VZCZCXRO7167
RR RUEHIK RUEHYG
DE RUEHFR #0150/01 0121636
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121636Z JAN 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4185
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
RUEHMRE/AMCONSUL MARSEILLE 1485
RUEHSR/AMCONSUL STRASBOURG 0297

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000150 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/PPD, EUR/WE, INR, R 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC PREL KPAO FR
SUBJECT:  WEEKLY MEDIA WRAP-UP: IRAQ AND NEW STRATEGY; AMERICAN AIR 
STRIKES IN SOMALIA; RUSSIANS TURN OFF OIL SUPPLY / EU ENERGY POLICY. 
 JANUARY 12, 2007. 
 
PARIS 00000150  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
Sensitive but unclassified.  Please protect accordingly. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Speculation as to President Bush's new strategy for Iraq, 
including the replacement of Generals George Casey and John Abizaid, 
began to gain momentum in the French media this week.  Before the 
President's address to the nation, commentators analyzed the 
possible consequences of sending new troops to Iraq.  Right and 
left-leaning media agreed that the White House has no other option 
and pointed to President Bush's alleged "refusal to acknowledge that 
the war is already lost."  Following the January 10 speech, 
left-wing Liberation and left-of-center Le Monde devoted their 
headlines and editorials to Iraq.  For Le Monde, the American 
President is "staying the course in spite of everyone and 
everything."  The January 8 air raids in Somalia received broad 
coverage this week and commentators noted that the U.S. has not 
intervened in the Horn of Africa since the "fiasco of the 1990s" 
(left-of-center Le Monde) and that the bombings to flush out al 
Qaida activists "smacked of revenge" (regional daily Ouest France). 
Other issues that vied for front pages this week were the oil war 
with Russia and the common policy adopted by the EU 27 on energy. 
End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
IRAQ:  A NEW STRATEGY AND ADDRESS TO THE NATION 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶2. (SBU) On January 5, the absence of any formal announcement in 
Washington concerning the replacement of Generals George Casey and 
John Abizaid as well as the nomination of Ambassador Khalilzad to 
the UN and his eventual replacement in Iraq by Ambassador Ryan 
Crocker did not stop leading morning radio news programs on Europe 1 
and RTL from welcoming the changes as a "new step" in U.S. foreign 
policy with regard to the conflict in Iraq. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In advance of the President's speech, the editorial in 
right-of-center Le Figaro by Yves Threard on January 8 surmised 
that, "In spite of the defeat of the Republicans during the midterm 
elections, in spite of the Baker Hamilton Report, in spite of a drop 
in approval ratings and widespread criticism on the part of the 
international community, the American president remains steadfast in 
his intention to continue 'his war' in Iraq... But does he really 
have a choice?  Accepting defeat in Iraq ... would have disastrous 
consequences on the U.S. and world stability... Everyone knows that, 
as troublesome as the Iraqi conflict is for Washington, the real 
challenge for the U.S. and for Europe is to win the tug-of-war with 
Tehran.  To give up in Iraq would be tantamount to losing the first 
battle with Iran." 
 
¶3. (SBU) Also on January 8, Catholic La Croix's correspondent Gilles 
Biassette commented that "The announcement to send new troops to 
Iraq will in essence go against the recommendations of the Baker 
Hamilton Report... and send a mixed signal to the Iraqi authorities 
that are being criticized by Washington for not tackling the 
security issue themselves." 
 
¶4. (SBU) Popular right-of-center daily Le Parisien's Washington 
correspondent Thomas Canteloube warned on January 10 that "President 
Bush is wagering everything on the new strategy for Iraq...  And 
although the White House is not presenting the President's address 
under this angle, most analysts agree that Bush is playing his last 
cards." 
 
¶5. (SBU) The day after the President's address to the nation 
(January 11), left-wing Liberation's editorial by Gerard Dupuy 
ironically noted that "George W. Bush has decided that once and for 
all this war is too serious of an affair to be left in the hands of 
the military..."  Dupuy added that troop reinforcements may "succeed 
in bringing about some respite in Baghdad but cannot bring about 
stability for the Iraqi government...  The defeat that Bush refuses 
to acknowledge is first and foremost political.  The Iraqi adventure 
had two objectives:  to do away with weapons of mass destruction and 
to establish democracy.  The latter is as improbable as the former 
were impossible to find." 
 
¶6. (SBU) Right-of-center Le Figaro's editorial by Pierre Rousselin 
on January 11 entitled "Bush's Last Chance" suggested that "some 
20,000 soldiers more will not change the situation.  Everyone agrees 
on this point and many see Bush's new strategy for Iraq as doomed to 
fail...  The objective, however, is not strictly military; it is 
also political and serves to buy time.  The disarray in Iraq is such 
that the White House has no other choice.  Even partial troop 
withdrawal would have been tantamount to admitting defeat and that 
 
PARIS 00000150  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
everything that has been done up to now has been for naught... 
Taking control of a city of five million where civil war is already 
well under way will be costly for the American contingent...  The 
symbolic stakes of the battle for Baghdad are crucial for Iraq ... 
and for the region as a whole...  For the past six months, George 
Bush no longer had a strategy for Iraq...  This is the last chance 
for him to save his presidency." 
 
