Does this constitute a Declaration of War, or simply a statement of armed non belligerance, more or less like the Vichy-US relationship up until the North Africa landings?

The first post on the Spot-On site was excellent:

"Disappointing? Sure. No one should be surprised. After all, more Frenchmen VOLUNTEERED for the Nazi Charlemagne Division than fought in the Resistance. The French have a natural ability to first accomodate and then ally themselves with their and our enemies.
Posted by: Tim at September 30, 2004 06:37 PM "

After the withdrawal of the militia, Iraqi police discovered at least 10 bodies in a building housing a religious court run by Mr Sadr's followers. Police sources said the dead - including an elderly woman - were summarily executed as a result of rulings by the court, which ordered arrests and meted out punishments outside of the mainstream religious and legal authorities. But a court official, who identified himself only as Hashim, told the Associated Press the corpses belonged to militants killed in the recent fighting in the city."

Perhaps Rose's version, so eagerly picked up by the VRWC, doesn't have general currency because it isn't correct?!

I treat France as a hostile, armed non-belligerent. There are instances where interests overlap, but I see them as the exception not the rule.

Note that France is not a monolith, and that this is subject to some change (but not total changes, because it has deep roots) depending on changes in the French political class.

Andrew,

It would be worth looking into. I'll post something.

After all, more Frenchmen VOLUNTEERED for the Nazi Charlemagne Division than fought in the Resistance.

France was not alone. More Belgians volunteered for the Waffen SS than fought in the Belgian Resistance and more Dutch volunteered for the Waffen SS than fought in the Dutch Resistance. Add the Milice and other similar units and it's pretty clear that collaborators outnumbered resistance.

In fairness to the French, Belgians, and Dutch, it's unclear what volunteering actually meant. For many it was probably just a way to avoid forced labor.

Joe, did you see the letter at Romanesko about the Sadr court?

Scroll down from here for Alex Berenson's (angry) comments.

As well he might be angry. I'll treat Berenson as a definitive source. Here's what he writes:

09/30/2004 8:23:10 PM

From ALEX BERENSON: I covered the battle of Najaf for the New York Times. I was embedded at a Marine base in Najaf and saw the battle from its third day to its finish. I was at the shrine the day the battle ended and a ceasefire was declared. I can tell you firsthand that the report Tim Chavez supposedly received from a Marine lieutenant colonel claiming that "HUNDREDS of dead women and children were brought out after Sadr left" the shrine of Imam Ali is entirely false. Does he really think that the correspondents on the scene would have covered that up, or that the Iraqi government and the American military would not have broadcast that fact around the world?

Tim, let me ask you directly: Have you ever been a reporter? Do you have any idea what makes a good story? The massacre of hundreds of women and children inside a sacred Muslim shrine would have been front-page news worldwide for days. We didn't report it because it never happened. There were almost no women and children, living or dead, anywhere near the shrine by the time the battle ended. We did get -- and write about -- reports that Sadr's guys had tortured and killed a handful of Iraqi police officers and other people unfortunate enough to run afoul of the Mahdi Army.

I don't know where Lt. Col. Jim Rose is getting his information (or if he exists at all), but it isn't from the 1-4 Marine battalion in Najaf, or the 1-5 or 2-7 Cav, which also fought down there. If you want to check for yourself, Tim, I can send along some names and even a couple email addresses for you. We call it reporting in this business.

Most of the rest of your piece is equally fictitious. But I don't really want to get into a long political debate. I'll stick to what I saw with my own eyes.

I have no love for the Mahdi Army. They took me captive and almost killed me that day. Maybe that's why I'm a bit exercised about the fact that you're telling me what really happened in Najaf, based on an email from a guy who apparently was never there either.

Tim, your piece is a disgrace. You ought to apologize for it to the correspondents who are risking their lives on the ground in Iraq. I'm back home now, so I can write this in safety and peace. But I'd urge you to head on over. Spend a few weeks on the ground for yourself. And then decide whether the picture we've painted is accurate."

Seems pretty clear to me. Tim Chavez's report is almost certainly false, and I'm removing that part with a note.

