Much of the world enjoys celebrating and gleefully annunciating American errors. Of course they usually first hear about American errors from Americans themselves.

Over at James Taranto's BOTW(t) reader Bernard Marchois writes:

Sorry, I'm in a foreign country and don't have my dictionary. So is my English very bad. Alas, cruelty is in the human nature and the U.S. soldiers aren't better than others. I wrote to the WSJ a lot of times, with very strong criticisms, because I don't like Mr. Bush and his politics. But I must say one thing: Only in the U.S. you can read, see and hear that the administration accept to show the dark side, in all the abhorrent details. This is, despite all the errors, a real lesson of democracy. In France, my country, this is impossible. Never a French government will recognize the Army's abuses.

There you have it.

Pave eagerly awaits our French correspondents' comments on M. Marchois's comments.

(For those who think M. Marchois a plant or an editorial hoax, here is one of those letters to the WSJ that indubitably establishes his French credentials. And here are BOTW(t) reader responses to M. Marchois.)

05.07.04 UPDATE: Le Monde Watch argues American jacklegs have everything to learn from the French about torture: Torture : La France, prête à donner des leçons aux USA.

05.07.04 UPDATE: For those who think the events at Abu Ghraib prison have made of America an irremissible moral cesspool, for those who believe every American must take a turn on the Alhurra and Al Arabiya television networks with a personal heartfelt mea culpa, for those who feel only the collective seppuku of America can free us from a riotous guilt, please resume your meds then read this.

05.08.04 UPDATE: What do the Iraqis think about a public apology from the leader of the free world? Aside from their undisguised shock, many are grateful. (Hat tip: Papertiger via E-Nough!)

The Iraqi have noticed the difference also. Read these translated reactions of Iraqis to President Bush's apology.

Damian

Reading Bernard Marchois gave me a headache. He makes our own resident Frenchmen appear house broke. Then he comes out with that observation.

Bernard Marchois is proof that you must be especially careful when in rant mode, because the truth will slip out.

I don't really have a problem with Marchois' observation about the US military being more "open" to the public and the media in general, but what potential French "abuses" is he referring to after the Algerian war? Also, if an US TV show had not exposed the scandal, would the US Army have admitted it? Not so sure.

but what potential French "abuses" is he referring to after the Algerian war?

Rainbow Warrior springs to mind.

(Not sure if it was military intelligence that actually did it or the frog version of the CIA, a cluster-fuck nevertheless)

Rainbow Warrior springs to mind.

I wouldn't qualify that as "abuse" as in "torture and degradation" (you know, like walking naked prisonners on a leash and taking photos of them for example), but I'll give you that one. It wasn't military-related.

Also, if an US TV show had not exposed the scandal, would the US Army have admitted it? Not so sure.

Heres the thing, The Pentagon broke the story in January. The pictures appear to have come as a bit of a suprise. The soldiers involved were dismissed from duty in January. The officers were reprimanded and the actual soldiers who committeed the crimes are being court marshalled already.

All of that happened before Sixty Minutes published the photos. The Media was informed in the daily Pentagon Press briefing in January. It was a soldier who blew the whistle.

M. Zoomerx,

America in Iraq is hardly France in Algeria, but as Algeria is too hard a memory, I'm always happy to inform a Frenchman on French affairs.

Operation Turquoise facilitating the 1994 genocide in Rwanda: description here, excuses here, dithering justice here.

Regards,
DGB

And I'm sure the US did everything to intervene?

M. Zoomerx,

US nonintervention in Rwanda is hardly the point. You asked for an example beyond Algeria of French military abuse of its stated mission. I have provided one.

French abetment of its Hutu clients' genocide has been widely testified to. The French military set up "Zones Humanitaires Sures" (ZHS) that were neither safe nor humanitarian.

The crucial consequence of the French bias towards the Hutus was that Operation Turquoise did not disarm the Hutus, and thus the ZHS were never demilitarized. This was to have serious consequences for the protection of these areas, since the 1.2 million people in the ZHS were fed and sheltered but were not protected. Extremist Hutu militia members who were still armed operated in the zones, intimidating moderate Hutus and killing Tutsis. These armed activities led the camps to be considered as centers of hostility by the Tutsi government, greatly eroding the government’s support for the ZHS because they were evidently not neutral.

I am more aware than you of America's failings in the person of Mr. Clinton during the Rwandan genocide. America did not intervene. France did, to the mortal privation of the Tutsi minority.

If your response to every French failing is a feeble tu quoque, then don't expect to be taken seriously.

Regards,
DGB

Six months before the situation in Rwanda blew up we Americans were treated to the incidents that inspired this movie.
President Clinton promptly set a timetable for US forces to withdraw from Somalia not later then March 31st 1994. The salient points of which I culled from this site.

