Joschka Fischer to Teach at Princeton

Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has accepted a teaching gig at Princeton. Starting this fall, he will teach international crisis diplomacy to the next generation of American elites.

The Bush administration didn't much like what Joschka Fischer had to say during the Iraq war. So what will Washington say now that the former German foreign minister is trading his parliament seat for a professor's cap at Princeton? This fall, Fischer will teach the next generation of American elites about international crisis diplomacy at the university.

"Besides I would not care if he has visited (we Europeans do not mess in the private lifes of our politicians), but I care about the damage he left in the trans-atlantic relationship. He was a political nightmare." You said.

That is simply not true.

1. You selectively do not pick into the personal lives of certain people. Clinton was liked, so his affairs were overlooked as was his real estate dealings and several other issues. Bush is disliked, so his religious convictions and his past drinking issues was smeared all over YOUR media and even mentioned by some of YOUR political leaders at times.

Want more examples? Sure, Reagan was portrayed as a sable rattling idiot who was an actor and unqualified to be president. His personal life was also very much so brought into the media to include his family. Hell, even Rumsfeld's family ties to Germany were brought up in your media. Who can't remember "Der Spiegel" (Of course) stating that his German ancestry would rather not know of him anymore?

The Germans "selectively" choose not to dwell on the personal lives of certain people. Those that are disliked, they will be slandered and their personal lives will be negatively reported on. Those that are liked will get off easy as Clinton, Carter, Albright and others did.

2. You can not separate out the character of a man and expect him to act differently when in power as in the way he handles his personal affairs. That is even a statistical fact! Statistically those with a GED or without a high school diploma have a much higher drop out rate in basic training (For example). That is one of the main reasons the US military generally does not like not high school graduates. Those who have not managed their debt in private life also tend to run into problems while on active duty......

There are such things as "trends" and believe it or not, throwing an expensive suit on a slob does not make him cultured nor educated. How people handle their personal lives is actually a very GOOD indicator of overall character of an individual. There is a reason why you are asked all kinds of "personal" questions when going for a security clearance for ANY US governmental department or agency; and like it or not, the questions they ask are not random or coincidental. History has shown that certain drug use, engaging in certain sexual practices, reckless behavior in traffic or personal finances, past employers who noticed discrepancies etc ARE an indicator of your future performance even at work.

A human does not flip a switch and becomes a robot when at work. He brings his personality and character, or lack there of, with him. How you see religion, affects how you see a justice system (for example). Would Bush Sr. ever accept money to give speeches in the Middle East that are anti Iraq war, as Clinton has done? Even if Bush Sr. did not support the action or the way it is executed, did he get on a soap box and publicly undermine US policy in the Balkans?

What you state is typical relativistic garbage. Character matters. It is the "main" thing we look at when we hire. The job itself you can teach anyone who is "willing and able" to learn. But can you teach character to a 30 year old?

He was a political nightmare." You said. That is simply not true.

That is why you are stuffing his beer belly now? Sorry - I could not resist and turned the meaning of your words.

Maybe you remember Fanz Josef Strauß. He was for sure one of the most profiled conservative politicians in Germany. A real political thunderstorm.

Did you know that he was a regular visitor of the "Leierkasten", Munich's most notorious bordello? I know that for sure, since I know a few people who were quite close friends to him. Although I do not believe that the "Leierkasten" is a place where the minister president of Bavaria should resort, I must admit that he was that extraordinary that it was worth to accept this quite "human" failing. In Bavaria they still say: "Er war halt a fescher Hundling".(I know - dialect - but you will understand)

It depends on the benefit that a person can give to its country or to its administration if it makes sense to the public to accept his/her human weaknesses.

Bush is disliked, so his religious convictions and his past drinking issues was smeared all over YOUR media and even mentioned by some of YOUR political leaders at times.

It is not MY personal political media just as the DU is not your personal political platform. Just to put things straight. Of course our politicians and our media in Europe are -as human beings- absolutely not different from their colleagues in the States. They will use every point of attack to discredit their political opponent. The BS about the (BTW - solved) drinking problems of President Bush in the mid 80ties and his service time in the national guard (instead of fighting in Viet Nam...) was first a issue in the US and our media adapted it like a swarm of hungry vultures. Nothing new.

