On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 suzume at mx82.tiki.ne.jp wrote:
>> I would disagree. I think this position simplifies too much and
>> overlooks the dynamics involved in a U.S. military attack on a real
>> militia, which is, after all, a citizen army. The 82nd Airborne is
>> composed of young American men and women. Obeying an order to attack
>> Iraqis is quite a different matter for them than obeying an order to
>> attack Americans. Consider that it took a 51 day standoff for the
>
> Then it seems it did not occur to De Gaule that the national
> insurrection he had to face back in 1968 was led by French people...
> After all, he is the one who ordered to surround Paris with tanks
> (French tanks).
JC, this doesn't seem to me to be a counter-example at all.
In the first place, French soldiers never fired on students in 1968. Mostly they never even engaged them because, like here, they are not supposed to be used to quell internal engagements. So the tanks stood outside the cities while the direct repression was done by the CRS (roughly the French National Guard, except more professional), whose weapons of choice are tear gas and rubber truncheons -- classic crowd control.
Secondly, even that non-gun repression was too much for the nation to stomach (especially after one student drowned and one got shot). De Gaulle lost his power politically, by referendum.
The students were lobbing cobblestones in that engagement. If they'd had guns, I think the outcome would have gone much worse for them, and for the nation. This way they pretty much won.
Michael