The Libyan intervention: a hypothesis

So, you may be asking yourselves, WTF? Indeed, in the light of past experiences in Iraq and the current migraine of Afghanistan, WTFF? I propose the following, which - a first for Ockham's Razor - may err on the side of attributing long-term intelligent cunning to officials. The only reason I am persuaded it may be the case is because the French are involved and the Enarques are good at this sort of thing:

• Since the Franco-British Saint-Malo Agreement in December 1998, the only two European powers with the capability, the experience and the will to mount military interventions overseas have been looking for ways to harmonize their armed forces with an eye to joint operations.
• Although the EADS (Airbus) A400M debacle is one of the fruits of the new Entente Cordiale (which predates Saint-Malo), the more recent manifestation was the British decision to go ahead with building the French-designed CVF aircraft carriers without making provision for the aircraft that will fly off them and with the proviso that only one of them will be used by the Royal Navy.
• The deal seems to be that the aircraft carriers will be equipped with the French Rafale M, and that the French will operate the other carrier, something they need to do because the Charles De Gaulle is an embarrassing lemon. The Rafale for CVF trade-off may even be an outright quid pro quo.
• What the Entente Cordialers have needed is a conflict where French and British interests are sufficiently aligned to demonstrate that the whole is stronger than the parts. Libya fits the bill in spades.
• Both governments have shamelessly fellated Colonel Daffy in order to win privileged contracts for their respective oil companies. Those contracts (and commercial and diplomatic relations generally) are in the balance. Both Paris and London came off the fence early and have been very, very anxious to establish good relations with whoever takes over from Daffy.  
• Bombing the crap out of Daffy's Praetorian Guard is likely to win largish brownie points with the successor regime, meanwhile Special Forces are on the ground to try to make sure the winners are not the Islamofascists.

Then there is a sub-hypothesis that it is very much in the US interest that the Franco-Brits should at least assume the role of world policeman in their own back yard, which would explain why The One took a back seat in the negotiations leading up to the UN Resolution while preparing to take out Daffy's air defences so that the Yurrupeans could then go in and do the dirty work.

As I said at the beginning, I feel almost apologetic for suggesting that there has been joined-up thinking in this matter, but contrary to my natural inclination I think there may have been.

Is liberal imperialism OK if the French do it?

EU Observer reports that yesterday French Pres Nicolas Sarkozy told the press in Brussels that UN Security Council resolution 1973 authorising air strikes on Libya has created a new international "responsibility to protect."

Wow. Asked about the situation in Syria, he replied: 

Every ruler should understand, and especially every Arab ruler should understand that the reaction of the international community and of Europe will from this moment on each time be the same: we will be on the side of peaceful protesters who must not be repressed with violence.

In any democracy there can be demonstrations which can turn violent. But no democracy can accept that the army shoots live ammunition at protesters. This is the position of France and it does not change no matter what the country concerned.

Wow again. He rounded it off by saying that Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbago was next on the list of rulers whose armed forces need to be punished.

Leaving aside the pros and cons of the issue, can you even begin to imagine what the Bitchy Boys and the like would be ejaculating about this if either The One or the Boy Wonder had expressed these sentiments?

P.S. In Syria, Basher-al-Assad's Praetorian Guard has massacred protestors. That's A LOT of machine-gunfire. Now - about that "responsibility to protect" . . .

From the EU, without vaseline

Hear anything from the major political parties or the mainstream media about the EU's Financial Transactions Tax? Neither have I - yet here it comes, a French-inspired measure designed to destroy the City as a financial centre for no benefit to themselves other than the joy of harming the nation that thwarted Louis XIV and Napoleon, saved them from defeat in 1917, and did not surrender and suck Nazi cock alongside them in 1940.

England Expects posts a video of Soothscribe Nigel Farage's speech on the subject along with concurring commentaries from some blogs normally hostile to UKIP.

"In the event that the European Parliament vote to support an FTT and the UK implements such a taxation, traders in Geneva, Zurich or other non EU cities will dance the hokey-kokey or an equivalent celebratory dance". But the most exultant party will be among the petty-minded revanche-shits at the Quai d'Orsay.

Quote for today

Jail-bird Conrad Black in NRO on the subject of The One's pronouncement that France was the USA's closest ally:

The French are magnificent in their way, but you have to know what you are dealing with, and I have always thought that you should be a cat-admirer to appreciate them, as they are feline in their elegance, cunning, and total self-absorption. But as allies, unless your interests are exactly aligned, as in World War I, they are hopeless and usually treacherous.

