Posted on 10/16/2009 7:02:34 AM PDT by xzins
UPI) -- President Nicolas Sarkozy of France says he wants to see victory in Afghanistan but has no plans to send more French troops to that country.
Speaking to the Le Figaro newspaper, the French leader said he believes there should be a build-up of more Afghan troops, CNN reported.
As for staying on in Afghanistan, Sarkozy told the newspaper: "I answer yes -- and stay to win.
"But France will not send one more soldier," he added. "My belief is that more Afghan soldiers are needed. It is them who will be the most efficient to win this war because it is their country."
About 3,070 French troops, part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, are in Afghanistan.
Britain announced plans this week to send an additional 500 soldiers, raising its Afghan troop strength to 9,500. The United States, which will have 68,000 troops in the country by year's end, is considering another troop surge there.
France, running from a fight? Say it isn’t so!
Yet another FAIL for “smart diplomacy.”
What do you expect them to do. Obama can’t be trusted. Expect to see more of this.
This guy doesn't like Obomba and paid close attention to how our one-time Eastern European allies were treated by the scum who would be president!
Now why aren’t I more worried about this?
A minimalist approach:
minimal help
minimal hope
minimal friend
Would you send troops? I wouldn’t. Not with Obama wanting to make “peace” with the Taliban.
back in the burkha again for Afghanistan?
“Would you send troops? I wouldn’t. Not with Obama wanting to make “peace” with the Taliban.”
Here’s what I don’t understand; everyone’s reaction to France is “I wouldn’t send troops either” yet we aren’t calling for immediate withdrawal of our own guys. WTF?
“The French leadership has exhibited far more ‘testicular fortitude’ as of late....”
...I’ve noticed that myself...maybe the French are coming out of their long leftist slumber...I used to like them and want to again...I miss Maggie Thatcher’s spirit of toughness in Britan too.
He's just following Obama’s lead really...
Afghanistan is a NATO operation. France is not part of NATO. They have troops there as a courtesy and as such I have a lot more tolerance for their decisions.
But if Obama was to make a strong stand and make it clear that the Taliban would be defeated once and for all and the Afghani people would have the support needed to build a democratic society, I have no doubt that Sarkozy would take a chance on Freedom and continue to support the cause.
As it is, he is doing what he thinks is best for France.
Our troops cannot be expected to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. Some of the new RoE’s would have them on suicide missions. I’d rather withdraw them than have them ordered not to return fire when attacked.
Obama though, he’s likely to have the Taliban become a “political” force and then withdraw. Leaving it worse than it was before we sent troops.
Oh man what are we going to do? All the “sissy Frenchmen” jokes will be worthless.
I think the sensible French are getting sick and tired of runaway cradle-to-grave welfare entitlement syndrome.
Wrong. As is the rest of your analysis
This is news?
This probably marks the end of coalitions with the west.... as obama veers and takes us into marxism and its allies. Maybe Chavez will be the leader of the next coalition?
France Rejoined NATO as a full member in April this year and had rejoined the Military committee in 1995 after withdrawing in 1966.
Oops, sorry. Forgot that France rejoined in April of this year. Mea Culpa.
” I like their(the French) stance as of late.”
....me too, and I sure like Sarkozys as a couple a lot better than the Obamas.
On the mark. Sarkozy's telling Obama to stick that Nobel where the son don't shine.
The Obama administration is really taking our allies for granted.
Sarko isnt calling for his troops to be withdrawn either. Just saying he wont send any more.
I agree France is looking out for themselves as every nation is. The US can not be considered a dependable partner any longer. Just ask the Polish. This raises the same question for fighting men and their families in this country. Would I want my son in afghan under the orders of this POTUS? Nope.
“Afghanistan is a NATO operation. France is not part of NATO. They have troops there as a courtesy and as such I have a lot more tolerance for their decisions...As it is, he is doing what he thinks is best for France.”
HUH? France is being destroyed by Arabs...they are bleeding revenue from loss of tourism and their streets are in constant turmoil...
“Sarko isnt calling for his troops to be withdrawn either. Just saying he wont send any more.”
But WE should? He is applauded for protecting his people, but the majority of posters on this board want us to escalate. WTF???
