Why the Krauthammer Act Isn't Funny Anymore
You'll need a subscription to read the entire article online, but it's the Essay at the end of the 7/12 issue of TIME, entitled "Why the French Act Isn't Funny Anymore"
I'm actually impressed by Charles Krauthammer sometimes. To be a partisan journalist, you sometimes have to be skilled in the art of polishing a turd. But when that turd is as enormous and foul as Bush's foreign policy, sometimes your only recourse is to bash the French. Yet even then, Krauthammer ends up writing things that are conflicted and hypocritical.
His main accusation in the article almost ends up being a contradiction in itself. He begins by saying how dangerous the French policy will be in the Middle East and how it will hurt the fledgling governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, but then he argues that they're also doing it to endear themselves with the Middle East and Islam. While I understand his logic, it reveals that even Krauthammer himself is accepting the fact that Bush has really turned the War on Terror into a battle between Islam and the U.S., which anyone should know was a huge mistake.
The bigger question though, is why on earth are the French in a position to win favor in the Middle East by doing things that aren't even in the interest of a large subset of the Middle East? The French have never been particularly liked in the Middle East from colonial times, and I could even argue that the French have as much, if not more, anti-Muslim sentiment in its ruling class than the U.S. (think headscarf ban...). And there's even evidence that the French were still supporting Saddam's brutal regime in certain underhanded capacities. So why on earth are they in a position to become a "counterweight to Washington?" Who the hell gave these guys such high standing over there?
Krauthammer has his own questions though:
Why then is Chirac making things as difficult as he can for the U.S.?
Why? Because Bush was stupid enough to put him in a position to do so. No one in the world will be our lap dog unless they feel like we'll always take care of them. And with this administration's over-the-top reaction to France's obstinance on Iraq and their subsequent refusal to allow their companies access to the reconstruction, we were asking for them to find ways to pee on our leg once Iraq turned out exactly the way Chirac and Putin said it would. Go ahead and despise the French, but don't blame them. It was Bush that let them stick the knife in our back and as long as he's still around, the French will be happy - and fully able - to leave it there.
I'm actually impressed by Charles Krauthammer sometimes. To be a partisan journalist, you sometimes have to be skilled in the art of polishing a turd. But when that turd is as enormous and foul as Bush's foreign policy, sometimes your only recourse is to bash the French. Yet even then, Krauthammer ends up writing things that are conflicted and hypocritical.
His main accusation in the article almost ends up being a contradiction in itself. He begins by saying how dangerous the French policy will be in the Middle East and how it will hurt the fledgling governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, but then he argues that they're also doing it to endear themselves with the Middle East and Islam. While I understand his logic, it reveals that even Krauthammer himself is accepting the fact that Bush has really turned the War on Terror into a battle between Islam and the U.S., which anyone should know was a huge mistake.
The bigger question though, is why on earth are the French in a position to win favor in the Middle East by doing things that aren't even in the interest of a large subset of the Middle East? The French have never been particularly liked in the Middle East from colonial times, and I could even argue that the French have as much, if not more, anti-Muslim sentiment in its ruling class than the U.S. (think headscarf ban...). And there's even evidence that the French were still supporting Saddam's brutal regime in certain underhanded capacities. So why on earth are they in a position to become a "counterweight to Washington?" Who the hell gave these guys such high standing over there?
Krauthammer has his own questions though:
Why then is Chirac making things as difficult as he can for the U.S.?
Why? Because Bush was stupid enough to put him in a position to do so. No one in the world will be our lap dog unless they feel like we'll always take care of them. And with this administration's over-the-top reaction to France's obstinance on Iraq and their subsequent refusal to allow their companies access to the reconstruction, we were asking for them to find ways to pee on our leg once Iraq turned out exactly the way Chirac and Putin said it would. Go ahead and despise the French, but don't blame them. It was Bush that let them stick the knife in our back and as long as he's still around, the French will be happy - and fully able - to leave it there.
posted by thehim at 9:01 PM
<< Home