ARLINGTON, Va. - The only testament to Francis Lupo's death in a World War I battle has long been his name, etched on a French chapel wall with those of hundreds of other missing soldiers.
On Tuesday, 88 years after he was killed, the recently discovered remains of the U.S. Army private were buried with military honors at Arlington National Cemetery. And by year's end, his name will be carved anew, this time on a white headstone like those marking the graves of his fellow soldiers.
Lupo is the first World War I soldier whose remains — a few fragments of bone and teeth — were recovered and identified by the Pentagon's office for POW-MIA affairs, Pentagon spokesman Larry Greer said.
About 50 people, including two representatives of the French military, attended Tuesday's ceremony. Lupo's niece, 73-year-old Rachel Kleisinger of Florence, Ky., sat in a wheelchair as a traditional gun salute — seven rifles firing three rounds — sounded and an Army bugler played taps.
Then Kleisinger — who was born after Lupo's death but knew his mother — accepted the burial flag from a U.S. soldier.
The military added an Army dress uniform and Lupo's medals: A Purple Heart and the World War I Victory Medal. The victory medal had clasps for the battles he fought in — Mont Didier-Noyon, Champagne-Marne, Aisne-Marne — before he died during an attack on German forces near Soissons, France, on July 21, 1918.
Lupo, from Cincinnati, was 23 when he was killed. A French archaeologist discovered his remains in 2003 while working on a conservation project.
It took the Army more than five months to find Kleisinger, Lupo's next of kin, and another six months to make funeral arrangements, Greer said.
Study of Lupo's remains, found with a fragment of a combat boot and a wallet embossed with his name, showed he stood about five feet tall. That is "very, very small for a soldier headed for combat," Greer said.
The fighting Lupo saw was some of the fiercest and most gruesome of the war. An anonymous extract from the diary of an officer in Lupo's unit, later reprinted in an Army history of the war, described the artillery and aerial attacks in stark terms: "Oh, how maddening are these horrible bloody sights! Can it be possible to reap such wholesale destruction and butchery in these few hours of conflict?"
Lupo was a member of Company E, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. His unit fought as part of a joint French-American attack on German forces near Soissons, in what became known as the Second Battle of the Marne. Army records say Lupo's brigade was advancing toward Chaudun, about 1.5 miles southeast of Ploisy, as the 1st Infantry's four-day attack began.
Of the 1st Infantry Division's 12,228 infantry officers and enlisted soldiers who fought in the Second Battle of the Marne, all but 3,923 were killed, wounded, taken prisoner or listed as missing, according to the Pentagon. Lupo was reported missing in action; available military records give no other details.
Lupo's name was memorialized on the list of missing soldiers inscribed on the walls of the memorial chapel at the Aisne-Marne American Military Cemetery near the village of Belleau, not far from where he was killed.
A total of 116,516 U.S. service members died in World War I; 53,402 are recorded as battle deaths, according to the Pentagon. The United States entered the war in April 1917; it ended in November 1918.
Thanks, but I didn't realize you are in a wheelchair. Sorry to impose. It makes your effort all that more heartwarming. I can't take the wall, most of the same friends names are there as the ones interned in Arlington. You are correct though Arlington is one of the most beautiful places around. Best wishes on your trip and have a wonderful time!
Not quite.
Now you read and learn.
During the last 12 months, GERMANY imported about 500,000 barrels/day of petroleum from OPEC. Of this, about 100,000 barrels/day are from the Middle East. Not a lot compared to your daily imports of 2.2 million barrels per day but not exactly zero either.
Here's the data source:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t311.xls
As for Europe (OECD), the daily average imports of Middle Eastern oil were 2.734 million barrels/day during the same 12 month period. The proportion of net consumption is a bit higher, between 1/3 and 1/5 depending on the month.
Here's the data source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t39.xls
To give some perspective, United States daily average consumption of Middle East oil during the same period was 2.230 million barrel/day or 500,000 barrels/day less than OECD consumption.
Here is the data source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t37.xls
So it appears that Europe is a greater consumer of Middle Eastern oil than the United States is.
I do thank you for challenging me on this because I was misremembering some data on oil consumption and I should have checked it. The United States DOES import oil from the Middle East. The United States imports zero (0) oil from IRAN, so if its production capacity goes off line, it won't directly affect us.
