Pentagon Advisor: "France is no longer an ally of the United States"

sceptre

I don't think this has been posted already - apologies if it has.

This chap Pearle isn't an "official" official but does hold some sway with Junior Bush. Make up your own minds on the significance of what he has to say - the fact that it's been 19 hours since his statement with no big denials from the administration would leave me to believe that the Americans are getting pretty annoyed that their canvassing around the UN hasn't in any way swayed their Security Council colleague France.

Short of France providing a nuclear shield for Iraq (in the same way that the US does for Japan) the French position doesn't really affect the intentions of the various hawks in the Bush administration - as France is obviously one of the core NATO members an attitude like this made public in a statement by a senior Pentagon advisor may have implications as great for Nato as for the UN. I've no doubt that there have been a few phone calls between Bush and Chirac over the past few hours. Wonder if Monsieur le President is picking up.

Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally'
By Martin Walker
UPI Chief International Correspondent
From the International Desk
Published 2/4/2003 8:43 PM


WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by a New York-based PR firm and attended by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.

But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers. Last November France did vote for Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors verifying that Iraq has indeed dismantled its programs for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people," Perle said, referring to the sharp electoral defeat suffered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party in state elections Sunday.

Although he is not an official of the Bush administration, Perle's position as the Pentagon's senior civilian adviser gives his harsh remarks a quasi-official character and reflects the growing frustration in the White House and Pentagon with the French and German reluctance to support their U.S. and British allies.

"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.

"But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium."

Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."

"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

Raskolnikov

Incredible, i knew that this kind of sentiment was common in the White House but not to this extreme. Although i do say i must commend the French president for finally showing some backbone, even if it is only because it's only in France's interests. Concerning the US? If it continues with this kind of arrogance it will soon find itself on it's own in world that is filled with nothing but loathing for it.

Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."

So what he's trying to say is that the United States should only abide by the United Nation's whenever she feels like it? But if a certain Middle Eastern country doesn't comply it must be anihilated and plundered? Ohh double standards.

Iraq is going to be liberated

funny how nobody has asked the Iraqi people if they want to be "Liberated". (or occupied by a foreign power)

the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance"

Does that mean, if you're not with us, you're against us?

French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers.

Admirable. America is messing with the UN, and so far, its only France thats standing up for the mandates of the UN.

Interesting, I saw a piece on Newsnight BBC 2 last night , with a 3 way interview, with a former British ambassador to Saudi arabia, a US republican congressman and a French MP.
It wasn't Jeremy Paxman who anchored, but the other usual guy , whose name escapes me.

Anyhow he kept asking the French M.P over and over again, what they would want to see, before they would agree with war...a nuclear bomb with the Iraqi flag flying from it!!

By the way, no body knows whether, ordinary Iraqui's want to be liberated or not, theres no way of finding out really,but a 100% vote for Sadam hussein surely is indicative of a corrupt vote.

I don't go for this whole idea of liberation at all, as the whole way of life with middle Eastern societies is so alien to our own, Womens rights being an obvious example.
But I do agree with, doing something about, any threat to our western way of life posed by any extremist.
If to me anyhow, deposing Sadam, means less chance of weapons of mass destruction getting into the wrong hands, then I applaud that.
Hopefully not with war, though,Sadam has the ultimate call there and now he has powerfull help, with China Russia and France calling for the inspectors to get more time.
It would appear also, that Tony Blair, is playing a clever game of relaxing, the U.S, from what would otherwise be an even more zealous but understandable desire to defend their country and it's interests.

The trouble is though, Sadam has too big an ego, to step down, hold open free elections and outlaw , the presence of nerve agents etc in his country.
mm

I think its very easy for people to label Saddam as being the bad guy. I don't like alot of what he does, but we don't call Bush a Tyrant, because we don't like his policies.

By the way, no body knows whether, ordinary Iraqui's want to be liberated or not, theres no way of finding out really,but a 100% vote for Sadam hussein surely is indicative of a corrupt vote.

Well since theres really only one party so that worked out well for him. If the people really didn't like it as much as the rest of the world think they should, then saddam would be out of power in an instant.

But I do agree with, doing something about, any threat to our western way of life posed by any extremist.