Has there been any clarity as to the goal in Afganistan? I would really like to know the direction we’re going.
Do the people of Afghanistan deserve liberty?
I think the French are realists. Perhaps I’m naive about the nuances of “war” these days, but “police actions” in areas where there is no law, and “nation building” in tribal regions with no notion of nationality seem like escapades designed for failure: even more so if our namby pamby tactics lack any hope of effectiveness.
Our CIC is throwing the fight, whatever the heck the fight is , and it is no surprise that our allies want to get out of the ring.
Layer on top of that the suicidal PC attitude the Europeans have adopted towards the immigration and demographic invasion of their sub-continent by the enemy - a case in which the term “realist” can be used only in the most cynical of manners - and I think the chances of counting on them to really fight this enemy with the ruthlessness required to win the larger “war” are nonexistent.
Europe will soon be Moslem. In essence, they have already submitted. Who there wants to go on record as the enemy of the Moslems?
While I understand their lack of faith in Obama, this is still a stupid move by France.
Failure in Afghanistan means the reintroduction of terror training camps. As such, the “youth” violence in Fance would become more intense.
That is a good legitimate question. I wish we had a more clear answer. The first goal was to topple the Taliban. The ultimate goal is to establish a democratic (general style, not specific) government. The inbetween goals have always been hazy at best. The Bush administration dropped the ball on this count and the Obama administration has been just as inept.
But it does seem like we are losing the first goal again. If we want to give the people of Afghanistan freedom (and we have already spent plenty of blood and treasure for that goal), then we need to figure out how to get to the end goal and do it.
the French first lady is hot, ours looks like a wookie. Staying shallow here and wanting to trade. :)
I know the direction we Canadians are going...ALL of our troops will be out of there in 2011... leaving a few government people with the impossible job of helping to train the Afghans to look after their own bloody country.
After 8 years and over a hundred of our lads killed to say nothing of the many who are maimed for life..we are going to give the Afghans a “do it yourself kit.”
“the French first lady is hot,...”
...yep, and she’s been in the public eye for many years, so she knows how to appear in public...and in private!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL0s1jhYpaY
I don't blame Sarkozy. He sees a wishy-washy leadership position from Washington. Why would he send more of his people into a fight that the US leadership doesn't seem to have the determination to win.
“Do the people of Afghanistan deserve liberty?”
Sure...do the people in the 80% of the world that don’t have it deserve it? Sure. Go get ‘em Tiger...
He won’t even send his son to help out? awwww
The FRench Foreign Legion used to fight well.
shame, what a waste of all that talent and energy
The French are a ‘pair-a-ducks’.
I ain’t too keen on Sarkozy embracing global varming.. especially ironic that France is peppered with nuke power plant.
I do agree he has brought some sanity back to some of the gubamint. and a relative or two as well. ;-)
“Why would he send more of his people into a fight that the US leadership doesn’t seem to have the determination to win.”
Why should we?
Hmm what compelled the French to decide to rejoin NATO?
In a generation or two, we’ll see a Charles Martel emerge in France.
I will go with Gen McChrystal’s estimate. If he says counterinsurgency is the way to win this war, then he has far more boots on the ground than I do.
There are several dangers with a Taliban government:
...9/11 taught one of them
...the Taliban push toward Pakistan’s nukes is another
...They would be another radical Islamic government in the region to go along with Iran, increasing the prestige of jihad islam in the minds of muslims worldwide.
Which reminds me, the graphic of the bunny wearing a pancake should be put on leave temporarily and replaced with a pic of Obummy with a waffle on his head.
Leni
Exactly. Who can trust the guy on the world stage other than Chavez, Castro, Khadfi, Akmadinanut, and other rogue leaders....
So if you can’t save them all, don’t save any. Thanks for the insight.
We should’t, and if we aren't there to win, and don't plan to provide the people and resources to do so, we shouldn't stay there at all. It's not fair to the troops there now.
“So if you can’t save them all, don’t save any. Thanks for the insight.”
You are welcome. But that was not what I said.
See post #49...said the same thing...
“if we aren’t there to win, and don’t plan to provide the people and resources to do so, we shouldn’t stay there at all. It’s not fair to the troops there now.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.