So the President of France is called Nicolas Sarkozy.  That's about all I knew about him till today to be honest.  Today however he turned up on my news feeds for the second time in a week sporting a very, well... unfrench policy.  To be fair, when I say 'unfrench' I mean from my perspective of a their views, which I will very readily confess is completely inadequate.  Still, I more expect to see the French avoid conflicts at all costs and speak of the US as a rival rather than an ally.

I've had a lot of reading to do over the past few weeks and some of it pertains to NATO.  Even the name - 'NATO', has to be painted on everything twice because the French demanded it should also be called 'OTAN', which is what they want to call it.  Several times in NATO's history have the French pulled support and their commitments because they either didn't feel respected enough (compared to the UK and US) amongst the other NATO nations, or because the commitments were a bit too hot for them and it was beginning to dig into their domestic state.  Ok, I'm maybe getting unfair now, but then it was during a speech made by the French President on his plans to withdraw from NATO's forces that the term 'Special Relationship' was first given to the US and UK, and that this relationship was a driving force in France's decision to build an autonomous defense capability instead.  Which all sounds a bit childish to me.  And further back you're not short on examples of rocky British/French relations through all our history. 

Anyway - that was then, but even in more recent years President Jacques Chirac (the last French Pres) showed the finger to us at just about every opportunity, and has been reluctant to put France in a position of responsibility, preferring to openly and harshly judge the actions of other leaders when they take any actions.  French society sounds to enjoy a more comfortable domestic budget from it's inclination to do less on the global scale (let's not forget any western nation calling another decadent is something of the pot calling the kettle mind you, and I think when comparing France with the UK directly, our relative shortfalls on key domestic areas is a lot more to do with how badly we use our funds rather than how France ducks from foreign policy expense, but I do get the impression it's helpful to not have to pull their weight as much).  In any case, justified or not, as just a guy who only knows what he sees in the papers and the web, I'm not given a lofty opinion of French foreign policy.  In some cases, I find myself in agreement with it - the Iraq war is a good example, and the way in which France wanted to approach the Iranian nuclear issue was definitely an avenue I was pleased to see Germany, France, and Britain explore before a more heavy handed US style approach could jump in prematurely.  So my problem with French foreign policy isn't always the effective policy as much as it is the attitude behind it.  Alliances seem to count for nothing, and when the ideal solution doesn't work out, they're not interested in seeing it through any further, which makes me think being part of the early stages is more about looking good when it works out than being committed to resolving the particular crisis when it requires making tougher and less ideal decisions. 
False perception or not though, Chriac comes off as standoff-ish and insulting, and he surely knows that's not an effective way to effect change on any Bush-driven action (indeed it solidifies the US resolve much faster and closes down a lot of opportunity to shape it), which means either Chirac's motives weren't really about influencing for the good as much as being seen, or he really doesn't understand spouting criticism isn't helpful.

Back to Sarkozy, he's come out with statement saying the French are going to grow into the global community and take their place within it more seriously.  It's his intention to improve French/American relations and re-enforce that they are first and foremost close allies.  Then, yesterday, Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy issued a joint statement (yes, you read that right - a whole statement that a French and British leader have managed to agree on) to the press announcing that they will be prioritising and heavily investing to make progress in Darfur.  It's not lip service either - it's troops - tens of thousands of them, and cash - hard cash to support the missions.  I feel it's important to note here that in no way do I mean that France have not committed it's peoples lives before - French troops make the backbone of several other UN peacekeeping forces.  The difference here is that Sarkozy is pushing for it and leading the call to increase the action with us, not fulfilling a job that has been reluctantly accepted. 

I read a little more on the man, and he seems genuinely committed to NATO and the UN, even to the extent that they should get along with America.  In fact he slated Chirac's handling of the Iraq war saying, "It is bad manners to embarrass one's allies or sound like one is taking delight in their troubles." which is pretty much the nail on the head when it comes to my view of Chirac.  He did oppose the war, but he feels there are respectful and responsible ways to make that case, which again, is spot on in my opinion.  I'm very encouraged he's been elected given he was well known in these views before the vote - it makes me think the French public wish to take this direction too.  This new France may only last for a single Presidential term, but I for one welcome them to the table and am most pleased to have them as an ally I can really respect.  I think Sarkozy will be a very positive influence on our own foreign affairs and perhaps he'll even help curb the US a little when the temperatures are high.

