Isn't that a contradiction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
...I'm not all against small wars. I've got strict criteria, though. It would be much easier to convince me to intervene in Biafra, Rwanda & Darfur scenarios for a couple of months than to send a FFG for a pointless multi-year patrol off the Lebanese coast or some infantry with APCs to Afghanistan.
Given your often stated rationale for the use of force best being applied only to issues of national survival?
While those above named operations you would support would be of beneficial humanitarian impact their continuance poses no threat to Europe while the two you do not support can arguably have an adverse impact on Europe, probably not to an existential level but certainly to an increased terrorism and dissent level.
Priorities...:wry:
Afghanistan and its internal strife -- it is not really a civil war
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
I believe I discussed Afghanistan in detail somewhere in this forum. I see no useful contribution to national security in contributing to that civil war.
by any reasonable definition -- are a part of the effort to dissuade some Islamist fundamentalists from violence. If you believe Germany has no interest in deterring that for long term benefit, I'd suggest you may be in error. If, OTOH, you believe there's a better way to go about that dissuasion, that's a different matter but it appears that the folks in Berlin have opted for that approach -- even if many Germans disagree.
Quote:
Actually, I wrote a rule set for application of military power and alliances long ago and checked it against many historical cases - and was satisfied to have fixed my own compass for such affairs.
It had/has two sufficient justifications for warfare;
- a promising attempt to protect th own national security (possibly enlarged to collective defense of the sovereignty of all members of an alliance)
- (non-obligatory) intervention against genocide (not violent ethnic cleansing) for ethical reasons
That's just a personal rule set and nobody needs to agree with it - but I can guarantee that I am consistent in my stance towards the question "war or not war". It's just not a very obvious and simple rule set that could be understood by fragmentary observation of symptoms.
All well and good. As long as you realize it is a personal rule set and allow others to disagree in good faith, no one should complain.
I'd simply suggest that anyone disagreeing with you is not necessarily stupid or immoral; they might just have arrived at different and perfectly acceptable conclusions from the same or similar facts.
You might consider that a change in circumstances you have not foreseen may cause you to add a reason or two -- and that economic, military or political reality may cause others to ignore your rules. You're entitled to your rules and others are just as entitled to theirs. All of us should be able to accept differing ideas without implying anyone who doesn't agree with our ideas is dangerously ignorant.
France to rejoin NATO military command
France ends four-decade Nato rift
BBC News
17:31 GMT, Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Quote:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced his country is to return to Nato's military command, reversing four decades of self-imposed exile.
Mr Sarkozy confirmed the decision in a speech to defence experts at the Ecole Militaire staff college in Paris.
President Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of Nato's integrated military command in 1966, saying it undermined France's sovereignty.
C'est it ain't so Nick!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
DeGaulle is flipping like a pancake....:eek:
Quote:
Critics say France will now be no more than "a clone of Great Britain".
But Mr Sarkozy said there was no sense in France - a founder member of Nato - having no say in the organisation's decisions on military strategy.
La France a clone of dee Eeenglish?! Non! Non!:D
Best
Tom
Welcome back, now go away
Now France is to return to the military structures so carefully created and managed since 1966, oh yes plus the new members - where will the French actually sit? An extra chair at the conference table, easy. Placing French officers back in command posts, IMHO is a lot more difficult. For example will Germany and the UK relinquish their spots? Dep. SACEUR for example.
Can anyone recall which posts the French held before leaving?
I welcome the French return for a host of reasons and it will IMHO slow down the EU becoming a super-state (a debate that lingers on in Europe).
davidbfpo
Clarification, George .. I think you meant me
Quote:
from JMM
I have a hard time seeing a "North Atlantic Union" - from a US perspective; but the Atlantic Rim countries do have common interests.
I also suggested an ATO as a futuristic possibility, where ATO could be Atlantic Treaty Organization (military) or Atlantic Trade Organization (economic), or both. However, in considering this futurism, I suggest re-viewing the video "Cowboys herding cats" for a perspective on what would be involved.
"Atlanticism" is supposedly Zarkozy's motive (see links in my prior post).
