President of France: Obama, Naive, Egotistical and Arrogant!

[ishtat]

This is a helluva lot of territory in a fairly short post

The un-noticed and unmentionable 800 pound gorilla in the bathroom, is that if the US begins to withdraw, both as a nuclear power and a factor in the real politik on the stage of the real world...the balance of power won't shift, it will become fractionalized.

Agreed

No one wishes to admit or acknowledge that the United States, with military bases and forces in over a hundred countries in the world, is, has been, and should be a stablilizing force throughout the world.

Not in Iraq I think and Israel has become the equivalent of hanging onto a tiger by its tail

However, and I know it is an unfashionable contention but it is arguable that the final frontier for Communism was Vietnam and however morally repugnant some might find it the CIA, through brilliant work enabled the annihalation of the communists in Indonesia (far more important strategically than Vietnam.) The USA was also an important factor in supporting the destruction of the Malaysian Communists by UK in the 50's

Every free nation in world and those who aspire to a free democracy has become very nervous over the weak foreign policy stature of the new administration. Only the 'Bullies' of the world, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and others, to whom Obama has welcomed with open arms, support a weakened stance by the US.

I am less pessimistic. The US should get out of Iraq and give the Turks the nod to beat up the Iranians a bit. They have been doing it for centuries and it might settle the whole of the Middle East down a bit if the Turks who have been superb allies of the West were given a freer hand. And bluntly the Turkish Army - the second most powerful in the Western alliance could do a lot of stuff that US Marines with CNN looking over their shoulder couldn't

Ultimately the power to knock the North Koreans into shape is China. The Chinese must be concerned that they are becoming surrounded by nuclear powers, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia. 'To encourage' the Chinese The US should suggest that Japan will be supported if they take military action over the next missile test by NK. The one nation which absolutely terrifies the Chinese is Japan and if they have to beat up NK to prevent a resurgent Japan they just might.

Without the US, Iran would quickly establish a hegemony throughout the entire middle east. Eastern Europe would once again fall under the shadow of a menacing Russia and Chinese Communism would spread throughout Asia.

Chinese Communism is dead Amicus. I go there at least twice every year and what is now in place is an oligarchy which operates like the old Empire. The most radical change in World politics in the last 30 years is the rise of the Chinese /capitalist middle class. China now has a vast interest in preserving political stability in the world

Russia, Amicus, will never dominate Europe again. If they tried there are 100 million Germans who would have something to say. Germany has been quiescent for 60 years but the next generation of German rulers has no experience of the last war, none of Russian domination and most importantly no guilt about the past. When the EU falls apart as I am certain it will in the next 10 or 20 years the real power of Northern Europe, Germany will assert herself again.

All this is easy to see and complicated by the Islamic Jihad against the West that continues to expand throughout Africa and Asia.

What happens in Africa is of only minor importance geo-politically even if the entire continent falls apart.

Afghanistan and especially Pakistan are much more important because of the nuclear threat, however, I cannot see that remaining there is any better than pulling stumps and leaving. If a war is unwinnable(by the USA) there is no point in fighting it. One of the results of leaving Afghanistan would be that the Iranians would come to the support of the Hazara (Iranian speaking Shiite substantial minority.) against the Pushtun supporters of the Taliban. Strange to think of Iran as a potential ally perhaps but historically that has happened before.

So far as Pakistan is concerned the logical thing to do is to supply the Indians with arms and let them sort out the Pakistanis.( The British succeeded with this sort of divide and rule in South Asia for hundreds of years.



The entire world sees eminent chaos as a certainty if the US follows the policy of the new President.

I wouldn't write Obama off yet but a major problem is determining exactly what is US foreign policy and who is running it . Where for example is Mrs Clinton in the mix.

There you have it, my entirely unsupported opinions! Please note that I am well aware that many of the ideas I advocate are disgraceful in conventional moral terms but where morality collides with interest the latter must prevail



Amicus

 

[amicus]

Ishtat; an in depth and incisive exposition and I offer my appreciation for your time and interest.

To perhaps shorten my response to keep it readable, I choose to address one response at a time and gauge from the reaction, future guidance...

My previous statement:

No one wishes to admit or acknowledge that the United States, with military bases and forces in over a hundred countries in the world, is, has been, and should be a stabilizing force throughout the world.