I'll add here that Sadr's executions, torture, and thuggery definitely un-endeared him to many Iraqis in Najaf, and giving Sadr enough rope to hang himself over time appears (contrary to my original assessments and beliefs) to have been a smart thing to do on the military's part. Killing Sadr now that he has been dislodged still ought to be a priority, however, something I'm reiterating because it was deleted from the post above. Learn the lesson of Fallujah, W.

to Joe Katzman

I treat France as a hostile, armed non-belligerent. There are instances where interests overlap, but I see them as the exception not the rule.
Note that France is not a monolith, and that this is subject to some change (but not total changes, because it has deep roots) depending on changes in the French political class.

Joe: I read this when I’m trying to put together an analysis on the situation in France for my blog. But the succession of events is reaching some critical mass and I have the intuition that we may be in for some pretty dramatics news. I think that saying that France is no monolith is an understatement: it is a deeply split society at odds with itself. Now, I think that there is a sector of the French right that decided to play the dangerous (and stupid) card of anti-Americanism as a means of creating a stomach-turning “national union” with a French left long gone adrift.

In my opinion it all reached some point of non-return when the radical right Font National’s candidate, Jean Marie LePen, beat the socialist incumbent Lionel Jospin in the presidential election two years ago. That was for the French elite the reminder that their system was in fail-safe status. LePen, who, incidentally, could have been financed by Saddam Hussein through the oil for food scam, was finally defeated by an accidental “anti-fascist front” that gave Chirac the election and with it immunity against prosecution for embezzlement of public funds. There we are…

Now, the anti-American alliance of corrupt rightists and power hungry socialists controls the French media to a point that would be unimaginable even for the most delirious conspiracy aficionado in the US. But there are signs that the tide is changing and it is a very bad moment to talk of France being this or that, globally. “One part of France”, “the Chirac sector of the right”, and kindred expressions are much more adapted to reality…

The war we are living is fought as much in the infosphere as in the streets of Fallujah. Europe in general and particularly France are crucial battlefields in that dimension of the conflict. The sense of the kidnapping campaign is exactly there: the terrorists lending a hand to their allies. It would be disgraceful that the defenders of liberty and humanism, by blunder or oversight, abandoned that battlefield to the jihadists.

By the way, Raffarin is a jerk. It is worth to point out that his popularity level is below the 30% fatal threshold.

Do you have a proper source for the Raffarin quote? The links trace back to an Op-Ed piece in the New York Post, with an attribution to vague to be useful, and Google news produces nothing else.

"Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."

Can anyone get a French source on this? I cant find anything relating to this. Besides, I trust NY Post as much as I trust Debka - interesting news, but needs to be verified.

- Daniel

I don't have a source for the quote. However, HERE is another take on the situation.

I'm amazed at this thread? Isn't it a very good, rational, and accepted practice to look for a bit of context before starting to howl over one single statement picked by hell knows whom from hell knows where? Or is it more like "anything goes" in these quarters?

Where's the fucking original? What was it about? You take one one statement retold by someone else, completely out of context and w/o a shade of apprehension go to town with it.... wow, I'm impressed.

I understand that it's part of your job description to pump the environment full of "conservative" agitprop, but do you really believe we the readers are that stupid? Or are you guys trying to grope and discover how crude you can go before you get punched in the face by the insensed reader? Well, all right. Let me congratulate you one one thing: you've thereby beaten the good old Soviet propaganda by a huge margin (and trust me, having grown up there, I know what I'm talking about.)

This is simply a lie. Provide us with a link to a single credible source. I read French news on line (yes dumbfuck, the smarter folk read a few foreign languages) and no such declaration was made.

Looking on my own, whether via Google or by searching the Figaro site (www.lefigaro.fr), I was unable to find anything even remotely similar. The only places where this thing bobs up are a handful of "conservative" bullshit blogs, all referring to one another and, eventually, to this NY Post article, that doesn't mention the source either.

Why not ask Mr Taheri (hailing from the Benador Associates, heh-heh :-) ) to substantiate his claims? Surely he knows where he got this from.

amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

More self-parody from Katzman & Krew.

Very nice.

Joe -

I'm also concerned that I can't find this in the French press (hey, 'Lie Buster', "dumbfuck" isn't even a good argument when you're in third grade...); we've got enough real issues with the French that we don't need to make them up...

A.L.

Warum,

Personally, I don't remember the Soviet Press ever publishing corrections and refutations, as we did above. Perhaps it's all a question of which side of the system one was on. Or perhaps your memory needs a bit of a kick-start.