You are right when you say that the personal lifes of politicians are a good indicator to their overall character. The question is if their personal failures are relevant. In western Europe we accept much more privacy than the US ever would as long as the public interests are not violated. And we have reason for that. To give you some examples:

1. The very sucessfull mayor of Hamburg, the conservative Ole von Beust and the chairman of the liberal-conservative FDP, Guido Westerwelle, are both homosexuals. Since they do not to pick their sexual behaviour out as their central theme I absolutely have no problem with that, although I am as homophobic as anyone can be.

2. Francois Mitterand had a illegitimate daughter. When the French press found out, he just asked them: "And?". The issue was done. As far as I know he had a very good relationship to her and never discriminated her because of that in comparison to his other kids. This is something I can live with (although I do not like Mitterand for political reasons - but we are speaking of moral issues).

Imagine the major of Houston being a homosexual. Imagine your President having a illegitimate daughter. Imagine that they are dealing with the issue without attracting attention. Would you (I am speaking of you as a person) be mature enough to make a appreciation of values with the conclusion that the person is that good in his duty that it is worth to accept their personal failure in one point??! Or would you prefer a officeholder whose personal life is clear as crystal but his abilities and skills are always only second best?

Schroeder and Fischer with their 5 or 6 marriages or the notorious homo Wowereit are also no benchmark for me. But if somebody made a mistake when he/she was young I see no problem. I.e. Angela Merkel was divorced when she was a young woman. Shi* happens. She married again. For some voters in your nation this would be a basic problem.

Yes, I see some things relativistic since I prefer pragmatic solutions. To me it is better to deal with toleratable failures humanly instead of "throwing the first stone" automatically. People who do, are simply narrow-minded idiots to me. Of course things must be within a certain frame. The problem is that this frame can not be defined clearly.

Those that are liked will get off easy as Clinton, Carter, Albright and others did.

Although I am no friend of Clinton I would not say that he got off easy with this Lewinski affair. It is not funny if your sexual affairs are discussed that open in the public (with all those details about tenacious stains and misused cigars). Besides of that even a public prosecutor investigated in that case (something I still do not understand since -to my limited knowlege- the relationship between Clinton and Lewinski was immoral but not punishable. Consensual sex between adults is not judicial except you are living in Iran. Maybe you can teach me something here). I doubt that it was in the interest of the US that all those smeary details of this sex-affair were made public. Not Clintons failure damaged the reputation of the US in the first place, the public orgy around it did the main damage. Nevertheless Clinton would have been well advised to spare his sexual hunger in the oval office.

Would Bush Sr. ever accept money to give speeches in the Middle East that are anti Iraq war, as Clinton has done? Even if Bush Sr. did not support the action or the way it is executed, did he get on a soap box and publicly undermine US policy in the Balkans?

If a nation is in a justified war it is the highest duty of its citizens (Presidents included) to support the millitary and to back the gouvernment against the agressors. Even if someone is completely against a operation or the war his critisim must not undermine the sucess of the troops. If it does it is treason. I am not supporting Clinton.

You state Clinton did not get off easy?

Last I checked people in the US are sitting in jail for committing the “crime” he committed. Why don’t you check up what Meineid can get you in Germany.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meineid

So mancher sitzt im Bau fuer was Clinton machte.

--

You use Strauss as an example.

Funny how his family was also pulled into the media, how his weight was used against him (As with Kohl), how even the fact that he was a private pilot was used as an angle to attack him years ago. I’m sure you can remember the attacks on him because he was not for fuel tax hikes and how that was twisted since he was a plane owner as well.