Your reply:

Not in Iraq I think and Israel has become the equivalent of hanging onto a tiger by its tail

~~~

I would suggest that there is a ‘moral’ factor as well as a strategic one concerning Israel.

Also it is a’checkerboard’ History of the middle east that has roots in the Balfour Declaration and, ‘Oil’, the Suez Canal, Colonialism by the British and French, Soviet influence in Egypt, Soviet weapons as a counterthrust to Western military presence….and more..

One should also include prior US Alliance with Iraq, in opposition to Iran, the Muslim genocide in Bosnia, the proximity of Turkey and the threat of a regional conflict in that region.

There are thousands of volumes on this region and I have by no means read them all, nor am I an expert on anything. I have watched ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ several times; concerning covert weapons shipments to the Afghani’s which became instrumental in driving the Russians out of the area.

That leaves out entirely the modern circumstances following 9/11 and the decision to make war in Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Summarizing, if I may; Oil was the primary interest in the region prior to world war two. US support of Israel in 1947 set the table for Arab versus Jew, and by association, Arab versus the US, the Western World. The near conflict over the Suez Canal, (I know, I was aboard ship with Tanks and Marines headed for the Med when we got turned around somewhere near Hawaii.) Then, the first Gulf War, 9/11 and the aftermath, the Coalition, NATO, all protecting Eurpean and world interest in the oil trade as it is central to so many economies around the world.

My primary contention, to which you responded, was concerned with the apparent Foreign Policy of the new administration which appears 'naive' to much of the above and much more that remains a National Security issue.

No one can predict the future; but it is said we can learn from the past, I sometimes wonder if that is true as each new generation arises.

It appears inevitable to me that the US will maintain a military presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the next half century if not longer. The Iranian factor appears to be the 'wild card' that can change everything overnight.

Again thank you for the reasoned reply and the little shove to respond in like manner; I do so enjoy a reasoned debate on issues.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

The French are a nuclear power

The French have their own nuclear weapons and do not have to ask US permission to use them. Their membership of the NATO alliance is conditional. They know too well that allies can let them down (and vice-versa). Historically the French have had significant involvement in Iran and are less vilified by the Iranians than US or Britain. The French might be able to work to a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The British have nuclear weapons but rely on US cooperation to keep them operational. Unless Britain is directly attacked with nuclear weapons then it is very unlikely they would be used without POTUS consent.

However, what the French President says about POTUS is more likely to be aimed at his own electorate than an American audience.

Og

 

[ishtat]

The French have their own nuclear weapons and do not have to ask US permission to use them. Their membership of the NATO alliance is conditional. They know too well that allies can let them down (and vice-versa). Historically the French have had significant involvement in Iran and are less vilified by the Iranians than US or Britain. The French might be able to work to a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The British have nuclear weapons but rely on US cooperation to keep them operational. Unless Britain is directly attacked with nuclear weapons then it is very unlikely they would be used without POTUS consent.

However, what the French President says about POTUS is more likely to be aimed at his own electorate than an American audience.

Og

Ogg, You are going to be renamed Dr Pangloss shortly.

When were the French last let down by their allies? Suez?

Do you think the French have an effective delivery system for any warhead.

Of course the Iranians are happy to talk to the French, they know the French policy is one of appeasement. The hard fact of life is that the nations that get diplomatic results are the ones that can back it with raw power. The French can do nothing absolutely nothing vis a vis Iran. They are like Blair in the middle east . They count for nothing because they have nothing to trade.

 

[oggbashan]

Ogg, You are going to be renamed Dr Pangloss shortly.

When were the French last let down by their allies? Suez?

Do you think the French have an effective delivery system for any warhead.

Of course the Iranians are happy to talk to the French, they know the French policy is one of appeasement. The hard fact of life is that the nations that get diplomatic results are the ones that can back it with raw power. The French can do nothing absolutely nothing vis a vis Iran. They are like Blair in the middle east . They count for nothing because they have nothing to trade.

The French were active participants in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have a nuclear delivery system. They have the only European nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier.

Og

 

[ishtat]

The French were active participants in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have a nuclear delivery system. They have the only European nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier.

Og

Ogg, The French have not had a desisive independent military capacity of any kind for 195 years.