I'll take it on faith that our readers have looked, and that the WSJ mention and other cites all traces back to Taheri's story. We'll take Warum up on his suggestion and ask Taheri.

Note that BA are mostly speaking gig agents, so that's not an ideal address, but I haven't got any other way of reaching him. If any of our readers do, please let me know via email ("joe" @ our blog's domain).

"Lie Buster",

Just because you didn't read it in a French newspaper doesn't make it a lie. See Andrew and Praktike, above, for constructive methods of pointing out something you don't think is true, or Daniel for a simpe, way to say, simply, "I'm not sure about this" if you question it but don't have a refutation at hand.

As for context, it didn't strike me as an unreasonable statement given:

a) France's long-standing relationships with the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, connections that can be expected to tie into the current Iraqi insurgency.

b) France's diplomatic M.O. and foundational assumptions, as articulated by long time Paris resident Gabriel Gonzalez.

c) Recent French diplomatic moves demanding that members of Iraq's armed Ba'athist/Islamist insurgency be given seats at the summit table alongside Iraq's government, and demand that the agenda include withdrawal of U.S. troops. Having sided with enemy forces already, friendliness from those same enemies is not an unreasonable expectation. Or was that the even the explicit quid pro quo in lieu of cash?

Having said all that, a fit with the above elements does not = truth, either. Barring a response from Taheri that clears up the sourcing on this one, our readers will have to make up their own minds.

Joe

My feeling is that Raffarin could very well have said something like that. All in all, some 25% of the surveyed French people in the days prior to the intervention wanted Saddam Hussein to win.

This said, I'm much less sure that, had he said it, it hadn't really made a scandal here in France. The whole question of the French hostages in Iraq is turning to a sinister vodeville.

Lambroschini is the head of the Figaro news group. In reading and searching through the French press sites, and especially Le Figaro, I was struck by the little that this guy was writing for his own paper. Whlle he apparently was making all sorts of news releases to the BBC and Guardian (both of whom have copious coverage of this particular hostage duo and France's response), there is almost an arms length distance between the French press and many of the details and persons in this drama.

The closest I can come to a situation where this quote would have made sense in a less offensive manner was prior to 5 Sept when the captors were split between hard line and moderates so that a translation error could have turned a favorable comparison between the moderate captors and their hardline accomplices into the subject quote on 'best allies'.

Overall, with Le Figaro's news staff doing little reporting and much negotiating for their own employees, fellows like Lambroschini probably do know quite a bit more about who said what than the little they are openly reporting, and simply aren't publishing it for attribution. That neither confirms nor denies the alleged Raffarin quote.

What adds to this situation is yet another op ed piece ( Mark Steyn in the Telegraph ) uses the same quote, again without links. So the attribution has got some legs, however dim.

the first link works if you take off the final backslash '/'
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1584225,00.html

"Personally, I don't remember the Soviet Press ever publishing corrections and refutations, as we did above."

I don't think you should congratulate yourself for publishing two baseless claims, then withdrawing one of them. The discussion above shows there is no evidence that Raffarin ever made the statement you attribute to him. You should withdraw and correct on this point also.

Joe,

"Personally, I don't remember the Soviet Press ever publishing corrections and refutations, as we did above. "

I will gladly concede this one point. Although I'd add that (a) since you've edited the original message, it's unclear what exactly was corrected, (b) the Soviet press is not really a good frame of reference, and © it's got nothing to do with what I had specifically addressed.

"Perhaps it's all a question of which side of the system one was on. Or perhaps your memory needs a bit of a kick-start."

1. There isn't enough information in it to engage in the kind of politically slanted exegesis that is apparent in your original message. In fact, there's simply not enough meat there for any, even a most benign, interpretation
2. The French may very well be conniving bastards, but they're not known for being undiplomatic, and therefore, I strongly doubt that Raffarin, however bad he and his covert deeds may be, said something in the sense that you are imputing him.
3. Any rational person would clarify all of the above before sharing his thoughts with the public at large; both in order not to offend the reader's intelligence and for fear of making a fool of himself
4. The few googleable sites that also report and interpret this statement do so in almost literally the same words as you did, which makes one suspect that it's not a piece of original thinking by the poster, but simply a case of organized dissemination of a propaganda point disguised as innocent public discourse

"France's long-standing relationships with the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, connections that can be expected to tie into the current Iraqi insurgency."