Statism is theft

Question: Why are savings so much lower in aging Europe than in countries with younger demographics?
Answer: because those Europeans who did save money for their old age have had it stolen by their governments to ensure a comfortable retirement for state employees. As Zero Hedge reports:

Financial News explains how France has "seized" €36 billion worth of pension assets: "Asset managers will have the chance to get billions of euros in mandates in the next few months for the €36bn Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites (FRR), the French reserve pension fund, after the French parliament last week passed a law to use its assets to pay off the debts of France’s welfare system. The assets have been transferred into Cades, the state’s social debt sinking fund. The FRR will continue to control the assets, but as a third-party manager on behalf of Cades".

FN condemns the action as follows: "The move reflects a willingness by governments to use long-term assets to fill short-term deficits, including Ireland’s announcement last week that it would use the country’s €24bn National Pensions Reserve Fund “to support the exchequer’s funding programme” and Hungary’s bid to claw $15bn of private pension funds back to the state system." In other words, with the ECB still unwilling to go into full fiat printing overdrive mode, insolvent governments, France most certainly included, are resorting to whatever piggybanks they can find.

 Financial News misses the point - as soon as he got into power in 1997, Brown assaulted the British private pension funds, at that time the best funded in Europe. He did it for purely ideological reasons, with every intention of using the money to privilege and vastly increase the number of state employees.

Statists hate individual autonomy. Their overriding aim at all times is to discourage or drive away those who aspire to a better life, and to expropriate the provident. Whenever they achieve absolute power, they commit genocide with the professed aim of clearing the way for "the new man", a termite-like creature that unthinkingly does what it is told.

Why are the Frogs top of Al-Qaeda's shit list?

On Atlantic Community, Olivier Guitta speculates that French Special Force may have come close to killing Osama bin Laden recently, hence the vehemence of OBL's most recent taped message.

It is a simple and clear equation. As you kill, you will be killed. As you capture, you will be captured. And as you threaten our security, your security will be threatened.

Seems they are obsessed with the Eiffel Tower. Good luck with that - it's latticed and riveted cast iron. 

But the more intriguing part of Guitta's article relates to AQ in the Mahgreb - that's the bit of North Africa that used to be French - and the strong possibility that OBL is looking to motivate the Muslim underclass in France.

The French have done an admirable job of countering threats that have emerged on foreign soil but they may be unaware of homegrown threats to their security. Indeed, with his most recent message, bin Laden may have been trying to reach out to those who have been radicalized in France. It is this threat that may worry French security services most of all.

Unaware? I doubt that. I imagine one in every four or five bainlieu dwellers is on the DGSE payroll.

Entente cordiale

You have to hand it to Cameron and Fox. By (typical of British officialdom) crab-like scuttling into what is a perfectly sensible defence treaty with France, they have managed to make people suspect that there is some kind of sell-out involved and make themselves look like - well - inept and dishonest little shits.

I like the comments of François Heisbourg, a defence expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, as reported in the Washington Post - emphasis added for the benefit of the nationalists out there who share Lord Raglan's view that the enemy is the French no matter who else we may be fighting.

Aside from plans to form a 5,000-member joint expeditionary force, among the most notable cooperative projects in conventional weaponry was a pledge to make the two countries' aircraft carriers compatible for use by each other's warplanes. Such compatibility has been the rule between the U.S. and French navies.

France and Britain also agreed to train their helicopter and transport plane pilots together to save money and to make sure refueling tankers can link up with warplanes from either air force. These have been features of French-German military cooperation for some time.

SDSR - the other shoe drops

The Financial Times (£) reports:

David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy will next week sign a formal defence treaty between Britain and France that ensures a new drive for military co-operation between the two nations cannot be reversed by their successors. As the two leaders prepare for the most important declaration of Franco-British defence co-operation in more than a decade, a deal to co-ordinate deployments of the countries’ aircraft carriers and ground troops looks set to be the centrepiece of their summit in London.

No surprise to anyone who has followed EU Referendum, where Richard North posted a well-earned "You read it here first" yesterday. It is safe to say the carriers will now be equipped with Rafales.

Since it is now confirmed that this was the reason for the absurd decision to go ahead with the carriers while not funding the air groups without which they are useless, why the hell incur the political costs of presenting it back-to-front? I can only assume that, as usual, Brit negotiators were out-maneouvred by their French peers.

Can't blame the Frogs wanting to see the Brit blow up their bridges before committing to a treaty. There is more historical truth behind the sobriquet perfide Albion than Brits like to admit - although I think it more a product of chronic indecisiveness than deliberate deception.