News
March 24
Anyone who says he hasn't laughed at a French joke lately is probably lying. Or French. ('Or both!'-I can hear those wits at the Source) I'm not surprised the late-night comedians have had so much success with the cheap shots _ there aren't many French-Americans to object.
The last ten or so years, with all the outward progress made by sensitivity movements, seem to have failed in stamping out the inward, shameful pleasure of mocking a culture not your own. It is a shame that, as we allow Groundskeeper Willie to become our face to the French, we forget just whom we are painting with broad strokes of cowardice. This nation of 'surrender monkeys' produced the Free French Resistance of World War II and gave history, for good or ill, the unforgettable Charles deGualle. Its ancestors aided our own nation's liberation, and under Napoleon almost conquered all of Europe _ twice. Whatever else the French are, they cannot all be mocked as cowards.
This is not to say that no one deserves to be mocked. The Hollywood celebrities who fancy themselves experts in foreign policy are more than open for ribbing. The 'my country, right or wrong' flag-wavers who define patriotism as 'shutting your big mouth' also cannot go unchided. In general, anyone blissfully and willfully ignorant _ in ancient terms, 'foolish' _ deserves a good-hearted corrective thrashing.
There must be, however, at least a few among the French people who oppose the war according to thoughtful, sincerely held opinions. These should not be mocked. Still less when they are held by the leadership of a nation. I know that some accuse these leaders of being motivated by desired Iraqi oil contracts. I'm reluctant to ascribe such self-interested and mercenary motives to people who take seriously the lives of the citizens under their watch. It is a charge I found dubious when hurled at the Bush administration. I'm not more likely to believe it because it is now applied to France.
Of course I cannot, any more than anyone else, see the true motives behind the French blockade of UN-sanctioned force against Saddam Hussein. No one can know a man's thought except for the spirit of that same man. But from what I can see, I am inclined to believe that President Chirac and Foreign Minister De Villepin actually have faith in the view of humanity enshrined by the United Nations. With regard to humanity's ultimate rationality, these men are true believers. In a mid-March interview with CNN, Chirac expressed his hope for the world to see that, "We have indeed to refuse and reject confrontations, useless confrontations...It is only through dialogue and respect for one another, debate and discussion, that we can have a serene world, a more balanced world, a less war-like world." This is a world-view embedded in French tradition.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, famed political philosopher of the 1700s, opens his Social Contract with this: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." The "chains" are civilization itself. By his work Rousseau helped usher in an entire movement convinced that all of Man's problems are caused by his social bonds. Were a human being simply "free" from society she would be virtuous, generous, and pure-hearted. The idea, that human nature is inherently angelic and simply needs the opportunity to express itself, has never died in the hearts of many French (and many Americans). This deep conviction is what gives Chirac the confidence to say, "We can do that [achieve victory] through inspectors, because inspections are working. Inspections can bring about the victory; that is to say the complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq without firing one shot and using war."
The French rightly want to avoid war. War is, no one will doubt, a time of great suffering and human sorrow. It is a testimony to the abominable human spirit. To alleviate that horror is a noble desire and a worthy pursuit. In the matter of war, both we and the French ought to be beyond petty name-calling and caricature.
But not, of course, above criticism. For the French are wrong. They are deadly wrong. They have gone wrong by turning a blind eye to humanity's love of deception. We learn how to lie almost as soon as we learn how to speak. Even though it might be in our best interests, broadly speaking, to tell the truth, to come clean, we will not. Not if we value our power, our image, or our pride as absolute. It may not be rational, but it is human.
The French, and those who agree with their position, have forgotten this. They are convinced that just a couple hundred more inspectors could have averted the use of force. Chirac echoes many who, exasperated, say that the inspections were 'working.' Now, as someone who couldn't tell the difference between anthrax and a sugar cube, I am in no position to determine whether a country the size of California on the other side of the world has or does not have chemical or biological weapons. What I do know is this: the US, UK, Spain, and other coalition allies say that Saddam Hussein at least has some. Saddam replies that he has none. France agrees with the allies, otherwise they wouldn't be calling for Iraq's disarmament. Now the allies might be mistaken as to exactly how much 'some' is (as indeed it seems they were with regard to nuclear material). But 'some' and 'none' are still mutually exclusive.
How do you ask someone to disarm who claims not to be armed? A man can be patient with a friend who owes him money and pays him slowly. But in the face of a man who denies his debt, simply waiting is not patience but acquiescence. Or patience might, of course, be taken as forgiveness of the debt. But with weapons of mass destruction, 'forgiveness' of a rogue state's behavior means condemnation for its victims.
Humans were indeed created to share what animals do not: the ability to reason, to reflect, to understand. Yet corrupted human desire can become so virulent that all reason decays, and a man becomes willing to sacrifice a nation so that he might be a great Arab leader. You can inspect such a man all you'd like but he won't tell a different story. You cannot do for him what he must do himself. Not at least, without force. Chirac may think human beings are otherwise. But that opinion is unfortunately, tragically, false.
I have a suspicion that it is not simply out of vindictiveness that we've so mocked the French. It is an easy release from the pressures of these hard questions. It makes a nice, simple distinction between the brave Us and the gutless Them. In a way it helps us to not deal with what we are now doing. That is understandable. Though we still should not ignore France, nor its allies. The French know from their own history, as a colonial power in the 20th century Muslim world, what a tremendously demanding job we now face as liberators. They are rightfully concerned. So should we be.