On 3 October 1993, elements of Task Force (TF) Ranger (a force of nearly 100 Rangers and SOF operators) executed a raid to capture some of Aideed’s closest supporters. Although tactically successful, 2 helicopters were shot down, 75 soldiers were wounded, and 18 soldiers were killed accomplishing the mission. The US deaths as well as vivid scenes of mutilation to some of the soldiers increased calls to Congress for withdrawing US forces from Somalia. The President then ordered reinforcements to protect US Forces, Somalia (USFORSOM) as they began a phased withdrawal with a 31 March deadline. The last contingent sailed from Mogadishu on 25 March, ending OPERATION CONTINUED HOPE and the overall US mission in Somalia.

Could the timing of President Habyarimana’s assassination on April 6 1994 have had anything to do with the widely publicized American withdrawal from Somalia? Would the Tutsi Have gambled that an American freshly disintangled from Africa would not be keen to return? Sure sounds like the case.

"And I'm sure the US did everything to intervene?"

ROTFLMAO!!! Jesus. Yes we fumbled the ball in Rwanda. (Along with the rest of the world I might add.) Our president was will to do something to stop what was going on in Iraq partly because we *learned* from Rwanda.

Zoomer: I wouldn't qualify that as "abuse" as in "torture and degradation" (you know, like walking naked prisonners on a leash and taking photos of them for example)

Because death is so much better than abuse, right? Ahhh, that wacky French moral relativism.

Jesus. Yes we fumbled the ball in Rwanda. (Along with the rest of the world I might add.)

Speaking of Rwanda, I love how the French were knee deep in the whole Rwanda affair (propping up the Hutus for years, turning a blind eye to their abuse of the Tutsis). Even old President François Mitterand was reported to say, "In such countries as this, genocide is not too important."

Yet in a Parlimentary commission report they blame the whole mess on the UN (who also deserved most of the blame) and the US, resolving themselves of any responsiblitiy for the killings and only conceeding to making a few "errors in judgement."

So, when we screw up badly we apologies. When the French do they wash their hands of it.

Like Zoom, I don't have problem about Bernard Marchois's statement. We hear about these events from Americans and it show that America is ammong the most advanced democratic societies. In a previous post I wrote that focusing about who is waste of time, better to focus about WHY ?

Despite the various ans sometime shamefull compromission with nasty regimes or action all over the world (this stand for France and USA as well) we must go back in history to Algerian war to see French army as directly involved in torture use than we find today the US army.
And like today about US army, the French war crimes where brought in public by other French. And also the same poor denegation and scapegoat use. First "Oh.. this is not torture... just we shaked them a little bit..." and when it is becomes unpossible to deny "Just awfull behaviour of some devious perpetrators who will be punished".

Bollock all this, I don't have any respect for these guards having so much fun in their "task" but putting all the fault on them is disgusting hypocrisy:

Rape, abuse and torture is part of all war when this war leads to an occupation. Because occupation forces always face insurgents. When insurgent are caught, the clues they give if they "cooperate" are precious to unfold further plots and attacks thus, saving lives. The job of inquisitors is not to keep their hand clean but to do ANYTHING whatever it is to force the prisoner to talk.

The choice has never been in the hands of those pathetic zeros we can see laughing on these pics. The choice is in the hands of who decided the war and the people who elected and gave them support.

It can be right to decide and support a war... or wrong. But in any case we have then to support ALL the war. Not just the cute ribbons, stars and stripe flying in the wind, the glorious hero, the clown posing in the sun set on an aircraft carrier disguised in pilot suit claiming "we prevailed" and the impressives Bradley tanks but also the result : death, wound, human and moral depravation which ALWAYS follow.

Hopefully, these ridiculous "Give peace a chance" and "war is the last thing to do" sound now differently in you hears (and between them). After all, may be those utopic pacifist are the only realistic people down here ??

Pierre,

I followed your exposition up to its conclusion.

My opinion about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison are as uninfomed as the next news-bound reader. But what I can say with utter confidence is that war is different.

The world used to be not too particular about war's prosecution, which was not good. But it has lately come to believe in the fairy tale of "polite war", which also is bad. In "polite war" only the bad guys get hurt and though we may shoot to kill we must never never never demean or insult the bad guy.

War is strictly limited by morality -- not politically correct suavity.

War is not the last resort. It is the resort of failed diplomacy. Diplomacy's talking cure, much beloved of Europe in general and France most especially, is not a unfailable panacea. The UN clubhouse has countenanced more misery and suffering and torture and death by endless blathering with criminal parties than all the wars of the past century. Sounds incredible? Just look at the tally board for Stalin's Soviet paradise, or Mao's Great Leap Forward, or Ceausescu’s busy Securitate, or the hell-hole of Eternal President Kim Il Sung (he's dead but still the head of state, that's the "eternal" bit in the title) and, of course, Saddam's Iraq, just to name a few UN members in good standing till they day they died.

"Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln"

War is not a tea party and it cannot be prosecuted in half measures. Once begun it best be finished. War is and has always been a bloody business. It is the business of making a point by having the enemy pay for the insight in blood and treasure.

Is the peace mob realistic? The peace mob hasn't a single clear idea in its muddled collective head about peace. They talk about peace the way socialists talk about entitlements. These people aren't Ghandi en masse, they're political opportunists who weren't much in evidence while the Soviets romped through Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. Where were these sensitive plants when China brutalized Tibet? Why no street parties when Pol Pot was re-educating Kampuchea? And by the way, I don't see the peace mob ponying up, oh say, USD$40 billion for the peaceable war on AIDS in Africa.

To answer your question, no, the peace mob is not realistic. They are purveyors of fairy tales.

BTW, I do believe your English is improving.

Regards,
DGB

Our president was will to do something to stop what was going on in Iraq partly because we *learned* from Rwanda.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Right. I'm not sure what Rwanda has to do with Irak or the price of milk on the torture scandal issue...

Funny one, cannon.

Even old President François Mitterand was reported to say, "In such countries as this, genocide is not too important."

Link?

BTW, torture is one thing, it's War dirty little secret, but it's the childish humiliation as "entertainment" that gives the US a giant black eye.

I am not sure Damian if a war can be different than all others. Just the situations of those involved in it are different between those aiming a good or crap goal who DECIDE to trigger a war. And those who have no other choice once the war process is started to go at it to defend what they have to defend.

I fully agree with you when you tell "polite war" is for the best "fairy tale". To be honest I must tell that I TRIED to believe that when started the first gulf war. It was the first time I heared about those "chirurgical strike" where bombs dropped from 30 000 feets turn around the mother and child to just hit the bad ugly local opressor. But I could not believe that very long... especially at the end when Kuwait's oil was secured again, we left Saddam "dealing" with Kurds and Shia with the chemistry and weaponry WE WIDELY provided him monthes before. And years after, OUR former soldiers having cancer and dying from the dirty uranium shells particles WE used... Chirurgical strikes ??? My a... FORGET IT. So many death and as result Saddam hussein still in place wealthier and stonger than ever.

You point UN action as a failure because the eastern Europ was under opression for 50 years, OK but imagine without UN ?? a West/East full confrontation with enough nukes on each side to level several planets one after the other ?? would have it been better ? At least, without war, all these country could get rid BY THEMSELVES of internal and foreign tirany, it was indeed at very high cost, tremendously long but not the total disaster of a war between the two main nuke powers.

War is not a tea party and it cannot be prosecuted in half measures. Once begun it best be finished.

Absolutely true and it is LONG and BLOODY to finish a war, always longer and more bloody than expected. This is something to think about BEFORE begining the war with colored ribbons and flower on the gun.

I never trust a mob. pacifist or warmongers, left or right, this is just an easy cheap way to tell ourself "I am doing right". Anyway, don't be surprised if there are more rallies against USA than North Korea, it is not because the people Love Kim Jong Il and hat Bush. It simply it is useless to protest against criminals perpetrating crimes and sometimes more usefull to prevent or limit the errors from advanced democracies.

Here is a difference : people under dictature has no responsability at all about what is done by their local tyrans. We as people choosing our governments are fully responsible of the result.

I don't call a pacifist a guy waving a colored flag chanting in a rally. But rather someone who think about ALL sides of the war and look for all other possible solutions. And sometimes a pacifist can be found thinking "Shit ! I don't see any other possible way than this fucking war..."

Ammong the veteran of the previous wars who know by personal experience what killing, dying, using or getting abuse by duty is, you will find load of persons I call pacifists.

BTW: Thanks for your encouragements about my English.

Pierre

Here's your link Zoomer. You might want to read this book as well.

Pierre,

Do not misunderstand me as advocating for war as a staple resolution. War is always an extraordinary step.

War comes about when hostile parties become implacable. War cuts through the Gordian knot of irreconcilable claims and grievances and implacable hates. The intent of war is to produce clear winners and clear losers.

I take issue with you about the UN deterring any nuclear duels in Western Europe. It was NATO, and most especially American membership in NATO, that deterred any Soviet nuclear overreach.

Yes, those who fight wars are the most circumspect about war. Yet they will also tell you that war is not peacekeeping nor a police action nor pattycake. It is life and death. It is preserving the former for yourself and visiting the latter on the enemy. This is what I meant by war is different.

As France has quite a string of modern unilateral military adventures (e.g., Chad, Gambon, Congo, Ivory Coast, etc.), how are these viewed by the French themselves?

