French Air Force general now in charge of NATO's strategic command

[tocqueville]

Source: wtkr

A French Air Force general is taking command of one of only two permanent NATO headquarters.

It's the first time in 60 years that honor has been handed to a non-American.

General Stephane Abrial has taken on the position of NATO's strategic command, making him the first European to take this post. General Abrial's appointment comes months after France rejoined NATO'S alliance.

....

More than 30 years later he was honored by a crowd of nearly 800, all there to see this milestone in NATO's history.

Read more: http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-french-general-nato,0,3660939.story

---

He graduated from France's Air Force Academy in 1973 and earned his fighter pilot wings in 1976. He also did a year-long stint as an exchange cadet with the US Air Force Academy in Colorado.

Much of his career has been spent overseas including as a flight commander north of Munich, Germany and as a detachment commander in Greece during the 1980s.

He spent time at NATO headquarters in Brussels during the 1990s among his other appointments before ascending to become the chief of staff of the French Air Force in July 2006.

He will be based in the southern US city of Norfolk, home to the world's largest naval station, the Norfolk Naval Base directly northwest of the city, which is home port to 78 ships and 133 aircraft.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090909-french-general-stephane-abrial-nato-commander-alliance-usa

videos on sites

[24601]

1. Oui. And the decoration around his neck is the US Legion of

Merit (LOM). It is one of only two US decorations that may be awarded as a neck order (worn around the neck), the other being the Medal of Honor. The LOM is also the only US Decoration awarded in degrees - I's speculate that General Abrial's LOM is Rank Order of Commander.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Merit

[tocqueville]

7. it's the Commander of the Legion of Honor medal neck order

actually he doesn't have any US medals. The foreign medals he have is the one of the Liberation of Kuwait and a medal from Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephane_Abrial

[24601]

8. Not sure what you mean. Are saying that this LOM is not a medal?

If so, I'd say it looks just like my LOM medal, supported by a neck ribbon.

[AzNick]

10. Wikipedia, hmmm....

I use Wikipedia but you can't trust it. If he got the LOM it is possible it was not added to Wikipedia.

Look at his official bio on some French official Web site.

[Posteritatis]

25. No, that's definitely Legion of Merit

Red around the edges of the star rather than gold, and you can see the six-pointed star pattern in the OP's photo, while the Legion of Honour has a bust on it instead. The two look very similar otherwise; I was convinced it was a LOH until I started looking at the color and noticed the center pattern.

[AzNick]

11. Apparently it is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_merit

(Says the guy citing Wiki after doubting it).

[davepc]

23. We sure thats not the Légion d'honneur?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gion_d%27honneur

Not that it really matters.


I'm against NATO, I feel that the US should of withdrawn during the Clinton administration, but I wish the general well.

[Winterblues]

50. Not sure what you mean by awarded by degree

Other medals are awarded by either Valor or Merit, same medals just different degree of commendation.

[jeffbr]

2. born in condom

http://www.france24.com/en/20090909-french-general-stephane-abrial-nato-commander-alliance-usa

[AzNick]

13. Condom is a common name in Southwest France

Just so you know.

[Strong Atheist]

17. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[onehandle]

3. Hear that, Freeps. FRANCE. France is protecting America. This is what eight years of Bush did.

Merci, douchebags.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rockymountaindem]

5. I wonder how he won that Croix de Guerre n/t

[tocqueville]

6. first Gulf War 91 as a fighter pilot nt

[SpartanDem]

9. That sound you here is freeper head exploding

[roamer65]

12. See what happens when you rename "french fries" to "freedom fries", America?

:silly:

Seriously, it is about time Europe takes charge of its own affairs. Maybe we can remove ALL troops from Europe soon. Next handover should be Japan. The defeat of the LDP in Japan a couple of weeks back signals that Japanese are ready to take control of their own affairs, IMHO.

[TankLV]

14. OH NO!!!! The FRENCH?!!!

The "LOSERS" of WWI & II? (forgetting the fact that they were already fighting for MONTHS and lost over 80 PERCENT of their MEN - 80 PERCENT OF ALL FRENCH MALES DEAD - BEFORE anyone come out to help them?!!!)!!!

thought I'd spare the trolls the effort...

you're welcome...

on edit - I was aparently too late - see troll post above...

[AzNick]

16. 80% of all french males dead ?!?

Uh... no. 1.5 million French soldiers killed during WWII (earlier estimates were 1.3 but it was proven later on that the numbers were doctored).

