To poke fun at the inept French high command is one thing. To poke fun at individual rank and file is something else.

People who have seen the face of battle (great line from John Keegan, former Prof of Military History, Sandhurst) will know better than to criticize the rank and file or line officers of any military establishment. Belittling the inept decisions made by REMFs is a noble duty.

Need examples? Name the GREATEST military commander France produced.... Napoleon? Nope, he's Corsican, not French. Umm, Anyone heard of Sedan? Where the French Army was completely surrounded by the Prussians and forced to capitulate (after being cut to ribbands)? They were where they were because the high command did not believe reports that came in about the location of the Prussian army - if the Prussians were there, then their plans would be disrupted, so they ignored it. Countless examples in WWI where the French insisted that sticking with traditional uniforms would save the honour of the French army and maintain the elan needed to carry the day. Complete with the blue tunics and red trousers making excellent targets for the German infantry and machine guns as they emerged in Napoleonic lines of battle shoulder to shoulder in 1914, and had regiments reduced to the size of companies in a few hours. The SAME high command being concerned about using "colonial" troops in the line of battle in 1914 until reserves/conscripts could be trained. It seems they were afraid that using non-European troops would hurt the morale of the civillians. Never mind that they were the ONLY battle-tested troops they had.

Also, someone mentioned the Maginot line earlier - consider this - the French and German plans for attack and defense varied only in level of detail between 1914 and 1940. In 1940, the Germans used technology to give them an edge in assault: long-range armoured ability, moderate to long-range ground support aircraft, mobile assault troops (although most moved on foot and supplies were pulled in horse-drawn wagons.) In 1940, the French used the latest in technology for regional and local defense: Maginot fortifications, short range armour, short range ground support aircraft. The assault in 1914 ended short of Paris with identical technological levels. With the differences in 1940, the assaults ended at the Channel, and Paris. Not due to the lack of zeal of the rank and file, who fought well with what they had, but through the blind folly of their officers.

Their colonial period exploits were not that much better - While the French and their Indian allies cut bloody swaths through British ranks during the Seven Years War, when push came to shove and traditional European tactics were employed, they were defeated regularly. Quebec was lost to an attacking army SMALLER than the defending army fer cryin' out loud. (Or, as one fellow I know who worked as a historical interpreter/tour guide at a restored fort built by the French later taken over by the Brits would jokingly say, "There is no small chance that the battle colours carried by French troops before the Revolution was the same colour as the flag calling for a truce - white."

Ah well...