DGB

Hmmm... I'd like to see the context of that quote, FRB, but thanks for the link.

As France has quite a string of modern unilateral military adventures (e.g., Chad, Gambon, Congo, Ivory Coast, etc.), how are these viewed by the French themselves?

In a military context? Except maybe for Ivory Coast where France has an important economic presence, many citizens and concerned about the outcome, the other conflicts are not really scrutanized as much by the mainstream media in my opinion. It's mostly the French Foreign Legion's job to "clean up" civil disturbances in Africa, France is quite accustomed to it and not that curious about it generally speaking. Also, a big difference is that the FFL is an army of "its own" (but part of the French Forces), therefore the French public does not have a personal "connection" with Legionnaires as Americans have with their regular army. Hope this makes sense, maybe Pierre can elaborate.

A bit OT, but here's an interesting article by Jean-Francois Revel about French anti-globalism and how it relates to French anti-Americanism.

The money quote

We French have had little to say against Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, the imams of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the bosses of China and Vietnam. We reserve our admonitions and our contempt and our attacks for the U.S., for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and for Europeans like Margaret Thatcher, Silvio Berlusconi, and Tony Blair, because they are insufficiently hostile to capitalism. Our enemy is not the dictator but the free market economy.

Anti-globalizers make the same mistake. What’s important to them is not the eradication of poverty. Rather, it is the propaganda value they gain from linking poverty to the spreading market economy. But this puts them on the wrong side of all evidence, of reality, of history.

Damian

Thank you for the hat tip. Both here and at Enough! in one day.
I am feeling froggy* (thats an expression we use to describe an ego boost which inspires a person to try and shoot beyond his previous best).
I am going to shoot for the moon; a hat tip at LGF. I know , I know... way over my head.
Wish me luck.

* You see? Frog isn't always derogatory.

Zoomeridiot Rwanda doesn't have anything to do with what happened in an Iraqi prison, but it has everything to do with why we are in Iraq in the first place. We learn from our mistakes while other countries wallow in the former glory of colonial power.

Papertiger:

If you do get that 3rd “hat-tip” at LGF, would it be a hat-trick of hat-tips?

Zoomeridiot Rwanda doesn't have anything to do with what happened in an Iraqi prison, but it has everything to do with why we are in Iraq in the first place.

I still can't make the connection, cannon, sorry. Was Rwanda suspected to have WMD's?

We learn from our mistakes...

Which ones?

You certainly did not learn from other's mistakes (France for instance), i.e. half-assed attempts at crushing "trouble-makers", and torturing them. Same mistakes. But no one said it would be easy.

No Rwanda was in the middle of having genocide. Sorry that you frogs are so blinded by your cheap oil needs that you couldn't see the same thing happening in Iraq. We did. What's the matter not enough people died under the "oil for food" program for your taste?

No Rwanda was in the middle of having genocide...

Right. Human abuses were certainly not on your priority list in invading Irak, cannon (remember the WMD threat?). It's convenient to say so now isn't it? Convenient and ironic.

zoomerx there were multiple issues. WMDs were one, human rights were another, Saddam disreguarding 19 Security Council resolutions yet another.

No-fly zones mean anything to you? A Cease-Fire and not an actual peace treaty mean anything to you? We were in a state of conflict since GWI. A war we never finished because our "allies" wanted to keep Saddam in power as a stablizing influce. Look what it got us. Hell we should ignored your whining then like we are now. IF we had we wouldn't have had to go in a second time.

Bah... anything to keep the sanctions status quo would have been alright, eh? WHO cares that saddam was pocketing billions as long as the French got their cut, eh?

I am sure that the hatred of most Europeans for the American people will outlast the war and George Bush. Hatred and contempt for Americans is now synonymous with being European.

Well, well, well...

I'm switching subject here, but I find this very interesting.

The team of lawyers includes Washington lawyer Curtis Doebbler and French attorney Emmanuel Ludot. Chalabi has said the lead attorney needs to be Iraqi, but that other members of the team can come from other countries.

Intersting how we're not hearing too much about it...

To follow up my last post: There were 27 reasons we went into Iraq.

Ahh but it was all about the oil eh zoomeridiot.

Cannon-moron,

I've never said the Irak invasion in itself was "about oil". But you can be sure it will be the US knocking at Irak's door first when things settle down just like they're doing with Libya.

No zoomeridiot you said we said it was all about WMDs. It wasn't as I pointed out. For you frogs on the other hand it was about the freaking oil. All about how cheap you could get it from Saddam.

So you were wrong. Many people think it was about oil, none of them American, of course. All of them French. Do you know how much oil was France exporting from Irak? Less than the US, actually.

*cough*oil vouchers*cough*