Go Lance!

Give the French another reason…

by Heidi Parent
07/16/04

I know nothing about the Tour de France. Strike that. I know next to nothing about the Tour de France. I do know that it’s a bicycle endurance race through France that goes for about a gajillion miles and lasts a few weeks shy of a year. (Actually it’s 2,110 miles broken down in 20 stages, but I looked that up.) I also know that American Lance Armstrong wins it every year. Or at least he’s won it the last five years. And that has the French pretty cheesed off, which is all I need to know to know that I’m pulling for Lance to win number six.

But the threat of yet another Lance victory has caused the French to make changes to both the course and the rules that play against Armstrong’s strengths. For example, apparently Lance does really well in the time trials, which allows him to build up a buffer against the rest of the field that he is able to use to his advantage for the remainder of the race. But a rule change this year says that even the slowest riders will not lose more than 3 minutes to the winner. Huh? You mean someone could fall down and push his bike the rest of the way and still finish just three minutes behind the winner? How is that fair? Of course it’s not, it’s just another example of the French opposing any American victory, which of course, also includes the war in Iraq.

From the very beginning it was clear France was intent on blocking American success in Iraq. Well, let me correct that. It wasn’t clear in the very beginning, because in the very beginning French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin apparently told Secretary of State Colin Powell in private that France would support military action. But when it came to a public UN vote, they reneged.

It was all down hill after that.

France continued to oppose the U.S. at every turn leading up to the war in Iraq. They even vetoed a U.S. request that NATO provide military assistance to Turkey if that country were to be invaded by Saddam’s forces.

And even today, sixteen months into the war and with Iraq’s government calling the shots, France refuses to play. NATO plans to send troops to assist with training Iraqi soldiers, but France won’t participate. “It is out of the question. There will be no French soldiers in Iraq, not now and not later,” France’s foreign minister huffed.

Now one could point to two things – the exposure of French President Jacques Chirac’s close relationship with Saddam Hussein and France’s role in the UN Oil for Food scandal – to explain the actions of the French. That is if their obstruction was limited to only Iraq. But Chirac has also blocked a NATO military strike force from assisting with elections in Afghanistan. So his actions toward both countries make it clear that he would rather spite President Bush than help Iraq and Afghanistan transition to peaceful, free nations. But in doing so, he is allowing innocent civilians to die at the hands of terrorists.

Now, with all of this in mind one would think that a U.S. Presidential candidate would criticize a country that acts this way. Yeah, one would think. But John Kerry doesn’t agree. In his mind, France and other UN countries should have a larger say in how the U.S. defends herself, capitulating our security to their wishes. His talk of "multilateralism" and bringing the "international community" on board simply means he would change the direction of our foreign policy from one that brings the war to the terrorists and the regimes who support them - even if it means going it alone if our allies refuse to help - to one of internationalism – deploying our troops only at the directive of the United Nations. This certainly would gain him popularity with world leaders, particularly in Europe, but it will not make our country safer.

Moreover, it’s worth noting that throughout history, particularly in our more recent history, the American leaders who were most popular overseas have seldom been the ones most respected by Americans. Carter and even Nixon were popular in Europe, but not so back home. While Reagan, who was very popular at home, was vilified by the Europeans. Now ask yourself, of those three, who had the more successful foreign policy? And whose foreign policy can be compared to that being employed by President Bush? It seems to me that President Bush has history on his side.

But this fact won’t change Chirac’s attitude because he hates President Bush and only sees victory in an American failure. So that’s why I hope Lance wins and wins big. It would be great if these rule changes, enacted to stop him, actually inspire him to win by his largest margin yet. That would be quite an American thing to do. And it would give the French just one more reason to detest us.