We Broke It, Umm...France Bought It!

Robert "Birthday Suit" Blackwill had a rather odd op-ed in the WaPo's Outlook section on Sunday that I think isn't getting nearly the attention in the blogosphere that it deserves.  In it, Blackwill -- in the throes of some painful transatlantic soul-searching -- asserts that:

Their Cartesian upbringing makes the French understand the consequences for France of an American defeat in Iraq. They know that it would give a profound boost to Islamic terrorism everywhere, including in France. It would destabilize Iraq and could lead to a fracturing of that country -- even to civil war. It would introduce another acutely destabilizing element in an already wobbly Middle East region. And it could lead to prolonged U.S. retrenchment as we sought the reasons for our catastrophic failure. In their minds and public statements, the French declare genuinely that Iraq must not fall to Islamic extremism.

Then he goes on to tell us that they hate Bush, too, and so are conflicted about what to wish for in Iraq, since the choice seems to be between Bush and Iraq failing and Bush and Iraq succeeding.  But let me put my Henry Kissinger, "international relations is amoral" hat on here for a second:

France shouldn't give much of a crap what happens in Iraq, and they sure as hell shouldn't send troops to fight.

Right, right, I know, there's the whole bit about Western Civilization, and common values...I get it.  But from a national interest standpoint, why should France care what happens?  Or, put more directly, would the benefits of French intervention in the Middle East outweigh the costs?

Yes, there's likely a point at which France would have an interest.  If Iraq got so bad that it became a hotbed of terrorism that stood to affect France directly either through attacks against France, or economic shocks transmitted from attacks against the U.S., then France would indeed have a stake in piling on and trying to bail out the U.S.  But as things stand now, what does France have to gain versus what it stands to lose?

They have a large, unintegrated Muslim minority that has, as yet, put up with the headscarf silliness and a growing perception that the West and Islam are at war.  There have not been large scale terror attacks in France by Islamic terrorists(not being a member of the Coalition of the Willing).  And why, again, would an American withdrawal/defeat in Iraq embolden Muslim terrorists in France?  Isn't it quite more likely that if France sent troops to Iraq, it would become a target like Spain was?  I mean, jeez, even some of the nuttiest extremists have said that French citizens are out of bounds for attacks because of their opposition to the war.  Bin Laden, for his part, put things thus:

Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have proud souls, like the souls of the 19 people [killed while perpetrating the 11 September 2001 attacks], may God have mercy on them.

We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. Just as you waste our security, we will waste your security.

Bin Laden is becoming increasingly clear about the why and wherefore.  If I were French, I think I'd be quite content to let this fight pass me by and see how things shake out on the other side.

(Cross-posted at my place.)