Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
One French Soldier’s Opinion of American Troops
French military prowess is often mocked, especially by American hawks such as myself. It’s fun to ridicule the “cheese-eating surrender monkey” stereotype, but quite unfair to judge Gallic martial history on their quick collapse in the Second World War. All in all, the Frogs have a decent track record in eliminating baddies.
This stereotype is also a reaction to the knee-jerk disdain the French show for U.S. culture and policy. It’s nothing personal, America; the French hold everyone in contempt.
Being deployed with the American soldier changes one’s perspective. A French ISAF fighter was stationed with U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Wes O’Donnell, founder of WarriorLodge.com translated the remarks which were originally printed as a French editorial:
They have a terribly strong American accent – from our point of view the language they speak is not even English. How many times did I have to write down what I wanted to say rather than waste precious minutes trying various pronunciations of a seemingly common word? Whatever State they are from, no two accents are alike and they even admit that in some crisis situations they have difficulties understanding each other. Heavily built, fed at the earliest age with Gatorade, proteins and creatine – they are all heads and shoulders taller than us and their muscles remind us of Rambo. Our frames are amusingly skinny to them – we are wimps, even the strongest of us – and because of that they often mistake us for Afghans.
And they are impressive warriors! We have not come across bad ones, as strange at it may seem to you when you know how critical French people can be. Even if some of them are a bit on the heavy side, all of them provide us everyday with lessons in infantry know-how. Beyond the wearing of a combat kit that never seem to discomfort them (helmet strap, helmet, combat goggles, rifles etc.) the long hours of watch at the outpost never seem to annoy them in the slightest. On the one square meter wooden tower above the perimeter wall they stand the five consecutive hours in full battle rattle and night vision goggles on top, their sight unmoving in the directions of likely danger. No distractions, no pauses, they are like statues nights and days. At night, all movements are performed in the dark – only a handful of subdued red lights indicate the occasional presence of a soldier on the move. Same with the vehicles whose lights are covered – everything happens in pitch dark even filling the fuel tanks with the Japy pump. Here we discover America as it is often depicted: their values are taken to their paroxysm, often amplified by promiscuity and the loneliness of this outpost in the middle of that Afghan valley.
And combat? If you have seen Rambo you have seen it all – always coming to the rescue when one of our teams gets in trouble, and always in the shortest delay. That is one of their tricks: they switch from T-shirt and sandals to combat ready in three minutes. Arriving in contact with the enemy, the way they fight is simple and disconcerting: they just charge! They disembark and assault in stride, they bomb first and ask questions later – which cuts any pussyfooting short.Honor, motherland – everything here reminds of that: the American flag floating in the wind above the outpost, just like the one on the post parcels. Even if recruits often originate from the hearth of American cities and gang territory, no one here has any goal other than to hold high and proud the star spangled banner.
O’Donnell weighs in with his perspective as an American warrior:
Anyone with a passing knowledge of Kipling knows the lines from Chant Pagan: ‘If your officer’s dead and the sergeants look white/remember it’s ruin to run from a fight./ So take open order, lie down, sit tight/ And wait for supports like a soldier./ This, in fact, is the basic philosophy of both British and Continental soldiers. ‘In the absence of orders, take a defensive position.’ Indeed, virtually every army in the world. The American soldier and Marine, however, are imbued from early in their training with the ethos: In the Absence of Orders: Attack! Where other forces, for good or ill, will wait for precise orders and plans to respond to an attack or any other ‘incident’, the American force will simply go, counting on firepower and SOP to carry the day.
This is one of the great strengths of the American force in combat and it is something that even our closest allies, such as the Brits and Aussies (that latter being closer by the way) find repeatedly surprising. No wonder is surprises the hell out of our enemies.)
I want to keep quoting the piece, but I’ve probably quoted too much. Visit Warrior Lodge to read the whole thing. But to naysayers who insist America’s best days are behind it, I’ll quote O’Donnell’s closing line: “This is ‘The Greatest Generation’ of soldiers. They may never be equalled.”
Published in General
France’s most unequivocally badass military organization is composed entirely of foreign nationals.
Coincidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETdZFwUUJMQ
Having been a Marine in the jungle, I might say that this is the greatest generation of soldiers, but it isn’t because they are better Marines than we, or those before us, were. They just have better gear to do what we all did.
What a beautiful bit. I love soldiers, anyone in uniform. France is well known for literature and language. this is, yet another, wonderful piece. thank you for sharing.
