chirac to engage France more actively in the goings-on in the Mid-East.
“The European Union's foreign ministers meet in Brussels tomorrow, and you have told several world leaders that you will make a final decision by then on whether to provide enough troops and leadership to make the new military stabilization force for southern Lebanon credible and effective. It is vital for Europe, for the Middle East and for France that you commit to doing just that.”
Fair enough as far as that goes but Mr. Hoagland follows that up with this:
“Monsieur le president, any American making that suggestion must be humble. After all, the United States will not put any of its troops into the force, largely for the same reasons that you give in private for backing away from your initial, assertive indications about France's leadership role in this crisis.
“A French-led force would be a particular target for car-bombers and other assassins from Syria and its client Lebanese guerrilla organization, Hezbollah, you are said to believe.”
First of all, to even suggest the French and US have similar concerns in putting troops in the region is an insult to our military. We already have men and women in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is a realistic concern that an added third significant presence would only further stir the pot. In the meantime, the French have been leading the UNIFIL contingent that oversaw Hezbollah’s recent buildup and attack on Israeli soldiers from southern Lebanon. And while I know the French lost 58 in a suicide bombing that coincided with the attack on US Marines in Beirut in 1983; that was 23 years ago - it’s been awhile since French soldiers have been attacked over there simply because they’re French.
Second, the French have been leading the charge to get the UN resolution in place. To come back now and claim the resolution is too ambiguous to actually commit to action under it makes them worthy of all the derision they’re attracting. European press warns French troop offer weakens UN force in Lebanon
“Despite expectations that France would provide the bulk of a planned 15,000 strong UN force, Paris said Thursday it would send 200 troops to reinforce the UN mission in Lebanon.
“While it said France was prepared to command the enlarged force, it also called for safety guarantees for its soliders (sic) before making further commitments.”\
Okay – this has a certain fish-in-a-barrel flair to it but “safety guarantees”? I know it has been awhile for the French but normally militaries don’t get…oh, what’s the use…you got to wonder: did Floyd Landis thoroughly deplete that nation’s supply?
“An open letter to the French president -- even a president who has been an acquaintance for 30 years -- risks drawing resentment as its main response.” It's Up to You, President Chirac
Mr. Hoagland is being achingly polite as he urges President Chirac to engage France more actively in the goings-on in the Mid-East.
“The European Union's foreign ministers meet in Brussels tomorrow, and you have told several world leaders that you will make a final decision by then on whether to provide enough troops and leadership to make the new military stabilization force for southern Lebanon credible and effective. It is vital for Europe, for the Middle East and for France that you commit to doing just that.”
Fair enough as far as that goes but Mr. Hoagland follows that up with this:
“Monsieur le president, any American making that suggestion must be humble. After all, the United States will not put any of its troops into the force, largely for the same reasons that you give in private for backing away from your initial, assertive indications about France's leadership role in this crisis.
“A French-led force would be a particular target for car-bombers and other assassins from Syria and its client Lebanese guerrilla organization, Hezbollah, you are said to believe.”
First of all, to even suggest the French and US have similar concerns in putting troops in the region is an insult to our military. We already have men and women in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is a realistic concern that an added third significant presence would only further stir the pot. In the meantime, the French have been leading the UNIFIL contingent that oversaw Hezbollah’s recent buildup and attack on Israeli soldiers from southern Lebanon. And while I know the French lost 58 in a suicide bombing that coincided with the attack on US Marines in Beirut in 1983; that was 23 years ago - it’s been awhile since French soldiers have been attacked over there simply because they’re French.
Second, the French have been leading the charge to get the UN resolution in place. To come back now and claim the resolution is too ambiguous to actually commit to action under it makes them worthy of all the derision they’re attracting. European press warns French troop offer weakens UN force in Lebanon
“Despite expectations that France would provide the bulk of a planned 15,000 strong UN force, Paris said Thursday it would send 200 troops to reinforce the UN mission in Lebanon.
“While it said France was prepared to command the enlarged force, it also called for safety guarantees for its soliders (sic) before making further commitments.”\
Okay – this has a certain fish-in-a-barrel flair to it but “safety guarantees”? I know it has been awhile for the French but normally militaries don’t get…oh, what’s the use…you got to wonder: did Floyd Landis thoroughly deplete that nation’s supply?
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
<< Home
