Posted on 06/25/2005 11:06:04 AM PDT by quidnunc
The German foreign minister was the first to bear the brunt of rejection for his country. Just over a week ago, with Joschka Fischer standing at her side at the US State Department building in Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that the Americans had discussed "at length" Germany's wish for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. However, she added, "the only country that we clearly support is Japan."
A week later it was German Chancellor Schroeder's security and foreign affairs adviser Bernd Muetzelburg's turn. While touring the United States to promote Germany's cause at the UN, he opened up the paper in New York last Thursday morning to read that next to Japan the best the US government could do would be to support "a developing nation's" bid for a permanent seat. It was, as the New York Times wrote, "a harsh setback for Germany."
When German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder sits down with US President George W. Bush for lunch at the White House on Monday, he'll experience first-hand just how little support Germany can expect from its major ally in its efforts to land a permanent seat. US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns has already clarified the Bush administration's position on the matter, noting that more than two new permanent members "could be damaging."
The Americans' clear signaling of their plans to block Germany's nomination is the most serious consequence to date in a typically behind-the-scenes diplomatic battle. The group of G4 nations — a newly formed alliance between India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for the purpose of supporting each other's bids for permanent seats in the UN — intends to force an expansion of the UN Security Council, which currently numbers 15 members, to include 6 new permanent and four non-permanent members. The so-called "Coffee Club," which includes countries like Italy, Pakistan, Argentina and South Korea, is clearly opposed to the G4 move.
The two camps have been forging new, discrete alliances, recruiting partners and threatening opponents for months. The G4 nations need a two-thirds majority in the UN General Assembly, or at least 128 of the 191 member states, to amend the United Nations Charter to allow for the expansion.
-snip-
"well a majority of your own countrymen now believe it was a mistake to go there" -- says WHO?? Been reading the NYTimes or listening to the Senate Blowhards or something? You will not find that attitude among the citizens here. We love GWBush, we ELECTED him by a large margin, we LOVE our troops. And we have had it with the pompous Euroweenies. Any questions?
I think The Black Beast is from the Film Actors Guild.
Alec Baldwin is that you????
dung.
"Germany is ready and willing to lend support, money and
troops in case of an international crisis and has proven"
That was then.
Whatever one thought about the war then, the fact of the war, and the Iraqi election, and the existence of Al Qaeda within Iraq now, forces a change of policy.
Perhaps Germany cannot, for political reasons, send troops to Iraq. But to deny that there is an international crisis in Iraq now is to be blind.
Likewise, if the Americans pull out now, what happens?
Iraq falls to the Al Qaeda insurgency. A worse crisis than that cannot be imagined.
Would it have been better for the US to have not invaded Iraq but, instead, closed its own borders, ceased Muslim immigration into the US, and spied upon the Muslims within America? That would have been the approach favored by the French.
But that is water under the bridge.
Whether the Americans were correct or not about the presence of WMD, Saddam Hussein was certainly a mass murderer. One can hardly shed tears that he is gone.
If the American war was technically illegal, Hussein's shooting at UN Coalition planes was certainly illegal, and mass murder, torture and rape rooms were crimes against humanity.
His removal is a benefit, regardless of the legality of it.
In the here and now, Iraq is the place in which all of the Islamist terrorists of the world have concentrated, to attack Americans. Obviously the current French and German governments cannot back down and send troops.
But we cannot pretend that there is not a crisis: there is now.
And we cannot pretend, even if it was caused by the United States acting rashly, that the outcome would be better if the Americans left and the place fell to Al Qaeda.
Non.
The Iraqiens voted. They want a democracy. That much is clear. If the Americans leave, the chances for democracy there will be murdered by the terrorists.
Yes, the terrorists would not be there in force if the Americans had not entered, and Saddam were left to torture his people. But the Americans did enter, and are there, and Al Qaeda is there now.
The American causes were perhaps imperfect, and the course of action chosen was perhaps not optimal. But we have what we have, they did what we did, and reality is that it will be a disaster for humanity if they lose.
Surely you know this.
Chirac is stubborn and the French people cannot send troops there. But at least there can be cooperation on Lebanon with the US. Syria is a bad regime that supports terror. We all know this.
And at the very least we can just shut up and stop reciting the reasons the Americans should not have gone to war in Iraq. No one knows better than the Americans the price they have paid, and will still have to pay, for that undertaking. They undertook it. France did not agree. Germany did not agree. But they have to win. And everyone who thinks about it must know that.
Germans didn't support the war.
France did not either.
But it does no good to beat the fallen ass and claim that no crisis exists.
Given the spectacular failure of both Chirac and Schroeder to address the particular problems of France and Germany, it is perhaps time to stop complaining about two years ago, stop trying to put a bar in the wheels of the Americans (and British) in a war that it is now important for everybody that they see through to the end, and perhaps focus upon areas in which we can usefully cooperate.
In other words, even if there remains resentment with the Americans over the unneccessary pretext for the war, it IS necessary that they win it, and it is necessary that Germans and French people not be fools and keep carping about it and making rapprochement impossible.
