Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

UUTC-

It's perfectly fine to look at Vietnam in a cold war mentality, because it was a cold war conflict. France may not have had the military might to handle Vietnam on its own, but to withdraw once the forces who are supposed to ASSIST you arrive is despicable.

The French used the US as their personal army. There's not much of an alternate argument for what happened there.

I deeply suggest to those who still believe that french armies are surrender and losse all their wars, to visit the Verdun battlefield site instead of the Eiffel tower!
They'll be astonished (if they are honest)

If Sarkozy is elected the French will soon find themselves in Lebanon...or whatever else the israelis want. Some excuse. Maybe Syria.
Surely the French will be too smart.

Hey Bob, you are welcome to come die for the French anytime.
You know since WW1 they pretty much know how pointless it is, so they'd rather have someone else do it for them instead. And you sound insecure enough in your manhood that you need to prove it by being a hero, so next time (probably according to you it's gonna be the Islamic armies or something like that), don't hesitate because the last times you tried with others (south east Asians, Middle Easterns) it hasn't been so great for you, so hopefully the French will be there for you save and die like a hero.

Also, one thing most people don't understand is that France is not a people that eventually got its own government (like the US, Japan, Italy or Germany) but it is a government that created a country (under the kings) then a people (from the 1400s). So the State will always hold a position that is hardly understandable for most outsiders. The State is not there to serve the country and its people, the State IS the country and people are there to serve it, and in exchange, they can chill and enjoy life. And within the the State there is a deal: the elite who controls the State does whatever they want BUT they cannot push it too far or else... Politics in France is therefore always the elite pushing the people into doing what they want, and the people resisting it more or less (if they are tricked or bribed or whatever, they'll agree)
To make an understandable metaphor for Americans, for Americans the government is some kind of umpire in baseball. But not for the French. For the French the government is the umpire AND the catcher. So everytime outsiders argue for less State, The French understand they are asked to play without their catcher. No matter how many times you're gonna ask, they are not gonna do it.

CHICLOPS -
I think your analysis of the French departure from Vietnam is flawed. I suspect you are looking at it from the cold war perspective. However, the cold war was not the only game in town during the postwar era. Given the dynamics of decolonisation, I don't think the French could or should have stayed in Vietnam. It was not militarily feasible, and it was not morally in line with the goals of democracy to perpetuate colonial rule.

Sarkozy is right in opposing Turkey's becoming a member of the European Union.

Check out the shocking story at the following link.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr05/0,4670,TurkeyInternetCensorship,00.html

Like the Chinese, the Turks block web sites. Also, the Turkish government tried to imprison the Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk for the "crime" of insulting Turkish society.

The Turks want us to respect how they suppress human rights. We respect them.

At the same time, we want the Turks to respect our right to preserve Western values. We have every right to prevent Western values (in Europe) from being contaminated by Turkish or Islamic values.

Sarkozy is right on the mark about trying to restrict immigration into France and about trying to prohibit Turkey from entering the European Union (EU). We should condemn Washington for trying to pressure France (and the rest of the EU) into admitting Turkey into the EU.

The last 6 years has demonstrated that Washington is incompetent on matters of foreign policy.

France is doing fine and will continue to do fine. The French have lost their political will to fight in foreign wars because of their recent history, but at the diplimatic level and strategic level the French have always supported the U.S. and our allies in the fight against global terror. The French along with the rest of the European Continent have embraced Internationalism and a global responsibility that in the long run has supported "Pax Americana" over the last sixty years. The French economy with the right "tune up" could be a launching pad for American and International investment. Next time in Paris, take the train to Burgundy and brouse at the low price of property and calculate the future potential of grow. With the right technology and management style the French have still got it!

UUTC -
They used the United States to fight their war in Vietnam. They backed out of their end of the deal while we held ours up. It wasn't the brightest move on our part to stay after the French deserted, but at least it had some idea of honor. Vietnam and the Treaty of Versailles are my largest problem with the French, given the ease with which many French critcize other nations' foreign policies (not just the US).

To the French defense... their domestic rhetoric regarding Iran is just as hawkish as America's, though this sentiment is rarely echoed in the EU or UN. Again, they'll let someone else rattle the sabres (Chirac's 'Nuke Iran' misstep notwithstanding). It's an effective tactic for survival, but not one that Americans see as honorable. Different value systems.

Another case: lately, France has been known to act as an indicator of China and Russia's positions on security matters in the UN. Iran is the only case that springs to mind in which the French have been dissident with the aforementioned powers, and even then, the dissidence was short-lived.

France, by close diplomatic association, throws around Russia and China's economic weight in the UN. It's clearly in French interests to back the Americans, given their specifically precarious situation in regard to middle-east aggression, but they save the war speeches for home.

As far as the EU's impotence, you've actually made my point for me. The Franc was in the toilet before widespread inception of the Euro. France did not have the resources to make a major recovery on their own without major reforms, so they spearheaded the EU. The result has been economic growth which is now dulling.

