Comments on: An Iron Hand in a Velvet Glove: Reclaiming the French art of Statecraft

By: Jonathan Miller

Jonathan Miller — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:57:49 +0000

Maybe I am wrong and you are right. Time will tell. You offer a very courageous analysis and it is interesting to hear your high opinion of the French despite their apparent inability to support the logistics of their operation nor can it be at all clear that the rebels have entirely disappeared. The very high French casualties in Afghanistan were very disappointing and it is by no means always the case that the short-term popularity bought by Mr Hollande will endure, if the operation continues and it becomes unclear if the war in the south will ever end. One might argue that Hollande (eagerly cheered on, from the sidelines, by Cameron) is hardly the leader anyone would chose to lead us into a wider war in the sahel, although I suppose one could ask, what could possibly go wrong?

By: An Iron Hand in a Velvet Glove: Reclaiming the French art of Statecraft | Olivier Schmitt

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:55:34 +0000

[...] I posted a Kings of War a short analysis of the French intervention in Mali. You can read it here. [...]

By: Euroasiasecurityforum.com

Euroasiasecurityforum.com — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:35:59 +0000

“What must be noted is the little rhetorical emphasis Paris put on the European Union’s role in this affair: this would have been unthinkable in 2005-2006 when any French initiative had to be disguised under an EU framework”
Ironic isn’t it? All the more so when we hear that the UK boots on the ground in Mali are expected to be flying the flag of an EU Crisis Management Mission, despite all the talk of UK’s (former?) resistance to EU Common Security & Defence Policy.

By: L.Midavaine

L.Midavaine — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:39:40 +0000

I’d say the article is a good and fair summary of things, at least as far as the French and European position go.

However please note that in France the political opposition, while supportive of the action, made the claim that French “isolation” in Mali was a result of her “abandoning allies” in Afghanistan. My personal take is that it is a ridiculous statement, the isolation argument is weird and non-factual, our exit in Afghanistan is debatable.

The point you mention about the UK and Denmark being the first to offer a small but useful contribution is interesting. As a French citizen, I came to a somewhat similar conclusion: when it comes to the military action proper, Atlantic (& “Atlantist”) countries -often presented as antagonist to a “real” European defense- seems to be more reliable allies for France.

Like the above poster, though, maybe the “short sighted Algeria” needs to be explained further on. Is it because it has a rather strict “no force projection” policy?

By: Mihail

Mihail — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:14:52 +0000

Hi,
I haven’t finished reading the article but I’d like to say that I don’t think your description of Algeria as “incredibly short-sighted” is right. Now, there is the caveat that I’m not sure what you’re saying Algeria is short-sighted about, but if I recall correctly, the Algerians were very skeptical of the West’s deposition of Gaddafi, saying that it would lead to great regional instability. Their fears appear to have been borne out, with Tuareg fighters from Libya returning to Mali and stirring up shit there, what went down at the gas facility in Algeria itself, etc. Correct me if I’m missing something.

Now I’ll get back to the article, which I’m enjoying, especially your (needed) observation of how journos and scholars jump the gun and call “neo-colonialism” when it’s not, and they’re just being lazy.