France: Military Solution Won't Work in Iran

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 12:48 PM

Now, I know you guys love to France bash, but France is a great nation, with a modern military that you wouldn't want to fight. Anyone who doubts the resolution of well-led French troops should look into the battle of Verdun during WWI...

But I can't help thinking how destructive this announcement was. What was the damn point of this? No need to saber rattle, but don't tell the Iranians military options are off the table at this point in the problem, they're counting on that!

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iran

oldfogey · 05-04-2006, 1:04 PM

It's a consistent positioning. The current proposal jointly from US, UK and France (any echoes here?) is about sanctions.

The US has also consistently said it won't be bound by the UN's decision alone....

Carrot and stick?

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 1:06 PM

Yeah, I know there's more to the story than just this little press announcement. I'm guessing it was some kind of a show of good faith.

But if you buy into the Clausewitz theory of war being "simply the expression of politics by other means", I don't know why you'd take it off the table with these guys. They've given the world "the finger" on this issue for a long time...

Once you make an announcement like this, if you change your mind and decide to go military, you haven't done a good job preparing the citizens for it.

CBRVFR · 05-04-2006, 1:17 PM

They know they're not in a leadership position to take a considered view on behalf of anyone but themselves, so this way they tweak Bush's nose. Additionally, they're not missing a chance to look good to the French political base of a considerable number of Moslems and those who hate war ( and US saber rattling) generally. Finally, if Iran blows a gasket at the west, they'll be in a good position to get oil and business contracts. Self-interested twerps.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that it's the annoying French government that is saying that all-out war with Iran is a bad idea, that doesn't mean they're wrong.

I'd also question the pride and efficacy of the French armed forces today versus the troops that fought in WWI or as troops in exile in WWII after Germany kicked their ass. They're a generation or two removed from "Valor" as a national principle.

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 1:20 PM

I have talked to a couple of guys that have worked with modern French troops in combat zones, and said they are quite good. One of these people is on the board...

I also understand they're a bit self effacing about their WWII ah..."situation".

Part of historian William Shirer's theory was WWI simply exhausted France for war, and that they hadn't recovered by 1939. He also says there was far more at work than just that.

Agree with your post otherwise though. Some good speculation there.

BDA116 · 05-04-2006, 1:23 PM

I'll just plus one CBRVFR and add that the frenchy military might not be something for another third world country to thumb their nose at, but they definately aren't something a well trained high tech military needs to worry about.

But yeah, it's all a bunch of hot air anyway, they wouldn't take any military action no matter what Iran did.

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 1:24 PM

France is a high tech trained military.

Could they kick our ass? No. But they are among the elite...

Hell, at their very worst, WWII, they still kicked the hell out of the Italians without even really trying. And Italy, while not exactly a mighty military power, is more than a third world military power.

CBRVFR · 05-04-2006, 1:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I have talked to a couple of guys that have worked with modern French troops in combat zones, and said they are quite good. One of these people is on the board...

I also understand they're a bit self effacing about their WWII ah..."situation".

Agree with your post otherwise though. Some good speculation there.

I have no doubt that French soldiers ( especially Special Forces)are well trained and that their equipment is top notch.. but as we know, a component of war is political leadership and the leadership provided by the officers all the way down to the platoon level. I don't see it.

Nor have I ever heard a French person being "self-effacing" about ANYTHING having to do with 'the Glory of France'!!

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 1:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBRVFR

I have no doubt that French soldiers ( especially Special Forces)are well trained and that their equipment is top notch.. but as we know, a component of war is political leadership and the leadership provided by the officers all the way down to the platoon level. I don't see it.

Yes, hence my caveat, well led. At Verdun they had Petain and Joffre, along with years of focusing on the elan of the army. Ironically, Petain and Joffre both had large parts in screwing up the Battle of France in WWII.

Quote:

Nor have I ever heard a French person being "self-effacing" about ANYTHING having to do with 'the Glory of France'!!