Of course we have a strong interest that the situation there stays stable, since you Americans will buy as much as possible on the oilmarket in Rotterdam if the situation in the Persian Gulf gets worse. Naturally this is going to end up in exploding oil prices that we would have to pay then.
It would bother us no more than it would bother Europe, it seems. Actually, I am somewhat sorry that oil prices have been coming down recently (not that I liked them that high) because it will take pressure off of the United States to develop the alternative energy resources and technologies needed to end United States dependence on imported oil as a fuel source. My choice would be no foreign sources at all for US oil supplies.
That is a total of 10.384 European soldiers serving in Afghanistan in the moment. This number will be increased in the next months.
Like I said, about 2.5 to 3 regiments. The magnitude of the European commitment is truly underwhelming.
Besides - Of course you also can leave Europe with your millitary (we earned for sure enough money from your soldiers in Germany during the last 50 years) if you do not like us. The recent deployment wasn't that impressive anyway. Just stop to waste your money on such (really - this is no sarcasm of me - we do not need GIs here anymore due to the end of the cold war) senseless stuff like your millitary presence here. The influence you have on us because of this is minimal anyway. If we want to sell our technology or weapons to the Chicoms i.e. we will not ask you (Chirac and Schroeder suggested to do so since a long time and recently the president of Italy, Romano Prodi did). We haven't done this in the past, because -thank God- we still have some reasonable politicians who stopped those morons in the right time. But - it was for sure not America's influence that made this possible. If the decay of our relationship will continue it is not said that this policy can be prevailed by the "Atlantic" European politicians in the long term. Therefore such hateful stammering like your moronic comments is quite dangerous since it could mean for American GIs that they have to face something much more advanced in their future conflicts than that old Russian and Chinese junk of contemporary Iraq and Iran.
When NATO was formed, the commitment was that an attack on one would be considered an attack on all. For four DECADES, the United States made unstinting commitments of US manpower and treasure (you can put up one of those fancy scrolling displays to enumerate that as well) to create a credible deterrent force in Europe and around the world to keep the communists off of your back while you recovered from World War II. Or did you really think that the reason that you don't have to speak Russian and have visits from the KGB is because the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (GSFG) was being held back out of quivering fear of the pitifully small Bundeswehr, Bundesmarine, and the Luftwaffe?
But when NATO's European members were finally called upon to extend themselves and assist the United States after 9/11, what do we get? Backtalk, excuses, and grudgingly given support. Some reciprocity.
BTW, how much of the support is coming from countries that were not a part of NATO during the Cold War?
As for the weapon systems you are selling to our enemies, don't over rate their impact. Yeah, they're worrisome; but we study them as well as enemy weapon systems and they can be beaten. And when all the shooting is over, we won't forget who assisted us and who assisted our enemies.
I.e. my 3 kids go into a private catholic school that ins runned by the Jesuites. Not exactly a place to indulge atheism. :-) Since I run my own business and employ people I am for sure far away to be a socialist.
Are you saying that a German catholic business person CAN'T be a liberal socialist? Could have fooled me.
Pardon the long lapse in the conversation. I had an important project to complete and relatives were visiting from New York City over the last week.
We have gone back and forth quite a bit on this and, frankly, I think we are just talking past each other at this point. I am going to correct an error in your last post, post some additional information, reply to the remainder of your post, and conclude. You, of course, are free to reply, but do so with the understanding that, with this very long post, my participation in the exchange is complete.
Maybe in this statement we can find the fundamental misunderstanding: The USA are a MEMBER of the OECD. The OECD is NOT the EU. :-)
Therefore comparisons between a true global organisation (the OECD is NO European club with Members like Australia, South Korea, Japan and the US) and one of their members are for sure completely ridicolous. You are speaking about the oil you consume by yourself.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Economic_Co-operation_and_Development
That much for the learning.
Not Correct.
What does Europe(OECD) really stand for?
I am sorry that your computer does not support direct access of MS Excel spreadsheets. I gave you the link to them because I wanted to provide the information without requiring you to hunt through the EIA website. I have no problems opening these spreadsheets. (However, upon clicking the link, I do receive a warning boxing that I am loading the file and have to click "Yes" to agree to it.) (BTW, I am running a pretty standard set up on my computer: MS XP operating system, MS Office 2003 (Professional) application package (which includes MS Excel), and AOL (which uses MS IE as its browser).
