About Andrew Cusack
Writer, web designer, etc.; born in New York; educated in Argentina, Scotland, and South Africa; now based in London. read more
News
Blogs
Reviews & Periodicals
Arts & Design
World
France
Mitteleuropa
Knickerbockers
Argentina
The Levant
Africa
Cape of Good Hope
Netherlands
Scandinavia
Québec
India
Muscovy
Germany
Academica
What was that you were saying about “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”?
Yann Baly writes:
“Regarding the sacrifice of the 10 young French soldiers killed in combat in Afghanistan, we have heard many voices, including those of the families of the young parachutists, saying that they died for nothing.
“Politicians are duty-bound to question the timeliness of our engagement in Afghanistan under NATO command, in a war desired by the United States. We cannot remain silent when France, and French youth have, in the past, paid too heavy a price because of “sacred” unions in wars that diplomacy and sensible politics could have avoided.
“Yesterday, in the majestic courtyard of les Invalides, the French people were able to recall that certain political errors are paid for in blood. It is therefore legitimate to wonder if Jacques Chirac (who was not present yesterday) and Lionel Jospin were right to send the French army into Afghanistan in 2001 and if Nicolas Sarkozy was not wrong to reenforce the contingent with the inadequate means we are all aware of. As Bernard Antony has reminded us, the United States has committed so many errors of foreign policy, so many criminal mistakes in its diplomatic and military actions, that one can doubt the need to be present in Afghanistan. History shows us that economic and oil interests have often been a decisive element in the American involvement in military conflicts. Fight efficiently against terrorism? There too, there are questions to be asked.
“Nonetheless, it is false to say that our young parachutists died for nothing. First of all, the French people have become conscious once again that they had an army. A month and a half after the tragedy in Carcassonne, the blood of these soldiers has washed away the lies, insults and spite, some of it coming from the head of State himself, heaped on the French army. But most of all, in our society where egoism and individualism are the rule, for a people who seem to have forgotten the meaning of sacrifice, their death in combat, at the age of 20 for most of them, is no doubt a sign of an imminent resurrection of the spirit of French resistance. In the current international and national context, this dimension is not insignificant. France, like the rest of the world, is entering into a period of uncertainties and grave risks. To be conscious of that and to prepare for it is not nothing.”
Search
Instagram: @andcusack
Click here for my Instagram photos.Most Recent Posts
- Gellner’s Prague December 19, 2024
- Monsieur Bayrou December 18, 2024
- Dempsey Heiner, Art Critic December 17, 2024
- Vote AR December 16, 2024
- Articles of Note: 12 December 2024 December 12, 2024
Most Recent Comments
Book Wishlist
Monthly Archives
Categories
So we shouldn’t have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11?
I doubt Mr. Baly reads this blog, so I fear he is unlikely to respond.
I think Balay has made himself fairly clear:
“As Bernard Antony has reminded us, the United States has committed so many errors of foreign policy, so many criminal mistakes in its diplomatic and military actions, that one can doubt the need to be present in Afghanistan”
The Elk probably wants to know what Mr. Cusack thinks, as Mr. Cusack saw fit to post the author’s doubts.
I’d be interested in hearing Mr. Cusack’s thoughts on this as well.
wac
Ah, well Mr. Baly does not question whether whether the US should have gone into Afghanistan in 2001, he questions whether France should be there in 2008.
It would have been damned foolish for the US not to have gone into Afghanistan in 2001, but the propriety of that original act does not necessitate that one concur with the many errors made after it.
A fine distinction.
I disagree completely with your assessment of Afghanistan Mr. Cusack. Firstly The US involvement in Afghanistan in 2008 is besides the fact, as Operation Enduring Freedom, the US lead operation in Afghistan ended in 2006. The current Peace Stability Operation is NATO lead since this time. I can attest to this fact as I myself served in afghanistan in Operation Orion, as part of the Canadian contigent from Aug 2006- Mar 2007 which was Canada’s commitment to NATO.
