There is some very tasteless posturing going on here from people who should know better. The French unit that was ambushed in Afghanistan recently were Marine-paratroopers who are just as well trained, fit and courageous as our own Marines and Paras. The reason they were so badly caught was because they did not have enough ammunition, they had comms failure, and no air support was available until too late in the action. Yes, there were failings higher up in the command but no failings of the blokes on the ground. Rather similar to the deaths of our redcaps in Iraq in fact. Were they cowards then? No, of course not.
You might also try reading some unairbrushed accounts of the Dunkirk evacuation (eg Clive Ponting - 1940 Myth and Reality). We tend to regard it through rose-tinted glasses as a noble, strategic retreat. In fact, we basically abandoned our agreement with the French allies to defend France, and ran away in considerable disarray, with plenty of looting and raping of French civilians, leaving the French to hold off the Germans at the bridgehead. The French General Wegard wanted to try a counter-attack at Arras to cut off German supplies and therefore perhaps allow the encirled troops to rebuff the Germans, but the British General Cort refused. The senior RN officer at Dunkirk, Captain Tenant, said at the time "The French staff at Dunkirk feel strongly that they are defending Dunkirk for us to evacuate, which is largely true". Some of the French soldiers who had been fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Brits were not allowed to evacuate and were forced off British ships (though they were allowed to evacuate once all or most of the Brits were out). The French actually held the bridgehead until 4 June, taking very heavy casualties, by which time all the Brits were out. Vastly outnumbered, they were forced to surrender and taken prisoner.
Also, try reading some WW1 history. The general consensus was that the French army out-performed the British army. For example, one of the reasons for the Battle of Verdun was that the German high command realised that they could never defeat Britain (who they considered the real enemy) without first defeating the French, who they believed were defending Britain. As everybody knows (or should know) Verdun was an incredible bloody and courageous display of tenacious defending by French, who lost 400,000 men.
History is written by the victors.
Thus the French don't really do military history.
Jackonicko that is particularly pathetic coming from somebody who purports to be a journalist. There are in fact plenty of French military historians who have published some intriguing research, which is well worth reading to get a balanced picture of history. I suspect the reason you have not read any is that you can't read French?
It is frankly rather juvenile to try to pretend that Brits are somehow braver or more noble in battle than the French.