A single Aircraft carrier is not a deterrant, it is a target. Assuming potential enemy targets are all accessable by sea the delivery system still has to get through whether it be missiles or aircraft. Any sensible examination of French resources will conclude that their delivery technology is inadequate. Penultimately they also have no effective defence against a nuclear attack.

Last of all the geographic position of France indicates that as in 1940 their most sensible local military option is surrender. Once all the ballyhoo of military boasting is set to one side that was and is in fact a perfectly reasonable option to take.

My basic point Ogg is that the delusion of apparent power that polititicians of second and third ranking powers love to cultivate is in itself dangerous as eventually one of them will start believing their own nonsense. eg Georgia

Surely the lesson of Suez in 1956 was that henceforth France and UK were of no independent consequence militarily.

Finally, yes the French were in Iraq and Afghanistan - provided they were assigned to safe areas and could be home and tucked up in bed after an early dejeuner! I'll bet that earned them a lot of credibility in Tehran.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Ogg, The French have not had a desisive independent military capacity of any kind for 195 years.

A single Aircraft carrier is not a deterrant, it is a target. Assuming potential enemy targets are all accessable by sea the delivery system still has to get through whether it be missiles or aircraft. Any sensible examination of French resources will conclude that their delivery technology is inadequate. Penultimately they also have no effective defence against a nuclear attack.

Last of all the geographic position of France indicates that as in 1940 their most sensible local military option is surrender. Once all the ballyhoo of military boasting is set to one side that was and is in fact a perfectly reasonable option to take.

My basic point Ogg is that the delusion of apparent power that polititicians of second and third ranking powers love to cultivate is in itself dangerous as eventually one of them will start believing their own nonsense. eg Georgia

Surely the lesson of Suez in 1956 was that henceforth France and UK were of no independent consequence militarily.

Finally, yes the French were in Iraq and Afghanistan - provided they were assigned to safe areas and could be home and tucked up in bed after an early dejeuner! I'll bet that earned them a lot of credibility in Tehran.

While not wanting to say too much for the French military now, they did fight bravely and well in WW1 against the Central Powers. I doubt that they could have stood by themselves against the might of Germany, but I doubt that any one nation, even including the USA, could have. Fortunately for the world, the French didn't have to.

 

[amicus]

I confess, memory failed to recognize Ishtat's reference to Dr. Pangloss; now, Dr. Strangelove, I woulda got that one...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide

ami

 

[ishtat]

While not wanting to say too much for the French military now, they did fight bravely and well in WW1 against the Central Powers. I doubt that they could have stood by themselves against the might of Germany, but I doubt that any one nation, even including the USA, could have. Fortunately for the world, the French didn't have to.

Box, I don't question their bravery but their capacity. Sarkosy, in public statements has on eight occasions I can identify said he will send 10,000 troops to Afghanistan. In fact he stopped at 3020 and severely limited their operational usage. What is the use of that kind of ally?

On the other hand the Anglo countries the British the Australians & NZ have sent the number they committed to and per man the British have the highest casualty rate of the alliance.

The French are not alone . This week the Germans suffered their first battlefield death since 1945 and their commander said "his men were traumatised" !! Incidentally the Germans don't allow their troops out of Barracks at night.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
While not wanting to say too much for the French military now, they did fight bravely and well in WW1 against the Central Powers. I doubt that they could have stood by themselves against the might of Germany, but I doubt that any one nation, even including the USA, could have. Fortunately for the world, the French didn't have to.

Box, I don't question their bravery but their capacity. Sarkosy, in public statements has on eight occasions I can identify said he will send 10,000 troops to Afghanistan. In fact he stopped at 3020 and severely limited their operational usage. What is the use of that kind of ally?

On the other hand the Anglo countries the British the Australians & NZ have sent the number they committed to and per man the British have the highest casualty rate of the alliance.

The French are not alone . This week the Germans suffered their first battlefield death since 1945 and their commander said "his men were traumatised" !! Incidentally the Germans don't allow their troops out of Barracks at night.

I haven't said anything good about the French military since 1918. I just took issue with your comment:
Originally Posted by ishtat
Ogg, The French have not had a desisive independent military capacity of any kind for 195 years.

Here is a list of casualties for the nations involved in WW1, including France:
http://europeanhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar1/a/blww1casualties.htm

 

[Dragonlipz]

For the first time since our Revolution, a Frenchman has said something intelligent?

Now you guys love the French?
Very consistent......You couldn't stand them until this statement came out....I guess if ya don't have a clue you grab at anything, even an 'assessment' by a French President........