Politics is war. However, there are general rules even in war that are followed and abided to. The problem with Fischer and Schroeder was that there were no rules. They didn’t even act in Germany’s best economic, nor security interests; although you would never admit that. It is possible to go too far, and they did exactly that. In pursuit of their political ambitions, they jeopardized more than just a long lasting transatlantic relationship between Germany and the US, they damaged and worked against needed NATO reform, a missile defense shield which today is becoming obviously important; they willfully and knowingly risked US lives for their political survival in 2002 and even in 2005. Even in 2005 Schroeder went down the road of attacking US policy on Iran, but avoided dealing with the real issue at hand, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Germany has done a 180 degree shift in its position reference Iran and the political messages sent internationally. Thank God.

When people have a record that includes beating on Police, fringe acquaintances within the autonome Szene, is married 4 or 5 times to girls that could be his daughter, was known as a Szene macho years ago, quit school, quit jobs; the guy couldn’t even hold down a job at Opel or even as a Taxi cab driver for crying out loud. Was known to have used dope. Dodged the draft……. That is not digging into superfluous unimportant stuff. That’s not unimportant or irrelevant information bout someone just to make him look bad. Those actions strung together build what is called a “pattern of wreck lace behavior”. It shows something about the inherent character of a person.

“Would you (I am speaking of you as a person) be mature enough to make a appreciation of values with the conclusion that the person is that good in his duty that it is worth to accept their personal failure in one point??” You asked.

The answer depends on what he did, how long, the motivation behind it and whether he did it deliberately or unknowingly. Reagan broke the law with Nicaragua. Did he do it to get rich? Did he do it to get reelected? No. There was no self enrichment in his actions. He broke the law for what he saw would benefit the nation. “IF” Schroeder intentionally hand pushed through contracts with Gazprom for personal enrichment while still chancellor, is that the same? There are many variables – but this is not the same as this “relativism” where one throws up the hands and states nothing matters.

Variables that impact future decision making are relevant and should not be overlooked. No, I would not be “mature enough” to ignore issues of substance. What you are doing is a leading logical error for the reader, much like how most polls and surveys nowadays are conducted. You ask the question in a way that lends the reader to answer a certain way. You “qualify” the question in a way that makes answering it a certain way more favorable.

Political heads like Schroeder or Bush want the job they have. Public scrutiny is both good and acceptable since privacy is non-existent in such a “public” position. They hold public offices and in fact should be exposed to public scrutiny. What is wrong is when the media to peddle off more papers or catch viewers engages in lying. If the National Guard story Rather spewed had been true about Bush, it would have been a valid story.
What made the reporting of this story wrong is that it was fiction presented as facts.

A leader like Bush will have the spot light held on him. A leader in a capacity to make decisions such as Bush or Schroeder SHOULD be held to a higher standard than some Joe off the street. I demand that those elected into the highest offices of our nation meet certain standards of conduct. A draft dodger like Fischer is out of the question up front. He would not survive 1 minute of consideration. Let’s use McCain as an example since otherwise your feelings as a German will be insulted again. McCain is a political opportunist. He shifts in his positions and has proposed legislation which is political eye-wash. Example: His “Torture legislation” is as worthless as laws in Germany protecting woman against Vergewaltigung in der Ehe. Torture never had a policy, never had any doctrine, was never instructed, endorsed, practiced, trained or condoned. It is in direct violation of DoD, Army, USAF, USN, Marine Corps and even Coast Guard Regulations, international law, agreements accords……. you name it. Nonetheless, McCain proposed an “anti torture bill” to ban something which never was allowed anyway, is prosecuted and investigated if suspected. Why? Because his face was all over CNN for weeks as he was beating this drum of ignorance. He was getting TV air time and gaining momentum in political power based on “fictitious” solutions to largely media hyped problems which BTW have faded away largely. However, how did this former Air Force officer make the US appear in much of the Arab media? They immediately picked up on this and ran with it as proof that the US secretly endorses and even has a policy for torture. Do you really think that such moves score any points with a voter like me? At that point, his “actions” disqualified him as a serious presidential candidate. McCain (Republican) became another Kerry at that point in my eyes.

The President of the US is the Commander in Chief. He literally makes policy decisions that affect my pocketbook, my safety, my freedoms and liberties. In the past, his decisions affected even my life when I was on active duty. The office of the President holds a lot of power (If the President has the balls to make decisions) and he is an elected public official. I “want” to know a lot about this person and he as a public figure, volunteer for the job, and elected official who should expect to be publicly scrutinized.