But it is true that 80,000 French soldiers were injured died in the 43 days that the Battle of France lasted (about 5,000 a day). Add to this the fact that the Germans strafed columns of civilians running from the combats to litter the roads with dead bodies and carcasses of cars and horses to prevent any reinforcement in key areas, and also the fact that the German's tanks ran out of gas literally from going too far too fast, and that a good counter-offensive plan was blocked by the new commander in chief who then spent 2 days analyzing the situation while the Germans were refueling their tanks.

[Posteritatis]

22. I think the post you're replying to is more generally referring to WWI

Where, if I remember correctly, 80% of French males of fighting age were casualties, about ten or twenty percent of whom were actually killed.

Appalling, terrifying numbers in either case.

[AzNick]

44. I do not think that is accurate either

The death rate was very high among the injured, due to infection and lack of proper techniques.

Although it is very hard to account the number of those who died or suffered without dying from the flu pandemic which ravaged Europe in 1918, the total number of casualties is between 5.5 to 6 millions.

80% would mean 7.5 millions. I believe military service was imposed between 18 and 41 years of age.

France had a population of a bit more then 41 millions in 1911, probably 42 to 43 in 1914. I am not so sure that the portion of men between 18 and 41 was of only 7.5.

Where did you hear or read the 80% number?

[8 track mind]

15. Damn. I was really rooting for this guy:

[Romulox]

18. How did France acquit its responsibilities under NATO after 9/11?

:shrug:

[Nihil]

19. By keeping its head and not bowing to the sheep-like morons of the US "leadership"?

(which, to our shame, the poodle in charge of our country did)

[hayu_lol]

20. Sort of ironic this...

back in '59/60, France pushed NATO out of France altogether along with as many Americans that they could get rid of. Americans in France at that time were treated quite badly by the bulk of the French population.

[Romulox]

26. I salute them for not going into Iraq, but that wasn't my question! nt

[Posteritatis]

24. They've been involved like most of the rest of the alliance in Afghanistan

Also, your sig picture reminded me that I own that chess set; I need to dig it out and clean it up now that I have room to place it somewhere again. :)

[Romulox]

27. The treaty does not call for members to be "involved". nt

[Posteritatis]

28. Okay, so we've established the goalposts here are mobile

What are you accusing them of not doing?

[Romulox]

29. I asked a question. And touched a nerve.

I'm no Francophobe, nor any kind of military supporter.

Why is this an offensive series of questions? NATO is a "mutual" defense treaty, right?

[Posteritatis]

30. You asked a question and rejected the answer

You seem to be suggesting that France has somehow failed its NATO obligations. As this is somewhere on the spectrum between incorrect and a bald-faced lie, I'm curious as to where you're getting that from.

[Romulox]

31. The answer really wasn't responsive to the questions, given the language of the Treaty

"You seem to be suggesting that France has somehow failed its NATO obligations."

It's not really clear just what its NATO obligations are given the history of the past decade. I have no idea of what the purpose of this organization is at this point. :shrug:

[LanternWaste]

32. Which responsibilities are you referring to?

Specifically which responsibilities are you referring to?

[Vidar]

21. Good for General Abrial.

[JonQ]

33. I'm not entirely happy about this

not because I hate france or anything, but the fact remains that they could, at the most generous, be described as a fairweather NATO supporter.

They kicked NATO out of their country entirely for a long period of time. Doesn't suggest a great deal of support.

[arbusto_baboso]

35. Even during that period when they kicked out NATO, their forces were designed to fight alongside

NATO troops. It was a national pride issue for them, nothing more. And of course, Americans wouldn't know ANYTHING about that! :eyes:

[JonQ]

36. So a nation with national pride issues that prevents them from

working with NATO should be in charge of NATO.

That will work out well.

Americans never kicked NATO out and have provided the bulk of the troops/funds in just about every NATO involved conflict.

[arbusto_baboso]

37. Yes. Instead the US just bullies NATO into kow-towing to its will.

You sound like the right-wing critics of the UN, you know. Think before you post. It will save you the embarrassment of looking like an ill-informed, jingoistic ass.

[JonQ]

39. Right, which is why we were able to force them to commit

troops to iraq, and more than a token force to afghanistan.

Explain how I am ill informed. Can you acknowledge that france at one point kicked NATO troops out of their country? Refute this please.

Can you acknowledge that the US provides the bulk of NATO troops? Refute this please.

It's not "ill-informed" to point out facts you don't like.

[arbusto_baboso]

41. Wrong. France has the 2nd largest troop committment in Afghanistan.

That's hardly "token". And Iraq was NEVER a NATO conflict, so your point is completely moot there.

