RSS

August 21, 2008

valentine akishkin

There is a serious vacuum of European influence on world matters and a deficient tempt of the EU to become self-reliant. The poorly subordinative structure of the union lacks a charismatic leader country or authoritative group of countries uniting its ranks. Germany has the potential to become leader, if not for a wretched and scary historic reputation. France doesn’t seem to have the pluck. The Italians have too many problems with their garbage bins and just as much controversy in home affairs. The Brits have a dilapidated self-esteem permanently cranking their necks in the direction of the US. The junior EU members look better concerted, but have little to no disposition of mature members who take them for willful nippers whose caprices must be fastidiously endured once engrafted into the European ménage.
Mr. Fischer is annoyed by the free footboard ride that European countries are making on the account of the US. Fair enough! But, I doubt that Afghanistan is the line of work around which the EU should unit, and I don’t think that the military engagements that US has involved itself has much to do with European interests.
Fear of Germany’s ascendancy as a possible potential midpoint capable of consolidating the EU is what stands in the way of forward motion. If Germany’s predominance were weighed against concern bore on Russia, strange as it might seem, the least negative stimulus for most European countries would probably be in favour of Russia. I dare to say that there is much verity in European countries dreading Russia, if not for juniors, who seem to be mischievously looking for trouble themselves.
The last smack on the nose that the US received in Georgia is just one in a row of America’s grievous blunders that clearly demonstrates the declining role of the US in world matters. NATO’s feeble respond to US imperative demands to punish Russia have raised nothing other than a few spiteful stand-by comments. Neither did India, China, Brazil have anything to say on the matter.
Mr. Fischer’s rightful concern addressed to European’s deficient of self-reliance has a benevolent remedy and that is not to walk in the shade of US policy. If Europe wants trouble it should expand NATO to enhance Georgia and the Ukraine in which case Fischer will get his chance to skip of the footboard and get his long yearned for treat of “responsibility”.

August 21, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

He's completely correct, of course. But then I'm an american and have probably been brainwashed into believing that.

Objective reality is that Germany should consider contributing less than Canada does. Or (in terms of fighting forces, Norway. Until very recently, anyway. That is the 'proper' contribution of the 2nd-largest country in NATO both in GDP and pupulation terms.

But Germany SHOULD continue it's laudable efforts to try US and UK soldiers for theit war-crimes. But not Russians - Russians don't commit war-crimes. Ask the Chechnyans - if you can find any.

August 22, 2008

Vladimir Shaporenko

You can find Chechens in Georgia... a unit of volunteers... The very idea has terrified Georgians, of course.

August 22, 2008

Jan Techau, German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Gold Contributor (97)

Joschka Fischer is correct, and it has been long overdue to hear this clear message from the left of the German political spectrum (Hans-Ulrich Klose is another notable exception to the ominous silence on this issue).

Germany’s problem is not a lack of strategic and political insight into the matter. By and large, the relevant part of the political elite is aware of the fact that Germany’s reluctance to play a bigger role in Afghanistan (a) hurts Germany’s security interests both at home and at the Hindu Kush, (b) fails to help the Afghans for whom we have accepted a huge responsibility, (c) is undermining Germany’s leverage within NATO.

Why then the reluctance? The answer is simple: fear of the electorate outweighs strategic considerations. The war in Afghanistan is widely unpopular in Germany. More than 80 per cent of Germans are against the deployment of German troops in the South of Afghanistan, while more than 50 per cent are against the war in general. Given the overall pacifist tendencies in the country, the “peace card” remains a very potent instrument for any party to mobilize anti-war sentiments against any other party that appears to be less “peace-loving” in.
This is doubly true in times of a grand coalition heading towards a general election, with a left party effectively setting the political agenda in the country.

So far, leading politicians have failed to break this vicious circle. Instead of demonstrating leadership by persistently offering voters the truth about German interests and responsibilities, German leaders have opted to keep silent, muddle through behind closed doors, and even distort the facts about the Bundeswehr’s mission in Afghanistan. The result is home-made German foreign policy paralysis. For this paralysis, Germany receives utterly justified criticism from its friends and allies in the Netherlands, Canada, Britain, and the United States.