Although arguably not quite as long-standing, the US had relationships with the Baath party as well. Are we gonna tie this into the current insurgency too? The remaining two references are interesting, but still they are speculations rather than solid information. Someone's being a "long time Paris resident" doesn't make one a specialist in international relations. That France acts in self-serving and perhaps even somewhat nefarious ways is correct -- but so does everyone else, including the US; this is normal. The problem is not France's evilness, but the fact that a consensus of opinion between a number of involved players was not achieved in this case. Or, maybe it was not really sought. What Gonzalez says is interesting, but he's not an authority. What he refers to, does not markedly improve the picture either, although it does augment his ideas. I read his article with interest.

Also, you say here:

"Paris also wants representatives of Iraq's insurgent groups (you know, the Ba'athists and Beheaders Brigades) to be invited."

Again, you're skimpy on context. "you know, the Ba'athists and Beheaders Brigades" is what you say, not "Paris"; we simply don't know what Paris actually says here. Also, the Afghan forces that we cooperated with and relied on recently, as well as a lot of players (of course) in the current govenment of Afghanistan are former beheaders -- literally or very close to that, for example Rashid Dostum, once a Soviet puppet and the leader of Afghan "Communist Youth", very well known for his brutality and endless switching of sides. He, as well as many others, is an epitome of murderous, bloody bastard -- yet that doesn't seem to bother anyone: and for a good reason, for he wields a lot of actual power there. So, perhaps this is not a fundamental issue when attempting to establish some kind of social piece in the midst of a long-term upheaval; perhaps Paris is not as evil and preposterously imbecilic in seeking to bring some active forces, however evil they are, to the negotiating table. Perhaps they think it's better to have them in parliament than running around with guns. I'm only speculating of course; give us more context and we'll be able to be more specific. What I'm saying is that this approach, even if it truly is what you suggest (w/o proof) it is, is not as obviously unthinkable or extraordinary or unjustified as you seem to imply.

"Barring a response from Taheri..."
Taheri's got almost nothing to do with what we're talking about here. It is your use of his words that is at question.

Btw, re: Tom Roberts'
"Disappointing? Sure. No one should be surprised. After all, more Frenchmen VOLUNTEERED for the Nazi Charlemagne Division than fought in the Resistance. The French have a natural ability to first accomodate and then ally themselves with their and our enemies.

At the risk of sounding exceedingly cynical, I'll say something that my life experience on both sides of the cold-war divide suggests: if the US had a land frontier with Germany and was, god forbid, overrun by Nazis in 1940 (which isn't inconceivable: the US military was not in the best shape then, just read Patton's memoirs), an awful number of Americans would have volunteered (or "volunteered") for Charlemagne as well. And, the Resistance would have probably been smaller -- the French Resistance was mostly communist, and while the communists -- and the left in general -- were very popular and wide-spread in the pre-war France, they were all but absent in the US. People are about the same everywhere, that is to say, they're like water and tend to take the shape of their environment, and therefore who one's enemies are is to a significant degree determined by the powers that be. Powerful propaganda plus other, more mundane motivations can do an amazing job on the masses. We can never take what we're used to for granted: our tomorrow can be different in unimaginable today ways.

Warum,

Let's start from the top. Appreciate the withdrawal of the Soviet press accusation. It was addressed only because you had raised it, and now it is put to bed.

You will also notice that the link to the removed material links to the explicit refutation in the comments. If you hadn't noticed that, you can notice it now.

As for U.S. relationships with Iraq, they have been qualitatively different from France's Iraq relationship for a long time. The USA didn't supply Saddam with a nuclear reactor, or act as a major financial guarantor, or act as a major arms supplier. France did all 3. France also supported Saddam pre-war, including extensive diplomatic efforts designed to destroy the American coalition. This was not mere non-participation. In other words, France was Saddam's (and the Ba'ath's) top patron pre-war. The USA was their top enemy.

Most people can grasp this challenging and nuanced difference.

Second, re: insurgents. There's a big difference between warlords who chose neutrality or armed conflict against the Taliban in 2001, and active members of both al-Qaeda (which Zarqawi is) and the very enemy organization America went into Iraq to destroy (the Ba'ath). To keep your analogy consistent, you'd have to propose a policy of doing power-sharing deals and negotiations with al-qaeda and the Taliban, not the Afghan warlords.