But no matter.
Here is a link to the EIA International Petroleum (Oil) Imports and Exports index page: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html.
As its file extension indicates, it is a straight HTML page. So, if you are reading this posting, you should be able to open the index page. It links to all the spreadsheets I have cited (and quite a few more). However, to read the data, you still have to be able to download and open an MS Excel spreadsheet. Otherwise, you will have to trust that I am reporting the facts. But that is not too much to ask, since you can always verify the data I am citing by accessing the link from a computer that can load MS Excel.
EIA is acronym for the Energy Information Administration, a statistical analysis division within the US Department of Energy. If you can open the spreadsheet for the total OECD from the index page, you will find that EIA, for obvious statistical analysis reasons, counts the United States separately from other nations. For EIA, Europe (OECD) (or OECD Europe, since they sometimes switch the word order from spreadsheet to spreadsheet) is
a subset of the total OECD and consists of the following countries:
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
(To access the the total OECD spreadsheet directly, here is the link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t34.xls)
So there is no confusion on my part about whose oil is being counted here. When I cite Europe(OECD), the figures are for the European component of that treaty organization and no one else. And when I cite the United States, I mean just the United States. There is no cross mixing between the two. So, the original statistics I cited are valid:
Over the last 12 months, Europe (OECD) has consumed,on average, about 500,000 barrels more of Middle East-sourced oil per day than the United States did.
You may not like finding that out, but that is the way it is. As US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts."
Europe has at least as much direct interest in maintaining access to Middle East oil as the United States does. So much for the pure altruism you feel Europe is showing when they send troops to the Middle East.
Now before passing on to the remaining portions of your latest post, let's look at some other statistics. All the data is drawn from Wikipedia, so you should have no problem accessing it:
European Union: Population: 454.9 million
European Union: Gross Domestic Product(USD): 12,690.6 billion
(Source: EU Population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union)
(Source: GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union)
European portion of OECD: Population: 542.115 million
European portion of OECD: Gross Domestic Product(USD): 13,395.84 billion
(Source: EU population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union) (selective)
(Source: EU GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union) (selective)
(Source: Iceland population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries)
(Source: Iceland: GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_GDP_PPP)
(Source: Norway: population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries)
(Source: Norway: GDP:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_GDP_PPP)
(Source: Switzerland: population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries)
(Source: Switzerland: GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_GDP_PPP)
(Source: Turkey: population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries )
(Source: Turkey: GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29)
European portion of NATO: Population: 519.612 million
European portion of NATO: Gross Domestic Product(USD): 12,033.811 billion
(Source: NATO Membership: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nato#Membership) (selective)
(Source: EU population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union) (selective)
(Source: EU GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union) (selective)
(Source: Iceland population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries)
(Source: Iceland: GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_GDP_PPP)
(Source: Norway: population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries)
(Source: Norway: GDP:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_GDP_PPP)
(Source: Turkey: population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries)
(Source: Turkey: GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29)
(Source: World Population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries)(selective)
(Source: World GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29)(selective)
United States of America: Population: 299.7 million
United States of America: Gross Domestic Product(USD): 12, 485.725 billion
(Source: United States Population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_united_states)
(Source: World GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29)(selective)
Now, let's turn to some other statements in your last post.
Here's what you posted about my criticism of European support in Afghanistan:
What are you dreaming of? 500.000 men? Why? As I already said the effect is simply not worth the effort. Do you really think such a waste of men and material would turn out into a positive effect? You Americans i.e. are searching since 5 years (for understandable reasons) with 20.000 soldiers this camel driver Bin Laden without any success. The Russians deployed 500.000 men in Afghanistan without any measurable success during the 80ties. Maybe you heard of the Brits who lost a whole army when they tried to annex Afghanistan into their empire a long time ago. All trials to subordinate this country ended in a disaster so far. Therefore the contemporary strategy of cooperation with moderate Afghans is probably the only possible solution. To do this we do not need more soldiers in this country.
Besides of this we Europeans have small countries with limited possibilities. I.e. Germany had to rebuild a half of its country after reunification. We simply can and will not spend 4% of our GDP on defense as long as there is no direct threat from a hostile nation to our own nation or to our allies. Some crazy Islamiacs are simply not enough for us to change into a war economy like during WWII.
