GoG, whatever drugs you use, they are too good notto share. Falklands? DId I miss where the UK proceeded to take Buenos Aires? No, they got their islands back and that was what they wanted, IIRC. FS & Cie. don't want a punitive raid or to retake some islands in the Med. They want to take and hold a country of 386659 sq mi and 60m people, at least a third of whom will be very angry with them for the foreseeable future. This would be bigger than Iraq and we're not done there yet. And unlike in Iraq, the Egyptian guerrilas would really be best-and-brightest patriots and the French Egyptian auxiliaries they assembled would be the dregs, psychos and losers. Egyptians needn't VBIED Egyptians to win their war. Iraq has shown the way. What country would do in Egypt what we are doing, and pay the price we are paying, in Iraq without a) survival at stake and b) a million troops? If France is this mad maybe they really should consider nukes. Quaere: if 9-11 were Saddam's plot and he thumbed his nose at us, with all the obvious casus belli in the world, what would have been different? If the French could do Egypt, they could do Iraq in a walk. FS, if you could tell us how to do that, you would really be doing us a service. There's one, FS, BW, whoever: let's downsize and say you were doing OIF. How would France conquer Saddam's Iraq? Assuming you got about as much help proportionately as we did? Silly question? Then what are you doing in Egypt?

Its too easy to start a war and too hard to stop it on favorable terms. You ALWAYS seek victory BEFORE starting hostilities. Leave nothing to chance. People unfamiliar with strategy see a shiny new toy like Rafale or CdG or whatever and think that one piece of equipment will carry the day. Problem is that a lot goes on behind the seens that no news agency covers that if it didnt happen would have the affect of many bombs. A good exapmle from the scenario is the tankers. No ad-hoc conversion process can allow the number sorties this operation requires. The result is a dozen or 2 dozen FAF fighters end up with the task of 200 planes. How can success come from failure? But in defence of France power projection has not been a major objective and France has only prepared a military able to defend her homeland or small contingencies like the Ivory Coast. France is also able to integrate its forces into coalitions with the US as its backbone but beyond that there is little conventional power projection capability. The issue is not limited to logistics either. It is often said that the USA is overstretched militarily and look at the size and power of our military. All the military might in the world pales in comparison. So how can a single nation prepared only for local defense and arms exorts hope to do similar operations? France would need a massive buildup over many years to attain FS ambitions.

"invade Arabia peninsula" --FS Do I really need to say it at this point? I will because I can. looking through tunnel vission allows this insane comment. No offense FS but it is insane. Where Egypt depending on the circumstances may have to defend itself. IF there is one nation in the world that will never fight a foriegn invader alone is Saudi Arabia. Too many nation depend on her survival. Ah let me not sugar coat it, The US depends on Saudi Security. If you thought the US rushed to the aid of Egypt in the Suez Crisis imagine how fast we would reinforce Saudi Arabia directly. Actually you dont have to imagine it because GW1 demostrated it! Refer to this Data: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/timeline/index.html http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/timeline/fast_facts.htm After reviewing this how could France even dream of this? If those dont convinve you that France cannot invade Saudi Arabia or Egypt try this: (unbearable to even look at but true!) http://images.bigghurtt.com/bush_saudi.jpg http://my.execpc.com/~pvmiii/gulfwar/dsopmap.gif Nuff Said