Extremists yes, i agree. But to my knowledge Saddma has not made any threatening move against us, since the Gulf War. Even then initially he was invading another arab state not any western country.

If to me anyhow, deposing Sadam, means less chance of weapons of mass destruction getting into the wrong hands, then I applaud that.

So you'd be interested in Invading Russia, simply because these weapons could be sold off?
Saddam, doesn't have enough weapons to be passing them off to terrorists. Even if he did, it goes against his Idealogy to do so.

The trouble is though, Sadam has too big an ego, to step down, hold open free elections and outlaw , the presence of nerve agents etc in his country.

Actually the trouble is that America has too big an Ego. How would you feel if some stranger came into your home, and told u how to live there. This is what america is doing with Iraq. Do you really believe that the Americans elections in Iraq will be any more neutral? (since no pro-saddam party would be allowed to run).

One other point abt the nerve agents. American Carrier groups in the Med have Nukes stored there. I don't see too many people complaining that a foreign power (the US) has strike capabilities with nukes in Europe. Or that we don't know that America has destroyed their own biological weapons.


Personally i don't like this whole liberation crap. they're an invading army. Thats it. not romantic abt it. They're no better than what germany did to Hungary/Greece in WW2.

I think its very easy for people to label Saddam as being the bad guy. I don't like alot of what he does, but we don't call Bush a Tyrant, because we don't like his policies.

He's not a good guy.
bush can be voted out , if enough people do not agree with his policies, so , to his own people, he cannot, be called a tyrant.
Clearly depending on viewpoints, you'll find many, who will regard, the U.S as tyrannical abroad.

Well since theres really only one party so that worked out well for him. If the people really didn't like it as much as the rest of the world think they should, then saddam would be out of power in an instant.

They would also run the risk of being shot for treason.

Extremists yes, i agree. But to my knowledge Saddma has not made any threatening move against us, since the Gulf War. Even then initially he was invading another arab state not any western country.

Blair has an interesting line on this, he doesn't connect,Iraq with 9-11,but he does say that connections have increased after that.
From my own way of see'ing it, I would expect sadam, to be mightilly impressed with the attacks AlQueda have carried out on the U.S , both at home and abroad.
Impressed enough to be tollerant, of their presence in Iraq, a presence which, to paraphrase Powell is not comforting.

So you'd be interested in Invading Russia, simply because these weapons could be sold off?

Well, after see'ng horizon on BBC2 ( I know I appear to be a fan of BBC2:p ) and the effect even one tiny dirty bomb, would have long term, if exploded in london...I believe it's a serious risk,so yes something has to be done to sort out/ the traffic of Nuclear material...but not the invasion of Russia, they are on speaking terms with the west,so a better chance of co-operation there.
Besides, the Russians are being threatened by extremists aswell, so wouldn't be averse to imternational co-operation on the issue.

Saddam, doesn't have enough weapons to be passing them off to terrorists. Even if he did, it goes against his Idealogy to do so.

It's a mad, mad world we live in now, and if only a spoonfull of material, can cause death,It's doubtfull if love of America, would stop Sadam,from using these materials if, the weapons inspectors weren't in his country.
According to Blix, theres no account of tonnes of poisonous material.
Clearly the U.S and the U.K and at least 7 other European countries are thinking the same way.
And more than that, they are thinking that, enough, evasion is enough.
mm

quote:

---

Well since theres really only one party so that worked out well for him. If the people really didn't like it as much as the rest of the world think they should, then saddam would be out of power in an instant.

---

They would also run the risk of being shot for treason

True, but if the people rose, then the army would rise with them.

Impressed enough to be tollerant, of their presence in Iraq, a presence which, to paraphrase Powell is not comforting.

This is a dodgy one. So the possible presence of terrorists are enough? Just as the possible existance of such weapons is enough a reason to attack.

It's a mad, mad world we live in now, and if only a spoonfull of material, can cause death,It's doubtfull if love of America, would stop Sadam,from using these materials if, the weapons inspectors weren't in his country.

Perhaps. But i still Don't see them as valid reasons for the American Aggression. Most countries in the world have the ability to create said substances, hell, alot of companies can do so also. Its the price of change. Targeting Iraq, just because of something that happened a decade ago is just an excuse.

