Well she can just bite me:
France’s defense minister criticized the U.S. on Saturday over what she described as “unanswered” attacks in recent months threatening the Persian Gulf, warning that the decades-long American deterrence in the oil-rich region appeared to be losing its power. ...
“We’ve seen deliberate, gradual U.S. disengagement,” she said at the summit organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “It had been in the cards for a while but it became clear when fighter jets remained on the tarmac in 2013 after the Syrian chemical attacks or later, after the downing of a U.S. UAV and the bombing Saudi oil facilities.”
Let's see. In 2013 Obama was president. And pray tell, what prevented France from launching missiles on their own without Obama holding their effing hand? Further, Trump did hit Assad for using chemical weapons.
And keep in mind that Obama launched Iraq War 2.0 in the late summer of 2014 after the rise of ISIL's caliphate that spanned portions of Syria and Iraq. That intervention was part of a gradual U.S. disengagement?
This year, after Iran shot down our drone, we did respond with a cyber attack. We can debate whether cyber was more or less effective than kinetic, but we did respond by hurting Iran. As are our sanctions, in general.
And the Iranian attack on Saudi oil facilities didn't prompt the Saudis to retaliate. Why is America on the line for that response? Isn't it Saudi Arabia's primary responsibility? And if a non-Saudi actor should have responded, why didn't France send their effing carrier and drop some of their effing bombs on the effing Iranians?
Macron already said that without America, Europe has no brain. Now his defense minister says without America that Europe has no brawn.
She thinks the US is disengaging from the region? At one level she is correct. We no longer have either 180,000 troops fighting in Iraq or 100,000 fighting in Afghanistan. Are those commitments now the steady state normal to judge engagement rather than the pre-2001 level? That seems to be what is going on as I noted not too long ago after the Persian Gulf War first sucked in large numbers of American ground forces, and expanding after 9/11:
So as time went on, the need for American military power in the region went up. Our peak commitments in Iraq reached about 180,000 while in Afghanistan it reached 100,000.
And don't forget that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the still-future Chinese military rise allowed America to commit force to the region without risking higher priority theaters.
Still, we eventually beat this Iran/al Qaeda effort in Iraq. And even our surge in Afghanistan left Afghan forces that could carry on the fight. In Iraq War 2.0 against ISIL and in current Afghanistan, we can see that we don't need 100,000+ troops in direct combat. Locals with our support and special forces can carry on the day-to-day fighting.
So it is possible for America to reduce our combat role and rely on local allies and on our proven ability to rapidly deploy forces if they are needed. The problem is that in the visuals the world has gotten used to seeing a lot of American forces in combat as a concrete demonstration of our commitment.
But a reduction in our military power doesn't mean our commitment is lower. It means the need for our military power in the region to back our commitment is going down after spiking from about 1973 to 2009 (although the surges in Afghanistan extended that to 2011 or so). Eventually locals will get used to our lower footprint and lower level of direct combat without thinking it means less commitment.
Aren't we allowed to step back after knocking down our enemies and enabling local allies to continue the fight against our common enemies with our help? Doesn't the French defense minister see that? Just where is that famed European nuance anyway?
But pray tell, how many troops does France have in he greater Middle East? Let's see, 1,500 in Afghanistan (and thanks for that), 1,100 in Lebanon where they fail to control Hezbollah, and 650 in the UAE. I assume there is a small contingent of special forces in Syria. So thanks for that, too.
And while I'm at it, where the ef were the French when we were engaged in Iraq from 2003 to 2011? Oh, right, they were still counting their money from participating in UN-brokered "oil for food" corruption. Now that's engaging.
By comparison, despite the charge of disengaging, we have close to 30,000 in the region. And I don't think that includes forces afloat, that would fluctuate depending on whether we have a carrier task force present.
And while I'm at it, America organized a coalition to protect Gulf shipping from Iranian attacks. And now, a European-organized coalition to do the same thing will be based at the French base in the UAE. Seriously, France complains we don't do enough and competes with us where we act!
The chief of the U.S. Central Command and France’s defense minister, whose countries have taken divergent approaches to Iran, also touted rival versions of maritime missions to protect Gulf waters at a Bahrain security forum on Saturday.
So what is it to be, France? Can Europe take action without America or is it more fun to falsely complain America does not take action--and undermine us by competing with us?
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys gotta be cheese-eating surrender monkeys. The French try to be this annoying, right? I mean, it can't just come naturally, can it?
NOTE: And as always, my ire is directed at the French government, for the most part. I do have respect for the French military, which has some capable units and broad capabilities on a smaller scale.
UPDATE: It isn't just me:
Emmanuel Macron was left isolated by the leaders of other Nato countries on Thursday after he defended his claim that the organisation was “brain dead”.
Somebody needs to brush up on their nuance.
UPDATE: The Europeans need to realize that France doesn't just want the proto-imperial European Union to be a major power. France wants to be in charge of that empire. That has to be annoying even to the European apparatchiki who agree on the empire part, eh?
