On a recent National Review Online blog post, John J. Miller posted a ridiculous little blurb which basically asserted that the presence of French Muslim insurgents in Iraq is further proof of his contention that France is America’s “Oldest Enemy.” Well as Tom Piatak stated in his reply on the Chronicle’s Weblog, “…these Muslims are as representative of the historic French nation as I am.” Mr. Piatak was also quick to point out the other equally obvious problem with Mr. Miller’s thesis. If the presence of French Muslims in Iraq proves that France is our enemy, then doesn’t the presence of British Muslims prove England is our enemy as well?
But beyond the obvious problems with Mr. Miller’s simplistic blog post, is the issue of America’s relationship to France. Mr. Miller, a reporter for National Review, it seems has written an entire book entitledOur Oldest Enemy: A History of America’s Disastrous Relationship with France. This is neocon historical revisionism of the crudest and most obvious sort. I am not a trained historian, but these are the facts as I understand them. Yes, the Colonist did fight a territorial skirmish against the French in the French and Indian War. But since that time, France has always been an ally. They fought with us in that little conflict we call the Revolutionary War. We fought on their side in WWI and WWII, and I seem to recall that the French played a roll in Vietnam as well. Of course I am obviously biased since I grew up in Fayetteville, Georgia which is named after that sorry French General Lafayette, and I was not taught from neocon approved text books. So, if my facts are in error, I will gladly submit to neocon re-education … err … correction.
The effort to demonize the French obviously stems from their refusal to tow the American line prior to the war in Iraq. But this is one of the fallacies of neocon internationalism. It presumes a congruity of opinion between nations that is not necessarily evident to the other nation involved. Why should France support a policy that it perceives as not in its national interests, any more than the US should support policies that are not in its national interests for the sake of France? Did we not discontinue our military alliance with France after the Revolution because it was not in our national interest to get entangled in Europe’s wars? There are a lot of things about the French not to like, like their disastrous little Revolution, their suicidal immigration policies, their total acceptance with the rest of Europe of post-Christianity, and their refusal to procreate at least at replacement rates. But their unwillingness to subjugate what they perceived as their national interest to the US hegemon is not one of them.
I have a brilliant idea. Why doesn’t the US act in its own national interest, and France can act in its own national interest, and neither should expect the other to do otherwise. Then we will all get along just swell, and Mr. Miller can occupy his time re-inventing some other history.
Ironically, just a few blog entries down from Mr. Miller’s post is a post of a story from the Fayetteville (NC) Observer. That Fayetteville is also named after the afore mentioned French General and Revolutionary War hero, the Marquis de Lafayette. In fact, Gen. Lafayette has more American towns, cities and counties named after him than anyone other than Washington. How have the anti-French jihadists let this travesty continue? In the spirit of freedom fries, shouldn’t we rename Fayetteville, NC Freedomville? Or better yet, how about Rooseveltville or Lincolnville? Those are two warriors all neocons know and love. It just won’t do to have the hometown of Fort Bragg named by a bunch of Francophiles, now will it?
Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”