As so often, the solution to the problem poses a dilemma. As my colleague Alexander Skiba and I have pointed out earlier this year (please see our pieces in the IHT http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/07/opinion/edtechau.php and at National Interest Online http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=16796), the only real remedy would be a long-term effort to truthfully inform the German body politic about the nature of the changing international system and the imminent and possible threats Germany faces. This effort in strategic education must include a debate on Germany’s strategic position as a medium-sized, export-oriented, ageing country in the heart of Europe. Most importantly, it must entail clear language on Germany’s national interests and the policy imperatives derived from them. The dilemma stems from the fact that this long-term strategy won’t help much in the short run. Afghanistan needs decisions now. But “now” is always the worst time for any politician running for re-election. So it is safe to assume that German free-riding will continue for a while, and that the clash with the next US President, whoever it might be, is pre-ordained.

Joschka Fischer’s party has long played an especially unfortunate role in the cementing of the unrealistic, blindly pacifist, pseudo-moralist state of mind in Germany. But they are not to be blamed alone. All parties have failed to speak truth to the sovereign. It is thus very important that Fischer speaks out now. We can only hope that many leading politicians who have not yet reached retirement will soon follow his example. It would be an essential element of Germany’s coming-of-age in foreign policy.

August 22, 2008

Richard Wales, MEI Network, Silver Contributor (59)

How quickly things change and how quickly we forget. Suddenly we’re discussing whether Germany should be more active militarily in Afghanistan? Thank God for the clear minds that oppose such action. In the U.S we have watched as our government has been taken over by thugs. People who speak out against the unlawful actions of both the Bush administration and the U.S. congress are illegally monitored and even arrested. It’s clear that the entire “terrorist” fabrication is nothing but a money making scam. When the President, and the Vice President along with senate and congressional members are directly involved financially with companies that are making billions from no bid contracts something is very wrong.

With the establishment of the Homeland Security agency in the U.S., civil rights and human rights have been sharply reduced. This is another money making operation. Registration with Homeland Security by American workers is “voluntary” except that if you don’t “volunteer” you don’t work. This is a way to violate the Constitutional right to security of person and property from illegal government search and seizure. This program is run by Lockeed Martin a company which is very pleased to profit from the denial of civil liberties to American Citizens. The program also keeps the population too busy trying to disengage from government intrusion to take issue with the criminal activities of the government.

Good for you Germany. Why should you join in a for profit lie? Lets take a good look at who is personally profiting from the demonization of non Europeans/Americans before we pack our children up with weapons to fight a war for reasons defined by the very people who are profiting from the blood of hundreds of thousands. We don’t have to parse and argue. All we have to do is take a look at the result of the rhetoric handed down by the ones profiting by these generalized military actions. Who profits? Is it grants in the academic community? Guaranteed sales for premium prices in the business community? Stock holders in these companies? Cost plus contractors? Generally when one follows the money one gets closer to the truth. Don’t feel bad about America “carrying the load”, it’s a very profitable load.

August 23, 2008

joe stone, Community Organizer, Silver Contributor (43)

Jan

Having read your articles, you must occupy a very lonely outpost. *g*

August 24, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

Quoting from Jan's IHT piece in February

"Second, Germany's refusal to pick up its fair share of the burden is strategically unsound. A country that relies on others to guarantee its security is ill-advised to waver when it is called upon by its partners. This behavior is even more questionable if one takes into account Germany's economic weight and its aspirations to have a greater say in geopolitical matters (just look at Berlin's continuing campaign for a permanent UN Security Council seat). This strategy squanders political capital lightly within NATO and is inviting other countries, such as France, to step in."

Precisely correct. Germany is the second-largest power in NATO by population and economic weight. Germany aspires to be recognized as a major power (that is what a permanent eat on the UN Security Council means).

