Sarkozy fumbles French Afghan force

Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be regaining favour after crashing to  unpopularity over the winter. A BVA poll today shows his approval climbing four points to 40 percent over the past month. This is the first rise since he went off the deep end with his autumn divorce and his speed courtship of Carla Bruni.

Heeding everyone's advice, Sarko has calmed the frenetic side of his nature and started acting presidential. He has pushed François Fillon, his Prime  Minister, onto the front line to catch the flak in the way that French premiers are supposed to.

Yet he has just made a new bungle. He has mishandled the dispatch of new French combat troops to Afghanistan

The decision was bound to be touchy. During last year's election campaign, Sarkozy promised to bring France's 1,500 strong contingent back from around Kabul as soon as possible. He has now reversed course just as the Taliban seem to be getting the upper hand against Nato forces in the south.

He has over-ridden the misgivings of the French high command and decided to send several hundred paratroops and special forces to ease the shortage that is hurting mainly the Americans, Canadians and British.  He is to flesh out the details at the Nato summit in Bucharest tomorrow but it seems likely that the forces will join the Americans in the east rather than go to the south where the fighting is most intense. 

The decision to send troops into a deteriorating conflict is part of Sarkozy's plan to bring France closer to the Anglo-American orbit and back to the heart of the Atlantic alliance after four decades of semi-detachment.

Yet he has so far failed to explain his plans to France. He announced the troop deployment in a speech to the British Parliament in London last week, ensuring that the French Parliament would be insulted. That does not matter greatly because the National Assembly has less power than any European parliament. But it enabled the Socialist opposition to denounce him there for kneeling before les Anglo-Saxons and leading France "into a new Vietnam" to curry favour with a discredited US administration. It was no surprise when an opinion poll on Tuesday showed that two thirds of the French oppose the new Afghan deployment. Only 15 percent approve, according to the CSA survey.

Parliament opened a debate on the deployment yesterday, but the Government has barred it from taking any vote. Fillon explained the Afghan decision to the Assembly after pointing out on the radio that it had no real say in the executive's decision because "France has a presidential system and not a parliamentary democracy".

Sarko's cavalier performance over Afghanistan has inevitably played into the hands of his opponents. The left and some of his own side (Dominique de Villepin for example) are accusing him of betraying the independent course that France has followed since the late Charles de Gaulle pulled out of the Nato  command in 1966.

Sarkozy's mishandling is a pity because there are solid arguments that he could make to justify his change of strategy. Even his critics on the left acknowledge this. Le Monde says this afternoon that his failure to communicate is absurd because there is a good case for preventing the Taliban and their Al Qaida allies regaining power in Afghanistan. "If this was explained, the parliament and the people would be capable of understanding,"  le Monde said.

On the bigger picture, Sarkozy has a good case for moving back into the alliance. The timing is right because the Americans have finally dropped their opposition to France's long-standing counter-demand: the creation of an autonomous European defence system under the auspices of Nato. Strangely, the main obstacle to this now is not Washington but London, the other European military power. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, would be asking for trouble if he backed what the Euro-sceptics call a "European army" when Britain has not yet ratified the latest all-round European treaty. British dislike of this supposed army springs from the ancestral reflex: if it's good for France it must be bad for us.

Sarkozy is still setting a few conditions for his Afghan reinforcement but it seems likely that the troops will go in. This will not help him restore his ratings, especially if they start taking casualties.

---------

Thursday update: Sarko announced the deployment of a batallion to eastern Afghanistan in Bucharest last night.  Also, there is an interesting piece on Rue 89  by a Brookings Institution fellow who argues that Sarko is just as Gaullist as his predecessors and his Atlantic shift is just an illusion. He makes some good points. 

Comments

[rocket]

The French are already backtracking

http://tinyurl.com/267hp6

Cause toujours!

[john o'doe]

Couldn't agree more, yet another handling error, going back on an election promise. The worst of it is that he won't or can't explain the logic behind it.
This is further proof that he's far from the well-advised, consummate politician he's made out to be. Rather than presiding over Europe soon he should admit he's out of his depth and go back to running Neuilly. Of course he'll do no such thing.

[Romain]

"the creation of an autonymous European defence system"
Charles, maybe a typo error : autonomous [typo now corrected CB]
It was an old American claim, that the Europeans did not spend enough for defence, during the cold war.
In the Yugoslavian crisis, USA gave more than their fair share to Europe.
I don't see what is wrong in demonstrating solidarity to a cause which concerns all the Western World. Or else, we can sit on our hands and keep chanting :"human rights" as for Burma and Tibet.