You mean that the Egyptians would not fight as hard for Mubarak and for Egypt as Iraqis did for Saddam and Iraq? That they would love Frenchmen more than Iraqis love Americans? What is it, the Pepe le Pew cologne? You don't get it! We essentially won OIF in what, 3 days, 3 weeks? We began with several hundred thousand troops and now have under 150K, and laboring. We could raise more men, but it would require (potentially desirable!) alteration of the national consciousness, and other radical measures. How long would France keep even 150,000 men there? 75,000? What would they be doing? Screwing the local girls and chewing khat? Christianizing the masses? Executing the masses? Against twice, thrice as many people, I think even more hostile, invasion plus occupation would numerically be ten times as hard in terms of the math the US gets smacked with. When do they win? Hosni's head on a plate or his signature on a piece of paper? Who says Hosni Mubarak's security can't get him out from under a French first strike? Hide him in the desert. That could take weeks, months, years to clear up. So if it's not a surrender, what? Do they want to seize the Canal, the Aswan Dam, are there huge reserves of oil in Egypt I don't know about? Inflict mass casualties? Blow up the Pyramids or finish the job on the Sphinx? Take another mummy to the Louvre? What in the whole of Mitzrayim is worth to France one French boy spiraling into the Med from 30,000 feet, jammed into the pit, his last breaths of the smoke and flame of a composite aircraft on fire? Let alone getting blown up at a checkpoint or denutted in a whorehouse a year later? What is your rough estimate of French and Egyptian casualties in FS' war? If it goes Gixx' way? Killed and wounded? How about Chadian, etc.? I'm no peacenik, but the extramilitary details of this scenario seem to demand attention. After all, we aren't brutes, we don't war because it's the season for war, we need a reason these days, a context. Maybe an Eg-Fr Etoile Lumineux, even sides, man to man, in the Sinai somewhere quiet, no civilians to bother. I think the French would enjoy that much better. They could even practice amphibious landings at Ras Banaa if they like. Can we start with a casus belli? What would be sufficient cause and motivation for this war? Another hypothetical: what if the UN rules against France as with the US? What if in fact this stupid action were stripped of diplomatic shrubbery? Part of hyperpuissance is being able to have your way against all odds. FS, just for fun, let's say the G-d of War appeared and told you that you'd need exactly twice as many men and machines as you originally planned to pull this off with savior-faire. How long would it take you to raise another 150,000 men and equip and train them satisfactorily, and buy another CdG and another air force and another billion rouinds of ammunition, and three or four satellites and all the kit that would go to this effort? How much would it cost? No point--just wondering how much this war would cost France in money terms. I believe the US is up to $300 milliards in Iraq. What is the objective, the mission, what are the terms of victory, and if you like, what is the exit plan?

I'm assuming that your response was in reply to GoG's response to me?

my reference to the falklands wasn't about comparing the occupations, as obviously they are vastly different, but about the vulnerability of naval assets to SSM and troop performance: western vs. second rate/third world troops. britain suffered heavily from SSM and i assume france would; the argies buckled against brits and i assume the Egyptians would too. and no, i'm sharing my stash with you! :)

In any case the Egyptians would have a large enough numerical superiority to overcome better French troop quality.

Almost 700 friggen posts, what is it with these anti-french/pro-french threads that get so many damn posts!! :).

"britain suffered heavily from SSM and i assume france would; the argies buckled against brits and i assume the Egyptians would too." --GoG Buckle why exactly? And that would mean surrendering their country. Iraqis didnt buckle. They simply adopted tactics that would preserve their force. Fortunately for us most of the Iraqis werent hostile to us. But then we arent there to crush them either. If we were you could believe there would be much more bloodshed. And the French Navy is so thin. Which ship exactly could they afford to lose? Horizon FFG, CdG, ASW Frigate or Amphib? All critical. But easiest to kill and much more imprtant would be the loss of a logistics ship! Game over. http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-46569.asp Read that post. Do you realise how long it would take France to put 100 heavy MBT on a beachead? Even a Company of Abrams or a well targeted MLRS strike would slaughter the French as they arrive peicemail. The Egyptian Airforce does not have to even help. The Falklands is really in no way comparable to what Egypt could do in defense. The time has come to accept that this mission is not possible inspite of personal feelings.

GoG the british were facing an enemy air force operating at the extreme limits of its range while the egyptians will be operating much closer to home as they get to pick the engagement distance. the french have to land on egyptian soil. the french on the other hand are operating at the extreme range limits for their aircraft placing them in the position of the argies rather than the british. sure they have the one small carrier with it's 30 or so rafales but that's nowhere near enough to cover the fleet much less provide useful amounts of support to the landing.