From Stratfor, as part of an analysis of the consequences of the war:

"There is also a fundamental shift in the global alignment. It is
noteworthy that France and the United States treated each other
as enemies during the U.N. diplomatic process. That is to say
that France did not simply express its objection to U.S. aims --
rather, Paris used its resources aggressively to block American
ambitions.

France's motives in this were two-fold:

* It saw the Iraqi issue as an opportunity to generate momentum
in Europe for a unified foreign policy designed to balance U.S.
power. French leaders understood that the nation, by itself,
could not hope to counterbalance U.S. power. Therefore, they saw
Europe, coalesced around a Franco-German axis, as the
counterbalance; they saw France as the dominant power in this
European entity.

* France has long had ambitions to be a major player in the
Middle East. It has historical roots there and current interests
in a range of commercial entities. France has long felt hindered
by U.S. policies and presence in the region. Paris sought to
supplant the United States by establishing closer relations with
Arab countries than the United States did. It sought to use its
defense of Iraq as a trigger for greater regional influence.

French hopes have been shattered on both fronts. In Europe, the
reaction to a French-designed European foreign policy has been
overwhelmingly negative. Apart from Germany, only Sweden, Belgium
and Luxembourg have signed on to the French program. Paris'
influence, particularly in the east, has suffered severe blows.
In the Middle East, France has been shown to be incapable of
controlling the United States and therefore to be an unreliable
ally.

The Franco-American confrontation has generated precisely the
opposite effect than what Paris had intended. Out of fear of
France, much of Europe aligned with the United States. Out of
appearance of weakness, France has lost tremendous credibility in
the Middle East. The United States will press home this
advantage. Washington in essence has demonstrated that it cannot
be blocked and that it will not allow international institutions
to control its actions. This, of course, has bred great
resentment. It also has created a situation in which European
powers, including Russia and potentially Germany, will have to
re-evaluate their behavior toward the United States.

If the Iraq war goes well -- if it ends quickly, with relatively
few casualties and with an effective and benign occupation -- the
United States will emerge from the war with substantially
enhanced power globally. The issue for the United States is not
whether it is liked; the issue is whether the cost of resistance
to U.S. policies is high enough that challengers will be
deterred.

It follows that the United States will not reconcile with France.
Rather, Washington will seek to make an example of the
consequences of active attempts to thwart American policies.
Russia and Germany opposed but did not devote nearly the
resources that France did to defeating U.S. ambitions. Opposing
and working actively to block U.S. policies is the distinction --
and from the U.S. point of view, France crossed the line.
Washington will have one policy for the rest of Europe, another
policy for Germany and Russia and a third policy especially for
France. U.S. policy in the Middle East and in Europe will be
constructed around this, not simply out of anger at France --
although this should not be dismissed -- but as an exercise in
power and a lesson in consequences."

I agree. I thought the initial French bashing for cowardice was overdone and never adequately explained France's position. This also goes to explain old Europe's attacks on Tony Blair. Great Britain is opposed to the EU, paticularly if it is dominated by a Franco-German axis. France is cagey. After their performance in WWII they ended up with a veto vote in the UN Security Council. Go figure! I hold great promise for our relations with Putin/Russia and was disappointed with their position. Germany seems like it could swing back our way. Schroeder used anti-Amercanism to win election, but that has backfired and now he's hanging by a thread.

Its a shame that this debate is framed around power. I saw another article where this action was viewed as Bush's "ambitions". I think the world will view this as a bad issue to use as a way to check the power of the US. We are not talking about a treaty about trade here. France has chosen the wrong battle to use to leverage its own power.

Yup, agree with pretty much everything you say.

I guess it stared with France even before Sept 11 when France and Germany were pounding on the new US President about Kyoto, trade, ect....

Here's why I'm not mad at the French: (1) They took their best shot and they lost. And they are going to loose big time post war. Heck, even Russia will probably be peeled back to our side quite easily. (2) Their best shot was totally ineffective. The US in this one had to perform the old style one-on-on diplomacy with each of dozens of nations that now support us or will very shortly. That's how we used to do it--maybe we have been "resting on our laurels" a bit. (3) It has restored us back at the top of the hill as far as World influence is concerned. Remember, pre 9/11, we had really lost some clout which gave the Chiracks (sp) and Shroeders of the world more say. Some of that came back with 9/11, so our influence would have been even more eroded.

We needed to be tested: not militarily but diplomatically and I think we passed A+. So give the French a big thank you.

JMHO: Sholin

p.s. I'm not implying we need a war to restore our prestige, I hope it is not taken that way and I hope future international diplomacy efforts will be used for constructive purposes.

__________________
What else, '73 MB 280 SEL (Lt Blue)
Daily driver: '84 190D 2.2 5 spd.

Excellent thoughts, all. Washington Post recently ran an article in regard to Ivory Coast ("former" French African colony), where France has "intervened" without the vaunted UN approval. Turns out many residents are quite sick of the french and their policies and are actively supporting the US. How interesting.

France is a hypocritical, ineffectual power who has taken on an adversary that it can not possibly hope to handle. They should proceed extremely cautiously in regard to this country. A large part of their position in this situation has to do with their sizable Muslim minority, primarily from Algeria and other North African countries (similar situation in Germany with Turks). If they choose to ally themselves with this axis, then it conceivably lead to outright military conflict at soem point in the not-to-distant future. Under no circumstances do I see France as a legitimate military threat to the US. As I said, they need to be extremely cautious.

I just love it! Good thing we don't need them or want them:

The "Grand Republic", the world's least grateful nation, with absolutely the most rude population & the shortest national memory, living in the mis-perceived former grandeur of a bygone age...

Thwarted on the international stage, again...

Gone are the former colonies in Africa and South Asia...

If they didn't have The Bomb noboby would even remotely care what their position was! Well, maybe in Quebec?

I hope we remember their recent duplicity better than they remember D-Day!

p.s. France's limited support during the American Revolution was merely consistant with their open struggle with England for world domination. That had been going on virtually unabated for hundreds of years previously. Some notable French individuals made dedicated contributions to the Colonial effort but the French government's policy was primarily self-serving.

__________________
'91 420 SEL @ 199K, '92 SVX @ 181K, '93 SC400 @ 86K, '93 Kaw ZX-11 @ 30K, '87 F250 @ 181K , 2001 Valkyrie Interstate @ 6K, Y2K Honda NightHawk 250 with 1.5K, '88 420SEL I.@ 179K & the 2nd latest, an '88 420SEL II.@ 210K runnin' parts car, '85 F150 300/NP435

YEAH- WHAT YOU ALL SAID!!!!!

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Yeah ! What yall said (very well), but I worry about this many agreements in this forum...

Chirac has moaned and groaned endlessly about how we are disregarding the UN, we are acting "unilaterally", Bush is a trigger-happy cowboy, we should abide by the UN security council's wishes, blah, blah, blah...all the usual crap.

Well, consider this:

The past THIRTY-SEVEN TIMES that French troops have been deployed beyond thier nation's borders, it was done WITHOUT seeking UN APPROVAL!!!!!! THIRTY-SEVEN! 37, 37, 37, 37, 37!!!!!!!!!!!1 Did I mention it was Thirty-seven times!?!?!?!

The hypocrisy astounds me, and I'm not easily shocked.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic