Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Theory (What if there’s method to the Franco-German madness??
National Review ^ | March 10, 2003 | Michael Ledeen

Posted on 03/10/2003 6:18:35 AM PST by conservativecorner

Assume, for a moment, that the French and the Germans aren't thwarting us out of pique, but by design, long-term design. Then look at the world again, and see if there's evidence of such a design.

Like everyone else, the French and the Germans saw that the defeat of the Soviet Empire projected the United States into the rare, almost unique position of a global hyperpower, a country so strong in every measurable element that no other nation could possibly resist its will. The "new Europe" had been designed to carve out a limited autonomy for the old continent, a balance-point between the Americans and the Soviets. But once the Soviets were gone, and the Red Army melted down, the European Union was reduced to a combination theme park and free-trade zone. Some foolish American professors and doltish politicians might say — and even believe — that henceforth "power" would be defined in economic terms, and that military power would no longer count. But cynical Europeans know better.

They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, and they sought for a way to bring it down.

If you were the French president or the German chancellor, you might well have done the same.

How could it be done? No military operation could possibly defeat the United States, and no direct economic challenge could hope to succeed. That left politics and culture. And here there was a chance to turn America's vaunted openness at home and toleration abroad against the United States. So the French and the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and we'll do everything we can to protect you, and we will do everything we can to weaken the Americans.

The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States.

This required considerable skill, and total cynicism, both of which were in abundant supply in Paris and Berlin. Chancellor Shroeder gained reelection by warning of American warmongering, even though, as usual, America had been attacked first. And both Shroeder and Chirac went to great lengths to support Islamic institutions in their countries, even when — as in the French case — it was in open violation of the national constitution. French law stipulates a total separation of church and state, yet the French Government openly funds Islamic "study" centers, mosques, and welfare organizations. A couple of months ago, Chirac approved the creation of an Islamic political body, a mini-parliament, that would provide Muslims living in France with official stature and enhanced political clout. And both countries have permitted the Saudis to build thousands of radical Wahhabi mosques and schools, where the hatred of the infidels is instilled in generation after generation of young Sunnis. It is perhaps no accident that Chirac went to Algeria last week and promised a cheering crowd that he would not rest until America's grand design had been defeated.

Both countries have been totally deaf to suggestions that the West take stern measures against the tyrannical terrorist sponsors in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia. Instead, they do everything in their power to undermine American-sponsored trade embargoes or more limited sanctions, and it is an open secret that they have been supplying Saddam with military technology through the corrupt ports of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid's little playground in Dubai, often through Iranian middlemen.

It sounds fanciful, to be sure. But the smartest people I know have been thoroughly astonished at recent French and German behavior. This theory may help understand what's going on. I now believe that I was wrong to forecast that the French would join the war against Iraq at the last minute, having gained every possible economic advantage in the meantime. I think Chirac will oppose us before, during, and after the war, because he has cast his lot with radical Islam and with the Arab extremists. He isn't doing it just for the money — although I have no doubt that France is being richly rewarded for defending Saddam against the civilized countries of the world — but for higher stakes. He's fighting to end the feared American domination before it takes stable shape.

If this is correct, we will have to pursue the war against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, into the heart of Western Europe. And there, as in the Middle East, our greatest weapons are political: the demonstrated desire for freedom of the peoples of the countries that oppose us.

Radio Free France, anyone?

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen, Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, can be reached through Benador Associates.

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: Ancesthntr
Yes, I agree. I would be very surprised if Chirac hasn't been on Sadam's payroll since the 1970's. I don't think journalists have enough power to get this kind of info. out of private banks, but the US government probably does.
41 posted on 03/10/2003 7:56:36 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 5by5
It matters if the French have chosen sides in the war and chosen Iraq (which may very well be the case)-- rather than be neutral. That means we are going to war against France, too-- because France will want to back the winning horse. We joke about them, but they could really harm our efforts to win in many ways.
42 posted on 03/10/2003 7:57:27 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
"method to their madness" something totally overlooked here is that during the reign of the Clintons, France loved our government, ridiculed the "right" over a big deal being made about "sex".

The press in this country kept saying how Europe did things and they had "free sex" and it was not big deal. The press encouraging Americans to aspire to the European way of doing things.

These same Europeans came to Clintons defense, darn near made him a "god". The only thing that has changed is a Republican President who has let the world know his job is to protect America and stop Saddam and his deadly war toys, and freeing the people of Iraq.

All attention is given to France, Germany, Iraq, some days Russia, and China. It was the "left" in this country that demanded a UN involvement, and then suddenly out of nowhere up pops N. Korea, what we learn is that our very own Clinton gave the nuclear ability and fed them.

The "LEFT" in this country has tried to derail all actions of President Bush, remember Hillary standing up in the senate asking "What did he know and when did he know it" regarding 9/11, these words were the beginning of an organized "leftist" march to stop President Bush.

One could make a case that this whole nations in an uproar could be laid at the feet of the "LEFT" in this country, as another method of stopping President Bush, calling him selected not elected, illegitimate, cowboy, dumb, empire builder, etc...

Could it be that there is an orchestrated effort to do everything to cause failure, all in an attempt to unseat President Bush, and elect another fellow traveler.

Looks to me the "LEFTIST" and their arms anti-Bush protestors, Hollywood, etc... are the real enemy and France is willing to take the blame, because if Bush can be unseated then all is not lost.
43 posted on 03/10/2003 8:01:01 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
It's hard to believe that they would have this much hubris...