When Der Spiegel runs a long article and keeps it on their web page for days about how Rumsfeld is disliked by his German relatives in northern Germany, that does not matter. It does not impact his decision making. That is not news worthy material, except if you’re Der Spiegel and dislike Rumsfeld, or the US for that matter. On the other hand minor issues like Fischer’s pictures beating on German police in Hessen in the 80s, that they tend to not write much about nor did it stay long on their page. In fact, I don’t think they even had the pictures posted, or did they (I can’t remember)? The point is simple – what matters are those actions, that training, education, historical precedence in behavior that gives indication on future behavior. Merkel for example has a religious background. Do I take note of that? Absolutely. She did the right thing and got egg in the face in 2002 because she stood by the US reference Iraq? Does that say something? You bet. And these historical actions, her education, her upbringing all tell me something about “who” she is and what I can expect of her when she is in office. Those are actions that have “significance”, unlike Rumsfelds distant relatives in Germany which dislike him now, according to Der Spiegel in 2002. Schmidt sent the GSG9 to Mogadishu years ago, he backed the stationing of nuclear weapons…….. actions that matter? Yes. What matters often depends on the situation as well. Can a convicted sex offender make a good service technician in an automotive shop? Yes. Would I want him to be a school teacher?

Bad leadership can cost lives! Look at New Orleans, Mayor Nagin and the Governor.

(Example of policy failures in a US president)

Poor leadership under Clinton allowed the nuclear non-proliferation agreements to fall apart. The lesson learned from Pakistan and India was that if you violate this international agreement there would be no consequence. In the end, you can force the issue and the rest of the world will just be forced to accept the consequences. After India violated the agreement, Clinton did not press the issue and while the US put trade restriction on India, we did not push the issue elsewhere, hence France and Russia quickly rushed in to fill the void. The US cut India and Pakistan off after their arms treaty violation in the 90s. In the meantime N. Korea, Libya, Iraq and Iran began beefing up their nuclear programs. There was an awful lesson that was learned from India/Pakistan in the 90s. The lesson was that those seeking to build a nuclear arsenal could do so with impunity! The nuclear non proliferation act is dead! It only existed on paper since there was no “consequence” for violating it. The US did not even really attempt to pressure France or others from doing large scale defense dealings with India. China will do what they want anyway and they filled the void with Pakistan. The US’s failure to stop Pakistan and India and allow them to act with impunity led to every other little banana republic out there to adopt such programs and approach the issue in a similar manner.

The average person might not take notice of this minor issue. Our fabulous MSM didn’t find this very relevant since they were stumbling over themselves drooling over a very photogenic and media savvy president. But it was a major geopolitical disaster which despite what you think to know will even affect you soon (I.E. Iran). The correct answer would have been to immediately “escalate” the issue as today with Iran. But Clinton did not want to deal with what in reality was a crisis and let it go on unchecked at the cost of allowing the emergence of large scale nuclear programs in many countries that were violating their agreement.

Clinton did not want to deal with the emergence of AQ. He did not want to deal with Rwanda. Even in the Balkans Clinton flipped flopped back and fourth and while he ultimately did the right thing, it was late in the game. In fact, the Balkan intervention was not even a US initiative but rather British and German. The US was one of the primary executioners of this war because of our size and capabilities, but we were not the political engine behind the scene pushing for action. Somalia was no different, in that there too Clinton failed. Clinton inherited this mission and his ideology led to the death of US service men unnecessarily. The US Army had requested heavy assets for protection and firepower. Instead, Clinton more worried about the symbolic meaning about sending tanks to Somalia, thought it was OK to leave troops there lightly equipped. While he did not kill our missile defense program, he laid no emphasis on it either unlike Bush who is pushing this program full force.