Only a fool continues to fight in a house which is on fire.
Europe is staggering, and trying to refight the diplomatic arguments of 2002-2003 are not going to fix the problems in Europe. They will only antagonize the Americans further, for no purpose.
Even Chirac and Villepin understand this well enough to no longer complain about the war in Iraq. It is what it is. The Americans have to win it now or it will be a disaster. They are properly chastened and will not underestimate the dangers and go recklessly into another Middle Eastern country again. They have learnt their lesson and now have to win this war.
It is time for Germans, too, to shut up about it and hope they win. Not send troops, perhaps, but stop making the divisions worse. Nothing is served by it. And Schroeder will soon be gone too. Why continue to inflict damage on relations with the Americans when with his departure the Americans will be inclined to forgive and work with the new German government?
Once upon a time, Germany would have that many troops crossing the Polish border within the first 17 seconds of a war.
Now, German troops are reduced to window dressing in the safest regions they can find in a low intensity war zone.
Has a single German soldier conducted offensive operations against al Qaeda or the Taliban in Afghanistan?
If a single one has, it's a well guarded secret.
What you said! Bravo!!! Very well put!
You dont need to convince me that Saddams afterlife will
feature a long term confinement in hell.
But again, the german Grundgesetz strictly requires that
its territory or that of its allies is under imminent
attack to justify military action.
The al-Qaida terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were
considered to pose such a threat and proof was plenty that
they existed.
In Iraq, Hans Blix and company went there to assess Saddams
capabilities. They were dead on target with every single
report that was made, contrary to the "...erroneous intelligence that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons..." (Scott McClellan, White House Speaker, January 2005)
And no, neither regime change nor preemptive action are
valid causes to go to war for today's Germany.
Send the UN to Germany. Give them the whole damned rat's nest.
Iraq is part of the US overall long range strategy to destroy the historical support nations of terrorism in the Middle East. The nations are Syria, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. When the US stormed Bora Bora, they found a treasure trove of documents that link all four of these countries to ongoing terrorism in the Middle East. At this point, the US has two major decisions to make. Stop the war after Afghanistan because there is no international support. That means we have to let Al Qaida restablish itself, with help one degree or another from the four listed, and react after another 9/11 attack because international sympathy will be on our side again to react. The problem is the second attack may be worst than the first attack and our President is going to be hardpressed to explain to the families of the dead why he did not go in and root terrorism out completely. Bush had to make a critical strategic decision, each has its risks and rewards. I think he made the decision to finish the job by ripping out the terror infrastructure by starting with Iraq (which is the geographic center of the four countries). I will be blunt, the US will create a free Iraq who will serve as a base for US forces and her Army (I predict will be about 600 000) will be our proxy groundforce trained to work with US advisors, Special Opererations and tactical air power. The US will go after Syria and Iran, and the last country will be Saudi Arabia with this proxy army. This is why the jihadist are sending in fighters, desperately trying to destroy the new Iraq and drive out the US forces by irregular warfare. We will know if the plan is working by Jan 2006 when the Iraqi Army doubles from 140 000 to 250 000. and US troop levels drop by 50 percent. I think the plan is working, because the latest fighting are involving Iraqi forces more and more. In the latest battle reported, a 40 man Iraqi police station was attacked in the Baya suburbs of Baghdad. In the early morning hours, 100 insurgents were able to close in and attack with rockets and small arms. They caught the sleeping police garrison by surprise. Confusion insued, and to make matters worst, the nearby Iraqi Army garrison was pinned down by mortar fire. The police were on their own. If this battle occurred one year ago, the police would have surrendered, turn their arms over to the insurgents and fled. Instead the garrison held out till mid morning, and the insurgents were forced to retreat leaving 12 killed and 20 wounded behind. The Sunni insurgents had one advantage at the beginning of the occupation, they were led by seasoned and trained former Saddam officers. Our Iraqi forces had to build their officer corps from scratch. Two years later, this force has been able to shake out the ones who want to fight for pay versus the ones who fight for a purpose. This battle in Baya police station indicates that the Free Iraqi forces leadership can go toe to toe with the trained officers of the insurgency. When this war becomes one between the US backed Iraqis versus the jihadist backed Iraqis, you will see the tide turn in the US favor. The European media and US mainstream media paint a picture that the US backed Iraq is losing. People forget one thing, the free Iraqi Army is a volunteer force. Everytime the jihadist explodes a car bomb, innocent Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds civilian are killed. This creates more recruits for the free Iraqi forces. No one in the media has reported a shortage of Iraqi recruits. Germany chose not to help the US in this endeavor, that is her right. If the US succeed, Germany cannot be at our doorstep demanding to be amongst the first to land lucrative contracts in a victorious free Iraq.
tophat nailed it - France has the EU seat, Germany gets to share.
There is no compelling miliary or political reason for the Germans to have a permanent seat.
Of course you left out the part where Germany was on the take from Sadam! He could of had ten nukes, and the Germans would have never went into Iraq!
