In The New York Times this morning, Isabel Kershner begins her news coverage of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s first speech with these words:
In a blunt and belligerent speech on his first day as Israel’s's new foreign minister, the hawkish nationalist Avigdor Lieberman declared Wednesday that “those who wish for peace should prepare for war” . . .
In addition to “blunt and belligerent” and “hawkish nationalist,” Kershner in the course of her article describes Lieberman as “ultra-nationalist,” “unsubtle and often unpredictable,” “not known for diplomacy,” “contentious,” “seen by many as racist,” “often contradictory” and “contrary in his positions.”
It is of course not good to be a blunt belligerent ultra-nationalist unsubtle unpredictable contentious contradictory racist, but it is also possible Kershner did not recognize the derivation of Lieberman’s reference to preparing for war. Here is the portion of Lieberman’s speech in which the reference appeared:
We have seen that . . . after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through wars — the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead – and not because we choose to. I have not seen peace here. . . .
We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions, and constantly saying “I am prepared to concede,” and using the word “peace” will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. “Si vis pacem, para bellum” – if you want peace, prepare for war, be strong.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum” is a Latin adage with a long history. It is generally attributed to an ancient Roman military writer. Here, French historian De Bourrienne references it in discussing Napoleon’s foreign policy:
Everyone knows the adage . . . . Had Bonaparte been a Latin scholar he would probably have reversed it and said, Si vis bellum para pacem” [meaning that if you are planning a war you should put other nations off guard by cultivating peace].
Sometimes a “peace process” can lead to war. Sometimes the “peace of the brave” turns out to be a trick. Sometimes a peace agreement does not actually lead to peace in our time. And always, if you want peace, it is necessary to prepare for war and be strong. We’ve known this for nearly 2,000 years, and you should be able to express it on your first day in a new position without being vilified in a “news article” by The New York Times.
Wow, Obama really is making America safer and strengthening our alliances. And in his first 50 days! Greatest president ever. And the DOW’s up another 200 points today. No wonder America is so hopeful!
Max, I’m glad you mentioned the Hundred Years’ War. But if you mention Crecy, why not mention Agincourt? ~ 5,600 British vs ~ 20,000 French that led to the following from Shakespeare:
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day”
Also, their pilots are insane in a good way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol74hOJtWOA
Well, by this standard, I’m glad Italy is part of NATO too. They really whipped those Carthaginians!
And how about Greece! Just let Iran try anything, and we’ll unleash some Greek triremes on them!
Don’t forget that France lost well over one million in battle in World War One; The Battle of Verdun being symbolic of their battlefield heroism and tenacity. After that punishment all for the ridiculous cause of World War One, who can really blame them for collapsing when the Wehrmacht attacked in 1940.
So the French required 115 years to expel a nation with 1/3 her population from occupying half her territory and this is a sign of French military prowess? Sure the French lost a lot of soldiers in 1940, routing armies always lose a lot of soldiers.
While we’re on the topic why ignore 1453-1792 and 1815-1939? One of my favorite quotes from the 7 Years War was by a French madame (I always forget who) telling French generals panicked at the prospect of Frederick the Great taking Paris after the Battle of Rossbach that she was happy, because she would finally be able to meet a man. The Franco-Prussian War didn’t exactly go well either. 1914 did start out well enough though the French army mutinied in 1917 and nearly collapsed from the weakest of the Ludendorff offensives, perhaps while eating cheese?
I do agree the French have one of the more capable militaries in Europe today, but I would argue that is more due to how poorly funded and trained almost every military in Europe is, except for most notably the British, rather than any real capability of the French soldier. Then again France does occasionally show military competence when not being led by a Frenchman, so perhaps the Hungarian-American has changed things.
Nations that neglect their military put their independence at risk. Governments that do not take advantage of opportunities for their military to engage in real life action deny them the experience they need to evaluate their effectiveness. The French and the Poles are giving their military an advantage that more pacifist states won’t have.
@David.
Not that the Obamatards would known this since their capacity for comprehending basic English is only slightly above their grasp of rudamentary economics but the commitment to return France to the NATO command predates not only Obama’s innaguration but indeed his nomination. Sarkozy campaigned on a strikingly pro-American platform and it was the Bush hating Chirac whose approval ratings were in the teens.
@Chuck Martel
As long as we’re discussing French military accomplishments we should note your namesake’s achievements at Potiers.
This is taking all the fun out of France-bashing! I can’t forward this post without ruining some of my favorite French military jokes.
