# France leaving Afghanistan - too dangerous



## Cloud Cover (16 Oct 2006)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act. 



Report: France plans to withdraw 200 troops from Afghanistan  
The Associated Press

Published: October 15, 2006


PARIS A French newspaper reported Sunday that France plans to withdraw 200 special forces officers from southeast Afghanistan by early next year.

The Defense Ministry refused to comment on the report in Journal de Dimanche newspaper, which cited unnamed sources "close to the military."

"The decision to withdraw the elite troops was taken at the highest level by the president of the republic and the army chiefs of staff," the report said, adding that another 1,700 French troops that are part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan would not be affected by the decision.

Deployed in southeastern Afghanistan, the French special forces have been involved in the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban and the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

The newspaper suggested the worsening security situation in Afghanistan was a possible reason for the decision to pull the special troops out. Nine elite troops have been killed in combat. 

Meanwhile, France recently committed 2,000 troops to a U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, and the availability of special forces there could prove useful, the report said. France leads the expanded U.N. force that is charged with maintaining the Aug. 14 cease-fire between Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants and Israel after a 34-day-war.

 PARIS A French newspaper reported Sunday that France plans to withdraw 200 special forces officers from southeast Afghanistan by early next year.

The Defense Ministry refused to comment on the report in Journal de Dimanche newspaper, which cited unnamed sources "close to the military."

"The decision to withdraw the elite troops was taken at the highest level by the president of the republic and the army chiefs of staff," the report said, adding that another 1,700 French troops that are part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan would not be affected by the decision.

Deployed in southeastern Afghanistan, the French special forces have been involved in the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban and the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

The newspaper suggested the worsening security situation in Afghanistan was a possible reason for the decision to pull the special troops out. Nine elite troops have been killed in combat.

Meanwhile, France recently committed 2,000 troops to a U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, and the availability of special forces there could prove useful, the report said. France leads the expanded U.N. force that is charged with maintaining the Aug. 14 cease-fire between Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants and Israel after a 34-day-war.


----------



## tlg (16 Oct 2006)

Pulling out special forces units but leaving in regulars. Doesn't that seem to be a bit contrary to the standard French "We surrender" strategery?


----------



## North Star (16 Oct 2006)

The newspaper's assessment makes no sense: if you were concerned about the security situation, you'd pull line troops out as they are more likely to be wounded/killed, and are more prone to media attention. These guys are probably going on standby for the Lebanon committment. Once again, AP trying to mould opinions rather than report facts.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Oct 2006)

Question: what colour is French Blood?

Answer: red, just like ours

That newspaper is SPECULATING (read: trying to create controversy where none exists)

Next...


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Oct 2006)

VG- bet you a pint in the mess that the NDP crowd uses this anyway.


----------



## geo (16 Oct 2006)

Well.... 
Australia just withdrew their 200 some SAS types

based on the total size of their committment to Afghanistan, the withdrawal of their spec forces is not a "biggie"..... or have I missed something here?


----------



## GAP (16 Oct 2006)

A lot of people are ignoring the commitment France made in Lebanon. If the SF are under utilized in Afghanistan and the regular forces can handle the job, move them where they are most effective.


----------



## Synthos (17 Oct 2006)

I think this may be (B.S. or real) a response to the rumors circulating that some french special forces were captured and gutted alive.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Oct 2006)

Maybe not:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/21/america/NA_GEN_US_France_Alliot_Marie.php

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FastEddy (23 Oct 2006)

tlg said:
			
		

> Pulling out special forces units but leaving in regulars. Doesn't that seem to be a bit contrary to the standard French "We surrender" strategery?




My Goodness where would you get such a idea !, considering they have had such a Sterling Record though out History.

Cheers.


----------



## geo (23 Oct 2006)

Eddy....

Many nations have a similar record of "cut & run"
if we're going to hammer them, let's hammer all the nails


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 Oct 2006)

Honest Question:  Is this really any worse than the deals the Brit's have supposedly cut with insurgents in their regions both Afghanistan and Southern Iraq in order to minimize attacks or the Germans in Afghanistan who won't leave the base under any circumstances due to their government's highly restrictive ROE's?


Matthew.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

Does anybody recall how this came about and the repercussions therein? 

Perhaps a brief history lesson is in order. 

France only decided to withdraw its special forces when a group of em were captured and gutted like a deer. These soldiers, BTW, were tortured and mutilated while they were very much alive and perished under extremely agonizing conditions. 

It was the same operation, you may recall, when the Brit Paras were sent to help the French. As I remember, they flew the chinooks a little to close prior to deployment and the entire effort was compromised by the time the first para's boot hit the ground. You will recall it was the Canadian infantrymen who, dispatched, successfully saved em all. 