You usual suspects, Mon Ami included, are true pieces of work.....like I said, you don't have a clue if all you can cheer about is some nonsense like that.

A half negro is the President of the United States of America......GET THE FUCK OVER IT!!!!!

 

[Loring2]

This is not a war game theory world

The French were active participants in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have a nuclear delivery system. They have the only European nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier.

Og

Bravo OG ... People often demean the French and belittle the Israeli capability because there aren't many of them. I assure you that both of these nations are militarily very capable and will act. Israel because it must strike first and France has its own agenda.

Strategically, if you would, look at a night time satellite view of Iran's population centers and don't make the mistake of believing that in order for Israel to survive it must take out Iran's weaponry with so called "bunker busters' in a premptive strike. We can't do it either, In other words Israel can;t survive but like Amicus it will not go down easily. Death before dishonor.

Think about just how insane such thinking is. Starting a war to prevent a war.
Mossad knows that there will be no Israel left to fight over ... and there won't be an Iran either and that's the point.

There will be some Jews left and some Persians too. There just wont be much of a world to live in.

Loring

 

[amicus]

Perhaps one could imagine that Israel felt compelled to destroy what they could of Iranian nuclear facilities. Would coalition forces act to interdict any rockets, missiles or aircraft that threatened Israeli airspace?

Our new President's words seem to sound like an abandonment of the Israeli's, but would we or coalition nations stand by and let them be attacked from the air?

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

Perhaps one could imagine that Israel felt compelled to destroy what they could of Iranian nuclear facilities. Would coalition forces act to interdict any rockets, missiles or aircraft that threatened Israeli airspace?

Our new President's words seem to sound like an abandonment of the Israeli's, but would we or coalition nations stand by and let them be attacked from the air?

Amicus

Maybe Obama can land on an aircraft carrier that's sporting a 'Mission Accomplished' banner?
Naw, that's too corny! Nobody would do something that stupid, would they? It might be a good movie, though, especially if the war took a turn for the worse and the president and vice-president and their whole gang finds out that they didn't know the first thing about fighting a war because they think they're too smart to listen to their intelligence operatives and the generals who do know how to fight a war.....naw, nobody'd be that stupid....not believable in the least....
How about a movie where everyone cheers when the United States loses a bid to host the Olympics?
Naw, no one is that anti-american.......
I'm just not very inspired today.....

 

[Loring2]

Remember, the only reason we don't like the French is because they're so much like us (or we're like them).

I don't quite know if you're serious or cynical with your response but it's one of the few times I've read an honest assessment of the French. A great people. This from long experience and not the simple words of a Francophile.

Loring

And I'm not French either

 

[Loring2]

Military Power

Ogg, The French have not had a desisive independent military capacity of any kind for 195 years.

A single Aircraft carrier is not a deterrant, it is a target. Assuming potential enemy targets are all accessable by sea the delivery system still has to get through whether it be missiles or aircraft. Any sensible examination of French resources will conclude that their delivery technology is inadequate. Penultimately they also have no effective defence against a nuclear attack.

Last of all the geographic position of France indicates that as in 1940 their most sensible local military option is surrender. Once all the ballyhoo of military boasting is set to one side that was and is in fact a perfectly reasonable option to take.

My basic point Ogg is that the delusion of apparent power that polititicians of second and third ranking powers love to cultivate is in itself dangerous as eventually one of them will start believing their own nonsense. eg Georgia

Surely the lesson of Suez in 1956 was that henceforth France and UK were of no independent consequence militarily.

Finally, yes the French were in Iraq and Afghanistan - provided they were assigned to safe areas and could be home and tucked up in bed after an early dejeuner! I'll bet that earned them a lot of credibility in Tehran.

In spite of my affinity to France I agree largely with your assessment of the situation regarding the military powers. You also use what I believe to be an incorrect word, that being 'delusion'. No nation is deluding itself about its military capability and that includes the UK, France, North Korea, China and to some extent Israel and even Russia.

UK, France, Spain etc are simply intelligence links with the former 2 also adding an illusion of power. Nonesense, they have none but they are sometimes a 'placeholder'. There is the illusion that they have power for our purposes.

Russia has/had genuine power but it has never had an economic system capable of maintaining its weaponry and this type of weaponry can debase rapidly without maintenance although this is not always true.

Israel stands alone and can deliver. France and the UK play their roles.

Loring

 

[Loring2]

War Simplified