In this context an offer to replace the Norwegians with 250 combat troops in the safer north of Afghanistan is - risible. An economically powerful nation of 80 million population seeks to belatedly match the fighting contribution of a country with 5% of it's population. Germany seeks a leadership position in NATO and the UN. Not completely unreasonable on the face of it. But to be recognised as a leader a nation must be willing to lead, and a large part of that is taking on at least it's share of difficult tasks - including combat missions in nasty areas.

I watched Europe (including Germany) clearly identify the crisis in south Afghanistan the past two years and demand action. I then watched them punt the problem to the US and the UK, who had to provide most of the troops to contain the crisis.

I agree with Jan about the political reasons why the German government has allowed itself to be paralyzed. I wonder why this has been allowed to occur? Germany has it's share of lionized news organisations like Der Speigel, Stern, and1 the highly-praised public networks. In Germany's NATO allies their counterparts (NY Times, BBC, Daily Telegraph, Le Monde, France ) play a role in educating the public about the country's foreign policy needs and objectives without being in the back pocket of the national government; why is this not so in Germany, which relies upon other countries for it's security more than any of them, even France or the UK? I suspect that it's because the German news media is run by 68'er alumnus stuck in a kind of time warp, but I could be wrong. Perhaps they need to take some advice from fellow 68'er Joscka Fischer, who HAS learned from the events occuring around him?

August 24, 2008

Johannes Bohnen, Atlantische Initiative (NGO), (8)

Donald, I could not agree more with your last statement. I think you are right in indicating that the German 68ers still need to come to terms with their ideological approach to politics. They are no longer participating in a serious dialogue because they (deep down) see the weaknesses of their arguments. Unfortunately they don't have the courage and moral impetus to fundamentally question old beliefs, reorient and move forward like Fischer has done. Instead many of them are destructive and pessimistic, thus making a responsible German foreign policy more difficult. And unfortunately quite a large number of these backward looking people are in key positions in the German media - not necessarily the foreign policy experts though.

"Germany has it's share of lionized news organisations like Der Speigel, Stern, and1 the highly-praised public networks. In Germany's NATO allies their counterparts (NY Times, BBC, Daily Telegraph, Le Monde, France ) play a role in educating the public about the country's foreign policy needs and objectives without being in the back pocket of the national government; why is this not so in Germany, which relies upon other countries for it's security more than any of them, even France or the UK? I suspect that it's because the German news media is run by 68'er alumnus stuck in a kind of time warp, but I could be wrong. Perhaps they need to take some advice from fellow 68'er Joscka Fischer, who HAS learned from the events occuring around him?"

August 24, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

Thank you Johannes - praise from you is an honor. The moralistic tone of the German media is sometimes very hard to take, not because it is unique (one sees it internationally in the UK, Frnce, and even in the US). Not because moralism is a bad value - it has it's place.

The problem is that as a single tone it's enormously too simplistic to reflect the real world. The fact is that in the real world Germany now depends far more for it's security than most of it's allies, even France. The moving of the border a few hundred miles east makes little difference; Germany still relies on the contributory members of the alliance (UK, US, and Canada) for it's security, and will continue to do so until you make the decision to reverse the 'peace dividend' of the 80's and 90's substantially.

The period since the fall of the Berlin Wall has fostered a dangerous illusion - that threats are a long way from Germany (and Europe generally) and therefore all kinds of fun and games are appropriate.

Under these circumstances moralistic reviling of the UK and US is - risky. The evil ones may decide to take the path of righteousness and do even as the Germans do. At least in Europe. Which means withdraw, of course.

The Russians may be a long way from Germany, but they are thousands of miles from the US mainland, if not the Bering Straits of Alaska. But Russia is no more a threat to the US than it is to Central Europe, much less of a threat in fact. The US could instantly massively reduce the threat profile it faces globally by withdrawing US forces from Europe. If the US were to adopt concensus German thinking (or at least behavior) on security matters - that is precisely what the US would - and should - do.