[rockinred]

This is just more of Sarkozy's immature rushing to impress whoever's on his horizon at any given time. Deeply worrying that anyone with such a desperate need to please - a pretty fundamental psychological imbalance - is in charge of anything bigger than a frites van.

[Daisy]

Ever since Blair quit, Bush has been without a poodle. The easiest way to get that job is to join the Americans in an unwinnable war.

Or maybe it's all part of a grand strategy to help Carla break into the American music market.

[Ros]

"and go back to running Neuilly. " = impossible as his place has already been taken!

[Azloon/Rob Furlong]

[In the Yugoslavian crisis, USA gave more than their fair share to Europe.
I don't see what is wrong in demonstrating solidarity to a cause which concerns all the Western World] Romain

Careful, my friend. you are teetering suspiciously close to rationality.

[PJB]

France's presence in Afghanistan is useful. The snide remarks from Rocket and Rockinred simply reflect Anglo-saxon reluctance to engage with the rest of the world in open partnership. Or maybe they're worried we catch Ossama!

[Dominique]

What exactly is the purpose of NATO?

[Fernandez]

DAISY:

"Or maybe it's all part of a grand strategy to help Carla break into the American music market."

The deployment of the entire French Army lead by Napoleon and Joan of Arc couldn't make her a star in America. (Yoko had a better chance by marrying John Lennon and screeching in the background of Beatles' albums.)

She wasn't even considered a 'Super' model in America. Nobody outside of a small coterie ever heard of her.

Azloon/Rob Furlong:

I'm glad you said it. I fell out my chair and hit my head when I saw America was given credit for something.

[HdF]

It is a pity for the Canadian troops that the French deployment will be in the eastern part of Afghanistan. They are right now supporting, safe the US, the heavier burden in this war, trying to grapple with the Talibans in Kandahar. Obviously this can't last for ever given the minus size of the Canadian army and the parliament has already annouced that they plan to withdraw the forces in a couple a years, even more so if they don't see more support from the other NATO's members in this area. They don't understand why they should bear a heavy death toll when their allies are located in much calmer areas.

Considering this, I'm not sure that this French deployment is more than a symbolic gesture.

[Romain]

HDF
The story is not about a body bag contest. We can have Louis Vuitton make them if you prefer.

[dot king]

It always happens this way - has anyone else noticed it? That there's a TV programme pertinent to any upcoming decision of Sarkozy's, shown just before? Last week a substantial documentary on the French soldiers already based in Aghanistan was broadcast on "Envoyé Spécial" and excerpts have been used in several reports and discussions since.
It showed French soldiers training the Afghan army to fight the Taliban, but it also showed them under attack and leading offensives.
The contingent is quite small, part of an international operation; everything was said to show how small, yet how important.
According to what I hear today, there will be a further 800+. There have already been casualties.

Perhaps the most shocking thing is the way this decision has been foisted upon France. Sarkozy, whether he could justify his decision or not, has had the first and last word on the subject with no room allowed for discussion in-between.

[jan denning]

further to CB's April 1st posting on punctuation, I notice in Le Figaro that Societe generale is printed with a lower case 'g', unlike The Times and other English newspapers which employ a capital'G'. Assuming Le Figaro is correct, I wonder why this part of the company name takes the lower case. Is it because the word word 'generale'is considered to be descriptive, rather than part of the full title of the company?
Jan Denning
Paris

[French uses capitals less than English, which uses them much less than German. Nationalities as adjectives do not, for example, take capitals. Le peuple français but les Français.... It's Monsieur le Directeur-général etc. But I see on Soc Gen, that they do use a capital G. CB]

[rockinred]

PJB said - "... snide remarks from Rocket and Rockinred simply reflect Anglo-saxon reluctance to engage with the rest of the world in open partnership"
My remark concerned Sarkozy, not 'the rest of the world'. However if you mean by 'open partnership' that we should be giving unconditional support to the contemptible, hubristic and poorly thought out foreign adventurings of a corrupt and doomed US administration,you can forget it. As for US flatfoots 'catching Osama', even if it were to happen, can you explain precisely what difference it would make?

[Romain]

"Careful, my friend. you are teetering suspiciously close to rationality." Azloon
Well buddy, it normally happens when I have whiskey for breakfast.

[Daisy]

Fernandez: perhaps CB (Carla Bruni, not Charles Bremer) wasn't such a famous supermodel because she was reading Dostoyevsky secretly hidden between the pages of Vogue. Maybe that is why Charles Bremer isn't a famous supermodel either.

