The incredible thing about Germans is that they don’t believe in the Domino theory, or do they?
“And if you care for my assumptions about the aftermath of WW2: If you had decided to dissolve Germany, or let it starve, or really any other option than that which you picked, the whole of Europe would now either be communist satellites, a nuclear wasteland, or a mixture of both. “ ***When it’s one self, then of course different standards apply as with others.***
The irony with Vietnam and a German using that war in his half baked anti-war arguments is that the divided Germany was facing the same threat, and was essentially in the same situation. The problem is that when the typical German leftist uses this war in his argument, he doesn’t realize that all the reasons for the war were proven right after we withdrew and the armistice was broken and the South fell, as the entire region fell apart with Laos and Cambodia following suit and Thailand being attacked (Which we propped up and began poring massive resources into as soon as the withdraw from Vietnam was politically inevitable). I wonder, where do most Germans talking about Vietnam suppose those MIG21s, SA2 SAMs, and PRGs our guys were dealing with came from? Was it the massive industrial and technologically advanced economy Vietnam had?/sarc When a German uses the Vietnam War in some example, he usually is constructing a self defeating argument, which is if he knew better wouldn’t use, but he doesn’t know better, and that’s why he uses it. All the German knows is that Vietnam “feels bad” and so the association is there based on a “feeling” not anything substantive and factual. It’s an appeal to emotions essentially. The Vietnam argument from a German is usually as shallow as some statement like, “Kein Blut fuer Oel.”
As too Israel, you do exactly what I stated, rationalize doing nothing. The UN requested help, the Israeli’s would LOVE involvement, and like in the Balkans, a place occupied by German troops in WWII and some did make the historical hang up argument there too, it’s a “non-issue,” except when it’s a convenient excuse. In fact, I would argue 180 degree the opposite! BECAUSE it is Israel, this was an opportunity lost to do the right thing and to mend the past. But instead what the word saw was a Germany that sat on their hands and sent two ships. Your historical argument is exactly the same sort of BS that has been floated for years and applied elsewhere. If German troops stood in Lebanon and stopped the flow of arms across the boarder, the firing of rockets into Israel, or the kidnapping and murder of people, do you think the Israeli’s are going to complain?
Unfortunately this is too often the reality: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/pirates-free-german-ship-off-somalia
Germany today is a nation that doesn’t carry its weight and will play games, a nation that will pay ransom to drug cartels, pirates, and will gladly do business with the pariah’s out there and when people like you try to spin this somehow as noble, honest, moral, and intellectual, even as an act of strength, some people, especially those paying for our collective security and interests might not be so appreciative. Those who remember Germany asking for help in the Cold War and seeing GIs killed at the hands of RAF terrorists, those remembering Germany asking for help in the Balkans, they don’t see your minimalist and do nothing stance post 911 as noble, strong, intellectual, or moral.
The world is upside down too many Germans. When you stand to an allies side it’s portrayed as weakness, even after 911; but saying “Nein” to the US and making big shows of Bad Ailbling or Iraq, that is seen as some great German demonstration of sovereign power. “Wir sind wieder jemand!”
As to your beliefs about Iraq, this will entirely depend on the next elections. The fate of 26 million people more or less depend on the outcome in November. As with most of these missions, “they take time.” There is a reason why we are still in the Sinai 26 years later, why nearly 10 years later we are still in the Balkans (But since you gain from that intervention and support it, that timeline does not seem extraordinary to you)……… Iraq is simply a war where a line was drawn in the sand between the liberals and conservative camps; it’s a political battle ground for people with names like Kerry, Obama, Schroeder, or Chirac. It’s a place that has become a reality TV show for the “Spanner.” People in general know little about the war, and even the cause for war today has been narrowed down to a single slogan, WMD. People know little about the threat, our organization, the geography, the people of Iraq, the task at hand or what is needed to get to the finish line with a positive outcome. It’s all about where people see themselves and Iraq is essentially a sounding board for their greater ideological convictions. Seriously, listen to people talk about Iraq, few have any clue what they are talking about, most don’t even remotely make sense, but they do tell a lot about themselves when they speak.