Nevertheless we try to be helpful where we can. In the moment Germany has 3000 men in Afghanistan and 3000 more on the shores of Lebanon to help Israel. Furthermore we engage ourselves with 3200 men (SFOR) in Kosovo and 1300 (KFOR) in Bosnia. There are many more smaller contingents all over this planet to stabilize the situations and to provide freedom.
Frankly, this is nothing but a lot of EuroWhining. (You seem to like the word "whining" so now you can hear it for a while). Let me reply to your whine point by point:
What are you dreaming of? 500.000 men? Why?
Well, if anyone with the power to make it happen were to ask me, I would tell them that the European contribution in Afghanistan needs to be about a corps (along with the appropriate aviation and logistics support forces). In case you don't recognize the term "corps," that's a military organization consisting of a minimum of three combat (usually infantry) divisions, the higher headquarters element, an aviation component consisting of a expeditionary wing (cargo, fixed wing strike, and helicopter attack and transport squadrons) and the combat support and combat service support organizations needed to support it. I would estimate this force at between 65,000 to 80,000 soldiers. Less than 1/5 the number you suggested but certainly a lot more than the 10,000 currently there.
I'd select a corps because it would provide a good size increase in the security force for protection of critical infrastructure and institutions in Afghanistan (about a division) and would also provide two divisions to actively pursue the Taliban and the warlords (about 1 1/2 divisions), and the opium poppy eradication effort (about 1/2 division). The corps command could, at its discretion, rotate the combat divisions' regiments into and out of these assignments so that the risk of casualties was being shared equally among the various nations' contributions. I'd see it as being 1/3rd German, 1/3rd French, and 1/3 other European countries (less Britain, who is already making a considerable contribution in Afghanistan and Iraq (about 40,000 between the two)).
Now, I want to emphasize that this corps would have to be a
combat force, directed and empowered to actively seek and engage the enemy with the purpose of destroying it's military capacity (that is, attacking and destroying enemy personnel, materials, and bases of support). This means it must deploy with a United Nations mandate allowing it to execute combat operations. It also must not be limited by instructions from their individual national governments to either avoid inflicting casualties on the enemy or taking casualties themselves.
To this end, I note hearing a lot of generally good news about the Canadian and British forces operating in Afghanistan. They are actively seeking out the Taliban in the south and are inflicting a lot of casualties on them.
It may be just a lack of reporting in the English press, but I don't read much about German operations in Afghanistan. You report 3000 Germans being deployed to Afghanistan. Just what are they doing? Besides standing guard duty in Kabul, that is?
(BTW, this question is NOT intended as a criticism on the courage or military capabilities of the members of the German armed forces. From what I read and see, the force is well trained, well equipped, and well led. However, it is a criticism of the German government if it is sending forces into an active combat theater and then constraining their operations with so many restrictions that they can do little more than stand guard duty around government facilities in Kabul. That's the equivalent of saying you are doing something very dramatic and then really doing something a lot less.)
As I already said the effect is simply not worth the effort. Do you really think such a waste of men and material would turn out into a positive effect?
In Afghanistan and Iraq, you had the instrumentalities of government in the hand of murdering terrorists and thugs. You cannot understate how advantageous it was to them to have had all the mechanisms of government at their disposal (e.g.: sovereign powers of state to use diplomatic status to move personnel and equipment, the ability to use state mechanisms to purchase weapons and other dangerous materials, control of the transfers of funds, provision of areas to establish training bases, etc). They don't have them any more. While the Taliban and al Qaeda may still be receiving help in the Pasthun areas and from certain factions inside Pakistan, it cannot be done openly anymore. And when it is discovered, sanctions can be applied. Their continuing combat losses in Afghanistan is taking experienced fighters out of their ranks. Even though the madrassas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border continue to provide replacements, they are young and inexperienced and inexperienced fighters are fairly easy to kill. As long as they come and we kill them, they are unable to cause mischief elsewhere. When victory is achieved, there will be no statement formally conceding defeat by the Taliban and al Qaeda. They will simply stop sending forces to mount attacks - much as the Luftwaffe stopped sending fighters and bombers in mass bombing attacks on England at the end of the Battle of Britain.
