France Signals it’s Ready for a Syrian War, Will Drag Us In

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Foreign-Minister-Laurent-Fabius

While normally we wouldn’t really care what France thinks about anything, that’s fond nostalgia for the Bush days. These days the war pipeline works something like this.

First France decides to get its war on. Then the UK swiftly falls into line. Then America, not wanting to repeat Iraq by being all unilateral, joins in.

That’s how it happened in Libya. That is how it’s likely to happen in Syria. And the first domino has fallen.

France is seeking a reaction with “force” if a massacre in Syria involving chemical weapons is confirmed, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Thursday, although he ruled out the use of ground troops.

“If it is proven, France’s position is that there must be a reaction, a reaction that could take the form of a reaction with force,” Fabius told BFM-TV.

But on Thursday the foreign minister said there was “no question” of sending in ground troops, adding “it’s impossible.”

If Wednesday’s attack is confirmed, “I believe it cannot go without a reaction from those who believe in international legality,” Fabius said.

“If the Security Council cannot take a decision, at that moment decisions must be taken in another way. How? I would not go further,” he said.

The word you’re looking for is “Unilateral”, but now that the Texas cowboy is out of the White House and the Right2Protect hippies are in, that’s no longer a bad word.

No one on the Security Council is going to fall for another No Fly Zone to protect the civilians scam, the way they did in Libya. So time to assemble a Coalition of the Willing on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Fabius is still thinking in terms of an air campaign. That will keep down the casualties, but it will be expensive and what France, the UK and the US have in common, is shortages of cash.

Oh and France, the UK and the US have all made drastically military budget cuts. Which should mean not wanting to start more wars.

France is to cut more than 30,000 defence posts and reduce or delay orders for jet fighters and other equipment as the socialist government seeks to balance the need for stringent spending cuts with a bid to sustain the country’s role as a big military power.

Orders for the Rafale fighter, made by Dassault Aviation, are to be reduced to 26 from a previously planned 66 over the period, with the total combat air force set to be trimmed to 225 by 2025, from a previous target of 300

Fortunately an air war won’t require any fighter jets. Oh wait…

  • m4253y

    as stupid as the muslim in chief is, he would risk a Vietnam repeat because i would bet dollars to doughnuts that Russia will be in there and China at a minimum, will back assad, and rightly so.

    these two know only too well of the muslim in chiefs disaster of his arab spring’s and clearly are aware of the option to the assad regime is not a pretty one. that potential of an assad overthrow outcome would be the equivalent to the pot boiling over in the mideast then the game is afoot…Christians would be finished entirely, and then the target thereafter would be Israel…Russia is not giving up their only navy port outside of the EU and letting this happen…if i had to bet on the counter intelligence, street fighter (Putin) to the acorn sponsored community leader, i will go with the former, thanks

  • Gee

    Israel will not aid in anyway. They do not like Assad anymore then they like the Sunnis.

    The US is the only country that can do anything, the real question will be is the US dumb enough to support either side?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The stalemate suits everyone until we gut Iran. It is INSANE to focus on Syria as a supposed avenue to rectify problems in Iran. We’re not in a cold war with Iran. Not yet. Let them get the bomb, and then we’ll be forced to beat around the bush forever.

      This is insanity. Bush should have bombed Iran before letting this traitor take office.

      • truebearing

        With the strength of the young democracy movement in Iran, we could have destabilised the country faster than most people would have believed. By targeting and decimating the Twelvers we would have made room for more moderate leaders.
        Given the Iranian manufacturing of IEDs, their constant aid to our enemies, and threats to use nukes on Israel and the US, we would have been justified.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Well all of that became very difficult when the Western internationalists “peace movement” rose up even before we struck Iraq.