They effectively hit the 'snooze' button on the widespread reforms they're about to vote for in Sarkozy.

But outside of the Euro, the EU has done very little. It's not a nice thing to say, but it's a very young and nebulous coalition without a clearcut mission. Until they figure out exactly what their mission is, their actual goal, they won't have any real measure of power.

That is what I mean by 'impotent internationalism.'

Some of the more intolerant comments by my fellow U.S. citizens make me want to answer Mr. Kleine-Brockhoff's rhetorical question in the affirmative:

"...does anybody believe America cannot recover?"

If the kind of thinking that led to electing George W. Bush twice continues to prevail, then perhaps America really can't recover.

This blog is very interesting, everybody in the US seems to think that because we got involved in WW2 sixty years ago we have the right to tell these countries how to run their affairs, should the French be able to do the same because they helped us in the revolutionary wars with England? the people that live there day to day are the ones that make decisions based on what they consider best for their welfare they usually only care about domestic affairs and not the global position of their country, we might think the French are arrogant but they probably think the same of us since we are always trying to dictate to other countries how they should think or vote, the mentality that you are either with us or against us is a failed policy that has destroyed any respect they had for US.

CHICLOPS-
"While their government may be recently mired with impotent multi-nationalism, their citizenry is still fiercly patriotic."
Agree completely that the French have a patriotic streak a mile wide; I don't know that multi-nationalism has been impotent given the popularity of the Euro. Also agree, basically, that:
"Their situation in both world wars is unique, as they bordered the primary aggressor (and were, in part, responsible for the resurgence of aggressions that lead to WWII). It says nothing of their courage or their prowess that they defended or surrendered anything."

But this is the part of your post that intrigues me:
"Since their revolution, France has had a tendency to act by proxy through other states."
Not sure I follow you here - can you give me some examples?

Sarkozy is the best candidate to become president of France. He will reform France and transform it into an economic powerhouse.

His best ideas are slamming the door shut on Islamic immigrants and prohibiting Turkey from entering the European Union. I also like his idea of promoting free trade, but he is not a free-trade bigot like the typical American.

A free-trade bigot supports free trade between the USA and non-free markets like Mexico and China. This kind of free trade is fake free trade. It destroys the quality of life in the USA. Fake free trade transfers wealth from the guy on the bottom to the wealthy bastard in the upper management of the corporations.

What Sarkozy supports is genuine free trade with only other free markets. I like his ideas of protecting the quality of life in the West by protecting it from Islamic bigots and fake free trade.

I like the fact that he recognizes Western values as supreme.

If loses the French election, could he run for the American presidency? I would vote for him.

to Candide : Sarko may well be a french Giuliani, but S.Royal is no Hillary !In fact I heard that Segolene tried to meet with Hillary to give herself some much needed international flair, but Hillary politely declined....

"One does not have to misunderstand their situation to hold the opinion that the French prefer to serve themselves in private, while publicly attempting to dictate what other states do"

Just like Texans? Or those ding-dongs in the city north of me that annexed a huge chunk of our township?

This piece, and subsequent comments, make the mistake of assuming that France's domestic politics reflect the future of European politics as well. If anything, France's EU ambitions and its domestic track record have been at odds with one another almost uniformly. While their government may be recently mired with impotent multi-nationalism, their citizenry is still fiercly patriotic. Leftist performance in this election cycle backs this argument.

If France does elect the relatively right-wing Sarkozy, as current polling suggests, it will damage their reputation with the EU, whose non-welfare states already view the French as a self-serving body disguised as a moderator. Spain and Germany come immediately to mind.

One almost has to wonder if France's push for the coalescence of Europe over the last decade has been entirely self-serving, an attempt to hedge its sizeable economic downturn. Since their revolution, France has had a tendency to act by proxy through other states. Their situation in both world wars is unique, as they bordered the primary aggressor (and were, in part, responsible for the resurgence of aggressions that lead to WWII). It says nothing of their courage or their prowess that they defended or surrendered anything.

One does not have to misunderstand their situation to hold the opinion that the French prefer to serve themselves in private, while publicly attempting to dictate what other states do.

It's their game.

PJ - you've got a big piece of the truth:

...Europeans who criticize us when we send troops to the places where they seem to think intervention is necessary...

But wouldn't you think it would be worst - namely dishonest - if they didn't criticize us when they thought we were wrong? The flip side of how to look a this is that the Europeans are our friends, and are expressing heartfelt concern.

Its been my direct experience that for the most part America and Americans are very highly regarded there. I think the critique comes from the heart, and I don't think its the critique that is the cause of our decline in prestige. I think the critique is a symptom of that cause.

Sarko is Rudi Giuliani to Mme Royal's Hillary.

Maybe the US standing has "tanked" in the last few years, but mostly it's because of people like Europeans who criticize us when we send troops to the places where they seem to think intervention is necessary. They seem to think that they could do better.... if only they had the troops, or the arms, or the willingness to fight! Now they want us to intervene in Darfur!