Also, say if the UN do make America back down (unlikely as it seems), do you really think Saddam has any reason to love them? America has invaded once already, and now they want to do so again. I think it would be quite reasonable for the Iraqi People to be pissed at the international community for allowing this to happen.

I don't think sadam will ever love america now:D

Perhaps. But i still Don't see them as valid reasons for the American Aggression.

you mightn't Klaz, but the U.S definitely do, they are not going to put up with it, and have some strong allies who now think likewise.
Regarding the Army and the people rising against Sadam, it would have happened long ago,if it was ever going to happen.
If I thought the system of government and it's foreign and domestic policy was ever going to change, I'd expect it to happen by evolution.
Not a timescale, the U.S is in favour of, given that, they believe, their enemies have safe haven there.
mm

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
Actually the trouble is that America has too big an Ego.

Exactly.

"I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world.

"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.

There appears to be a considerable problem with the Americans not understanding the concept of either a 'neutral stance' or a 'balanced stance'.

you mightn't Klaz, but the U.S definitely do, they are not going to put up with it, and have some strong allies who now think likewise.

They're not going to put up with it, in spite of the UN not making a decision? America has decided to throw common agreements into the air once they become an inconvenience. When the Cold War was still happening, the US, Europe, and Russia all formed certain guidelines when it came to invading countries and the reasons therein. America pushed these agreements, and more often than not enforced them over the last three decades. Now that its an inconvenience, they decide the break em.

Regarding the Army and the people rising against Sadam, it would have happened long ago,if it was ever going to happen.

I agree. So things might not be as bad as the news (and the US) puts out abt Iraq.

their enemies have safe haven there

Is it any wonder, when the US are acting like this? Come on, If america declared war on Ireland tomorrow, you'd find us welcoming anybody that could help. (" the enemy of my enemy is my friend, for a while")


Personally i agree to what the French are doing. I just wish the rest of europe would do the same. This war has no real basis for being. Most of the "evidence" i've heard on the news, or seen here, is conjecture. I haven't seen any solid evidence to say that Iraq is a threat to the western world, and until i do i think this war is wrong.

On a moral note for this war: "Liberation" is not an issue, since America goes to occupy for a period of time. No Iraqi's have been asked do they want Saddam out. How the people are treated in Iraq, is between saddam & the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture, by our own standards.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by klaz
Well since theres really only one party so that worked out well for him. If the people really didn't like it as much as the rest of the world think they should, then saddam would be out of power in an instant.

Surely...surely, you cannot possibly be that naive. :rolleyes:

bonkey

Quoting from the original article...

Originally posted by sceptre

France is no longer an ally of the United States
...
"France is no longer the ally it once was,"

Notice the difference?

If I were to say, for example, that boards.ie is no longer the bulletin board it once was, does this mean that it is no longer a bulletin board? No, clearly not.

I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world.

This makes them "no longer an ally"? In otherwords, to be an ally of the US, you have to do what the US says, and allow the US the influence in the world that it wants. Most people called that subservience, not alliance.

The French, like the Germans, have clearly stated that they will not support military action in the Gulf without a clear UN mandate, authorising such action. Note - they have not ruled out military intervention, nor the replacement of Hussein, nor their own participation in the event. All they have said is that we should follow the road we are on - we should continue with the inspections as mandated under 1441, and do so until a conclusive result is determined - be that the verification that Iraq is free of WMDs, or the proof that it was indeed lieing.

Thus, we can conclude that it is this support of the UN process which is - obviously - not acceptable to the US, and is what is threatening the alliance.

I'm just curious as to how long it will take the US to withdraw from the United Nations on the grounds that it is "clearly" a failed organisation.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
How the people are treated in Iraq, is between saddam & the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture, by our own standards.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law:

"How the Jews are treated in Germany is between Hitler and the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture by our own standards"

"How the Catholics are treated in Northern Ireland is between David Trimble and the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture by our own standards"

"How the blacks are treated in South Africa is between Prime Minister Botha and the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture by our own standards"

"How the intellectuals are treated in Cambodia is between Pol Pot and the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture by our own standards"

Would you also agree with these statements?