¶7. (SBU) State-run France Inter radio commentator Bernard Guetta 
likened sending additional troops to Iraq to putting on a "Band-aid" 
during his morning commentary on January 11:  "In what George Bush 
just said to the American people one thing is unfortunately 
undeniably true:  A defeat in Iraq would be a disaster for the U.S. 
... A victory for the Islamists that would plunge the entire Middle 
East into a regional conflict that would pose an international 
threat...  All of these dangers ... are the direct consequence of 
the folly of intervening in Iraq in the first place...  Can a 
President whose shameful blindness led to this tragic situation be 
capable of finding a solution to it?  The answer is obviously 'no,' 
but since he is in office for another two years his solution 
prevails...  By refusing to implement the recommendations of the 
Baker-Hamilton Report, Bush is simply pushing back and complicating 
what the U.S. will ultimately have to face up to." 
 
¶8. (SBU) Regional editorialists in Ouest France and La Presse de la 
Manche painted a bleak picture in the January 11 editions of the 
dailies.  Joseph Limagne in Ouest France hypothesized that "not even 
the Democrats, who initially approved of an intervention against 
Saddam Hussein, have any better idea than George W. Bush of how to 
withdraw the troops from Iraq.  But in any event, America cannot 
simply turn on its heels and go, washing its hands of the disaster 
it triggered."  La Presse de la Manche's editorialist Jean Levallois 
wrote that while "it is very difficult to acknowledge that one has 
made mistakes in front of the whole world, it is especially 
challenging to admit to mistakes while continuing to want to be 
right...  George W. Bush has not begun to assess the scope of his 
own failure.  He continues to believe that he will be able to turn 
the situation around because he is the strongest and will not 
capitulate.  Given these conditions, how many more victims will 
there be?" 
 
¶9. (SBU) The unsigned editorial in the January 12 left-of-center Le 
Monde suggested that "if this last-chance strategy bears fruit, Mr. 
Bush will have his place in History as the man who stood firm in the 
'war on terrorism.'  If, however, it becomes another in a series of 
failures, President Bush will more prosaically pass the Iraqi torch 
to his successor." 
 
------------------------------- 
AMERICAN AIR STRIKES IN SOMALIA 
------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) Left-of-center Le Monde's front page on January 10 
highlighted that the American air raid "is the first American foray 
into Somalia since the fiasco in the 90s."  For regional Ouest 
France's editorialist Joseph Limagne, the American strikes "smack of 
revenge...  It is time for Washington to come to terms with the 
limitations of the war it has waged on terrorism...  It will only 
lead to the multiplication of more pockets of Jihadists if nothing 
is done to address the problems of poverty, insecurity and lack of 
hope for the future from which it stems." 
 
¶11. (SBU) Also on January 10, the front page of right-of-center Le 
Figaro reported the air strikes in Somalia underscoring that they 
"mark the return of the U.S. in a country where it had not 
intervened since 1992 and 1994...  This time," Le Figaro noted, "it 
is no longer a question of indirect support for a regional ally: 
Ethiopia.  The U.S. directly intervened in the Somali conflict... 
The U.S. embassy in Nairobi has issued a warning about possible 
terrorist attacks in East Africa." 
 
¶12. (SBU) Right-of-center Le Figaro's January 11 edition reported 
"confusion concerning the new American raids in Somalia" and relayed 
the French Foreign Affairs Ministry statement expressing "concern" 
about an intervention that "complicates the situation in Somalia and 
could increase tensions..."  Popular right-of-center Le Parisien's 
Catherine Tardrew underscored that today "Bush is taking on 
Somalia."  "After Iraq, Washington is opening a new front.  In 
Africa this time...  The Americans are already bogged down in Iraq, 
by intervening in Somalia it is the entire horn of Africa that risks 
being destabilized." 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
RUSSIANS 'TURN OFF OIL SUPPLY' -- EU ENERGY POLICY 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
 
PARIS 00000150  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶13. (SBU) The headline story in left-of-center Le Monde on January 
10, emphasized that the 27 were "having difficulty finding a common 
policy with regard to the oil supply."  The unsigned editorial in 
the daily put forward, "First it was gas, now it is oil...  Energy 
is Russia's principal weapon in its quest to regain the political 
power to which it aspires since Vladimir Putin took office." 
 
¶14. (SBU) For right-of-center Le Figaro on January 10, "friction is 
intense between Putin and Europe."  An op-ed in business daily Les 
Echos by the correspondent in Brussels Karl de Meyer, speculated 
that perhaps the energy issue "will provide the perfect opportunity 
for Europe to get a new boost." 
Left-wing Liberation devoted its headline to the European "Plan to 
fight climate change" with the editorial noting that "the atmosphere 
is getting warmer but the relationship with Russia is getting cooler 
and the EU is as always lukewarm...  The EU Commission is calling 
for more growth and less CO2.  We can but applaud, even if it seems 
unlikely to have growth that does not depend on energy...." 
STAPLETON