Despite the world changing and inheriting a Cold War modeled NATO, he did not really “want” to transform this institution to meet current and future threats either. Changing NATO means political friction. Clinton as Schroeder was a nightmare when it came to national security policy. The legacy of this administration will live on for many years to come. Some of the ground laying foundation which was laid down in the Clinton years will affect US and European security for years to come. There are many Americans even who choose to overlook these minor issues because ideologically Clinton fits their profile of a desirable president. But in security policy he was a blundering idiot. I want to know who these people are that I’m placing into these offices, and character matters.

Do I want a mayor who is a gay rights activist? No. Because he will “push” his agenda in schools as well. Do I want a Womanizer like Clinton as the president? No. He is a representative of the United States and makes our whole country look bad, even if it does not matter to you, it matters to me. Strauss and his whole family have been under attack for years by the German media. Der Spiegel was out to get him ever since he rightfully incarcerated some Spiegel journalists for publishing classified materials some years ago. The “Volk” may have forgotten about the past, but the contempt for him runs very deep within certain German journalistic circles. The media favors the liberal side anyway and Strauss being an adamant Conservative by German standards was a primary target even when he was alive. I am very skeptical of anything I hear in the German media portraying him negatively, especially now when he is unable to defend himself in the court of public opinion. What I hear “third” hand, based on hearsay off of a post in the Internet I take with a gain of salt.

That all said - Universities and the media favor the liberal cause in all free Western societies. In totalitarian regimes this is not the case since the media is "steered" by the state.

So mancher sitzt im Bau fuer was Clinton machte.

If he committed perjury it is quite clear to me why a public prosecutor was needed. What I still do not understand is why Clinton had to give information about his sexual behaviour and relationship under oath?

You use Strauss as an example. Funny how his family was also pulled into the media, how his weight was used against him (As with Kohl), how even the fact that he was a private pilot was used as an angle to attack him years ago. I’m sure you can remember the attacks on him because he was not for fuel tax hikes and how that was twisted since he was a plane owner as well.

Strauss was a outstanding politician. Much of Bavaria's wealth was possible through his fabulous work and leadership. Anyway he was a human being with quite human faults. Something I am able to accept.

The problem with Fischer and Schroeder was that there were no rules. They didn’t even act in Germany’s best economic, nor security interests; although you would never admit that. It is possible to go too far, and they did exactly that.

It is quite shameful to me to say that they had the order of their voters to do exactly what they have done. I share your view that not all of that was in the interest of Germany, but it was in the will of most Germans. Therefore their acting has somehow a justification. This is exactly my own problem with Fischer and Schroeder: They were the "accessory" of the vast German majority. After all I am convinced of democracy and I know that I have to accept decisions that are against my own interests or convincements. Maybe you know Ludwig Thomas words: Vox populi, vox Rindvieh!

When Der Spiegel runs a long article and keeps it on their web page for days about how Rumsfeld is disliked by his German relatives in northern Germany, that does not matter. It does not impact his decision making. That is not news worthy material, except if you’re Der Spiegel and dislike Rumsfeld, or the US for that matter. On the other hand minor issues like Fischer’s pictures beating on German police in Hessen in the 80s, that they tend to not write much about nor did it stay long on their page. In fact, I don’t think they even had the pictures posted, or did they (I can’t remember)?

Well this BS about Rumsfeld was among the most awkward stuff the Spiegel ever wrote. It is also interesting to me that the pictures of Fischer with the black helmet on can not be found on the internet or in the press anymore although they printed them during the "affair". He did a real good job to clear everything that did not fit into his new Princeton-Einstein-professor-image.

In Germany prior to the politicization of the impending war in 2002 the public opinion was largely split with the majority being anti war.

- Merkel took the course of trying to "explain" and "reason" as to why action may be necessary, appropriate, and even beneficial in the long term. She politically removed herself from matters that in all reality were not in her lane.

- Schroeder saw a majority voting block and seized the opportunity. He saw that the majority was against this effort and politicized an issue that was NOT a German problem. He made Iraq into a German 2002 election issue. He brought it into every German living room, despite the Germans not being “angagiert” in this matter. All press coming from the Chancellors office reference Iraq was from that point on negative. One has to imagine the German secretary of state (Fischer) and Chancellor actually took shots at Iraq after Abu Gharib. You had a majority against the war, but they helped polarize and cement the anti-war sentiment.