This blog is getting awfully political... I think a few silly posts might be on their way :)

__
Phil

So last Friday was a RAF day.  Started at 11am and went on till 3:30pm which wasn't too long, but there was no break for lunch so there were a few gurgling tummies along the way.  The day included some one on one (in earshot of the other candidates), but mostly group questions and presenting.  In between those parts, you either sat reading or filling in forms.  So many, many forms.  And on every one I have to write my name, address, parents, nationality, etc etc etc...
 
On the one hand, anyone adult who's lived in the UK for more than 24 hours will know forms are an integral part of life, and should these forms surprise you, it's a good warning you're not from the UK at all and probably a spy or something.  I was amused to be reminded of just how unaffected the military has been by the technological revolution, and that all forms, in triplicate, must autonomously contain your life story because there's no way you could just give that information once and have it distributed on requirement by some kind of automatic process after that, nor any way of perhaps, creating a duplicate 'copy' of the information.  What's more funny is that they do of course they do have these capabilities, and use them.  All data is input into a database and every form has your profile ID number on it so it can be cross referenced.  So to are all the forms, in triplicate, photocopied, and archived.  But *still*, you have to hand write your personal details and those of your family on every form several times over because that's how it's done.
 
Anywho... I'm in a room with about 25 or 30 strapping bright eyed and spikey haired 18-25 year old lads, so frankly they can bring me all the forms int he world and I wont really mind.  Occasionally they take one of us aside, and for most of the day, they spoke to us as a group, testing our knowledge of the RAF in general.  They wanted to know if we knew what planes they used, what the structure was, where things are based, and what role do we have, etc etc.  They showed us pictures of planes and asked us to identify them.  The first one was 3 photos of 3 planes, which anyone who'd done any reading up before the day would have summarised as offensive aircraft used by the RAF.  The boy being asked clearly did this, and said confidently, Harrier, Tornado, and Jaguar.  In all honesty, I would have said the same thing.  Immediate reaction from a quick glance, those 3 would make sense.  Unfortunately, the answer was Harrier, Tornado and... another Tornado of a different configuration.  The Jag went out of use recently so aren't on the pres any more.  The RAF website unfortunately hasn't caught up with that change yet, and so led this poor boy straight into the trap there.  It was only a little embarrassing because the Jag looks clearly different enough from the Tornado to make it obvious that it's not a Tornado, and it appeared he simply didn't know what either craft looked like.  It shook his confidence and he bumbled on a bit - kinda felt bad for him, but it was no big deal really and though he probably didn't see it this way - his mistake their put the rest of us at ease about making them in the questions to follow.  It broke the ice right at the start.
 
When I was up, I got a picture of a Harrier.  'Easy' I thought to myself, feeling blessed at this draw as the Harrier is a very recognisable aircraft and unmistakable for any other.  "Harrier." I confidently answered.
"Well of course," the Flt. Lt. responded, "but what kind?"
'Ah crap.' I thought, trying to claw at some deep spark of a passive memory that might hold the answer... but it was no use.
"No idea..." I confessed, and he opened it up to the others.
"GR... 7?" one of the lads suggested.  He was right - ATC Cadet so he ought to be, and the session moved on to the next picture.
I was ready and confident to answer the next one - I figured if he's asking about Harrier types, next he will ask about Tornado's, and that I do actually know two types of.  Alas, helicopters filled the screen, and I could identify 3 of the 6, guessed my way through 1 of the remainders, and got 2 just plain wrong (it was a Puma and the Queens chopper... which I've already forgotten the name of).
 
Anyway, it wasn't too bad.  I wasn't hot on distinguishing different types of the aircraft but I could identify enough of the crafts generally and that's all they really wanted to know.  Most of the day was them telling us things - the 'testing' was really an informal way to pass the in between and give the officer a snap assessment which he can build on in the filter interview.  That's next Wednesday for me, first one up to bat.  Some of the lads get about 2 months to prepare but I didn't want to draw out the application any longer than necessary and this gives me a chance to get in an intake earlier.
 
I now can tell the difference between pretty much every aircraft, and tell you what they do, what their speeds are, effective ranges, heights, wingspans, systems, armament configurations, what each of those missiles and systems do, how fast they (missiles) can go, how they work, what group any aircraft is classified in, and what the selection process is going to be like from this point on.
 
What I can't yet tell you is what squadrens are based at what locations, what planes are used in those squadrens, enough about NATO as I'll need and what my specialist training will involve.  I also can't do speed/distance/time calculations fast enough but I have longer to practice those.

Speaking of which, what am I doing writing blogs?  I have a crap load of study to do!

Be good,
__
Phil