If not for the French, the American Revolution would almost certainly have failed. Americans — especially those on the right– always attack Europe — and particularly France — for being ungrateful for America’s effort in WWII. We should remember that we owe our independence in no small measure to the “surrender monkeys.”
@11 Ches
The French have been thrice repaid and that has what exactly to do with French military capabilities? Most also get a good laugh in at Italy’s military, though their WW2 reputation is a bit undeserved, and they had nothing to do with the Revolution. Something about military capabilities. Also, I don’t mean to get even further off topic but I do think it’s reasonable to expect to be more appreciative for being saved from the Nazis and Communists (the Kaiser wasn’t so bad) within our lifetimes than for being saved from British dominionhood and eventually a similar end result.
OH PUHLEEEZE!
The French have LOST, that is LOST, every single battle in which they have engaged since 1809. Nevertheless, they have won every war!
LA GLOIRE, VOILÁ!
French leaders have channelled Hassan Nasrallah for 200 years; watch for them to claim victory in Afghanistan soon!
Newspaper headline in Le Figaro in 1815–The Bastard has escaped from Elba…
Newspaper headline in Le Figaro 3 days later–The Pig has reached Marseilles….
Newspaper headline in Le Figaro after 10 days–The Emperor is on the outskirts of Paris!
France has the cultural self confidence lacking in so many of its neighbors and will probably deal effectively with the Muslim threat while even Britain is in serious danger of dhimmitude.
Conrad Black’s biography of Nixon, among many other strong qualities, has an interesting explanation of De Gaulle’s anti-American attitude that caused him to drive NATO from France. According to Black, Eisenhower retained a strong dislike for DeGaulle from WWII and, in 1953, he refused the French request for air support to help the French evacuate Dien Ben Phu. It has come down to us as a request for American troops to bail them out but Black disputes that and makes a case that, had Eisenhower allowed such aid, the entire Viet Nam fiasco would never have happened. France would ultimately have settled with the Viet Minh and the resolution would not have led to our own involvement.
Interestingly enough, Black also writes that DeGaulle and Nixon were close and Nixon considered DeGaulle a mentor.
Anyway, I’m a Francophile and we could do worse than emulate them in energy policy and health care.
Well, yes, if you have to do universal health care that’s a much better way to go than Albion.
Max,
Thanks for this post. So much French-bashing, fun as it may be, fails to take into account Napoleon, the Hundred Years War, the first half of WWI. People forget that France has always had a rabidly jingoistic neighbor with a much larger population. Compared to the other colonial powers, France’s record ain’t that bad.
I mean, Britain has a rock solid military tradition, but it benefited from it’s geography in Europe, not to mention the endless supplies of colonials (Candians, Australians etc.) to toss around the gameboard (see Dieppe, Gallipoli).
So who’s left to impress in Europe besides Germany and Britain? Spain? Naw. Portugal? The Italians? Belgium?
And Russia? Another country that benefits from geography and population size. In spite of their grit, they lose in Crimea, then against the Japanese, in WWI they have the worst generals, in WWII they’re saved again by the weatherman.
So, sure, the USA, Japan, Turkey, and China are the impressive guys on the block now, but I don’t see why people keep rating the French so low.
And, there’s a word for people who love eating cheese. It’s called “everybody”.
I dislike the French for a number of reasons (Rwanda 1994 being foremost amongst them), but I was never comfortable with the “surrender monkey” analysis for one reason – Verdun. This is a clearly a nation that is willing to fight and die for its beliefs.
My grandfather, a marine at Belleau Wood, among other places, always said that if a tommy took a bullet in the big toe, he would lay down and die, knowing he’d done his duty for John Bull. On the other hand, the poilu was so tough that in order to kill him the Huns had to cut off his head and bury it where he couldn’t find it.
the conservatives are funny clowns indeed.
Now they bash the French for…doing exactly what they were mad the French dont did…stand close to America.
What is the meaning of that?
The Conservatives are hatemongers, racists and their point of view is defintly unworthy
100 years ago, who would have guessed that in 2009 a survey of European military might would not feature Germany?
History is a funny old bird. The French are likely to be as big a pain in the NATO military rear as they were before, but in a political sense, it’s great to welcome them back. There aren’t that many nations their size that still operate nuclear powered ballistic missile and attack submarines, AND aircraft carriers, AND amphibious landing ships, AND a nuclear missile force, and world-class special forces. They’re committed, I’ll say that for them.