Schroeder was not acting in good faith, for a higher moral calling, or any other reason other than his reelection. After he went into coalition with the Greens and his platform was defined as anti-war in 2002 he could no longer turn back in 2003 when it really did happen. He might have been betting that it won’t, after all, the US had threatened Iraq and built up forces there twice before.

Nonetheless, the Germans are no idiots. Had they gotten more than a one sided anti-war bombardment, fueled in part by the highest offices and political leaders in Germany, some of these solid anti-war “feelings” you have in Germany might not be there today. Most people didn’t like nuclear missiles in their backyard either. But when people are told about the threat, the need, their purpose, etc. they still won’t be happy about it and some will still oppose it vehemently, but many will understand and the majority will accept this ugly necessity.

Merkel has been near silent when it comes to Iraq. There is a reason.

The US is a fringe player in East Timor. We help Australia there. But nonetheless, it is their show and we don’t tell them how to run it. They are the ones who pay for success or failure and they are the ones that are “angagiert”. It’s not our place to inject ourselves. Germany reference Iraq “injected” itself into an issue that was not theirs until the election in 2002 came up.

I like Merkel, and her being quiet on a matter that is not hers is no sign of weakness - a political spin that was also played out against her after she chose to back the US. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Merkel is no fool. She knew very well that she would get her head beat on when she stood by the US in 2002. There is a reason why Stoiber distanced himself very quickly. Standing up for convictions and what you know to be right even if it means you will suffer damage from it - THAT is strength. That is moral courage by definition. That is a leader who has a core. The Schroeder alternative of defining strength because he saw a majority in an anti-war position, fueling this and standing up against an ally who really won’t do much other than draw political and security consequences from it, that is not what defines sovereignty or strength, even though that was the way this BS was sold to the German public.

Your argumentation reminds me a littebit to the former Soviet doctrine of the "non-interference". Fact is, that the US expected help and money. Espechially money. Maybe you can remember Helmut Kohl's "Scheckbuchdiplomatie" who paid huge amounts of money and delivered weapons and munition. As far as I know it was more than 20 Billion Euros (not Marks) he gave to the nations who fought the second Gulf war in 1991. I do not have exact numbers anymore (but I can remember this dimension quite well) and I am too lazy to look for it. To give you some proof that quite a sum of money was payed I added just a article from the Fankfurter Rundschau out of 1991 (sorry - in German):

http://www.medienlabor-duisburg.de/pegel-ruhrort/?p=124

(note - the article is from the 30. January 1990. The fighting between coalition and Iraqi forces began on 16. January 1990. That means that only a part of the German financial help was paid then)

The thing is that neither Angela Merkel nor Gerhard Schroeder would have paid substancial sums during the 3rd gulf war due to the broad opposition in the German public. Not all of this sentiment was pushed from Schroeder although he has his part of course. I can remember that you predicted me once in a very emotional verbalism that we are going to pay. Fact is that we paid not a penny this time and we probably will not pay in the future.

You said: "....I like Merkel, and her being quiet on a matter that is not hers is no sign of weakness - a political spin that was also played out against her after she chose to back the US...."

It is interesting that you adopt completely my pragmatic stance in this issue. That is exactly what I said from the very beginning. None of our business (We are speaking about political realities and not about my personal stance). It would have been intelligent to shut up from the very beginning for German politicians and to give 100 to 200 million Euros in a bountiful gesture, although there is not much heroism in this stance. Anyway it is really funny to me that you bring up the "non-interference" issue. As I said - it reminds a littlebit to the past diplomatic games of the USSR.

You said:"...Standing up for convictions and what you know to be right even if it means you will suffer damage from it - THAT is strength. That is moral courage by definition. That is a leader who has a core...."

Agreed. But - it is a simple fact that the Schroeder-Fischer plot eroded America's influence in Europe in a fundamental way. The US have to deal with a completely different political situation in Europe after this duo infernale. The question will be if this erosion will continue or not.