          I said a long time ago that maybe we should have struck Iran before Iraq. We could have launched a limited strike against Iran, and then attacked Iraq without trying to appease deranged peaceniks at the same time. Then Iran would have been well warned and less likely to support Iraqi insurgents. And if they did support the insurgents, show them again who they’re opposing. If they then reacted as Qaddafi, the whole region would be a lot easier to manage and most of the mess we’re all dealing with today would not have happened. The jihadis would still lie about it, but it would be even more obvious that they’re all about manufacturing grievances even when they’re the ones who start virtually all of the conflict.

          “Given the Iranian manufacturing of IEDs, their constant aid to our enemies, and threats to use nukes on Israel and the US, we would have been justified.”

          That all started long before 9/11/2001. Tactics evolved, but that’s about it.

        • FOAF

          “With the strength of the young democracy movement in Iran”

          You mean the one Obama left twisting in the wind in 2009?

  • Jakareh

    If it were up to me, I would give some covert aid to Assad, whatever is most needed for urban combat, such as night vision goggles. I would also encourage Egypt to exterminate the Muslim Brotherhood. They wouldn’t even need to use bullets. They could just march the MoBro thugs into the desert and make them keep going until they all died of thirst.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      I would attack Iran and aid Assad. Assad understands the West and he understands Islamic culture a lot better than our leaders do.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Asshat and the mullahs are allies.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          That’s the argument for isolating him. He’s the most pragmatic of the bunch. The only rational argument for isolating him is that he’s “one of them” but actually he’s probably the only “rational actor” among them. He’s no hero, but if we take care of Iran, we’re then better off siding with Assad in terms of our interests. This then also helps contain the Sunnis. Once we weaken Iran, we don’t actually want Sunnis strengthened. We want Assad in Syria holding them back from exploiting a toothless Iran (after we knock her teeth out).

          By “we” of course I am excluding 0′Bama and other Sunni jihadis.

  • beezwaxing

    Although one can never know what a leftist mad man will do tomorrow, I doubt that Obama will send troops to Syria. He’s happy to send the Syrian Sunni war lords guns and ammo so that they can set up a new Sunni dominated Syria which will immediately go to full scale war with Israel.

  • truebearing

    Let’s not dismiss this French strategy so quickly. Maybe France plans to conscript its Muslim population and send them to fight in Syria, thereby reducing the number of hostile parasites it has to support. An all Muslim fighting force! Brilliant! Vive la France!
    Now if Britain and the US did the same thing, we’d really be solving a serious problem. I think we would all be willing to spare Obama for the effort. He could be a landmine detector, or something.

    • Teddi

      ..I think you are on to something true – let’s send the muzzies to fight the muzzies…

      • truebearing

        It’s their war. Why should Europeans die for a Muslim jihad?

    • Warden

      How did that work out with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan? Oh, it created Bin Laden and Al Queda. How about we stop pretending the world is owned by us, and let the people fight their own wars.

      • truebearing

        Reading comprehension problems, again? Try re-reading my comment. maybe you’ll figure out what I was saying. You’re not even close with that comment. Maybe you have non sequituritis. I hear it is going around, especially among ideologues.

    • JacksonPearson

      Only Congress have the enumerated powers to declare war. The president have no powers whatsoever. The only time the president can use force is if we’re attacked. Otherwise, the president must go to congress and seek their approval to use our military under the War Powers Act. Bush had to use the WPA in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Obama uses our military in Syria without Congressional approval, then he’s wide open for impeachment and could also be charged with war crimes.

  • Jakareh

    If France drags the U.S. into a war in Syria, it’s because Obama is coordinating it with his fellow socialist François Hollande.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    ““If it is proven, France’s position is that there must be a reaction, a reaction that could take the form of a reaction with force,” Fabius told BFM-TV.”

    Uh huh. France wants to play the standard poodle when it barely has the stature of a miniature. There’s only one big dog left, and it has a communist jihadi holding its leash.

  • Banjo12

    Obama’s partiality for the Muslim Brothers is unmistakable despite all the head feints. Does this go back to his Indonesian upbringing or not?