Plus they have one of the world’s least-PC national anthems.
Aux armes, citoyens! Formez vos battaillons!
Marchons! Marchons!
Qu’un sang impur abreuve nos sillons!
Now, that’s a national tune. Bienvenue de retour, vieille camarade. Vive la France!
paulh, is there any discussion that can’t be improved by dragging “racism” into it? Ches, the French were on our side during the Revolutionary War under the age-old principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Afterward, they joined with the English in trying to strangle the young Republic in the crib. When it is to their interest, the French will be nice. The moment it is not, they will not. They are not sentimental people.
banjo
remember me the loyalty of America during the French Revolution or when France was threated by the European Coalition or maybe we can speak about the big help of the Us during the 1914-1917 years of WWI or the 1939-1941 years of the WWII or even the big american support in 1956 suez affair…’
Yes , you are right, regarding this historical record, the French are wrong not to trust the American.
Now you have still all this urban legend ;: the French are the only human beings who are afraid to fight, I let you the appreciation of such nonsense LoL
When the French asked for material and financial support in their fight against the Viet Communitsts, —————— Eisenhower was brain dead not to offer them that support.
It would have been far better for the French to hold the line in Southeast Asia, then for us to have gotten involved.
And Eisenhower compounded that error with his behavior during the Suez Crisis in ’56. Because we failed to support the British in their legal claim to the Suez Canal, ————– we were without any legal or logical leg to stand on when the house of saud later nationalized the assetts of American oil companies in the Arabian Peninsula.
BECAUSE we failed to chastize the house of saud when they stole our wealth, we’ve allowed them to fund mayhem throughout the planet, in Europe, and now even in The United States.
History will find it difficult to believe why a Western and modern power allowed that kind of wealth to fall into the hands of stone-age savages.
“Does anyone recall that, notwithstanding its defeats at Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356), France actually defeated England in the Hundred Years’ War?”
Don’t forget Agincourt, Max. As to why the French won, it had very little to do with military prowess, and a lot to do with the premature death of Henry V, the accession of his feeble-minded infant son, Henry VI, dynastic infighting among the English aristocracy, and some looney French peasant girl who heard voices in her head.
That it should even have been a contest on its face is ridiculous: France, a nation of some 20 million people, held in subjugation by England, with slightly more than two million people? Viewed from that perspective, it was logically impossible for England ever to conquer France permanently, and it came so close implies either that the English were supermen, or that the French were somewhat less than capable on the field of battle.
To be just a little more serious, France and the UK are the only European countries that make even a pretense of maintaining full spectrum military capabilities. They are, therefore, the only European countries that can participate meaningfully with the U.S. in high-intensity military operations. In the past (e.g., the Desert Storm and the Balkans), French and U.S. forces have had difficulty operating together because France maintained standards for its equipment that were not compatible with NATO standards (STANAGs). This is now changing. France is also reorienting its forces for expeditionary operations, though, like Britain, it always had the capability to engage in neo-colonial operations in its former overseas possessions.
France today has ambitious plans to acquire the systems needed to contribute more meaningfully to NATO and EU expeditionary operations, including acquisition of the A400M transport aircraft, so it won’t have to borrow C-5s and C-17s from us to gets the 2eme REP to Chad. However, these plans are jeopardized by chronic underfunding, a situation that will only get worse as the European economic situation deterioriates.
Unlike the U.S., France and other EU members are limited in the extent they can use deficit spending by the debt limits in the Maastricht Treaty that set up the Euro Zone. Thus, they cannot borrow money to pay for the military, neither can they raise taxes in a recession to cover the cost. They could cut the public sector and welfare benefits, but this is a political non-starter (though Sarkozy is giving it a shot). In short, while the return of France to the NATO command structure is welcome, don’t expect miracles from them.
That said, France has some excellent special operations and light infantry units, as well as a large Gendarmerie with counter-terrorism capabilities. And French intelligence networks have deep roots in Africa and the Middle East lacking in the CIA. These are all welcome adjuncts to the West’s capabilities against Islamic extremism. Furthermore, the return to NATO is a culmination of a long process, mostly behind the scenes. Since 2001, cooperation between the U.S. and French militaries has gotten much closer–despite hostility at the highest political levels. Likewise, there has been close collaboration between French and U.S. intelligence services, but of course, you don’t hear much about this. Since the departure of Chirac, it is safe to say that France has been a much better ally of the U.S. than is generally credited.