The French? Land of Napoleon? And the Germans? Land of Hitler? Hard to believe they'd have enough hubris to imagine they could rule the world?

44 posted on 03/10/2003 8:02:49 AM PST by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
I don't think they will continue to stand so firmly.
45 posted on 03/10/2003 8:03:02 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (RW&B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
Colonial arrogance leads the political elite to believe they can control, even manipulate these hordes to their advantage.

Exactly. Very key point.

46 posted on 03/10/2003 8:04:58 AM PST by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
In the end, it will take J.C. himself to solve the world's mess.

You are correct, Jesus Christ will solve the World's problems. In the meantime I believe GWB will solve these smaller issues.
47 posted on 03/10/2003 8:07:58 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (RW&B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
Exactly. It's not out of the question that this could go horribly wrong, especially if France and Russia support Iraq. France and Russia have the power to aid Iraq in ways that could totally screw the war up for us-- and we couldn't say a single thing about it. It would probably be hard to prove: we can't even point out where Iraq's stockpiles of WMD are. Secondly, we were able to do this by making it seem manageable. There would be serious opposition to going to war with the French (and Russians), too, with people wondering how in the hell we managed to get into such a war.
48 posted on 03/10/2003 8:08:15 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Flurry
You think the French will abstain?
49 posted on 03/10/2003 8:09:00 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr; UncleSamUSA; expatpat
It is not as outrageous a theory when you recall that Chirac has a decades long friendship with Saddam...

...and a centuries long enmity for the English.

50 posted on 03/10/2003 8:09:36 AM PST by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Given the surging Moslem population in Europe, in thirty years the Moslem nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons will be France.

Yep, but by then we will have SDI fully in place and we will nuke France.

51 posted on 03/10/2003 8:11:29 AM PST by MinorityRepublican (Good riddance to the French!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
That's a more complicated theory than the other ones. I'll stick with the more reasonable one. France is in control of its own destiny and has chosen against us. The other groups are just useful idiots.
52 posted on 03/10/2003 8:11:48 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Flurry
. . . and if you believe that, you probably believe a sovereign has foreordained the moving of the chess pieces -- interesting game, huh?
53 posted on 03/10/2003 8:14:16 AM PST by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
It is indeed and has its foundation in multiculturalism which at its core is designed to deny that any system or culture is "better" than any other. This is patently false as they have no problem condemning cannibalism as being "wrong", for example.

The Euro's have seized on this collectivist mindset and enhanced it. I hear it in the rhetoric of the French and the actions of many Europaeans. It is found in the question multiculturalists are fond of asking:"Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi life"? with the implication that a "Yeah" answer is bigoted, racist and just so so retrograde.

In all, I agree that it is a trend and not a franco-German plot, per se.

It is typical of all the neo-socialists that only the UN has the answers and that we must defer to the UN.[Just listen to Pelosi and the Dashole!]In their[the Dems, the UN-ers, the Europeans and the silent Chinese] collectivist mind, if we as a country will buy that sick argument, we can be persuaded, cajoled, kicked into spending our wealth on give-aways to the 3rd world, to despising our strength so as to handicap our selves because after all...its just not fair[ref. the argument that we should not invade Iraq because our army is stronger than theirs!]We would be fools indeed if we allow this nonsense to continue.

54 posted on 03/10/2003 8:17:03 AM PST by Adder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Adder
One could find some honor in dying for naiveté. But it seems liberals also have a good dose of self preservation at any cost.
55 posted on 03/10/2003 8:26:51 AM PST by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kaylar
It would make more sense to me for the Germans to be seeking the abolition of the SC as while it exists they have a diminished role in the world. It may be that they have their hand up the French butt and are moving its mouth in the meantime.

Nevertheless I think things are going to be all right. The one good thing about evil is that it always overreaches (as I read in Dickens this weekend regarding the diabolical Uriah Heep). The Islamists did us a favor on 911. It is hard to see it this way but it may have been a relatively cheap lesson. And to me the lesson is turning out to be about world socialism as much as about Islamism. Learning who our friends and enemies really are is priceless.
56 posted on 03/10/2003 8:27:38 AM PST by johnb838 (ROLL not STROLL. Liberate Iraq. Bomb Saddam, Crap Chiraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: shhrubbery!
Please do not forget Laval
57 posted on 03/10/2003 8:32:14 AM PST by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
They will not veto. If they do I'll change my tune. For now I think it's merely white flag rattling.
58 posted on 03/10/2003 8:36:43 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (RW&B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
I agree wholeheartedly. It's hard to say it, because it feels as if you're demeaning the memory of the 4000 murdered and the grief of their survivors, BUT-

Just imagine if they'd struck a few years earlier, when WJC and HRC were in the WH.

Or imagine if they'd waited a few years, when the Muslim population in both the US and EU would be even larger.

They tipped their hand too soon OTOH, while not soon enough to let WJC profit, OTOH.

Ands more and more attention is being drawn to the violent spread of Islam and the forced imposition of sharia even on nonmuslims. That the conversion-by force if necessary- of nonmuslims is a requirement of Islam, as is the imposition of a theocratic government. More and more people are growing uneasy about the spread of Islam in north America, and I think that that may be the best 'unintended consequence' of 9/11.

59 posted on 03/10/2003 8:37:41 AM PST by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Flurry
My opinions are based on a veto. If they don't veto, then they decided to just assert their power in an ego trip.
60 posted on 03/10/2003 8:46:16 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson