More Middle East French Deceit

[Atlas]

Debka.com is an Israeli based website exposing the political intrigues of the middle east. It claims links to intelligence centers around the world and I don't doubt them. There is much original reporting here. The bias is plain but does not spare anyone whose actions affect the drama.

Here is an example. I think it shows more French duplicity. It weaves the seemingly independent threads credibly. And gives good motives for the attempted deceit.

Article

Had they brought it off, they would have delivered to Chirac four impressive objectives in his dispute with Bush over Iraq.

 

[Megalodon]

From the link:

Had they brought it off, they would have delivered to Chirac four impressive objectives in his dispute with Bush over Iraq.

A. France would have shown the world it can outdo the Americans and the Allawi government in settling crises in Iraq by negotiating with insurgents instead of waging bloody war against them. This demonstration was intended to discredit Bush’s Iraq policies and hurt his re-election prospects.

The italians have already done that with the negotiaton of the release of the two hostages.

B. Paris would not only have granted the Iraqi Baath guerrillas and their al Qaeda allies recognition as legitimate negotiating partners but also granted legitimacy to the illicit Syria-Iraq-Syria smuggling routes bringing men and arms to bolster the anti-US warfront in Iraq.

Explain why negotiating the release of hostages would legitimise the kidnappers. Please explain why the italian negotiations didn't have this effect.

C. The purported transfer of the French hostages across the Iraqi-Syrian border was timed to coincide with the most promising US-Iraqi initiative thus far to co-opt Syria to a joint military effort for sealing that border to illegal and hostile infiltrations. This setback to Washington’s plans would have seriously delayed the final offensive to recover Fallujah from insurgent-terrorist control.

What has one thing to do with the other? how could the transfer of hostages have setback an offensive in Fallujah?

D. It would also have delivered a setback to US-Syrian relations as a whole, showing up factions of Syrian military intelligence as more than willing to pitch in on any anti-American actions. Washington would have had to accept that any deal with Damascus was full of dangerous holes.

I would think that, if factions of Syrian military intelligence are more than willing to pitch in on any anti-American actions, then any deal with Damascus would be full of dangerous holes. Anyone that would demonstrate that would actually be doing a favour to the US.

As for your source, I would say that phrases like...

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources...

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources...

The story behind this tale is revealed here by DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources.

...without naming even which military they are talking about, leaves a lot to be said credibility wise.

It seems at first glance as a propaganda site. The article you linked had all the ingredients of a conspiracy theory.

As for your own statements:

It claims links to intelligence centers around the world and I don't doubt them.

Why don't you doubt them? Will you believe anyone who says he's privy to military intelligence?

I think it shows more French duplicity

Could you expand on this point?

It weaves the seemingly independent threads credibly

And on this one, also?

And gives good motives for the attempted deceit

Could you post them?

 

[Kerberos]

Debka.com is an Israeli based website exposing the political intrigues of the middle east. It claims links to intelligence centers around the world and I don't doubt them. There is much original reporting here. The bias is plain but does not spare anyone whose actions affect the drama.

Here is an example. I think it shows more French duplicity. It weaves the seemingly independent threads credibly. And gives good motives for the attempted deceit.

Article

Can you give any reason whatsoever we should believe this?

 

[Atlas]

Hey Meg,

The article speaks for itself... Debka is a respected site and is widely read. It's difficult to get Military/Intelligence sources to speak on the record... sometimes they do.

This is the type of treatment they give all political leaders. Bush is often a good guy... Sharon is often a good guy... but not always. They do try to get beneath the surface. Reports on Arafat are seldom if ever good but then he's trying to destroy Israel.

The French do not seem to be an American Ally in the whole Iraq Invasion story. They have tried to disrupt and subvert American action. The Oil for Food scandal shows their duplicity. This story shows more. That is, for some reason, the French are going behind America's back. Here is a second example of it.

It's not unreasonable that they are trying to show up the Americans and even make it harder for them in Iraq. The are trying to enhance their prestige as Middle East power brokers with alot more savvy than the Americans.

Ok, that's my bias. The article and the oil for food scandal as well as the 14 nation tour of the french foreign minister trying to kill America's assembly of a coalition in the runup to the war show it to me anyway.

If you want to believe the French are the good guys and are working quietly hand in glove with the Americans for the good of all against the terrorists I'll read your articles.

I think your point about the Italians was valid. I don't know if they were operating without US knowledge. Most everything else will be interpreted by the reader as either propaganda or insight based on your internal skeptic alert and bias.

My bias is that I am, and have been for awhile, deeply suspicious of the motives of the French. They are a declining world power and are declining in prestige in among the EU nations. Chirac is a grandstander and this does not surprise me that he would direct something like this... I expect it of him.

The article reports his methods and the people he has chosen to work the angles. It provides analysis. Take it as you will.

 

[Atlas]

Re: Re: More Middle East French Deceit

Can you give any reason whatsoever we should believe this?

The events certainly happened....

Initially the French government and US military officials denied knowledge of this incident. However, on October 2, French foreign minister Michel Barnier criticized “unofficial negotiators” led by Julia for frustrating government efforts to gain the two hostages’ release.

So whether you accept their analysis is your privilege as a skeptic.

 

[Megalodon]

Hey Meg,

The article speaks for itself... Debka is a respected site and is widely read. It's difficult to get Military/Intelligence sources to speak on the record... sometimes they do.

The National Enquirer is also widely read... as for the military, notice that they don't even say which country they belong to.

This is the type of treatment they give all political leaders. Bush is often a good guy... Sharon is often a good guy... but not always. They do try to get beneath the surface. Reports on Arafat are seldom if ever good but then he's trying to destroy Israel.

You had already said that the site was biased. Why should that add anything to its credibility?

The French do not seem to be an American Ally in the whole Iraq Invasion story.

Last I heard, they were never an ally of the US in the Iraq invasion.

They have tried to disrupt and subvert American action.

If you mean veto a resolution for a war advocated under false pretenses, then yes they have... BTW, they were right.

The Oil for Food scandal shows their duplicity. This story shows more.

This story shows nothing.

It's not unreasonable that they are trying to show up the Americans and even make it harder for them in Iraq.

Where, in the scarce facts presented in the article does it show this? The story talks about an attempt of France to negotiate the release of french nationals. That they didn't ask help of the US is not surprising, since the US as been able to FUBAR the situation in a lot of different ways.

The are trying to enhance their prestige as Middle East power brokers with alot more savvy than the Americans.

Anyone whose politics doesn't boil down to bombing the hell out of "them" is a more savy power broker than the US. Maybe not more influent, but that's a whole different story.

Ok, that's my bias. The article and the oil for food scandal as well as the 14 nation tour of the french foreign minister trying to kill America's assembly of a coalition in the runup to the war show it to me anyway.

Yeah, that tour to try to avoid an illegal war based on faulty inteligence... The nerve of the guy.

If you want to believe the French are the good guys and are working quietly hand in glove with the Americans for the good of all against the terrorists I'll read your articles.

I don't believe anything, Atlas. I'm faced with facts and try to analyse them as rationaly as possible. France is no the good guy, but then, no nation is. However, the US are not working for the good of all. They are not in Iraq to fight the terrorists; they are fighting terrorists because they are in Iraq.

I think your point about the Italians was valid. I don't know if they were operating without US knowledge. Most everything else will be interpreted by the reader as either propaganda or insight based on your internal skeptic alert and bias.

No, you are wrong. It will be interpreted dependent of the facts presented. They extrapolate an anti-US conspiracy out of an episode similar to the one conducted by Italy. That shows the bias and dismisses the speculation, until evidence emerges to support it.

My bias is that I am, and have been for awhile, deeply suspicious of the motives of the French. They are a declining world power and are declining in prestige in among the EU nations. Chirac is a grandstander and this does not surprise me that he would direct something like this... I expect it of him.

So you agree with the article because you would agree with anything that would shed a negative light on France (or the French, I can't see from your post with whom you have a problem with, if the nation or the people).

That says much more about you than it says about the target of that propaganda piece.

The article reports his methods and the people he has chosen to work the angles. It provides analysis. Take it as you will.

The article reports very little, based on unnamed "military intelligence sources". It provides wild speculations with a very little base on the few "facts" reported.

I'll pass, thank you very much...

 

[Megalodon]

BTW, are you going to answer any of my questions soon?

 

[epepke]

The French do not seem to be an American Ally in the whole Iraq Invasion story. They have tried to disrupt and subvert American action. The Oil for Food scandal shows their duplicity. This story shows more. That is, for some reason, the French are going behind America's back. Here is a second example of it.

Has France ever really been an ally of the US since the end of WWII? Apart from getting us involved in Vietnam, of course. From the 1950s through the 1980s, France played the US and the USSR against each other. France has always had a policy of arms deals that make US policies seem like prohibition by comparison. Largely any feeling of alliance with France to be based on the idea that, well, it's in Western Europe so you might as well get used to it.

 

[Drooper]

Has France ever really been an ally of the US since the end of WWII? Apart from getting us involved in Vietnam, of course.

Actually, that was the Americans helping out the French and getting eventually handed the whole Indo Chinese mess. Ever read Graham Greene?

Oh how the Elysee Palace rocked with mirth that night.

 

[Atlas]

It provides wild speculations with a very little base on the few "facts" reported.

They do report facts. I quite enjoy their speculation. I don't buy it all. It is "informed" analysis as good as any news source. Maybe you watch CBS, I don't know.

I read alot of their stuff. Some of it strikes home more than some other. As I said, this sounds to me like what Chirac would do if he could... since it does not surprise and there are actions and names presented...

1. He formed a special panel at the Elysee Palace of French intelligence officers and diplomatic advisers with good connections in Arab countries, such as the former UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who is well remembered in Washington for his contribution to the 1993 American military debacle in Somalia and the 1995 disruptions he staged in Bosnia with French intelligence.

A second panel went up in the French foreign ministry.

Both panels were mandated to explore every channel and connection for securing the two journalists’ release with the exception of American officials in Washington or Baghdad and circles identified with the Iyad Allawi government. (emphasis in original)

2. On August 31, Chirac flew to the Black Sea resort of Sochi to bid for help from Russian president Vladimir Putin and visiting German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. He left empty-handed. Nonetheless, he never once appealed to the US president, or turned to American diplomats, military or intelligence for assistance.

3. The French government tried broadcasting an appeal for help throughout its extensive web of connections in Arab countries, Iran and the extremist Muslim world, including the Hizballah terrorist group. When this appeal failed to bring any response, Paris established a semi-official forward rescue command in Damascus hoping to reach the hostage-takers through Syrian military intelligence’s close links with the Baath guerrilla officers and al Qaeda operatives organizing the clandestine transfer of fighters and arms into Iraq.

This command was staffed by Didier Julia, Philippe Brett and Philippe Evanno.

They got as far as buying the release of the two Frenchmen with a hefty payout to a Baath guerrilla group fighting in Fallujah. According to our sources, the deal was a package that also covered running the men out to Syria through one of the guerrillas’ smuggling routes.

I take it at face value. The analysis behind it is speculation. I like it. We all make assessments of the "facts" - I like their take.

BTW, are you going to answer any of my questions soon?

Doubtful. You are asking about their analysis. We agree it is speculation, I consider it informed opinion. But there is little I can add. Rather than apologize, I'll let the article stand for what it is.

I have a speculation thread on the Iraq invasion running here. What's right for the world?

I find that this type of psychological inquiry as revealing as "facts". Most historical accounts flesh out the "facts" by giving insight into the decision maker's thinking. Time will tell if the Debka analysis is true.

My "What's right for the world?" thread concerns our analysis. It's a little different than most but if you wouldn't mind posting your own introspections, please do. We obviously assess these events through different filters, different values. The inquiry into why is fascinating to me.

 

[epepke]

Actually, that was the Americans helping out the French and getting eventually handed the whole Indo Chinese mess.

Yeah. Helping out is what allies do. The whole mess was the Cement Pie in the Face.

We should have learned after Korea, probably, to expect this sort of thing from France.