And yes, making this kind of proposal IS both ridiculous and transparently hostile.

Joe, I hate to be anal, but can't resist the temptation (I promise not to engage in this too often :-)):

"Let's start from the top. Appreciate the withdrawal of the Soviet press accusation. It was addressed only because you had raised it, and now it is put to bed."

I didn't withdraw anything, all I've said was that perhaps my jab was not terribly conducive to raising the quality of discourse here. But I had raised it in relation to a specific issue, which is your interpretation of the Taheri quote, which remains as groundless as it was before, and therefore my "Soviet Accusation" remains justified -- in that respect (and I only raised it in that respect.) Like I've said, perhaps I was being overly caustic -- which is bad style and I apologized for the failure of taste, but that is, strictly speaking, different from being wrong on the substance. That you corrected something else in this thread by itself is very laudable but has got nothing to do with still being wrong in some other respect.

"You will also notice that the link to the removed material links to the explicit refutation in the comments. If you hadn't noticed that, you can notice it now."

Yes, but since your original statements -- apparently incorrect -- themselves are no longer there, it's unclear what exactly triggered the correction. In fact, to a new reader it's not at all obvious that the linked-to commentary is a refutation of something. Upon a first persual, it simply appears to be unrelated to anything, it's confusing rather.

"As for U.S. relationships with Iraq, they have been qualitatively different from France's Iraq relationship for a long time. ... Most people can grasp this challenging and nuanced difference."

Sarcasm notwithstanding, I do think the difference is rather nuanced -- I'm not sure about "qualitatively". Quantitatively, yes. At any rate, whatever those relationships were, the very fact of their existence removes the possibility of moralistic posturing after the fact. Which is not to say that France's record can't be criticized -- it surely can: they've been unhelpful towards the US, and not only this time, that's true, but let us be able to consider this fact w/o rectitudinous sermonizing of the "he-gassed-his-own-people!" kind.

"Second, re: insurgents. There's a big difference between warlords who chose neutrality ... and active members of both al-Qaeda ... [and Baath]. To keep your analogy consistent, you'd have to propose a policy of doing power-sharing deals and negotiations with al-qaeda and the Taliban, not the Afghan warlords"

First, again, we don't know whom exactly the French propose to negotiate with here; any specifics we have are your own; you do not point to the original source of information on which you based your opinion here. Second, like I've said, Dostum changed sides many times. Also, at one time, it seemed that we were not wholly averse to negotiating with Taliban (of course, that was before 2001.) They didn't play along, yes, but that was still the same Taliban. So, I'm not sure that a blanket refusal to deal with one-time enemies on principle is the only effective approach that is used Realpolitik'ally. I may or may not like it personally, but then I don't run the show -- and lack the necessary expertise and experience to even attempt; I'm simply a layman, a Joe Sixpack observing what's going on and trying to make sense of it to the best of his, necessarily limited, ability.

I think Afghanistan's current political landscape is not wholly free from local warlords that perhaps at some point were allied to Taliban; in fact, it's probably impossible since they needed to survive when the Taliban were in power; and in addition it's impossible to tell, 'cause at the time we weren't there to observe who's who. I suspect what matters here is whether some powerful players there are amenable to negotiations now, rather than whether they've ever acted hostilely in the past.

All of this is, of course, debatable -- I'm no guru and don't insist on anything, but based on what I can see, in general this seems like nothing extraordinary. How would you qualify Hekmatyar? He's not a Taliban player, yet he remains hostile. It may be, I take it, cheaper and more effective overall to buy someone than to kill him -- especially if he's hard to get to. We both can see that al Sadr, for example, though he, imo, richly deserved it, wasn't elimintated for some reason. So what do you do with him now? Try to pull him into the system despite his noxious record, or let him foment trouble forever? I don't know, but I don't know either way; as an observer, I'm not ruling anything out.

Of course, if we knew what the French want specifically, this discussion would only benefit -- and perhaps you are right, maybe they do propose something unacceptable -- but the problem is, we don't really know, which is all I say. Iow, in the absence of supporting credible info (your parenthetic insinuations alone do not count), I do not understand and cannot share your certainty here; all I can see in your message is France bashing -- which may or may not be justified. My approach is to form my opinions on firm foundations; now, that's not always possible -- then I remain uncommitted, simply knowing that I don't know (for a better elaboration see Rumsfeld's disquisition on unknowns :-) ; I'm a big fan of his.)