Moral of the story? 

Go in force, not in small, all to vulnerable groups...! 

Unfortunately, the force does not exist and the consequences are not unexpected.

IMO, this is just another example of lack of commitment. At least France showed up and aggressively waged the battle.... 

And without that committment from the other thirty some odd countries, a serious commitment equal to ours, lets accept the reality of the situation. 

Canadians are just whizzing our blood into the wind.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Eddy....
> 
> Many nations have a similar record of "cut & run"
> if we're going to hammer them, let's hammer all the nails




Yes, that's a fact, we all might have a dark page or two, but some have written the book.

The sad thing is, its always the Line Troops that have to pay for it.

Cheers


----------



## aesop081 (24 Oct 2006)

"France leaving Afghanistan - too dangerous"


 :

"France leaving France - too gutless"


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Oct 2006)

Perhaps one thing is connected with the other.  It's pretty much fruitless to argue past polices.  It seems that the reality is that France is now dealing with an increasingly inimical population concentrated in self-supporting enclaves: enclaves that can quickly become fortresses.  I think all decisions should be viewed with this filter in mind.




> Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union
> By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent
> (Filed: 05/10/2006)
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml

Further, with respect to the French Special Forces - do you think they might have lost a little "professional detachment" as a result of the treatment visited on their comrades?  It wouldn't be the first time that something of the sort happened.   As I have noted elsewhere the Brits in Palestine lost control of their troops for a day or two after a couple of soldiers were lynched.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (24 Oct 2006)

Theres an old Kipling poem about Brit soldiers being shot on the Afghan battlefied of yesteryear taking their own lives before the Afghan women showed up to carve them to pieces. 

Slowly. 

Let me ask you. 

If they captured four Candian soldeirs and horrifically mutilated them, while still alive, what do you think the impact would be here, in Canada. 

And there, in Afghanistan, when the bodies were recovered?


----------



## GAP (24 Oct 2006)

ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> Theres an old Kipling poem about Brit soldiers being shot on the Afghan battlefied of yesteryear taking their own lives before the Afghan women showed up to carve them to pieces.
> 
> Slowly.
> 
> ...



I think you are trying to create controversy where none presently exists. We have enough trolls on these boards without getting into a controversial subject like that and all the comments it will illicit, only to be picked up and used by people who will take the comments totally out of context.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (24 Oct 2006)

What controversy? 

I asked a simple question.

Considering the anti-war sentiment in this country, I would think its a logical question. Not trolling or attempting to stir up controversy, like, WTH is that? 

Were Canadians confronted with the same horror, would we act any different?


----------



## geo (24 Oct 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> "France leaving Afghanistan - too dangerous"
> :
> "France leaving France - too gutless"



Please back up your comment - or retract............


----------



## aesop081 (24 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Please back up your comment - or retract............



I'm sorry...the meaning of my post was lost in the poor positioning of the  : and bad choice of sarcasm mode


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

I find this a non-issue.  So France is bringing 200 of the SF personnel home.  Australia did the same thing only a month ago.  The British have returned their Paras to England and sent in another Battalion.  So what?  It is a non-issue and someone in the Press out to make a furor over his or her Headlines.

Another matter is the lack of other NATO Nations to come up to the plate and send more troops.  Since the Wall came down, and even before, many of those nations have greatly reduced their Armed Forces.   Some nations like Denmark and Norway have small Armed Forces made up primarily of short-term conscripts.  They don't have the manpower to continue to send troops, nor do they have the calibre of troops and equipment that we have.  I could ask you the question:  What NATO nation would you really trust to be at your 'six' when the excrement hits the oscillating fan?  Does that nation already have a large troop presence in Afghanistan?  Before engaging your mouth, engage your brain and look around you.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Oct 2006)

All this hyperbole after a single-source report of the withdrawal of French SF personnel, none of which (AFAIK) has been confirmed anywhere else.  VG pointed this out earlier, but the point's been lost in the prattle.

My experience with the French (which is fairly extensive) is that they're ruthless and effective when acting in support of French _national objectives_ - which may or may not equate to those of their allies.


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> My experience with the French (which is fairly extensive) is that they're ruthless and effective when acting in support of French _national objectives_ - which may or may not equate to those of their allies.



RainBow Warrior...


----------



## aesop081 (24 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find this a non-issue.



Agreed



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> My experience with the French (which is fairly extensive) is that they're ruthless and effective when acting in support of French _national objectives_ - which may or may not equate to those of their allies.



Again, agreed


----------