Germany was bought and paid for by Sadam, and the UN!!!
Hell NO! Germany was profiting from this criminal! Germany will just beg the USA to bail her out of a jam if attacked anyway, and then complain about how the Americans are a bunch of "cowboys!"
Germany started 2 world wars, and now sits there and wants to dictate to the USA about ethics, and when we should go to war! Germany can go to hell!
"And no, neither regime change nor preemptive action are
valid causes to go to war for today's Germany."
All well and good.
So, Germany will not send troops.
But Germans can stop arguing about Hans Blix.
Does he matter anymore?
Does it not matter more, today, that the Iraqi people have voted, 8 million of them, and desire a democracy?
Does it not matter more, today, that there are large numbers of foreign Islamistes in Iraq mostly blowing up Iraqi civilians to try and prevent democracy from succeeding there?
Does it not matter more, today, that if the Americans lose and leave, that the Al Qaeda and the terrorists will triumph, and have a country under their control in the Middle East?
Germany cannot send troops. We understand this.
France will not send troops, because the French government opposed the war, and the French people still do.
But must Germans continue to argue about the original pretexts for the war, when faced with the reality that the Americans today are facing Al Qaeda and must win.
This is what I do not understand.
In France, it was thought that the Americans would find themselves in a bloody war that was unneccessary. But now they are in it, most rational people understand that the Americans must not lose to the Islamistes.
If you are speaking for Germany here, you are dwelling on technical arguments of the past. There were few weapons of mass destruction found, the American pretext failed. But the mass graves have been opened, and the rape rooms found, and that prison of the innocents, the children of political opponents, found, and Al Qaeda is sending all of their forces there to kill people.
And the Iraqiens voted for democracy.
Shouldn't you be ending the discussion of the past, and agreeing that, yes, the Americans must win. Can you not hold your tongue about the past by looking at the present necessities?
Even Chirac and Villepin are doing that.
Elysee does not want the Americans to lose this war. It would be a disaster for humanity.
You seem to be so focused on the original arguments that you do not CARE if Al Qaeda wins the war - which it will if the Americans lose. It seems to be more important to you that the Americans were wrong in starting the war than that Iraq will fall to the people who attacked Europe too (recall Spain?), and whose cells were found in Paris plotting against the Tour Eiffel, and are no doubt in Germany too.
Are you not focusing on technicalities and missing the pig in the parlor?
Do you hope or not that the Americains defeat the terrorists in Iraq so that the Iraqis have their democracie?
This is the issue today.
If you hope they do, then it is time to stop arguing about Hans Blix. Blix was right. There were not substantial weapons. That cannot mean that we must hope the Americans and British lose to Al Qaeda in Iraq now. The Americans were wrong to invade. Fine. That cannot mean that, therefore, Al Qaeda must win and kill everbody.
The question is, have the Americans learnt anything by what has happened?
It would seem that they have.
The French have learnt many things also.
The Germans seem to have learnt nothing.
Hans Blix is not relevant to what will happen to Iraqis and Europe and America if the Americains lose the war and Al Qaeda wins it.
Do you not see this?
Can you not acknowledge it?
And if you do, is it not better, at this time, to just let go of the Hans Blix and WMD arguments?
What does Germany gain by fighting this argument of the past?
Chirac and Villepin are not champions, but even they at least understand this much and have fallen silent.
Should Germans not take this cue that now is a very good opportunity to be quiet and tend to other things?
"Germany, france and the rest of old europe are worthless "allies" and incompetent enemies."
I like that one!
"America makes the dinner and Europe does the dishes." (Robert Kagan - Power and Weakness)
Bravo again!
Now there are a lot of points that i fully agree with.
We train some iraqi police personnel, have sent some trucks, frequently bust islamistic organisations who are thought to
support "foreign jihadists" in iraq and forfeited a few
billion dollars in debt.
That isnt anywhere near what we could, and by all means,
have to do.
Sitting on the fences and watching america struggle is
irresponsible, but i have the utmost hope that "regime
change" in Germany in fall 2005 will change the
situation.
As you said, failure in Iraq is not an option, and the
free people of a democratic Iraq have already spoken on
what they want for their country.
That said, carping about what was years ago is not exactly
a speciality of old europe. America has a lot of experts in
that discipline as well.
Just don't let the UN near the Mosel River area. I lived among those good people for four years, they don't deserve to be screwed over.
Besides, the UN would find a way to turn Trockenbeerenauslese into vinegar.
If I were a German I'd be more concerned with the loss of my culture and my country as it becomes a backwater province of the moslem hellhole. Leave the tall grass for the big dogs.
Giggle.
I just replaced german/euro by american and it all
made sense!
You´re uninformed. German special forces (so-called "KSK") have been fighting the Taliban with US special forces in the hills of Afghanistan for years since 2001 and were brought back because of a lack of missions. I have spoken to our then-deputy mission leader of the KSK, we were pretty successful. Noone of the 100 soldiers were KIA, just one got a shot in one leg. Inform yourself on the web.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.