Warum- Your hypothetical is unargueable, historically. If the US had had such a strategic position in 1940 then its armed forces would have probably been structured differently. Instead of having one of the world's smallest armies and debateably the biggest navy, it might have reversed these two emphasises.

Might have, as your last hypothetical is precisely that, whereas the SS Division Charlemagne's record of operations in WW II is historical fact, along with the mixed record of French collaboration and resistance internally. In these facts, history is neither cynical nor judgemental based on experience. What you or I draw as conclusions from them is subjective.

Incidently, your sentence about "People are about the same everywhere, ..." has signficant internal logic flaws, unless they are adapting to environments which "are about the same everywhere." Otherwise they would become as different as their environments. Or nearly as variable as their environments, whatever "nearly" means in practical terms. Historically, I don't find useful the concept that if Americans inhabited Metropolitan France in 1940 they would have done as the French did, which apparently is where you are trying to take this. If Americans did so, they would not be Americans, a significant number of whose ancestors specifically moved from France for a variety of reasons. They would be some imponderably hypothetical group of Gallic residents whose qualities would be hypothetical also.

Since this is still going, let me repeat myself. The post that began this contained two baseless allegations. One has been withdrawn as a result of evidence showing that it was false.

The other has been maintained on the basis that no-one can prove it is false, and it suits Joe Katzman's prejudices to believe it. The fact that no source in France can be found for a remark allegedly made by the French PM to a French newspaper magnate is disregarded.

This is pretty much par for the course on the pro-war side of this debate (WMDs, Saddam's links with AQ etc) so I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm still disappointed.

"Warum- Your hypothetical is unargueable, historically. If the US had had such a strategic position in 1940 then its armed forces would have probably been structured differently."

Differently from what they actually were across the Atlantic, yes; but would they have been different from the French forces at the same time? The French -- arguably -- had a large and well equipped army in 1940 (and traditionally so, btw: Patton learned his tanks from the French, and the first American tanks were either genuine French Renaults or local knockoffs; in fact, the Americans got stuck a bit behind here for a long time; even during the war their tanks remained markedly inferior to both German and Soviet equivalents -- which, in 1940 was not the case with French tanks.) At least, in 1940 their (French) armed forces were better than the Germans' in all material parameters (except for tactics, perhaps); for example, again, they had more and better (heavier and better armed) tanks. Yet they lost -- in one month. So, yes, had Americans been French, their armed forces would most likely be structured differently from what they actually were, but would that necessarily have helped? I don't know but don't think it obvious that it would have. The French were far from disarmed and helpless then.

" What you or I draw as conclusions from them is subjective."
Of course, I'd never suggest otherwise.

"Incidently, your sentence about "People are about the same everywhere, ..." has signficant internal logic flaws, unless they are adapting to environments which "are about the same everywhere." Otherwise they would become as different as their environments."

I agree -- and they do become different. I meant it in a more fundamental, anthropological if you will, sense: that people depend in a very large measure on their environments, whatever those environments happen to be. People tend to develop according to their circumstances -- and it is in that sense that they're the same. Iow, French are different from, say, Americans not because of some inborn quality, but mostly because of acquired traits -- and that, I suspect, depends on their environment an awful lot. (After all, if the differences were inborn, there wouldn't be any differences: their ancestors, Angles and Franks, both were germanic tribes :-) . Iow, I suspect that actual differences are acquired.)

"Historically, I don't find useful the concept that if Americans inhabited Metropolitan France in 1940 they would have done as the French did,"

Why? Of course, they'd be French rather than Americans then, but that aside, why not?

"They would be some imponderably hypothetical group of Gallic residents whose qualities would be hypothetical also"

History in subjunctive is not very promising, I agree. But still one can speculate :-) ... why do you think they would have been some hypothetical unknowns rather than simply French? If we agree that environments make people, then they would have been.

