Europe Will Provide Half of Peacekeeping Force

You're clueless. Take it from someone who was in Germany, deployed as part of an Armored Division from there, and was in a planning position at the time, whose father works in the State Department in Frankfurt and dealt with some of the issues you're talking about. Germany actively sabotaged the US efforts within the EU, NATO, and the UN. Schroeder had too! If Schroeder had not gone against us his "Coalition" with the Greens would have fallen apart. Can you say "Neuwahl"? That's a fact and matter of public record. My example of Turkey was just another example of where Germany acted against us. Germany “bought” Turkey off, in case you didn’t know it. There is a reason why the official German position on Turkey joining the EU changed almost over night and even the speeches of Schroeder himself went from negative to overall positive reference Turkey joining within one week. Turkey had already accepted the US offer. US troops and material was in fact already unloading when Turkey changed their mind because the offer from Germany (EU membership support) was greater than the offer from the US. Simple fact, but I suggest you live on in your Märschen Welt ala ‘Der Speigel’, it feels better. Hint- In Turkey it’s the military that calls the shots, not their elected government. Their public opinion would be 180 degrees different had their power brokers chosen a different course of action for their people.

But it does not matter. At this point decisions are made and the fallout from Iraq and Germany's actions will roll on. The damage is "institutionalized". The US will draw the necessary risk management decisions (Force realignment within Europe), but the knife cutting has ended and cooperation is back. No more Schroeder or Fischer making comments about Abu Gharib etc, and Rumsfeld no longer referring to “old Europe” or “Axis of Weasels”. Germany is back on board reference Iran and both nations are future focused trying to deal with WMD and TBM proliferation; and the global Islamic terrorist threat. Even though the latter your government wants to downplay as much as possible.

the real problem is

You can govern against the will of the people and against the majority of voters until the opposition gets to a certain point where you have no choice in a democracy. At this point your own party ( the guys fearing not getting reelected) will start to raise the pressure and you will have to change your politics. The question is only is the topic important enough to influence enough people to change their votes and that was the case in germany 2002.

Our german conservative opposition leader didn´t want the US to use their bases in germany for the war iraq during the election campaign in 2002. he wanted to close our air space for american military flights that were connected to the war in iraq.
Schröder won the election 2002 because 90% of the people supported his views and for us conservatives it was a nightmare because even in our party a vast majority supported his views and far beyond. The rhetoric used in terms in my family (all time strong conservatives and party members) where very extreme when it comes to Bush and the war in iraq. Our new government has the luck to benefit from the schröder policy in terms of iraq but would decide the same way if they would have to just because everything else would be suicide in a democracy and politicians don´t do these things.

The mission on the balkan of in the german case afghanistan were simply not important enough for the voters.

In the end every democratic country is driven by internal politics it is just a question of that special point where enough people "might" swing their votes and the fear takes control in the governing party.

"Our new government has the luck to benefit from the Schröder policy in terms of Iraq but would decide the same way if they would have to just because everything else would be suicide in a democracy and politicians don’t do these things." You say. Reality:

1. Your new government is making no comments about Iraq.

2. Your new government took a 180 degree turn from Schroeder reference Iran. Schroeder played the anti-war game in 2005 during that election too and Merkel is pretty much on board with Iran anyway. Complete opposite of what you say.

3. Your government intentionally is avoiding any comments or statements about certain prisoner over flights, ever wonder why?

Democracy does not mean indecisiveness, freedom does not equate to irresponsibility. Even within the US you have conflict and the opposition will always play a certain degree of political games. However, with respect to Schroeder and the elections in 2002 what you had was a bit different. In this case you had a situation where the government of an allied nation simply did not care about the direct consequences from their internal political games. Schroeder set his personal political ambitions ahead of those of even his nation (Ultra-egoist). I assure you, Germany did not benefit from its games in 2002.

Let me remind you of what the Germans said in 1991, “Why didn’t they take Saddam out”. Fact is, the German public opinion was actually mixed towards any military action on Iraq, although the majority did not favor war. However, once Schroeder “politicized” this impending war he took advantage of the anti-war position but also crystallized the anti-war ‘Stimmung’. He made it much worse, and it never was his issue to begin with. People do look at there political leadership, and when they give the green light to attack, may do. Much of the media in Germany is state controlled and they do toe the line usually on most political issues. Once the political establishment went negative; ARD, ZDF, HR3, SWF, DW, NDR….. followed suit. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, in this case you had a majority favor a certain position, but the Schroeder administration hardened the opposition and brought the whole situation into the German political spot light. He brought it to a boil and 'forced' the issue. The topic Iraq was a side bar issue until 'HE' politisized it. In reality, this was not even a German problem. There were no German troops in Kurdish areas, no German fighters patrolling the Northern and Southern Watch, Germans didn't contribute to Desert Fox……….

Why the German Conservative jumped ship. Not all did, Merkel surprisingly did not jump ship and she took the egg in the face. However, Stiober did. He politically retreated from his earlier position once he realized this would hurt him. The Schroeder anti-war position was ‘marketed’. It was a made up election topic where with cheap political gamesmanship gained political capital at an allies expense.

1. The political left felt good because this was sold as anti-war. Kein Blut fuer Oel. The same old BS.

2. The political right was both attacked and appeased at the same time. The political message sent was Merkel is an “Arschkriecher” and Germany is someone again for going against the US. “Der Deutsche Weg”, was coined by Schroeder.

You are completely incorrect. From a shear national interest perspective we would have been smart to drop our support to Israel. We won’t, they are morally right, they are a democracy they are culturally tied to the West. From a political perspective our missile defense system was a huge internal issue in 2000 (before 9-11, Iran, and the late N. Korean missile tests) but Bush took the egg in the face and did the right thing.

Think about this - Schroeder was calling the US “unilateralist”, some in Germany were saying we were causing a new “arms race” and this would “destabilize” the world. Yet at the same time Schroeder was playing this game Germany bought Patriot PAC3, became a part member in MEADS and bought Standard Missile 3. All designed for missile defense. Is that respectable?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=13079&sc=400
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/meads

Waffling as Kerry did is not respectable. It is not respectable with Schroeder either. That is not a ‘leader’, he is just a low life political opportunist in an expensive suit. Ein Penner der gut reden kann. The Germans actually have an expression we don’t have in English that is well suited for such behavior: Volksverarschung. Can you say “Kyoto”? Und darauf war man noch so stoltz! In the meantime your busting your limits by leaps and bounds, and BTW, you won’t pay any penalties either, which technically you should. I’m not saying all Germans are bad and that we’re all good. No, we have our share of Kerry’s as well. But you should no defend such behavior. I wouldn’t even if he’s an American political figure.

The German, even the German Conservative today, feels compelled to defend Schroeder and his actions, but these are indefensible. If the US acted in a way that put German soldiers in greater risk and cost the German taxpayer additional billions, if these actions were for ‘nothing’ more that the political survival of an incumbent politician who has a track record of failure (Unemployment, GDP growth, dropping expenditures in R&D, breaking Maastricht, dropping expenditures in infrastructure….) and played a game where Germans were made into some new Suendenbock for political gain, “YOU” would not take this so lighthearted. “Ach, ach ja - (Axelzucken), Ha ha ha”- right? The ones right now trying to argue “Wir sind wieder Jemand” because you crapped on the American’s doorstep would be the biggest ‘Brüllhals’ if the situation were reversed.

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.