Those who are the stakeholders and pay the ultimate cost economically, in blood, and politically are the ones who have a say. That is even the case in business as it always has been in politics.

The Germans didn't interfere with Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada..... The US was the leading nation in the campaigns during the 90s through the Balkans. US money, 30+ dead US soldiers, shot down planes and the political spotlight was on the US. China was complaining even then. The US who is the nation shouldering the predominate weight on it's shoulder in S. Korea, is not very receptive to advice even 20 years ago from a Germany that does little in this matter. Today we are no longer the leading nation in the Balkans – largely because we withdrew. Those who hold the stakes and pay the price have the say. This is not a new phenomenon, rather common sense and it applies to most aspects in life.

--

Germany’s contribution in 1991 financially would have not covered the fuel expenses of the DoD. Wars are expensive. One cruise missile fired may cost over a million. Some missiles fired can cost as much as 4.5 million per shot. The landing fees of one C-5 at Frankfurt is over $30,000. There wear and tear of machines, the expense due to the loss of life and and and is astronomical. War, contrary to your fellow Germans with their conspiracy theories is a costly matter and economically damaging and not something that we do to boost our economy. Iraq and Afghanistan cost the US DoD in “excess” of $70-80 Billion a year in addition to the normal defense spending. However, Germany did pay in the vicinity of $880 million in 1991 and that is substantial at that time. Nonetheless, it's peanuts compared to the true cost of Desert Shield and Storm. Campaigns the germans were no large stakeholders in and didn't meddle with.

The US expected nothing from the Germans in 2003. No demands were made. Anything to that affect is speculation and more conspiracy theories. The tension between the US and Germany were created by Germany’s political sabotaging of the push for action in the UN, the pressuring of other EU states who were backing the US, the blocking of NATO being engaged. It’s not doing nothing that irritated the US, rather it is the direct working against them and the coalition.

--

US relations with near all of Europe are as they always have been. In fact the relationships with the former Eastern states has grown substantially. Despite all the negative news, who would have ever thought the Ukraine would be moving towards NATO and contribute troops to Iraq? Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia all share far closer ties to the US today than even 10 years ago.

Is it the US that has lost influence in NATO? In the UN? In the Middle East? Is it the US the was bullying nations that voluntarily signed a declaration of support to the US in 2002 reference Iraq? You can bet your behind that the policy makes in the Check Republic, Poland and elsewhere took note of Chirac’s statement, “Some hopeful future EU members missed a good opportunity to keep their mouth shut.” I don’t think you need to worry to much about US influence. That’s like the Germans who worry about the state of the US economy. We’re doing OK.

What you see is a US that is “DIS-engaging” from old Europe. We are severing some of the close ties we once had. Personally I even believe this to be a poor decision, but nonetheless that is the trend. Germany does matter, and they are one of our closest allies. Germany shares ALL our geopolitical interests economically and in security concerns. Disagreement is usually about the means to the end, not the end itself. Working together towards a common goal makes things easier for all. Iran is an example. Iraq is an example of where Germany was activley working against the US and today at least subtely has come on board.

With the rise of China and India, the threats posed in the Middle East, North Korea the end of the Cold War, the meergence of the Theater Ballistic missile and WMD prolifferation, the US has largely shifted its focus. There is a reason why the State Department, CIA and DoD lay little value on German speakers today. Look at the new uniforms for our Army which are patterned for the Middle East and Caucasus. Consider where the bases are being built……… The areas were we see conflict and were our interests are threatened have shifted. The face of the threat itself has changed and so must the structures whaich are designed to deal with them. Air defense is morphing more and more to missile defense, the heavy Cold War assets designed to get into a slug fest with numerically superior Soviet forces are going away and clearing the path for lighter faster more movable vehicles that are better suited for the missions of today.