These are curious things to consider (though it's impossible to say anything positively, of course), but all of this is not quite what I was getting to. It was simpler: people, statistically, (a.k.a. "masses") tend to be shaped by their environments, for many reasons: tradition, propaganda, conformism, survival, etc. And so, if the US was overrun and then run by a Nazi-style government, people would act accordingly: I think about the same as they did elsewhere. I see in in Russia: when I was growing up there (the USSR), fascism and nazism were the biggest bugbears one could imagine due both to the official ideology and the memory of WWII; there weren't any fascist sympathies around: fascism was universally perceived as a synonym of an utmost evil, it was really a curse word more than anything specific.

And yet, today, there's fascism in Russia. How come? It would seem wholly impossible; there's never been any grounds for it. And yet... it is fostered by some new political forces there, and apparently people succumb to a mix of factors, such as brainwash, stupidity, as well as something more quotidian, like political careerism: suppose that the choice one faces is to be poor and homeless or to join this or that political organization -- a fascist one, for example -- and improve one's lot... Just like they did in Germany, many people succumb. Are Americans automatically immune to this phenomenon? I doubt it. There was, after all, this German-American Bund, that was, to use an understatement, very sympathetic to Hitlerism. Now suppose that attitude suddenly gets supported and fostered by the might and resources of the state itself, while every other cultural/political stance is forcibly eliminated. You think there'd be no volunteers for Charlemagne? Now, I hope you're right, of course... but my experience makes me less optimistic. Give me a full control of TV and a large and brutal police force with not legal limits on what they can do, and I think, I'll be able to convert the whole population of the US to, say, Islam in a year or two. Effective (meaning total, all-pervasive) brainwashing is hard to organize, but if you can, its possibilities are limitless, I think. Again, I hope I'm wrong :-).

John,

At present the quote does not have a second source beyond Taheri's reporting of it. An email has been sent to Mr. Taheri.

The article ran in the NY Post, and was quoted in the WSJ. We linked it, and I believe it fits France's M.O. and consistent positions to date as a hostile non-belligerent with strong ties to America's enemies in Iraq. Others may have different views.

Amir Taheri has not responded yet. If he does, we will update. If he does not, you are left to make up your own mind. Just like any other article you read in the paper, albeit with a comments section that allows for argument, discussion, and at times refutation. But you have not met that last burden (unlike, say, praktike & AJL)... and until you do, the post and subsequent discussion will remain as is.

Joe, can you suggest evidence that could refute a claim of this kind? If so, I'll do my best to produce it (or find a confirmation of the claim in the process).

But as far as I can see, this claim is entirely irrefutable - there's no date, place or source that can be checked.

I cannot remember how I ended up on this web site reading the comment on
"Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
but here is my take on it :

- It is clearly taken out of context, since it is the reassurance of something that is not talked about here. So it is in answer to something in a well-defined context that is not here. Any self-respecting journalist would tell you that, where are you Mr Journalist ?

- The sentence is inflammatory and therefore should be treated as suspect. It is likely realyed by deception organizations such as Benador Associates (somebody mentionned it so I am re-using his or her example here)

- A lot of comments that I read here have clearly been written from emotional reaction rather than, and consequently clouding, their rational assessment. Which is what I am going to try and resarch right now :

- First, I go to the French Prime Minister's website (hey it's in English, so it's easy enough !) : http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr

- Next I search for and find two speeches by J-P Raffarin on issues of interest here (it will let me take the tempaerature as to where he stands if I need to corner him later) :

- I find Debate on Iraq - Speech by the Prime Minister to the National Assembly

- I also find Speech by M. Jean-Pierre Raffarin to the Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France

- That's all I could get out of the website, on to www.lefigaro.com to whom supposedly the interview was given. OK now it's in French (thank you professor for putting up with me, I shall continue searching for the truth !).

- In the "Rechercher" field I enter "Raffarin". The report on the interview is the first link showed in the list of results. Nothing on our quote of the day here. Interesting... We read that "Le premier ministre a réaffirmé que le gouvernement avait «reçu la preuve», «le 22 septembre», que «les deux otages étaient réellement en vie et, semble-t-il, en bonne santé»." which means that the PM reaffirmed that the French government had proof on 09/22, that the two [French journalists] hostages were really alive and apparently in good health.

- Case closed. No proof for that quote. The rest is invention or distortion.

- Alright let's now speculate and pretend it is distortion, a sentence maybe taken out of context. This is purely a succession of what ifs, etc.