Reading such appraisals of our military makes me all the more depressed regarding our policies and policy makers. You can have the finest warriors, best equipment, and win every tactical engagement and have it all be for not with the wrong policies.
In the Revolution or Civil War the poorly trained soldiers may have often run and during WWII the troops may have been given inferior equipment relative to the Germans but we had effective policies.
A less effective fighting force can still obtain the right results with the right policy, I fear that even a superbly effective fighting force cannot obtain good strategic outcomes when faced with the chains of poor policies.
Reminds me I haven’t sent a care package in a while. It’s too late to have it there by Christmas, but maybe by Epiphany…
This is what’s turning me into an isolationist. Not that the US doesn’t have a place in the world. Not that the world doesn’t need a policeman or that that role should be filled by the US.
But because sending US troops into harm’s way is not something that should be done half-a$$ed by feckless politicians consumed by concern for the next election and their legacy. Or just as bad completely out of touch with reality and thinking it will be possible to, for example, turn Iraq into a Jeffersonian democracy.
What he describes there, however, is the reason the French don’t like Americans. These qualities are the sort of things the average European (or average American Leftist) finds unappealing.
I really enjoyed this post Jon – thanks. I am an old guy and never served in the military but am happy and proud to read that quote. God bless our soldiers.
As for the French military (and I dare not compare them to our military) I worked in Central Africa (Chad, CAR, Cameroon) in the 80’s/90’s and was always happy to see their presence there – especially when Khadaffi would mess with the Chadians and during the 1990 coup in Chad when our oil field camps and seismic operations were overrun by Idriss Deby and his troops. They were professional, courteous, and kept us safe. It was also nice to know they were close-by in the Congo when working in Angola in the 90’s and 00’s.
That’s something!
I just saw the same piece via Twitter. On reading it my Id was thrilled and proud. My ego believed it. Then my superego reminded me that we’re still losing the wars.
Also, that piece is a nice reminder that the French are alright. They really are.
That’s a misreading, I think: The author was obviously full of admiration, and I think that’s what the French do like about us.
I’d imagine it’s due in part to having an all-volunteer army.
In WWII you had mass mobilization on all sides, the bulk of the armies were made up of men who were drafted or had just volunteered, got a few weeks of basic training and then were shipped off to the front lines. Only the elite units actually got extensive training, and probably also had more of the veterans who had already been in the army before the war began.
Do you also love those of us who once wore the uniform? BTW, your avatar rocks!
I read it the same as Miss Claire. More like admiration with a touch of envy. No, they find it very appealing. Not to go all don’t ask don’t tell probably even a little bit sexy. You know how the French are about these things.
The author is full of admiration, I agree. My point was that the average European would view these same qualities with disdain.
Claire #11 – We aren’t losing wars because of how the troops are fighting. And sometimes (?often) we aren’t losing them at all but the Left is just claiming we are losing. It’s what happened in Vietnam, as is now becoming slowly but more fully understood. I expect when we have time to look more closely it will be the case in Iraq, and Afghanistan to come.
Wars require tactics and combat, but they ALSO require a good strategy – one that is well formulated then adhered to, with appropriate modifications as issues arise. I fail to see much serious strategy anywhere. That can be said of several “wars” we have fought (Korea, RVN, Iraq) but we have managed to “win” strictly through superior force of arms, kind of despite the strategy or lack thereof.
But if you want to see valorous combat without “winning”, check out Algeria, where the above mentioned Legion, the most BA crowd in France (or at least in French service) did some serious destruction – and still lost. You can also read Bernard Fall’s Hell In A Very Small Place one of THE great battle books about. You see there other seriously fine units of French soldiers, most notably the para’s.
God forbid that I pick a fight with you, but in my mind there is a bit of a difference. I don’t know how your tours went “back in the day,” but we (combat arms units) were in and out of the sandbox for almost 10/11 years solid. No “real breaks” for 10 years is a heck of a lot of stress on families and friends. I had a gunny (weapons platoon sergeant) that did back to back tours in Iraq, when it was totally raging, because the incoming/replacement (RIP/TOA) unit had lost theirs (weapons platoon sergeant) for some reason just before they deployed and he volunteered to cross deck to their unit. For those of you in the Civ-Div, that does take some bowling ball sized cojones. “My” gunny was a married man with two young, beautiful children (son and daughter neither one could have been older than 5 years of age at the time). I get you my brother, when I was a 1stLt I had a 1stSgt who had fought at Khe Sanh – holy [edacted] batman, but “America” did put the weight of a nation on the backs of relatively few men for over ten years, and they(we?) carried the load. Oo-effing-rah!