What Germany and Germans should do is undertake a little thought experiment. Do not take the US as an unthinking ally, as an invarient. Rather, examine what might happen if the US were to follow the 'moralistic' foreign policy which Germans urge upon it.

Ask also what would happen if the US followed German policies of refusing to take part in foreign wars. Concensus german thinking about Afghanistan is that it is a 'US war' an Germany has no part in it. What form would similar US thinking take about a European war - perhaps in Poland? I will tell you - such a war would be a 'foreign war' and none of the US' business!

There is a strong strain of such thought in the US now. It has been for a long time in parts of the US Left, but is now joined by equally strong agreement from parts of the right. And not merely extremists of either political persuasion; I am centre-right and have changed from an Atlanticist perspective to become much more of a NATO skeptic.

August 26, 2008

Max Simontowitz

Fischer is right, at least on the one hand. Germany (and Europe as a whole) has a responsibility towards Afghanistan. And it is obviously part of this responsibility to secure the country and the people of Afghanistan. To obtain this objective it is necessary to deploy armed forces and to use them in the fight against the Taliban et. al. And of course this battle for the security of Afghanistan should be fought together with every country contributing its part. I think there can't be much doubt about this since, if you start a war together, then you should fight this war together.

But on the other hand, one should not forget that security can't be obtained by armed forces alone. And every region in Afghanistan needs a different proportion of military and civil service measures to obtain and sustain security. And what's more, of course “a division of labor in which Americans fight and Europeans are responsible for the rebuilding will no longer work out”, but this does not only mean that Europeans/Germans have to acknowledge that this war can't be won without weapons (and casualties), but also should the US learn that this war can't be won by weapons alone.

Nevertheless, the statement by Fischer might give the public discourse in Germany a new impetus which is desperately needed since most politicians still deny to talk straight about Afghanistan and what is needed to win this war.

But one should not be too harsh with Germany since, in my opinion, for a lot of Germans the new situation of the 21th century is a bit strange. For 60 years they were educated to pacifism with a few countries remaining suspicious of a reawakening german military throughout the 20th century and now the world seems to be a bit upside-down with everybody demanding from Germany to become more militaristic. It will take time until the public opinion has adapted to the (new) realities, but as far as I am concerned, it will adapt in the long run (maybe to late for Afghanistan, though).

But what to do in the short run? There will be no sudden change in the public opinion and due to upcoming elections most politicians are more than reluctant to propose anything unpopular. Nevertheless, complaining about the shortsightedness and maybe cowardice of the german political establishment, is of no good since there is only this establishment and no other. However, somebody has to start to really explain what's going on in Afghanistan and why we should sacrifice our soldiers for this land, for this war. Obama’s appearance and speech in Berlin might have been a first step towards a more charismatic US foreign policy. Even so, it needs more and since the USA are more or less discredited maybe other countries could start to explain (and not complain or insult..) Germans why they should join them in the South. Maybe this will not help a lot but in my opinion it would be better than trying to force the public opinion.

August 27, 2008

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (332)

I would like to contribute as one of the 60% of the German population who oppose the troop deployment in Afghanistan in general, and as one of the 80% who oppose involvement in the war in the south of the country. How can it be that this overwhelming public opinion is brushed away as if people were not smart enough to understand what is going on, and as if "peace dreams of the 68-generation" would make "realistic politics" impossible?

I am very disappointed by Joschka Fischer, but not really surprised, since I never liked him too much and think that he had a tendency to follow mainstream opinions ("das Faehnchen nach dem Winde haengen...") - in this case the abominable war-stream which infects western intellectuals.

Before we further discuss the German and European options of reinforcing troops in Afghanistan, let me ask a basic question: Why are we there?

I would like to thank Richard Wales for his insightful comment. Who thinks we are there to teach Afghan girls reading and writing? And what about this terrorist thing - are we preventing or creating terrorism there? Is counter-terrorism in form of a war the only possible answer to Osama bin Laden? Also, I wonder why people do not get tired of stressing "civilian action/strenghtening re-construction" to support the military engagement?

