France is a country in Europe. (Photo: Dirk Yuricich)

The Americans, who almost always preserve a staid manner and a frigid air, nevertheless frequently allow themselves to be borne away, far beyond the bounds of reason, by a sudden passion or a hasty opinion, and they sometimes gravely commit strange absurdities.
--- Alexis de Tocqueville

All you have to say nowadays is the word "France" and any normally staid American breaks forth in a torrent of bib-dribbling and mind-numbing France-bashing. Within the same week that the federal government proceeded to scare everyone by elevating the terror threat to level "orange," and everyone was "advised" to buy plastic sheets and duct tape in anticipation of an impending terrorist attack, Americans have been attacking France with every spare moment. "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is the more refined phrase bounding around during the week. And that's when people were being polite, mind you.

Americans love to hate the French as reflexively as they love movies with shiny things and explosions in Dolby digital sound. What's brought about the latest row? France's position (along with Germany and Belgium) to avoid an impending US invasion of Iraq. France, a country slowly disappearing into the melting pot that is the European Union, has emerged as a leading opponent of war, going so far as threaten the use of its veto on the UN Security Council authorizing the use of force. Their unwillingness to sanction an invasion right now has touched a raw nerve in the Administration, who want to depict Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein as Darth Sidious to Osama bin Laden's phantom menace: he is the threat that must be dealt with quickly and decisively. (Besides, don't these nations know there's a presidential election campaign to start by the summer?)

Hans Blix's latest report, delivered on 14 February, boosted the French position that inspections needed to continue, much to the chagrin (and thinly disguised apoplexy) of Colin Powell, the leading architect of presenting America's position to the international body. (And good choice, as more Americans believe whatever comes out of the good general's mouth than they do the drawling smirk of Bush.) But American politicians responded the only way they know how: reactionary nonsense based more on their perception than fact. Boldly rushing to prove their mettle, several congressmen wanted trade sanctions against France. Others have taken desperate measures in these desperate times to boycott French wine, or to wage war against an online seller of French cheese.

These trivial stances overlook exactly why France isn't rushing to war. It isn't that they are against the Americans or see Saddam Hussein as a misunderstood individual. It isn't that they are concerned about their current economic ties with Iraq: if that were the central issue, they would have signed on the invasion first because any contracts they have now would be null and void after the fall of Baghdad, and they would lose out on the post-invasion spoils.

And it certainly isn't that they are "cheese eating surrender monkeys." Right now, under the radar of American media outlets, France is involved in a very real war in the Ivory Coast. That former colony was once one of the prized possessions and is now slipping into near anarchy. France recently dispatched another 450 troops there, bringing their armed forces to near 3,000 men. Hardly the action of a nation of cowards.

Lesser minds have tried to prove how untrustworthy the French are, pointing out how many conflicts France has lost. Conclusion: once a loser, always a loser. The litany of losses, however, utterly fails to explain how France ever had an empire, its position of wealth, power and prestige in Europe, not to mention its cultural hegemony. Nations that always lose do not have empires, or provide massive air support over Kosovo before NATO bombing campaigns. Or lead the ground assault attached to the 82nd Airborne Divison during the first Gulf War. Or has their one naval carrier again steaming to the Gulf to participate in joint military maneuvers with the United States.

(And on the subject of loss, does anyone know that France lost well over a million men in the first world war? So that by the time the Nazis rolled around, there was hardly anyone left to defend the country, although several hundred thousand men lost their lives fighting Hitler. But those are historical facts, and facts should never get in the way of good France-bashing.)

The true focus on all this anti-France sentiment is their alleged ingratitude. The New York Post, long a bastion of deep thought, plastered an image of a cemetery at Colleville-sur-mer with a headline that could do nothing more than provoke useless hatred. "We saved their ass!" is the rallying cry of all undereducated Americans who believe that the US single-handedly vanquished every foe at every time and place in the last 200 years. (This after always being intitially reluctant to get involved in foreign affairs.) We feel that France owes us so much, surely backing an invasion isn't asking too much?

That's the state of affairs on media outlets and politicos' sewer mouths. No one has bothered to ask why the French aren't keen on invading. And no one has noted that France doesn't hold the use of force unnecessary: again, witness the deteroriating situation in the Ivory Coast. France might hold American intentions highly suspect, but it isn't as if they wouldn't benefit from "regime change" if they played their cards right. France likes to do things her way because she is France: if that means tweaking the nose of the Americans, so be it. The spirit of de Gaulle (in whom president Jacques Chirac finds a spiritual mentor) is alive and well in Paris.

France is playing a difficult game, though. The breaking of NATO's impasse over military aid to Turkey is certain to show how the country can be isolated and its political position overlooked. (De Gaulle pulled France out of the NATO's military command structure in the 1960s, but it does maintain a presence in the political/diplomatic wing of the alliance.) Any invasion that does not have France on board politically and goes swiftly and "easily" will put it on the blacklist for years to come: the language of American politicians have started incorporating the word "appeasers" to describe the French. Already that's the subtle shift in the chimera-like position of the US Administration, abetted by incessant media clamor that the UN is "becoming divided" and any dissent "threatens NATO's stability." That alone begs the question: if these international bodies are so inherently weak, then everyone should have been more frightened during the days of the Soviet Union. Moreover, if the inspections process simply does not work, as Colin Powell keeps reminding us, the inference is that no inspections process can be really trusted.

France will come on board to any invasion once it appears that its stand has become a political liability. That neither makes its position opportunistic nor crass, but rather pragmatic. But the mind-numbing France bashing that's overtaken everyone is an obscenity of the nation uttering it. These useless criticisms and attacks deliberately ignore France's real contributions to the United States (Lafayette, anyone?) and her solidarity with America after 11 September: we are all Americans.

In returning the favor at a diplomatically tense time, "Je suis la France."