As far as Europe is concerned, the US has less confidence that Germany will practice a “Realpolitik”. 2003 proved that the Germans are willing to break from this concept. The lack of a perceived imminent threat to the German public, anti-Americanism (based on various factors) have led to a strange relationship where while we are in reality geopolitical allies, while the US is largely German influenced historically and in fact a mix of European cultures in general, there is this love/hate feeling. Example: A paper like “der Spiegel” (Extreme left) is simply for ideological reasons an American hating media outlet. But does Germany really want a nuclear Iran? Yet if the US took any action, one can expect to get a very anti-war biased reporting.

Within Europe the US will shift some of its assets to Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary, and Slovenia. There will also be some repositioning within the old allies we have. In Italy you are seeing an INCREASE in US presence and the CIA/NSA has moved much of their stuff to Great Britain.

http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/htmlinks/Press_Releases/2004/Mar2004/23Mar2004-01.htm (We stood up an Airborne Brigade in Italy recently as 2004).

The former activity at Bad Aibling (F91) is now in Great Britain at F83. The base was expanded there.

Germany will remain an ally and we will remain there for a long time, but the days where we had 80+% of all our European forces there and near all our other governmental agencies are ending. Germany in the past was like an aircraft carrier for the Navy. It was a node, forward positioned, contingency, and staging area for nearly anything we did in Africa and the Middle East. Data collected in other places would be processed there, you had huge mothballed hospitals (just in case), large open spaces on bases that offered staging and logistical capabilities with access to runways like at Rhein Main. State Department communications from all of Africa and the Middle East was funneled through there. You had Landstuhl Medical center where if a soldier got hurt seriously on a training exercise in Turkey they will fly him there. In fact, many of the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan get treated there before moving on. You have Depot level maintenance where tanks could get higher level rebuilds and contracts with firms like MTU were in place making even the rebuilding of complex turbines possible despite being thousands of miles away from the US war industrial base. The FAA had its European offices there as did many others. It was simply the base of operation from which US agencies conducted their business in Europe, our intelligence community could safely process and analyze data collected elsewhere and our DoD could stage, preposition, and launch from. It’s the US that is reducing its footprint in Germany and the US/German relations that were damaged in 2003. The relationship to Japan, S. Korea, Great Britain are what they have been and many of the new nations in Eastern Europe today share closer ties to the US than ever before, with the trend being positive. US influence is not eroding in Europe as you believe. Your perception is formed by your limited perspective.

--

Germany is already doing exactly what I said it would do. Do you realize that Iraqi officers were in Germany getting training in Obberammergau in 2005. That Germans are in part training Iraqi’s in the UAE or Qatar (I forget which one), that German intel and some security forces are already INSIDE Iraq today. Already under Schroeder the Iraqis were coming to Germany! Germany in all reality has no choice. Unless you plan to never conduct any trade with Iraq, unless you want to isolate yourself you will eventually get pulled at least to some extent into Iraq, like it or not. The Schroeder position of 2003 was eine “Volksverarschung”.

His anti war anti US and position on Iraq in 2003 was as retarded, as fake, and as devious as his position on missile defense in 1999. While he was beating the “America is destabilizing the world.” “America is starting a new arms race!” Drum and Germans were going “ja ja, die Ami’s, ach die Sebelrastler” Germany joined in on MEADS (A TBM defensive system), the German government argued that NATO should be the collective shield for European missile defense. Do you realize that while Germany was beating the “America is bad and missile defense is stupid drum” the Germans were buying PAC 3 Patriot (A TBM defense system). While your chancellor was playing his games the Germans were buying into the Standard Missile 3 program and building Aegis class boats capable of employing them (Yet another Ballistic missile defense system).

http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200604070948.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/meads/

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/

Schroeder’s games were neither honest nor noble. Out of one side of his mouth he wants to politically benefit and survive by playing the anti-American card, on the other hand he’s doing exactly that which he is accusing the big bad evil USA of doing. I’ll let you in on another little reality. Without Germany’s approval, those prisoner flights would have never happened, and Schroeder HAD to have known and HAD to have approved of them and it was even in Germany’s own best interest that this be done. Yet had the issue truly exploded earlier while he was still in office, he would have played games with it. Merkel? She said what she had to - followed by an extended period of silence.

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.