We are talking about "civilian action/strenghtening re-construction" since the earlierst days of the war, but to no avail. Are our generals and governments really so ignorant, or is it simply not realistic to talk about reconstruction because the resinstance is still too strong (if you like, call them "insurgents" or "terrorists", but I wonder whether "resistance" might not be a more appropriate term)? For me it sounds like palliation, as do expressions like "humanitarian missions" while soldiers are there to fight. We should be honest: we are there to occupy a country, support a puppet government, and secure a gas pipeline. Nothing heroic, I would say, and the "Islamic threat" sounds in my ears very much like a created concept of an enemy. At least my long work in the Levant radically changed my previous negative perception of Islam.

When we now move from the basic goals of the Afghanistan mission to the current reinforcement options, I heard in several radio interviews with different Bundeswehr generals that around 400.000 - 500.000 men would be needed to control this country. So, please let us again try to be honest. If we want to win this case militarily, we need a draft in the U.S., and I want to see the german government who sends as a brave vasall e.g. 100.000 soldiers in support for the occupation. Such an option is not realistic, not even by replacing the soldiers with mercenaries as it is done in Iraq (which might by the way explain the tremendous costs of that war).

Last but not least, look at the history of the Afghanistan war. First I heard in the news that only "peacekeeping troops" would be sent if everybody wanted them to come, then we only wanted to support the government if they asked for support (apart from some special forces for terrorist-hunting), and then suddenly commentators in the news mourned that we did not fully occupy the country from the beginning. As if the Soviet example had never happened. I deeply regret that so few people in the west are willing to speak out against the war-stream, the identification of Islam as the new "concept of the enemy", and the "terrorism" issue as justification for politics which remind me to the imperialist ideas of the 19th century.

I would say: the U.S. are now bogged down in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which were unnecessary, are unwinnable, and have unclear and contradictory goals. And thus it is not surprising that Russia now claims back its old sphere influence. Europeans and Germans may have to leave their "armchair" position, but I expect they will not do this in an attempt to save U.S. wars in the Middle East which have long been lost. Europe may have to build up a stronger military power in order to e.g. oppose Russia, but this will - and can - only happen if U.S. power declines so much further that the world order changes. I think we all in this forum do not hope that this will happen, but it might be wise to allow some criticism of the politics which caused the actual decline. Ignorance led the wars in the Middle East, and may be found in other fields of actions as well, if we consider splitting Kosovo from Serbia. Georgians now pay the bill. European weakness may be criticised as well, but perhaps this weakness also has to to with cowardice, having to choose "either you are with us or you are against us"?

I hope that the praise of war will not further grow among European intellectuals (especially considering Russia), and that the German constitution will not further be weakened and broken. In fact, our involvement in Afghanistan might be illegal. This constitution was written after a deep and teaching experience, which is not forgotten by the majority of the population as the polls show. People do not want the war, even though Islam is painted as the new threat everyday in the media. Tiredness of democracy might however decrease if our politicians and intellectuals would take people's opinion a little more serious. Instead of pushing their subject to cast their vote for the right ("political correct") parties and support their wars "because there is no other option".

August 27, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

Herr Lucke, you seem to be asking for a kind of perfect war, but like everything else in life there really exists no such thing. Life is full of messes. But it's the end result which counts.

Lots of things which seem unwinnable at one point or another can turn out rather well if effort, committment, and patience are exercised - something which 60% or 80% of Germans refuse to do.

Most Germans seem to be smug about Germany's refusal to participate in what they see as US failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars may turn out to be falures in the end - or otherwise. Iraq is looking a lot more stable today than it did a year ago, and it now appears possible that the Arab world's first imperfect democracy may actually survive it's infancy. If it does should that not be counted a triumph? Perhaps elsewhere but not in Germany I fear!