Perhaps one could imagine that Israel felt compelled to destroy what they could of Iranian nuclear facilities. Would coalition forces act to interdict any rockets, missiles or aircraft that threatened Israeli airspace?

Our new President's words seem to sound like an abandonment of the Israeli's, but would we or coalition nations stand by and let them be attacked from the air?

Amicus

I think not Amicus. The bunkers are probably safe from Israeli attacks and surprisingly also from ours. Also remember, there has been only one nuclear war and it ended in 1945 of course.

My intelligence says that Israel is prepared to destroy Irani Government and citizenry.

Also the belief that missiles are necessary to wage this type of war is incomplete. Stealth tactics will probably be used for delivery.

France has excellant stealth delivery capability and so does Israel. Remember that Aircaraft Carrier.

Loring

 

[amicus]

I think not Amicus. The bunkers are probably safe from Israeli attacks and surprisingly also from ours. Also remember, there has been only one nuclear war and it ended in 1945 of course.

My intelligence says that Israel is prepared to destroy Irani Government and citizenry.

Also the belief that missiles are necessary to wage this type of war is incomplete. Stealth tactics will probably be used for delivery.

France has excellant stealth delivery capability and so does Israel. Remember that Aircaraft Carrier.

Loring

Interesting thoughts Loring2...

Long departed from the military, I can only refer to things I have seen on the MIlitary Channel as regards deep penetration weapons. The 'experts' I have heard imply that regardless of the thickness of the roof in concrete and Rebar, that they have weapons that could penetrate deep enough. My perception is that the Israeli's would not use a nuclear weapon to accomplish the destruction of Irani nuclear facilities.

Again, depending on the above mentioned sources and listening to interviews speculating on the possiblity of an Israeli strike, I gather that the electric power sources would be destroyed along with the nuclear facilities. And that all military bases, missile and radar installations, ships and troop contingencies would be destroyed but that the population in general would be spared.

In all my listening, I have never heard reference to French, or even British and Israeli Stealth capabilities; you may be possessed of more recent and confidential data than I.

I am aware that the British have aircraft carriers and perhaps the French and I have no knowledge concerning Israeli Naval capabilities. I am thinking perhaps you refer the the Falkland's encounter some years back with the French built Exocet missiles?

I do know enough, I think, to realize that there is no good solution.

Most nations have stated they will not tolerate a nuclear capable Iran. Sanctions regardless of the nature have had and will have no effect in retraining Iran from continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Further, I have heard it discussed that the consequences of an attack on Iran has no upside and 'may' only delay their quest for a few years. Disruption of world trade with the area, increased terrorism through those groups already supported and funded by Iran.

No nation, from what I have heard, will put 'boots on the ground', in Iran after an attack and that wouild leave one wounded and very dangerous rogue nation, with very little else to lose and a population that may solidify behind the current leaders instead of rebel against them.

Complicated times, eh?

Amicus

 

[TE999]

All the countries that are so concerned about the threat that Iran will present once it gets deliverable nukes should pool their intelligence resources, infiltrate the country, support the rebel opposition by supplying them with weapons and comm gear and let them topple Amadinnerjacket and the Mullahs. They'll hand over the nukes. Problem solved.

 

[penandpaper]

No one ever talks about pulling out? I guess it just feels too good to stay in. I myself like to pull out and let it fly as I do. That's fun. It creates a lasting memory. When you stay in, the feeling just slowly fades away until you forget the danger that it may actually bring.

Until of course, many months, or years later.

Iran-Contra anyone?

 

[amicus]

All the countries that are so concerned about the threat that Iran will present once it gets deliverable nukes should pool their intelligence resources, infiltrate the country, support the rebel opposition by supplying them with weapons and comm gear and let them topple Amadinnerjacket and the Mullahs. They'll hand over the nukes. Problem solved.

~~~

"Should, eh?" Best case scenario, TE999, you are an optimist; good for you!

ami

 

[ishtat]

Duhh

All the countries that are so concerned about the threat that Iran will present once it gets deliverable nukes should pool their intelligence resources, infiltrate the country, support the rebel opposition by supplying them with weapons and comm gear and let them topple Amadinnerjacket and the Mullahs. They'll hand over the nukes. Problem solved.

Precisely what was done in Afghanistan to get rid of the Russians!

thus through the law of unintended consequences we armed their heirs - the Taliban

 

[elfin_odalisque]

http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/25/sarkozy-mocks-obama-at-un-security-council-hello-big-media/



~~~

Yep, blame it on Fox, Greta Van Susteran in an interview reporting on European reaction to Obama's foreign policy and position on Nuclear Weapons, where I heard the above and went searching.

More to follow, no doubt, maybe even someone here will reach out...stranger things have happened!

Amicus

Ami, you treat Sarko as if he's some kind of politician. The man is an egotistical randy dog who thinks he should be Lord of the World.

Sarkozi come in the second division of sensible world leaders.