Stupor,
shame and repentance
Marc De Scitivaux
Translated by Douglas
French original: "Stupeur, honte et repentance"
(Revue-politique.com, 2003/04/16)There was nothing wrong a priori with having some doubts about the American military operation in Iraq (even if this was not this author’s position). But was it necessary to express them with such extremism? Yet again, the Gallic rooster thought it was for him to decree the Truth, the Law, etc., thinking that when he crows the whole world must listen. France had “got its voice back” and this voice spoke with the somewhat amphigoric grandiloquence of M. de Villepin! Not hesitating to cast vitriol at all those of our European partners who did not share our opinion nor to congratulate ourselves for the popular protests that weakened our traditional allies, not hesitating to give lessons in conduct to eastern Europe, formerly under the iron rule of communism, France behaved with that self-satisfaction for which it is so often reproached. Nothing new so far: the frog wanted to continue puffing itself up bigger than the bull...
Unfortunately, we weren’t going to stop there and, carried away by their enthusiasm, French officials crossed the yellow line the day they announced they would veto any Security Council resolution giving the green light to military intervention. This manifest desire to delegitimize the Anglo-Saxon operation come what may constituted a major error (which in politics, as every one knows since Talleyrand, is worse than a crime). No matter what we may say, from that moment on, we appeared to support keeping Saddam Hussein in power, a position we stuck with even after the start of the conflict. And this was at any rate the way we were understood, as much by the supporters of Saddam Hussein as by the Arab populations. With three heavy consequences:
• to the public opinions of the coalition countries and to the combatants’ families, it gave the feeling, doubtless not totally unjustified, that France was aiding Saddam in his capacity to resist. And this, like it or not, is called shooting your allies in the back. It needs some time to be forgotten and forgiven;
• it undermined the moderate Arab leaders allied with the Americans and confronted with popular movements able to turn to France for rhetorical support;
• to the Arab populations of our cities, it presented the supporters of democracy as oppressors and Saddam Hussein as a heroic resister. One must fear that in the future we shall have to pay dearly for such cowardice.By what right shall we have our say in the reconstruction of Iraq now? We are, moreover, also reduced to depending on the kindness of Tony Blair, despite having recently predicted his inevitable demise because he lacked the wisdom to bend before demonstrations and French ukases (note, on this subject, that we have just witnessed in real time what separates a politician from a statesman). Now we’re counting on him in order to avoid being too heavily subjected to the consequences of our leaders’ thoughtlessness and the irresponsibility of their decisions.
Unfortunately, the list of our weaknesses does not end with those of our leaders. What to make of the parties which supported the president’s adventurous stance in total unison? A few most rare politicians, Messrs. Kouchner, Madelin, Lellouche, Descamps, Mariton, Rivière, Axel Poniatowski and a few others to whom I apologize for not naming here, were able to show their independence and courage. Thanks to them. For what we have just experienced reminds us that it was not so long ago, nor so different a time, when the vast majority of the National Assembly voted to give complete power to marshal Pétain.
When we see how the representatives of the parties on the right believed themselves duty-bound to intone the anti-American paean in order to please the president or guarantee themselves a future seat in some election, it is with sadness that we can imagine the sobs of emotion they should have felt the day after Montoire in observing the “historic” handshake between the “hero of Verdun” and the “German chancellor who succeeded in mobilizing his entire people behind him.” Sycophancy is ageless and if 30% of our fellow citizens hoped for Saddam Hussein’s victory, this is surely because their elected officials failed in their duties, allowing the ascendance of the idea that one can equate the weapons of tyrannies with those of democracies.