Each war is different. Sometimes it is an improvement, sometimes as bad but in a different way. WWII had some seriously intense combat with horrendous losses, but over a relatively short time each. Troops had recovery time.
Vietnam has THE largest Marine losses of any war. Any. It exceeds the number killed in WWII. We fought for 8 years – 65-73. Overall losses for American soldiers were something like 58,000+ KIA and 305,000+ wounded. The sandbox lasted longer, but the casualty rates were way lower. Not necesssarily the intensity of combat, just the casualties suffered. I would submit that casualty rates were mostly a factor of gear. No battle-rattle. No kevlar. M16’s (you haven’t seen a serously lousy rifle until you’ve handled one of our era M16’s. I have modern AR’s – night and day).
We did 13 month tours, you did 7 months. That was a smart move by the Marine Corps, as you got seriously burned out in 13 months. Much better with the shorter tours, even if you went over more often. It was the breaks that made the difference.
There is a crack somewhere from the sandbox that “close was a hit on the kevlar”. Well, in our day, that was a trip on a medevac. Modern trauma medicine is firmly rooted in lessons learned in RVN. You had the benefit of that today, with your wounded arriving at a serious facility, complete with surgeons, OR suites, CT’s, etc. THAT was thanks to the docs of RVN. “Oxygen toxicity” was first described and wrestled with by those MASH docs of RVN. Today we have understood it and can deal with it properly. Just some examples.
I’m not saying we’re better than you – just not worse. You have incredible gear. Had we had that we too would have been incredible. As it was, we were pretty F-ing good.
:-))) Semper Fi – forever.
For some reason or another, you seem to know a thing or two about this topic.
Have you read David Galula’s book: Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice? Would love to hear your take on that.
A wonderful description of our military strategy. Even Hollywood lefties seem to get it:
Steve Rogers/Captain America: “We need a plan of attack.”
Tony Stark/Ironman: “I have a plan. Attack!”
Jon G., thanks for this post. Thanks also for the link to the article at warriorlodge, where I saw this comment from Richard and thought it appropriate to copy here:
Actually, that is from The Young British Soldier, not Chant Pagan. What the British and Americans share is the conviction “it’s ruin to run from a fight.” They just have two different ways of dealing with it A lot of other nations believe it is better to run and fight another day.
Seawriter
Yes, Seawriter, and it sucks that Team Obama are all Leftist peaceniks who prefer to abandon the fight, and only pretend to put up a fight in order to keep up appearances.
That has actually been confirmed with studies. John Keegan first described it in The Face of Battle, but it has been found true since. Lt.Col Grossman described it in numerous battles and attributes it to the fact that retreating men don’t “look” like men you face, so killing them becomes OK. On Killing is his work and has some serious insights, even if some of his final conclusions are a bit weak.
It is also easier to aim at someone when you are not being shot at. If they have their back to you it is harder for them to shoot at you, so you can spend time aiming.
Seawriter
First, the Wikipedia article you reference says that enlistment in the French Foreign Legion is open to French citizens, and that 24% are French citizens.
Also, the Legion is commanded entirely by French officers.
And remember, the Legion did lose at Dien Bien Phu (Vietnam). For the French, Vietnam was mostly a Legion operation.
A big problem with foreign troop is loyalty. One of their most elite units took part in an attempted coup against President Charles de Gaulle.
I must say, Templar, your ability to “read” the female-ness of a subminiature avatar is impressive. I always heard of the “thousand yard stare”; now I can see how it’s put in use in civilian life.
When I started out here, all of the men on a studio film crew–in those days, it was just about all men–had been in the service, mostly Korean era, and many TV news crews, being younger, were full of Vietnam vets who learned their craft in the field, at Uncle Sam’s Film School. “Above the line”–highly paid executives, directors, writers, actors–had the attitudes you’d expect. “Below the line”–cameramen, electricians, grips (stagehands), set construction–they’d all been in the service. To this day they are the most politically conservative people in Hollywood.
Automatic weapons and Hollywood kind of grew up together. Coincidentally or not, we have similar distinctions between “weapons”: hand-held, if you have to move fast and have no other choice; shoulder-rested, for accuracy; tripod or vehicle mounted when you really need power.
I take the hat off my graying head to all of you guys.
You’re mistaking the effectiveness of a fighting force with the individual training soldiers receive. The Russians during WWII had an effective fighting force with individual soldiers that were not well trained. They simply used higher numbers, and weather, to overwhelm the Germans.