I also never disputed that France had *withdrawn* from NATO, so you are arguing a point which has already been established (THAT would be sign #1 that you are ill-informed...). That was DeGaulle's little fit of pique, and it was always understood by military men in both the US and France that if the Warsaw Pact ever came boiling into Western Europe, French troops would fully cooperate with everything NATO did. What's your point?

Yes, the US provides the bulk of NATO troops. Because we have by far the largest standing military and by far the largest population of any NATO nation. Again, what's your fucking point?!?!?!?

[JonQ]

42. You accused me of being ill informed

But every point I stated was factually correct.

So I have to ask, what is your fucking point?

And france has 3,300 troops in an entire force of over 60,000 (about half are americans) they have a standing army of over 700,000 (around 600,000 if you don't count military police).

3,000 out of 600,000 is a trivial force. They could contribute more.

Also you claimed we were able to force NATO to do our bidding, I pointed out cases where they refused to do so, thus disproving your point.

[arbusto_baboso]

43. WHAT????

"Pointed out cases where the US counldn't force NATO to do its bidding"? Please point those out, as I must have missed those non-existent "proofs".

3000 troops is only a trivial force to YOU. Could they contribute more. Probably. But then, it would seem the French have some foresight and fiscal responsibility that we lack. Additonally, they were not attacked on 9/11, and they have no interest in the gas pipeline in Afghanistan, either, so I think their contribution is quite generous under the circumstances.

"National Security" is about a helluva lot more than boots on the ground (and please keep in mind that you are talking to a Gulf War I vet), and since you fail to take that into account, I stand completely by my original assertion that you are ill-informed.

You are a France-basher, plain and simple. That is my point. Disprove that one, asshole.

[arbusto_baboso]

51. Some more things your ill-informed self might want to consider.

Do you know the difference between France's Metro, Marine and Foreign Legion troops? Do you know how French law makes the 3 troop categories deployable and what the differences are? Do you know how many of France's troops are conscripts, and where it is legal to deploy conscripts? Do you know what large numbers of conscripts do to military training cycles? Do you know the French military logistic capacity, and its ability to supply troops for years at a time overseas in intense conflict zones? Do you know what other committments France has to NATO (including the Multi-National Rapid Reaction Corps) and which of its 3 types of troops are involved in that? Do you know the troop committments France has to the UN?

See, I know the answers (or can find them) to all those questions. Until you do (and it is obvious you do not), parrotting the 700,000 number is completely meaningless. France does not actually have anything close to 700,000 troops available for overseas deployment. The number is significantly less. Again, as I stated before, maintaining a force of 3,000 in Afghanistan is pretty respectable. Especially considering that NATO treay could reasonably be interpreted so that they wouldn't have to contribute ANYTHING.

[Flagg]

38. France never left NATO

France has been a member ever since its inception in 1949. It just left the integrated command in 1966 ans rejoined it last year.
That's it.

[JonQ]

40. So it left the military part aspect of NATO

and is now in charge of the military aspect of NATO.

Which considering the history and purpose of NATO is pretty much the entire purpose of its existence.

[Flagg]

52. What other aspects of NATO are there ?

Leaving the integrated command only meant that France didn't have a say anymore in the decision making process.
The French military was part of the coalition in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan and were always involved in other NATO operations.

Looks like you have no idea what you're talking about.

[AzNick]

46. France is the largest NATO contributor after the US

Both in material, men and funds.

You should look it up instead.

Also Sarkozy is keen on seeing France come back into NATO's military command.

Hence Abrial.

Do you get it now?

[AzNick]

45. France decided to be self-reliant, that's all

When the US were involved in Vietnam, France decided it was time to take care of it's own defense and since has been the country with the largest military budget both in gross and per capita and still has the 3rd or 4th in the world.

If Germany, Britain, Italy, etc... followed this model, there would be less American bases in Europe and we would be saving a bundle. Instead they let us make the financial effort.

[JonQ]

49. Self-reliance isn't really what you look for in

international coalitions.

[Flagg]

53. Looks like NATO disagress

Other NATO partners for all their subservience have never had one of their generals run one of the two NATO headquarters.

Now France does.

It's the first time in 60 years that honor has been handed to a non-American.

[JonQ]

54. NATO is made up of humans

humans make mistakes.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

34. Look at that face. It looks all surrender-y and shit.

:evilgrin: :sarcasm:

[AzNick]

47. Probably smells like cheese and onion... nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

48. LOL! Yeah those bastards and their good food and wine putting their lives on the line in our war. nt