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
The French, like the Germans, have clearly stated that they will not support military action in the Gulf without a clear UN mandate, authorising such action.

But doesn't their being a veto-holding member of the Security Council rather undermine the moral value of this? They could just as easily say that they will not support some new environmental treaty without a clear UN mandate, withold their approval in the security council, and thus say they won't approve it.

That said, I agree with their basic policy, that the inspections should be allowed run their course, otherwise there was no point starting them in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by klaz
How the people are treated in Iraq, is between saddam & the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture, by our own standards.

---

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law:
quote:

---

"How the Jews are treated in Germany is between Hitler and the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture by our own standards"

---

quote:

---

"How the Catholics are treated in Northern Ireland is between David Trimble and the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture by our own standards"

---

quote:

---

"How the blacks are treated in South Africa is between Prime Minister Botha and the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture by our own standards"

---

quote:

---

"How the intellectuals are treated in Cambodia is between Pol Pot and the people, not for us to judge a completely different culture by our own standards"

---

Would you also agree with these statements?



Theres a bit of a difference in what i'm saying than what happened in the Third Reich. What i said/meant was that as people from a different culture our perception of whats wrong with another culture is coloured. Not necessarily what we see as being right, is indeed correct.



quote:

---

Originally posted by klaz
Well since theres really only one party so that worked out well for him. If the people really didn't like it as much as the rest of the world think they should, then saddam would be out of power in an instant.

---

Surely...surely, you cannot possibly be that naive


Its not naivety. Its the truth. The army draws all recruits from the people. If a popular movemnet should erupt in Iraq, civil war would occur.

Are you so cynical, that you believe the only way for something to change, is if America invades?

mike65

An interesting thread, which pretty much overlooks one important fact.
The French do what the French have always done, give the impresion of being hostile to the US on a given matter but then quietly get in line behind them when push comes to shove. The French have an aircraft carrier and support heading towards the east Med, for "excersies" with the US, is that the behaviour of a state thats no longer an ally?

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
Notice the difference?

Fair point bonkey (I took the thread title from the article headline btw)

utopio

Originally posted by sceptre
I don't think this has been posted already - apologies if it has.

This chap Pearle isn't an "official" official but does hold some sway with Junior Bush. Make up your own minds on the significance of what he has to say - the fact that it's been 19 hours since his statement with no big denials from the administration would leave me to believe that the Americans are getting pretty annoyed that their canvassing around the UN hasn't in any way swayed their Security Council colleague France.

Short of France providing a nuclear shield for Iraq (in the same way that the US does for Japan) the French position doesn't really affect the intentions of the various hawks in the Bush administration - as France is obviously one of the core NATO members an attitude like this made public in a statement by a senior Pentagon advisor may have implications as great for Nato as for the UN. I've no doubt that there have been a few phone calls between Bush and Chirac over the past few hours. Wonder if Monsieur le President is picking up.

They are just crazy!!

How can they say something like that?? I think Bin laden reached all his goals, that was what he wanted.

mike65

utopio, which bit is crazy?

No jokes about "Its all crazy!" peeps.

Mike.

utopio

Originally posted by mike65
utopio, which bit is crazy?

No jokes about "Its all crazy!" peeps.

Mike.

I mean what America is doing is crazy. "France is no longer an ally of the United States" => that is crazy!!!

DiscoStu

Rummy baby is at it again.
Now he's pising off the Germans. Seems that a new "Axis of Evil"(© and TM 2002, George W. Bush) is forming, Cuba, Lybia and Germany

utopio

As I said crazy, why does he say something like that only because we haven't the same opinion?? We aren't only America's allied, they also are our allied!!

mike65

France is, as I suggested above, merely being its usual self. They sent the Charles de Gaule off so they're still in the game but just like to pretend otherwise.

They proberly have bets in the Elyssee to see what can most piss off the US right wing!

Todays spat over planning to protect Turkey if the balloon goes up is worrying though. France was a fully paid up NATO member but has been
"drifting" along with Germany as they have ideas for a EU military
structure.

If I were in Turkey watching this I'd be packing my bags...

Mike.