There is a dichotomy between what people think and what is in Iraq, since it’s become a political and media orgy. What I can say for sure, is that there was a plan, things like this take a long time, and that the basic nature of people is that they do choose freedom when given a choice regardless of where they are and what religion they have. Even a people that voted for a Hitler, who voluntarily raised their right arms and before that obeyed their Kaiser, even they with no real democratic traditions to speak of (Weimar was too short to even count), chose freedom and a republic when afforded the option; and even they took years before they were self sustaining. It took Germany ten years before their Bundeswehr stood up in 1955, it took three years before their currency came around (Deutsche Mark), and the first parliamentary elections weren’t until 4 years after wars end. It took longer to have a Constitution than in Iraq, and contrary to the German fairytale, there were both Nazi and Communist terrorist groups active in Germany for years after WWII with the sole objective of resisting the Allied powers and/or over throwing the FRG’s government. In fact, the US Constabulary basically was the law of the land all the way into 1952 when this police function was handed over to the Germans. ***It takes time***
However, we have already accomplished a lot, and at this point, believe it or not, Iraq is damn near safer than Afghanistan! No kidding, casualties are down, attacks are down, some of the militias have laid down arms……. (Der Durchbruch gelang dieses Jahr)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/terror/main4221986.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4221986
At this point it’s about reconstruction and nation building and it is likely that combat troops begin returning home, not because of politics, but because the situation on the ground allows it. It is not just possible, it is likely that even a McCain will begin withdrawing troops within his first term, and no, I don’t expect Iraq to implode after that. However, a premature withdraw, hastily and politically motivated, fixed to a rigid timeline like Obama wants can turn back the clock.
Failure isn’t defined by meandering through a minefield of cliché and contemporary argument picking out a new one by the day to pin some idea of failure on. ***As you rightfully stated, failure will be defined when we leave and if Iraq stands or falls.*** However, the media has created a perception of failure by throwing mass quantities of garbage out there, most with high gloss pictures in magazines with names like Der Spiegel. Ever so often they have a new angle, a new theme (the mobs raiding, electrical power, election dates that can’t be kept, oil production, fuel rationing, etc.). Ironically few go back and check or report on the fact that Baghdad today has BETTER than pre war power, and that much of the fuel shortages were because more people could travel and move about than ever before, which BTW, the fuel rationing is over too. Few look back and say, “So what do you have to say for yourself since oil production is near pre-war level?” Nope, all the media and doom sayers do is move on to a new topic, a new theme. What is it now in Der Spiegel I wonder? I don’t read that trash, so I don’t really know. Der Spiegel only interests me when I want to feel the “Zeitgeist” of the German left. The fact that Iraq has satellite TVs, internet, and cell phone access (not allowed under Saddam), a growing economy, increasing oil production which is near or at pre-war levels doesn’t seem to matter. Is it entire regions that are self governing and where US troops are not even in the lead anymore that will convince people of success? Were the elections which had a higher voter turn out than most Western nations convincing that the people do buy into democracy? Is it their schools, universities, courts, police that are doing their jobs that will change the mind of the doom and gloom pundit? Maybe it’s the streets packed full of cars like never before because people can move about freely and have the money to do so? Maybe it’s the per-capita income which was $600 per year in 2003 and is around $3,700 today (2008)?
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPIQ.gif
While some talk of doom and gloom:
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/08/provincial_control.jpg
“Failure, quagmire, another Vietnam!!!!!!”…… and yet things are moving foreword quite well.
While I understand why you think the way you do, I assure you, things are very different than the media portrays. Already in 2003-2004 when I was there, things were hardly as bad as portrayed and some areas were actually safe, believe it or not. You need to realize, most of the deaths and the bombings etc. occur in specific areas that are hot spots. Even Baghdad has large areas where you “could” walk unarmed without body armor and nothing will happen. But then there are areas where it might be smart to only drive in with an armored vehicle with lots of firepower etc. The pictures you get on your news, come from specific places and they always tend to be the “same” places. Hell, if you really wanted too, you could vacation in Iraq, Kurdistan. But this is so far out of the “Weltanschauung” you have that it’s beyond your ability to accept it, at least from me.
If Obama wins, you might be right, Iraq may fail as a unified state and we’ll resort to a divided Iraq where places like Kurdistan are still in our court. Yes, that would mean a power expansion for Iran, and it would be bad. If McCain wins, Iraq will succeed as a nation, it’s not far out of reach at this point. If we fail in Iraq, that will be a real disgrace, it’s like running a marathon and being in a leading position and quitting at mile 25.
Damn nice novel your writing here.
Heh, touché.
But let me repeat: Israel and especially the IDF would not stand for a large amount of German troops sent under UN mandate. The idea that we can help pacify the Middle East is nice in theory, because that would of course be a very good way to repay a debt. But the UN is incapable of doing this. We wouldn't even want a UN capable of doing this, at least I'm not too keen on a world army restructuring the world as the UN sees fit.
And the Vietnam conflict was a colonial one: The people of the Far East had already tried to negotiate their independence from the West, and France had denied them that. So obviously the only place they could turn to for support was the Commies. In my eyes that is the problem with Domino: In a bipolar system, if you are unhappy under the rule of one side, you always have to choose the other side for support, because if you want to fightr a war with Russia or the USA, national power does rarely cut it. But that does not necessarily prove you want to be ruled by that other side, as demonstrated by Vietnam.