[Fernandez]

Daisy:

Sure, she was! Just like every man I know buys Playboy for the articles. (BTW, I read Dostoyevsky in an American public high school. I hope she didn't pay too much money for that fancy Swiss one.)

She wasn't a 'Super' model because she wasn't on cover of the 'big' magazines: Sports Illustrated, etc. She did the catwalk and had her European market niche. To be 'super', the whole world has to know you. The term is used a little loosely these days.

Bremner was never a supermodel because he refuses to show any leg (and you can forget about a bikini wax!)

[Blendi Progri]

Its about time.
I only wish that more countries need to fulfil their obligation on The War on Terror.
Taliban is getting bolder and unless there are more soldiers and support for the Afghan government, tomorrow may be too late.

Bin Laden cant find a better place for his activities, so if we dont want Afghanistan to fall again into his hands, then some tough decisions need to be considered.
Well done to Sarko for recognising this and acting on it.
This real commitment is a great deal of help militarily - a good start- and also as a gesture, it will mean a lot to people already fighting there; the afghans, the undecided countries and everyone who thinks that the West doesnt have the stomach to continue this fight.

[Pierre J Bernardi]

Rockinred: consider the difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's government. On the one hand a reactionary but negligeable force; on the other, a quasi-modern administration, nurtured by the West in a war against a reactionary neighbour.

Consider the difference between Afghanistan and Irak: the first, a tribal culture of limited means; the second, an urban society of ancient lineage.

Insofar as religion contributes to civilisation, the presence of French troops serves to anchor the intervention in Afghanistan on a secular level. This is why they are useful.

Insofar as the Americans are unable to leave God out of any argument, the US presence in Irak serves only to foster hatred and defiance. This is why they should leave.

[Don]

The 800 extra French troops is an insult. Canada, a country half the size of France (population = 30 million) has more men in Afghanistan (2500) than France - even after the new troops are added (2300). Britain has 7500 troops; the U.S. 19,000.

As was mentioned before, the American military did the heavy lifting to save Europe from its shame in allowing 250,000 civilians to die on the European continent in the 1990's. Mitterand made a grand gesture in coming to Sarajevo, but did nothing to save lives there. Now France, very reluctantly, adds 800 troops and expects to be welcomed back to NATO with great applause - after it left 40 years ago. Expecting other nations to do the hard work. 1940 all over again.
Shame on France!

[WILLIAM]

Thanks for the link:

http://rue89.com/justin-blog/sarkozy-le-gaulliste-decomplexe

very interesting and insightful.

I shall read more from that source !

[WILLIAM]

As a comment on the CB posting:
needed are at least 50,000 NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, not 800.
That is the difficult decision they are shuffling their feet for quite a while for [still].

[Romain]

"Also, there is an interesting piece on Rue 89 by a Brookings Institution fellow who argues that Sarko is just as Gaullist as his predecessors and his Atlantic shift is just an illusion. He makes some good points" CB.
Very much enlightening article.

[Mathaf Hacker]

Don
If you are not happy with the body bag count, you can ask your government to reduce its contingent.
Just do it, or blame it on yourself.

[Don]

Mathaf,

Don't forget to blame yourself for the tens of thousands of Afghans the Taliban killed while running Afghanistan; the 250,000 civilians killed in the European backyard (old Yogoslavia) during the 1990's. Congratulations. Your policies are so much more humane.

[Mathaf Hacker]

Don
First, you should get your facts right.
Second, you should try and lift your horizon above pedestrian's.

[Valentin]

Don:
"Now France, very reluctantly, adds 800 troops and expects to be welcomed back to NATO with great applause"

France is a NATO member alright, one could notice its president right next to W earlier in Bucharest.
The number is more like symbolic than real help, no doubt about it. The problem is that Europe is clearly to the left, and for every single soldier sent abroad, far from "God Bless" stuff, one only hears outcries about our poor soldiers going to certain death in an already lost war.

Let alone Europe is also mean about the money part: from what I know, the only contributors to NATO funding are France and the UK - the others just attend meetings
(Poland, Spain, or Italy also have much larger population than Canada's, yet they don't contribute one single soldier)

[Romain]

Valentin
More precise numbers on the following article.
http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2008/04/les-vrais-chiff.html
Sorry (for others) it's in French.
Whatever the numbers, the main issue is the dramatic lack of strategy.

[Laurent]

2 things:
1)It is a shame to see that the EU is unable to have a common position and action with Afghanistan.
2) the Russians after their defeat concluded that a force of 300,000 soldiers was required to control Afghanistan. So with today's 60,000 there is no way to stabilise this country. There are more cops in New York!