Afghanistan looks worse today than it did two years ago, very possibly because of lack of committment on the part of certain NATO members in addition to internal factors and mistakes by 'active' NATO members. Other things commonly criticized as failures may not be in point of fact - notably the 'failure' to utterly suppress the opium traffic, which is the subject of frequent savage criticism. Others understand that the illicit opium trade is virtully Afghanistan's only source of hard currency and until that changes it would be a major mistake to give opium farmers cause to ally with the Taliban.

Most Germans seem completely myopic to the effect that German foreign policy is having on the long-term future of NATO. Given that the policy is mostly driven by the opinion held by Germans like you, you are having a direct influence whether you percieve it or not. Unfortunately I doubt you see what effect that is actually having, perhaps because you fail to percieve the interelationships as well as Fischer does.

German reluctance to act as a full ally in NATO is undermining the stability of NATO. As the #2 power in NATO, Germany exercises leadership, and Germany's refusal to participate is being observed elsewhere (Spain, Italy, and the other continental European members) and encourages them to follow German leadership. This refusal has been clearly seen in the few remaining active participating countries (UK, US, Canada, and Eastern Europeans). There will be a response, probably emulation of the German/continental lack of participation.

It has clearly emboldened Putin. Putin might paraphrase Stalin, who asked "How many divisions has the Pope". Putin might privately quip "How many divisions have the Europeans/Germans?" Answer: very few.

Germany has led the movement to hollow out NATO by cutting it's defense budget to the bone and eviscerating German fighting forces. If most of the large countries in NATO refuse to contribute to the alliance why should the other countries contribute? By doinjg so you have put yourself into the hands of the US; then you deeply insulted Americans by labeling us 'national socialists' and comparing Bush with Hitler; do you really believe it will b 'business as usual' after this?

August 27, 2008

joe stone, Community Organizer, Silver Contributor (43)

Mr. Techau

Assuming for a moment such dialogue took place within Germany, what do you think would become Germany’s vital national interests? By vital national interests, those things Germany would be prepared to spend its treasure to defend.

August 28, 2008

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (332)

Dear Donald,

thank you for your answer on my comment. I agree with you on your analysis of Germany's policy's impact - this certainly weakens NATO's position in Afghanistan. However, the disagreement is not on how to conduct the mission, it is much deeper: on the purpose, and the mission itself, as well as the general direction of the future foreign politics.

NATO used to be a purely defensive organisation, with the main goal to keep the Soviet Union at bay. It is now slowly mutating into an agressive alliance, mainly concerned with securing the flow of fossil fuels, and supporting ambitions of the current U.S. government wich remind me to imperialist strategies of the 19th century.

Here is the key for the current problems, and from my point of view, Americans should not so much blame Europeans for a lack of support. It was not our idea to invade the Middle East, and the growing threats of Russia and Iran are in my opinion not the result of European weakness. They are the result of American weakness, and the disastrous spiral of re-armament which we entered in the recent years, which are due to a wrong strategy and failed adventures in the Middle East. Iraq may now stabilise - because there seems to be a new "strong man", who by the way has to kick the American soldiers out if he wants to survive on the long run.

I do not believe the tales of spreading democracy in the Middle East: there are enough countries with dictators which are supported by the U.S. Iran - apart from Israel - is the most democratic country in the region, which does not hinder us to demonise them because they oppose our interests. The aim of the Iraq war was strategic control, and this will be lost when the U.S. army has to leave the country. Isn't it the same interests which brought us to Afghanistan?

On the long run, I think this disagreement under NATO allies in Afghanistan will go to the very core of NATO. If its mutation towards an aggressive strategy will go on, the only consequence for the countries not willing to follow that path may be to leave NATO.

I would hate the idea that Germany leaves NATO, but ask the American contributors on this forum to consider this option. If you think that aggressive wars have to be conducted, do so, but leave NATO out, or form other "coalitions of the willing".