But in meting out punishment, a special place must be made for the press. There is something very troubling in the fact that virtually every daily, weekly and radio and television station became a spokesman for the official French position. For even in those countries at war, in the United States and Great Britain, there was no unanimity. This is not a proof of the weakness of these countries but, to the contrary, of their strength. Are the elites brave and free in a country where virtually all elected officials are of the same opinion? The question at least deserves asking! The day the coalition forces entered Baghdad to more applause than whistling it was revealing to read the weeklies which appeared that day but which suffered from having been written five days earlier. What admirable unanimity in predicting an American Vietnam, an Iraqi quicksand, that the troops would be stopped in their tracks at Baghdad, an impenetrable fortress which would require months of effort and tons of supplies, etc. Surely error is human but the gravest was in observing that the rapid advance of coalition troops undeniably caused more pain than pleasure in radio and television commentators. We cannot know if this was because they were witness live to the irrelevance of their own analyses or if this reflected their true feelings but, whatever the case may be, it was either comic or saddening to see the speed with which Saddam Hussein went from president to despot in the mouths of our commentators.
Finally, what can we say for the demonstrations in France? Nothing surprising in the reunion of former Trotskyites nostalgic for the Communist Party, Socialists feverishly in search of any legitimacy at all and those poor people who think that shouting “No to war!” is all that is necessary to live in a peaceful world. But it was saddening to depict the these disparate unions as the expression of a valuable sector of opinion and of the popular conscience. The experience of the last few decades had taught us that each time British or American flags were burned it was rarely for good causes and that years later we must recognize that the pyromaniacs were the defenders of tyrannies and totalitarianism even if they hadn’t sought to be.
Can we at least hope that in the future this pitiful experience will be a lesson to us and that we will abandon the habit of dressing our petty cowardices and grand errors in the mantle of virtue? Since repentance is in style, can we hope that our leaders and politicians, the philosophers of our great neighborhoods (as the singer Renaud would say) and our journalists will for once beat on their own breasts and not those of others? We can always dream. Regrettably, I fear that we shall keep our old habits and, since the past has proved us wrong, that we shall continue this in the future. Having made the mistake of winning the war, the Americans are already responsible for the looting in Baghdad and I am certain that if a case of SARS were reported in Tikrit Mr. Bush would be guilty...
To all those reading these “frank” words who are shocked by their apparent brutality (which is only an expression of reality), we would simply say: imagine if the coalition offensive had ended in failure. How would the poor 8% of French who had supported it have been treated? So let them express, not a gloating triumph, but simply their sadness before the spectacle which they witnessed and from which France has not emerged any greater.
[Posted 2003/04/29]
Copyright © Watch 2001-2006. Copyrights of quoted materials
belong to their respective owners.
"When
people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent.
The term is not a slur; it is a technical label."
Articles
of the week
"Losing the Enlightenment" (Victor Davis Hanson, OpinionJournal, 2006/11/29)
"Allah’s England?" (Daniel Johnson, Commentary. November 2006)
"'Sex in the Park': The latest doings of the Danish imams" (Henrik Bering, The Weekly Standard, 2006/11/18)
"Narcissism on Stilts" (Harold Evans, New York Sun, 2006/11/16)
"Terrorists are recruiting in our schools, says MI5 boss" (Philip Johnston, The Daily Telegraph, 2006/11/10)
›
AOTW Archive
From the archives
Oriana Fallaci, R.I.P.
"The Rage, the Pride and the Doubt" (Oriana Fallaci, The Wall Street Journal, 2003/03/13)
"How the West Was Won and How It Will Be Lost" (Oriana Fallaci, The American Enterprise, from the January/February 2003 issue)
"On Jew-hatred in Europe" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2002/04/13)
"Anger and Pride" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2001/12/19)
Weekly archive
2006/12/04
- 2006/12/10
2006/11/27 - 2006/12/03
2006/11/20 - 2006/11/26
2006/11/13
- 2006/11/19
2006/11/06
- 2006/11/12
2006/10/30
- 2006/11/05
›
From
2001/09/11 -
Monthly
index
December
2006
November
2006
October
2006
September
2006
August
2006
July
2006
›
From
September 2001 -
Author index
›
Ajami,
Fouad - Johnson, Paul
›
Kagan,
Robert - Ye'or, Bat
Support
Watch
Please
feel free to donate if you enjoy the daily content and links Watch provides:
Contact Watch
Email:
watch-at-windsofchange.net