- I could in fact imagine Raffarin saying "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies." under one specific context, read on, it gets interesting :

- Very recently, an unnamed "French intelligence source" went on French radio saying that according to French and other (German?) intelligence, the two French journalists had been kidnapped by special services attached to ex-CIA and currently Prime Minister Allawy, or ended up being transferred to his special service people. Ex-CIA with contacts inside the Agency ? Probably. That's what the French intelligence leak was saying. Nothing here is surprising, Allawy is no altar boy, anti-French and ex-CIA, the French got the clear message when he was hand-picked by the US the rule the new anti-French headed Iraq.
But even more than that, the unnamed "French intelligence source" said that the reason the two journalists were not freed (it almost happened, then Americans reportedly started attacking the area the hostage release negotiations were taking place) was because American troops and paratroops were specifically and relentlessly attacking those otherwise calm areas to help prevent the release of the two journalists.

- Many people in the world appear to believe this theory, which in a way makes sense: the Americans are suppressing two French journalists (the hostage situation is widely reported in France and it IS a big deal over there) to pressure French public opinion to move on the subject of Iraq, by thinking that the Insurgents WILL KILL French journalists even though France did not participate in the invasion, etc. BEFORE the elections. This would undercut Kerry.

The US administration has got to be upset : the French are in Afghanistan and helped from the very beginning after 9/11, they went to help in Haiti as G. W. Bush himself said. Iraq is the ONLY theater of operations where the French did not concur with the METHODS of the Americans (arm-twisting and other behind the curtain bull that the Americans are foremost known for): they wanted more inspections. Politics...

- So in the framework of this speculation, if Raffarin had in fact said "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies.", it would have been a gaffe as he would have been talking about his own intelligence briefing showing that the Americans were behind it. So in that respect, putting back the sentence into its context would be something like :
"In this hostage crisis, the Iraqi insurgents are our best allies to find the two journalists alive and well since the Americans are actively working against their liberation."

John,

In AJL & Praktike's case, they produced a contradictory account from someone who was on the scene in Najaf as an embed. The simplest evidence in this case would be a denial from either the publisher or Raffarin that the conversation had taken place, or that these words had been spoken. That wouldn't normally work, but it might here because...

Raffarin apparently has a history of saying odd things, but we've done a back-channel search through some official channels (with the help of a reader - you know who you are, and thanks), and it's now pretty clear that this is a one-source quote that is not quoting an official address or interview but a conversation or something heard back-channel. Denials by the reported participants thus carry more weight here.

Beyond that, SamFisher and Warum's speculations offer another potential avenue: If Raffarin has recently said something that would make the context clearer (perhaps something along the lines of what SamFisher suggests at the end), it would at the very least become a strong competing inference (and given Occam's Razor, the likely one).

The real key to all this is Taheri, and we're still trying to reach him through the firm (Benador) who books his speaking engagements and act as his agents. If anyone else has another contact email for him, please let us know.

Sam,
precisely. Your speculative essay here makes very clear why I'd look for the full context before theorizing -- even if Taheri's quite is entirely bona fide. And btw, if he never responds, it probably isn't. Come to think of it, even in his column he used this little weasel word, "reportedly" (probably to cover his butt.)

Joe Katzman said:
"The real key to all this is Taheri, and we're still trying to reach him through the firm (Benador) who books his speaking engagements and act as his agents. If anyone else has another contact email for him, please let us know."

I just started doing some research on the guy...
Amir Taheri is his name. He is Iranian, and right now a resident in London and Paris. He seems to be perfectly fluent in French.

I found another e-mail address to contact him, as he is the Middle-East correspondent for the French edition called Politique Internatinale at http://www.politiqueinternationale.com/PI_PSO/fram_eqp_c_at.htm
Now his e-mail address there is : ataheri@politiqueinternationale.com

Now it is interesting to see what Taheri is writing about these days, as he is very close to the neo-conservative thinking. Heck, Benador Associates is a neocon nest !

The fact that he is the source of systematically anti-French rethoric (which btw is VERY neocon), especially when unprovable, would tend to show that like Carl Cameron, who will do anything to discredit Fox News by for example inventing stories on Kerry's nails http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_26.php#003551 (people at the NYT got fired for that !) tends to show that this was anything but an honest mistake. I would call it deceit.