August 28, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

"NATO used to be a purely defensive organisation, with the main goal to keep the Soviet Union at bay. It is now slowly mutating into an agressive alliance, mainly concerned with securing the flow of fossil fuels, and supporting ambitions of the current U.S. government wich remind me to imperialist strategies of the 19th century."

Bernhard, there are a few big problems with this statement. NATO was created to do two things: to bring the Germans into a western-based defensive alliance which would neutralize the threat which the other nations of Europe felt after 80 years of German hegenomy Europe, and secondarily but importantly, to keep the USSR and the Warsaw Pact at bay.

After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, NATO had lost it's imitial mission. German integration into European institutions has long since been accomplished - certainly since 1970, if not 1960, Germany has no longer been considered a threat to the peace of Europe.

The second objective took longer to be removed, but the USSR no longer exists. The Warsaw Pact? Most of the Warsaw Pact are now members of NATO. NATO no longer had a purpose as of the early 1990's, if not in 1989.

At this point NATO's membership decided to attempt to reform NATO into the security context existing in the 20th century. Germany and most of the rest of continental Europe agreed because this kept the US in the job of shielding Europe. New members were admitted into NATO as a part of integrating them into Europe, and new goals and manates were agreed.

Kosovo was the first test of the new NATO. Europe first attempted to handle the Croatian and Kosovar crises by 'soft power', but that did not work well because some people do not recognize such things. The US was asked by Germany and others to come in and fight the Kosovo war. The Balkans were then (and remain today) primarily a European concern, not a core US interest. Nevertheless the US came in and did most of the fighting, because that is how a good ally behaves; A viable alliance addresses the interests of all of it's members.

So far, so good. The US helped sort out the Kosovo conflict and Europe & Germany were (relatively) pleased.

Along comes 9/11, and the US is the country attacked. The US sought help from it's presumably loyal and grateful allies - and discovers that many of them (led by Schroeder's Germany) are neither loyal or grateful, and certainly not willing to do much of anything to help the same country who helped them pacify the Balkans war. The agreements made in the early 90's proved to be so much waste paper when Germany and France found them to be inconvenient.

So be it. Don't expect the US to forget this; we will not. NATO cannot go back to being a 'defensive alliance' defending Germany against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Neither body exists today, and Europe should be fully capable of defending itself unlike in the late 40's when you were prostrate. If Europe is unwilling to act as ally to the US, then the US has no interest in defending Eyurope. Defending Europe in this case is a 'unilateral' one-way exercise, effectively the US subsidizing the defense of trading rivals. Why would any sane country do THAT?!!!!

Either NATO converts itself into a true alliance which supports ALL members (including the US, UK, and Canada). Or it should dissolve itself.

August 29, 2008

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (332)

Thank you for that comment: I think we approach the core of the disagreements on Afghanistan etc.

Firstly I would like to point out that Germans are thankful and remember well what the U.S. did for our country and Europe. Secondly we are loyal to NATO and ready to defend member countries against terrorism and other threats. But: I am not willing to blindly follow a strategy which I consider wrong and very dangerous, especially since it becomes more and more obvious how it has failed. Is everything which the U.S. do right because it is done by Americans, and are Amercians always the good guys? We Germans have very bad experiences with following bad leadership.

George W. Bush's low popularity under America's allies may have to do with the policy of "either you are with us or you are against us". Why do many Americans consider their allies as un-thankful or even enemies if they disagree with a strategy? And I think that what was done after September 11 was the worst possible strategy and made terrorism more dangerous than ever before.

Sometimes I think that the America which founded NATO was quite different from the U.S. today. Today the U.S. are dangerously dependent on foreign resources and money, and some analysts concluded that its role changed changed from a stabilising to a de-stabilising force in the world.

And since its forces are over-strechted in Iraq and Afghanistan (due to failed wars, which in my opinion achieved nothing to control terrorism - today the world is a much more dangerous place than in 2001), now real opponents like Russia and Iran can expand their spheres of influence without meeting serious opposition.