I didn't say the glory of France. I said their WWII defeat. And to be honest I didn't hear it, I've never been a soldier. It was another soldier I know that told me about it...

CBRVFR · 05-04-2006, 1:36 PM

It would be fascinating to get hold of a French history textbook* and see what they have to say about the Maginot Line, the arrogance and mistakes that led to the debacle of German occupation, the collaborationist Vichy Government, and the liberation led by British and US armies.

I bet they focus on DeGaulle and the partisans.

*I'd have to get a translator. I'm thinking Veronique..

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 1:39 PM

It would be very interesting.

If you want to be inundated with facts, read The Collapse of the Third Republic by Shirer.

It took me a long time to read (long book, TONS of facts) but it was rewarding. I'm working on his much more famous Rise and Fall of the Third Reich now. It's also excellent, but not as enjoyable.

phobiaphobe · 05-04-2006, 1:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBRVFR

...

*I'd have to get a translator. I'm thinking Veronique..

Adorable as she is, Old Quebec French is almost a different language than modern Parisian. That's like you or me trying to understand what the **** the Brits are talking about.

CBRVFR · 05-04-2006, 1:47 PM

You haven't talked me out of it..

BDA116 · 05-04-2006, 1:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

It would be very interesting.

If you want to be inundated with facts, read The Collapse of the Third Republic by Shirer.

It took me a long time to read (long book, TONS of facts) but it was rewarding. I'm working on his much more famous Rise and Fall of the Third Reich now. It's also excellent, but not as enjoyable.

That book is a hard read, yet very interesting.

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 1:49 PM

Which one?

Proto · 05-04-2006, 1:51 PM

I've just put my asbestos suit on, so flame away, but why do you seem so convinced that the US forces are so well trained compared to other first world armies? The fellows I've talked to that have been in Iraq and Kuwait before that would argue against you. And historically your track record is not exactly sparkling.

Very high tech, and without doubt superbly equipped, but I would suggest not necessarily the best trained, and particularly so when confronted with current world difficulties.

Runs and hides.

phobiaphobe · 05-04-2006, 1:54 PM

BDA116 · 05-04-2006, 1:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Which one?

Yeah I left that part a bit vague, eh? I meant Rise and Fall.

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 1:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Yeah I left that part a bit vague, eh? I meant Rise and Fall.

The "Third Republic" is actually a far more interesting read.

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 2:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proto

I've just put my asbestos suit on, so flame away, but why do you seem so convinced that the US forces are so well trained compared to other first world armies? The fellows I've talked to that have been in Iraq and Kuwait before that would argue against you. And historically your track record is not exactly sparkling.

Very high tech, and without doubt superbly equipped, but I would suggest not necessarily the best trained, and particularly so when confronted with current world difficulties.

Runs and hides.

Proto, I know you love to America bash, but that post takes the cake.

Were our forces that started in Iraq 3+ years ago properly trained and equipped for that specific battle? Not exactly. I bet if you got some recent feedback, you'd find our troops are going into Iraq with much better training, and even better equipment, for that specific mission.

The war in Iraq was a new tack for our country. The un-armored Hummers were a perfect example of how the military had planned for a different type of war. The Hummer was designed to haul ass across the steppes of Europe.

But the implication our soldiers are not well trained is plainly ridiculous. And the other implication that we aren't evolving to this style of war, is also wrong.

BDA116 · 05-04-2006, 2:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

The "Third Republic" is actually a far more interesting read.

I should read that one. It seems it should be more interesting as it specifically depicts frenchiness.

luvtolean · 05-04-2006, 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

I should read that one. It seems it should be more interesting as it specifically depicts frenchiness.

It's more interesting because it shows how screwed up a democracy becomes during bitter political party clashes. It had gotten so bad in France, they lost their country in the face of a crisis. They couldn't unite in 1938-1939 like they did in 1916 (nor did they really have good leadership to unite behind). This is Shirer's central message.

Kinda poignant when you look at the current direction of partisan politics in the US today...