Canada has given nearly 100 lives (93 at the time of this post)in the quest for suporting the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. Is it a government without corruption, of course not. What is the alternative however? Democracy has a price as you know. Most Afghans might not care, as they themselves are struggling just to survive. They should however be given the chance to exist free from tyrany. At the end of the day we soldiers can look back and say that our governments fulfilled their commitment. We gave our word to try and give them a better life. We have honour. That’s what my fellow soldiers died for.
I wasn’t aware that I had given any assessment of Afghanistan.
“It would have been damned foolish for the US not to have gone into Afghanistan in 2001, but the propriety of that original act does not necessitate that one concur with the many errors made after it.”
In your above quote I assume ‘many errors’ is still in reference to the discussion on Afghanistan.
Oh yes, that’s true. Well, do you think the U.S. has made very few errors then?
Capt Chledowski:
Firstly, the US involvement is not besides the fact just because NATO took over in 2008. Whether or not Cusack’s claim of “many errors” being made after the U.S. invasion took place is true, isnt it entirely possible that the errors he referred to took place in the very wide window of operations between 2001 and 2008?
Secondly, all Cusack basically said was that agreement with going into Afghanistan does not necessitate agreement with the way being in Afghanistan was handled. Alright, he didn;t say only that, he also claimed that “many errors” were made during the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Do you “disagree completely” with the claim that errors were made? Or that the errors were “many”? Or do you dispute that there is a difference between supporting the concept of being in Afghanistan and supporting the particular execution of that concept? You say you disagree completely, and then don’t bother to tell us what it is you disagree with!
Thirdly, political errors are — by their very nature — the fault of politicians, not of soldiers, and no one here questioned the honour of the troops.
Mr Harrington;
I believe I made it clear that I disagree with Mr Cusack’s assessment that France’s involvement with the NATO lead presence in Afghanistan is one of America’s many errors.
So whither or not the US has made ‘many errors’ or a ‘few errors’ since the 2001 Operation I believe is erroneous in regards to the current French deaths.
I will not however presume to put words in his mouth so if I have misquoted Andrew I would like him to correct me on that fact.
In regards to your Third point, you label the current NATO involvement in Afghanistan as a political error. I disagree. Our country made a commitment and our soldiers are fulfilling this commitment. In my own country’s case, if Canada’s word were only good during times which were easy or convenient, I would suggest to you that we would never had made it through previous conflicts as in WWII when our soldiers died on the French beach at Dunkirk in 1940. Was that war a ‘political error’ because soldier’s died? We can say no, of course not because we have the good pleasure to look back and see the outcome of WWII. At the time of the battle however, this outcome was far from certain.
It would seem that we are all talking past each other.
I will consider the Good Captain’s most recent remarks first. You believe you made it clear that you disagree with “[my] assessment that France’s involvement with the NATO-lead presence in Afghanistan is one of America’s many errors”.
Well, I am afraid that I never made any assessment of France’s involvement. I merely stated a supposition on Mr. Baly’s thoughts:
Ah, well Mr. Baly does not question whether whether the US should have gone into Afghanistan in 2001, he questions whether France should be there in 2008.
And then mentioned my own thoughts on US presence, not mentioning that of France at all:
It would have been damned foolish for the US not to have gone into Afghanistan in 2001, but the propriety of that original act does not necessitate that one concur with the many errors made after it.
So it would seem you have accidentally misinterpreted my original remarks, and that both Robert and I have misinterpreted your remarks because they were based on a faulty interpretation of mine.
As for Robert’s remarks, he will have to speak for himself, but rereading them I find that nowhere has he “labelled the current NATO involvement in Afghanistan as a political error” as the Good Captain has claimed.
2001-2008 is indeed a fair amount of time under U.S. responsibility and it was my simple contention that the U.S. government made a number of decisions with regard to the administration of Afghanistan that were faulty ones, and that these were indeed political decisions not ostensibly related to the military situation (though of course everything is interconnected to an extent).
I will endeavour to be more clear in the future, or to hold my tongue.
Andrew;
Please do not hold your tongue. I believe everyone involved has enjoyed the dialogue:)
On my last point I knew I would be tagged with presupposing Robert’s intention by stating that Afghanistan was a Political error. I wanted however to see where he would go with it.