Why is US foreign policy different from that of France? (Read comments)?

Question

France was involved in, and lost two foreign wars after WW2: Algeria War of Independence from1954-1962, and First Indochina (Vietnam) War from 1946-1954.

So far, we lost in Vietnam (1964-1973, and it sure looks like we are losing in Iraq. Tell me how this time, things will be different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War_of_Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War

Carl von Clausewitz posited that "War is merely a continuation of politics."

Answer 1

It's not clear what your actual question is. I'll therefore take a shot at the bolded question ... why US and French foreign policy are different.

One observation, it has been said that wars are due to the failure of politics. In essence this means that you maybe should reconsider equating wars with foreign policy (FP). While FP may lead to war it is rarely the objective.

It is also worth noting what foreign policy is, simplistically, a country's policy vis-a-vis other countries. This policy will be influenced by both internal and external factors and therefore change with the times and with the philosophy of the government in power. It is therefore not surprising that different countries will have differing foreign policies. For example the policy of the US -- as the world's only superpower -- will inevitably be different than a smaller, less poweful / influential country. In general foreign policy is intended to further the objectives of the country setting that policy and therefore can be expected to be contrary to the interests of some other countries. In other words "if I win you loose", therefore, the other country's FP may be quite different.

To pick up on the current US emphasis on fighting terrorism. This is seen as a security issue and US actions emphasize things that are believed to decrease foreign threats and improve security of US citizens and, to a secondary degree, those in allied countries. Other countries can be expected to agree to varying degrees.

Of course, FP is a complex web of more or less incompatible elements. So promoting one objective can actually work against others. For example, the US has for years supported Saudi Arabia because this ensured oil for US cars, etc. However, this has meant ignoring human rights and other abuses within Saudi Arabia that would be unacceptable in the US. This is an example of the dillema posed by supporting totalitarian regimes (in this case the House of Saud) because it furthers US interests. Another would be sending suspected terrorists to Syria in the full knowledge that they will be tortured because this is unacceptable under US law ... although President Bush is trying to argue that it shouldn't be.

Finally on your question re how things will be different in Iraq vs Vietnam. They won't. Irrespective of discussing the need to invade Iraq in the first place, the US has unfortunately prosecuted the war in about as stupid a manner as it could do, so that the latest analysis concluded the US has increased the risk of terrorism rather than decreased it. Unfortunately, neither the US nor the Islamic fundamentalist can now afford to back down since to do do so would be admitting defeat by the other.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

Vietnam was a political war, now we have fallen into the trap of fighting a religious war, in the name of peace, for the control of the resource that makes it all worthwhile (to those that don't have to fight), oil.
If we can't manage to install a permanent puppet government in Iraq (as we had in Iran with the Shaw pre 1979) we won't be able to control the world's oil & gas markets, the Soviets as the next biggest suppliers will.
It will be different in that if we try to subjugate the entire Middle East as currently planned other alliances will come into play and we could find ourselves losing to a big player this time.

Answer 3

This administration has learned NOTHING from History...it is the most arrogant bunch I have ever seen...the President listens to no one, lies at every turn, runs our national debt to astronomical heights, and smiles through his teeth. He has no regard for our service men, short changes them on equipment, and tells us we are winning the war????? I have no idea what news programs and advisers he listens to, but he needs to change channels. Good luck

Answer 4

you lost Korea also, and Cuba
America is an isolationist country with delusions of grandeur and and manifest destiny, consequently you invade for ideological reasons , which have nothing to do with reality and get your bums smacked as in Iraq

you wont learn ever

Answer 5

Geography is the mother of history.

Answer 6

It doesn't matter who wins or loses, it's how you fight the war.