We are now for 7 years in Afghanistan. I do not see why we should stay there longer, and what we want to achieve. We mismanaged the occupation, and should be happy if we do not experience a second "Soviet Afghanistan experience". The resources spent there could be much better used e.g. for reducing our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

So comes my last point: Europe and Germany may have to play a stronger role to fill the power vacuum left by the U.S., but we should not waste our strenght to continue a failed strategy. And if Europe, e.g. the French-German korps, will play a much stronger role in world politics, this will reduce the U.S. influence. Which will materialise e.g. at the point who makes the decisions about NATO's strategy. I do not think that the U.S. really wants a stronger role of Europeans there.

I think Germans were very happy with U.S. leadership as long as it was good leadership, and are not keen on playing "big power" again. If the strategy would be changed, there are good prospects of NATO successes in harmony with all members. But Americans cannot expect to celebrate a big party, mess up the house, and have Europeans later clean the dishes.

September 1, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

The criticism offered by many of the critics of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, while representing a reasonable point of view, suffers from the fact that it doesn't change depending upon current data.

What I am getting at is that I heard very similar criticism of 'failed strategy' in 2003 and it really hasn't changed a great deal, even when the facts have.

For an example I advance you're assertion that Iraq is a 'failed' war. This may have been a reasonable view in 2006, but events have moved on. The Iraqi government may not be a reproachless democracy quite yet, but it does seem to be far more stable than it was 2 years ago. In terms of human rights it is light-years ahead of Saddam Hussein, and well ahead of it's neighbors in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even Turkey in some ways. The people in the 'Sunni Triangle' have ejected the foreign terrorists from their territory and have been working to build their own governments in their areas, working more or less with the US to achieve common goals.

It's not perfect to be sure, and I'm sure there will be slips and setbacks. But Iraq looks like it may work out. Let's consider the context. If you compare Iraq with Germany post-1950 they look bad. But that wasn't Germany's first try at a democracy, was it? That was Weimar. Didn't work so hot, did it? But the second go, within NATO and the EU worked a charm, didn't it?

Perhaps a more apt comparison might be South Korea, which today is an impeccable democracy except for a bit of corruption. But South Korea wasn't anything like impeccable for at least 35 years after 1950, was it? The US supported South Korea through thick and thin for 50 years. We have supported Germany longer thn that, and both democratic 'experiements' have worked out very well in the end. Perhaps with a little US support Iraq may turn out to be the first true democracy in the Arab world. Perhaps not immediately, but wait. Patience.

I'd advocate similar patience with Afghanistan. Not with the strategy, but with the process. A bad strategy needs to be replaced with something better, something informed by our experience in the area. Germany could contribute something to the new strategy, but Germany is not contributing much of a positive nature.

German criticism of the Afghan deployment has ben pretty much constant. It's doomed to failure, we don't want to have anything to do with it, let us get out. You particularly don't wish to do any fighting and can only be included at all by giving Germany the safest missions.

My critique of Germany and Germans is that you are standoffish - you don't WISH to participate, you do as little as you possibly can, when more resources are required Germans debate endlessly and then send very little - months after other allies have acted.

Not Germany alone of course; Germany is the leader of an entire bloc of NATO allies who behave this way, taking their lead from the 'leader' of Europe. Spain, France until recently, Italy. Most of continental Europe east of Germany follow Germany in this. The bloc of 'active'
NATO allies include the UK, US, Canada, Nederlands, and Eastern Europe.

To have a positive impact - and influence in alliance circles a country needs to be willing to do something significant - expend significant resources, rather than just criticize. Criticism is a psrt of it, but not the criticism of the outsider. I amd referring to 'self-criticism' here. Not just that 'Germany or the US made a mistake there', but "WE made mistakes here, there, and here".

You have not been enough of a contributor to do that. Your criticisms of strategy in the violent South are the critiques of the outsider. AND - they tend to be very much the same as they were in 2003.

When I see that I usully conclude that someone hasn't actually been studying the facts but baning away at the same old arguments. I might be wrong, but that is what I see - from Germany.....