French military (catch all)

[jmm99]

Given its missions in Iraq and Astan, the USMC has been a bit removed from its role as an amphibious infantry force. Even Jon Custis quit wearing his life jacket (old avatar vs new avatars).

The distinction (based on "de" vs "de la") between the present Troupes de Marine and the ancien Troupes de la Marine is definite. E.g., snips from a couple of my ancestral notary records: 1740 - "... Louis-Odet de Pierrecot de Bailleul, écuyer et lieutenant d'une compagnie du détachement de la Marine ...."; and 1761 - ".... Etienne Bragelone, écuyer et capitaine réformé du détachement de la marine ....

The TDM has a decent, brief histoire (in Fr.) of the colonial Marines in Canada, included in Les Deux Premiers Empires. My two Marines above (along with a raftful of others) were from the "mainforce" independent companies directly under the Ministry of the Marine (thus, the "de la", as I understand it), with their engagement contracts (soldats & sous-officiers), warrants (maître-chirurgiens) and commissions (officiers) issued through that ministry.

However, a number of French Army regiments were attached to the Ministry of the Marine and shipped off to Canada (from the TDM page):

Le régiment de Carignan-Sellières, au Canada jusqu'en 1668.

Des bataillons des régiments d'Aunis (île Royale 1751), d'Artois (Louisbourg 1755), de Béarn et de Guyenne à Québec, de Berry, de Languedoc, au Canada (1757), de Bourgogne avec le régiment de Toumanis à Louisbourg, de la Sarre et de Royal-Roussillon à Québec (1756), du régiment de la Reine à Québec (1754), de Ponthieu, des chasseurs de Fischer (1766).

Like most all those of French-Canadian ancestry, I have many Carignan-Sellières ancestors.

The ancien Marines go back to Cardinal Richelieu (see TDM, Les Vielles Troupes de Marine), who developed the units during the period 1622-1635 and who (among his other titles) was governor of Brouage. He had among his guards at Brouage, one Pierre Miville. In a wedding act celebrated in St-Hilaire d'Hiers on June 25, 1635, Pierre Miville (temoin - witness) is noted as "souice de Monseigneur le cardinal demeurant en Brouage..." ("Monsignor the Cardinal's Swiss, living in Brouage"). Miville and his family moved to Canada in the mid-1640s where he raised his brood of children and had many more descendants (including me) than engagements with Iroquois.

Fascinating history to me; but not very relevant to the topic.

----------------------------
Agree that Somali pirates are governed by the Laws of the Sea, and that France probably has mutual security assistance pacts with the African nations, which allow French troops permissive entry under whatever conditions are set out in the pacts.

My question is who in the French government has authority to send the French rescue teams - positing that international law authority for entry exists. In short, who is your CinC in these cases.

What I'm trying to compare is the US situation with its rescue teams and other military entries. In most (if not all) rescue situations, the President can pull the trigger without Congressional approval (because of short timelines). But, if a longer-term (and/or substantial) military effort is required, Congressional authorization to use military force is the better policy and (IMO) often constitutionally required. E.g., both Presidents Bush and Obama have been criticised for acting unilaterally in some areas.

Regards

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

Which, can be tricky by the way.
Basically the president is the Chief of the armies. He is the highest commander in charge.
For rescue operation in a foreign territory, he basically cannot not be aware and not authorise the operation.
For a smaller operation, as Artemis, the president is authorising but the parliament can/must be involved.
For a war, the parliament his the one giving the go ahead after proposition of the government. The Senate also has a voice.

Well, that's the general frame. After, you have the secret operations which can be decided by others than the president but never in contradiction with his orders.

There is theorically very little room for a vaccum in the chain of command. Now, some orders can be interpretations...

[M-A Lagrange]

Interesting enough, I just went to have a look at the legislation in France on the engagement of French Forces in foreign theatres. And the Senate is actually working on it. (More or less… Takes time as always)

All is basically based on the art35 from the constitution: “war declaration is authorized by the parliament”.
But, only the participation to Gulf war was voted by the parliament in 1991. Since then…
The senators are looking at a revision of the constitution on that subject. And the trigger is the participation of France to Afghanistan war.
As in USA, they feel they are not involved enough in the process: they are at the best consulted and otherwise informed regularly.

There is a proposition of law that wants to introduce the fact that if French forces are deployed for a longer period than 3 month, the parliament has to be consulted and authorization will be approved through vote.

Basically, the problem of war being conducted without war declaration seems to have trigger the same problematic on both sides of the ocean.
As there is no war declaration nowadays, the presidential power seems to be too important. But, you have to have in mind that strong presidential power was what was in the mind of those who wrote the 1958 constitution in France.

[jps2]

I wish to add some precisions to M-A Lagrange last topic.

Member of the Parlement (parliament, lower chamber) can ask, every Wednesday, direct and public writen question to any minister of the government. The debates are public, so some confidential issues are not asked/responded. There is also a Defense commission (small pool of deputies) where most confidential issues can be spoken. The main problem is that Defense issues are assign to President not to government, but the French constitution does not allow him to come and spoke at parliament.

Bosny, African and Afgha deployements where debate at parliament, but as they weren't wars, the parliament can't approve or deny the choice made by the Pdt and his Prime minister.

Foreign diplomacy is also assign to the president, according to the constitution.