Since we (US) have a "more perfect union", I see no need for a "North Atlantic Union" - especially when the EU has not advanced to the point we were at under the Articles of Confederation.[*]
But, at all costs, avoid "Running with the Squirrels" - and never, never get into the cage with This Cat. :D
------------
[*] As to successful confederations, I can think of only two large-scale examples: the US and Canada. The Swiss also come to mind on a smaller scale.
Two French General Officer Appointments to NATO
Thought this thread could use an update on the French rejoining NATO. France apointed to two General officers to NATO. The first is an Air Force Pick and the Second is a Marine.
Quote:
Deux généraux français vont être nommés très prochainement à la tête de grands commandements de l’Alliance atlantique.
Le conseil des ministres a approuvé le 3 juin les candidatures suivantes.
Le général d’armée aérienne Stéphane Abrial, actuel chef d’état-major de l’armée de l’air (CEMAA ) prend le commandement d’ ACT , le commandement allié Transformation, à Norfolk (Etats-Unis) à compter du 10 septembre 2009. Il succède à ce poste au général américain James N. Mattis (Corps des Marines des Etats-Unis). La mission du ACT est de diriger, au niveau stratégique, la transformation des structures, des forces, des capacités et des doctrines militaires de l’OTAN pour améliorer l’efficacité militaire de l’Alliance. ACT constitue avec le commandement allié pour les opérations (ACO ), l’échelon le plus élevé de la structure de commandement militaire de l’OTAN .
Seconde nomination : le général de division Philippe Stoltz prend la tête du commandement des forces alliées basé à Lisbonne (Portugal) à compter du 20 Juillet 2009. Cette structure a autorité notamment sur la Force de réaction rapide de l’OTAN, la NRF (Nato Response Force). Le commandement de Lisbonne est un des 3 commandements qui dépendent de ACO.
Les nominations font l’objet d’un décret signé par le Président de la République, Nicolas Sarkozy. Décret publié au Journal officiel du 8 juin 2009. Elles interviennent près de trois mois après le retour de la France au sein du commandement militaire intégré de l’OTAN, les 3-4 avril 2009, à Strasbourg lors du Sommet de l’Alliance atlantique . Ces candidatures sont proposées et entérinées par Alliés dans le cadre des procédures de l'OTAN.
-Ministere De La Defence
General Abrail's Biography
General Stoltz Biography in English.
France declares war against al-Qaida
WTF?
http://apnews.myway.com//article/201...D9H7OGRG0.html
Quote:
Jul 27, 9:31 PM (ET)
By ELAINE GANLEY
PARIS (AP) - France has declared war on al-Qaida, and matched its fighting words with a first attack on a base camp of the terror network's North African branch, after the terror network killed a French aid worker it took hostage in April.
You have to admit the headline is a little surprising. Something's up.
Hey Lagrange, what say you ....
since you have experience in the African rescue business ?
Since the UN-NGO world is a small one, you may well have known the hostage. In any case, I extend my condolences and prayers.
I do have a French law of armed conflict question. That is: what are the legal requirements for France to engage in an armed conflict so as to bring the Geneva Conventions into play ?
For example here in US, a formal declaration of war is one way - not used since WWII. Another is pursuant to a UN chap 7 SC mandate (the only legal prop for the Korean War). Another (most common) is an Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), as in the 2001 AUMF (OEF) and 2003 AUMF (OIF). Any of those results in the Laws of War (Laws of Armed Conflict) (International Humanitarian Law) being applicable to the conflict.
And, can France legally engage a non-state actor (AQ) in a formal armed conflict ?
I ask that question because, for the most part, the EU nations seem to approach AQ as terrorists subject to law enforcement (not law of war) standards. And, GWB's GWOT and the application of the Laws of War have been strongly criticized by a number of EU jurists.
Of course, LE standards allow force to be used in hostage rescues. So, in this particular case, the two legal standards may not be that different
Thus, does "guerre contre AQ" have any legal force under French law - or is it simply rhetoric ? RSVP.
Regards
Mike