My favorite French joke:
All of Europe was fighting a horrendous heat wave a couple of summers ago, except the French, which immediately surrendered.
I’m sure Obama will rely heavily on the French for military support – it’s his style.
“100 years ago, who would have guessed that in 2009 a survey of European military might would not feature Germany?”
J.E. Dyer makes an excellent point. Germany is no longer a serious military power; its armed forces are in disarray and its capabilities severely weakened. Despite having the largest economy in Europe, Germany spends less proportionally than any other country–a paltry 1.3% (against a European average of 2%. Despite an ambitious Defense White Paper issued in 2006, Germany has failed to put resources against any of its system development or force transformation goals. Germany also issued a defense industrial policy, the primary purpose of which seems to be preserving jobs in the chronically fragmented yet over-capacity defense industry, rather than ensuring that the Bundeswehr gets the tools that it needs at prices it can afford.
Absent any consensus on defense strategy within its fractured coalition government, Germany drifts, much to the frustration of its still highly professional officer corps (which is highly embarrassed by the restrictive caveats placed on its operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere). In the meanwhile, German forces remain too deeply wedded to legacy systems which are undeployable, and therefore unusable in the current strategic context.
21. Banjo.
When did France tried to “strangle the young republic”.
before or after the jay treaty?
6. Jarod
["So the French required 115 years to expel a nation with 1/3 her population from occupying half her territory and this is a sign of French military prowess? Sure the French lost a lot of soldiers in 1940, routing armies always lose a lot of soldiers."]
Are you implying that France was a united nation, that the burgundy and aquitaine were on French’s side? btw, british military didn’t lost a lot of troops when william of orange conquered them.
["While we’re on the topic why ignore 1453-1792 and 1815-1939?"]
1453? Winning the Hundred years war is bad in your book?
1792? Great year for France.
1815? Great year for the allied coalition. After 7 wars and 7 coalitions they finally managed to beat France and its previously decimated armies.
[" One of my favorite quotes from the 7 Years War was by a French madame (I always forget who) telling French generals panicked at the prospect of Frederick the Great taking Paris after the Battle of Rossbach that she was happy, because she would finally be able to meet a man."]
This a quote from Madame Bullsh*t.
["The Franco-Prussian War didn’t exactly go well either. 1914 did start out well enough though the French army mutinied in 1917 and nearly collapsed from the weakest of the Ludendorff offensives, perhaps while eating cheese?"]
The French army didn’t mutinied. Almost every divisions of the French army experienced cases of mutiny. That’s different.
["I do agree the French have one of the more capable militaries in Europe today, but I would argue that is more due to how poorly funded and trained almost every military in Europe is, except for most notably the British, rather than any real capability of the French soldier. Then again France does occasionally show military competence when not being led by a Frenchman, so perhaps the Hungarian-American has changed things."]
Incompetent French managed to win more wars than any other nations in the world. Impressive.
You want some French leaders?
-Philip II
-Bertrand du Guesclin
-la Hire
-Gaston de Foix
-Turenne
-The Great Condé
-François-Henri de Montmorency-Luxembourg
-Moreau
-Michel Ney
-Jean Lannes
-Davout
-joffre
-De gaulles
As De Gaulle is supposed to have said, “War is against your enemies; peace is against your allies. Friends? A State has no friends.”
I see this thread has degenerated into two separate conversations–one between people who know something about European military capabilities and have something useful to say; and another between francophiles and those who loathe France and waste no opportunity to dump on it.
Myself, I’m in the first group, albeit I personally don’t like France very much, I know how to control myself and behave like an adult.
To Stuart Koehl
You have all the right of the world to dont like France, the French have the same…
But at least you have the fairness to recognize the simple fact that the French are not less or more valliant than another peoples and you seem to have the knowledge to support your speech.
The fact is that all this legends invented against the military skills of the french soldiers smells as some kind of concern over an always capable rival.
If the French were so reliantless, then why all this scandal for their no participation iat the Iraqi invasion.
And after the “Firts Iraq then France”, why the Coalition of the Willing never turned its weapons against those ridiculous “Cheese Eaters Suerrender Monckeys”?
I wonder…
paulh — I admire your courage in coming here to make a point in English. I for one do like the French, and never suspected them of being unvaliant. They wear me out sometimes, but I still like them. It is our politics, not the courage of our soldiers or the ingenuity of our people, that divides us on occasion.
It’s the American way, to greet those we love by putting them in a headlock, telling them they smell foul, and then telling them “We love you, man.”