Strange, I havent spoken of eliminating millions of innocent French people in a glorious bloodbath - I guess that the moral relativistic standards are becoming more stretched when defining hatred.
I do not like the French government - One could say that I dislike the French government. Perhaps the concept of them being a valuable ally in a massive restructure of the Moslem world boggles my mind too much because as it stands I see them firmly in the camp of appeasement, playing both sides in the hope they will be spared from any terrorist attacks - one could look at the response of the Arab Legue to the French journalists kidnapped in Iraq, condemnation and superimpose it to their response to the beheadding of innocent Americans, resounding silence. I do not have any problem with the French people - I just make the sarcastic comments because when discussing the French government they always seem apt - the Gaullist tradition of demonstating French independence. I will cut the smarmy sarcasm about the French tanks having 1 gear forward and 3 reverse, we will just leave it at that. I oppose such a concession in exchange for French involvement in talks because (and these grounds are based on observations, not irrational hatred). For example the Algerian War of Independence may be considered when thinking about how much assistance the French could be on the ground in Iraq. Their population is overwhelmingly opposed to any intervention, such a thing would not fly and the benefit of the French millitary is negated by the concessions needed to bring any multinational force.
1) It is playing to an "international" audience, it is attempting to appease the United Nations and the member states that only desire to see the status quo maintained in the middle east. This is not in the interests of a free and democratic Iraq. If anything the UN has shown itself to be an enemy of free people and the proud domain of dictators - a venue for them to hit above the belt and reap rewards through massive corruption. The UN cannot operate in a hostile environment and there is little chance of it being involved in Iraq - the situation is to contentious and any benefits would be negligable.
2) It attempts to grant legitimacy upon the insurgents. I do not think that it is wise to be giving Islamist organizations a place at the table to negotiate. This would be a great step forward to Islamist organizations around the world as it would set another precident for negotiation with murderers, who knows Al Qaeda could be given observer status at the UN like the Palestinians did after Munich.
3) By placing a US withdrawl on the table for discussion it undermines the Iraqi peoples faith in the US resolve to rebuild their country. If they do not believe that the United States will stick through it then they are much less likely to cooperate or put faith into their government.
4) Setting a timetable for any such withdrawl would be a retreat and a massive victory for the terrorists and a monumental failure in the War on Terror, it would validate the claims of Osama bin laden that the US is just a paper tiger that once a number of casaulties have been caused will retreat. This emboldens terrorists worldwide that if they kill enough people, they will get their wish.
For the above reasons I do not think that granting the French demands are worth its participation. It would constitute a betrayal of the Iraqi people and would weaken the US position when dealing with the Iraq question. Talks with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia as well as representatives from international parties are fine. But having to attatch concessions to get them to the table, it is not worth the dubious benefit.