Comments like Bobs (above) are the clearest proof we need of why America leadership has been in decline. After all, it's bozos like Bob, folks that are clueless about how the world works, that elected George W Bush -- twice.

Anyone with an ounce of international experience realized that Bush didn't have a clue about how to fix Iraq before he invaded. ANd it was one misstep after another.

And yet as an international power, America is called on to provide leadership in a host of complex international regions.

Mr Kleine-Brockhoff is right on the money about the status of America and France. The right leader can make a real difference in positioning a country ahead of the international trends. The wrong leader just shoots his own country's initiatives in the foot.

The trick is having voters in a country that are educated and ready to embrace the right leadership. I'm not sure American voters are there yet.

Yep I realise that; but we are discussing the French, and everytime France and the French come up on an American inet discussion board the performance or non-performance of the French Military establishment 70 years and two republics ago gets thrown out. What the heck has it got to do with where the French will take themselves politically in the next election? Yet there it is.

Its a tired subject that richly deserves a rant.

Ummm. The author is German. My hazy recollection of WW 1 and WW 2 is that we didn't go to Europe to defend Germany.

I've seen this from my fellow Americans before, and it is disgraceful.

The French Army didn't do very well, but at least they were in the field. And yes, they were quaking in their shoes. They had lost, what, 10 -16 times as many people as we did in the last war. They had reason to be afraid. Yet, when Poland was invaded, they declared war. We didn't. When all was said and done, French military losses were about equal to America's.

French civilian populations suffered during that war. I've met French who, to this day, keep "just in case" stashes and out of the country hide outs. That person was a decorated resistance worker who went through the camps and just felt they wouldn't be able to do it again. They suffered, while we sat on our hands as long as we weren't directly attacked.

Don't think for a minute the French have forgotten what the sacrifice of our GI's meant. To this day I can open the paper periodically and read about our heroes being honored by the French Consul or Ambassador or President.

You see Bob, your allusions to the fall of France ""non-fighting" backsides" and "conquering armies don't like to march in the hot sun" are a disgrace. And they aren't unusual. We Americans should put a cork in it, because when we make that kind of remark we dishonor the memory of tens of thousands of young men who gave up their lives for Lady Liberty - just as our own sons did.

Let me put it to you this way: A kid comes in for the fourth quarter - his uniform clean. He plays both ways, makes some spectacular hits on defense, catches the winning touchdown pass in the last moments of the game, spikes the ball, puts his hands in the air and screams "I won the game".

Think that might cause some resentment in the locker room?

I wonder if Mr. Kleine-Brockhoff appreciates the irony of starting a column about France's future with a shallow comparison to the US while suggesting the US is losing influence. Probably not.

The European welfare nanny states are going to have to tolerate significant changes if they are to avoid a worstening decline; high unemployment combined with an aging populace will not be kind to the welfare state models of France and Germany.

Are the French really prepared to give up their benefits, even to save the economic future of their country? For their sake, I hope so.

Dave Belinski
Minneapolis, MN

Bob's posting actually gives weight to what Oddhogne had to say. Read both postings and tell me which one belies arrogance and which one might be considered a "rant".

France will do just fine.

Well said, Bobs. The French are arrogant and rude. I believe they are jealous of the Americans.

Well Oddhogne, ref. you veiled rant against the United States in your posting, I don't remember seeing anything in the history books about "arrogance" when the United States and others came to Europe through England to save your "non-fighting" backsides. You may very well be right about commentators views on health care although I suspect it is for the manner in which it would be instituted rather than whether it is needed. Your view and the manner of running it just may not fit in the United States. There is one other thing that needs to be said...who says France or any other country in Europe decides for the United States on anything. After all, the one good thing Europe seems to do well is hide in the shadow of the United States and poke us with a stick every chance it gets. How loud would the crying be if consistant, day-in, day-out bombings happened in Paris? The reason the boulevards have trees on both sides in France is because conquering armies don't like to march in the hot sun.

if Sarko is poised to be next president of France then all is set to tackle the long overdue restoration of French authority in Europe and combined with the impressive leadership that Angela Merkel is displaying both will propel the EU towards the deepest reforms ever seen on the continent since WWII.

One should not assume that Sarko will be elected in the runoff. I suspect many voters will shy away from the changes he proposes and attach themselves to the vague promises of Sego. More important, there is little evidence that the French workers, especially the many, many employees of the public sector, believe that opening up the labor market, nudging the economy to be more "American" (or "Thatcherite") is in either their personal or the national interest.

I have much belief that France will be able to adapt to the new realities of the world and at the same time maintain most of the social system which benefits the population.Why do I have the impression that most commentators and analysts from the US are hoping for the european system of universal healthcare and other benefits to fail?
I know for a fact that the french would not have allowed their rights and priviledges to be eroded the way americans have let themselves be fooled.
They are still arrogant towards us that is not well versed in the french language though...