In the meantime, we have organized national governments in both countries that are actually elected by their citizens in free and open competitive elections. Where security permits, we are working to repair and build their infrastructure. And we are training their armed forces and police for the day when they can truly take responsibility for their own security. There are tremendous issues in doing this and things have not gone smoothly. But the needed changes are occurring.
So, in answer to your question, yes, the effort is worth the money being spent and the men and women that are being lost.
One note on causalities before continuing. There has been a lot of talk from the liberal media and the Left in the United States about Iraq and Afghanistan being another Vietnam. And I'm afraid that sympathetic press and political groups elsewhere have picked up on it without really reflecting on the facts. Here are some facts that demonstrate Iran and Afghanistan are very much not the same as Vietnam.
Since our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is still going on, comparison of total casualties between the two cannot yet be made. However, we can compare annual average KIA rates. Here they are:
Casualty Comparison Table
| Conflict |
Dates |
Years |
Total KIA |
Annual Average KIA Rate |
Notes |
| Vietnam |
1964 to 1975 |
11 |
58,199 |
5291 |
Total KIA = 47,410 Battle KIA + 10,789 Non-battle KIA
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html |
Iraq
(OIF) |
2003 to present |
3 |
2,729 |
910 |
Total KIA = 2,176 Battle KIA + 553 Non-battle KIA
Source: http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf |
Afghanistan
(OEF) |
2001 to present |
5 |
336 |
67 |
Total KIA = 180 Battle KIA + 156 Non-battle KIA
Source: http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf |
As you can observe from the above figures, if the United States were experiencing annual average KIAs in Iraq at a rate equal to the Vietnam War, by now (after 3.5 years of conflict) it would have experienced 18, 519 KIAs. Instead, there have only been 2,729 KIAs from all causes or about 15% of the Vietnam annual average KIAs over the same period.
So, the argument that the United States is taking terrible losses at the hands of the Taliban and Iraq insurgents is nothing more than pure sensationalist bullsh*t being pushed by the liberal/Left wing media in an attempt to whip up antiwar sentiment. As a parent, I know that every loss is a personal tragedy for some American family. From the perspective of their impact on military operations, they are
not militarily significant.
You Americans i.e. are searching since 5 years (for understandable reasons) with 20.000 soldiers this camel driver Bin Laden without any success.
Yes, from available evidence it appears that the camel driver (now who is the racist?) is still alive.
He has gone into hiding in a portion of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Kharzai of Afghanistan insists that he (bin Ladin) is in Pakistan. President Musharrif of Pakistan insists he is in Afghanistan. Actually, he is in "Pashtunistan," literally "the place of the Pashtuns," a tribal region that straddles the long border between the two countries. Physically, this territory is extremely rugged. Because of the altitude, it is difficult to get access by helicopter. The mountainous terrain combined with a primitive road network favors ambush and escape. The region is the ancient stronghold of a very isolated and conservative tribal culture. Politically, the Pashtun ethnic group is a considerable minority in both countries and their good will is important to stability. So, even though elements within the Pashtun tribal group have aided and are currently aiding bin Laden, they, as a group, cannot be handled roughly by either the US or Pakistan without major political repercussions. This makes locating him extremely difficult. But that does not mean he is not being actively sought out.
But how is bin Laden now living and how will he die?
At this moment, bin Laden is probably in an isolated cave or stone/mud brick hut stuck up some desolate mountain valley in the Pashtun tribal region. He lives in constant fear of being found. He is surrounded by bodyguards that are pledged to kill him if his capture seems imminent. He is gravely ill with kidney disease but cannot receive treatment in a modern medical facility. Instead, he must make do with portable dialysis machine that is, along with its portable generator, carried from one hiding place to another. He cannot show is face in public without fear of betrayal. He cannot use any modern communication device without fear of being traced and found. In the meantime, 80% of al Qaeda's leadership structure is either dead or prisoner.
He is essentially a prisoner in a desolate place and he is supplying part of the guard force. He will either die there, become a US prisoner or be killed during capture. He will never see his Islamic caliphate established. He will die hated by billions and responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Muslims.
The Russians deployed 500.000 men in Afghanistan without any measurable success during the 80ties.
When the Afghan insurgents (who were not the Taliban) fought the Russians, they had the help of the United States and other western nations. The Russians were attempting to stabilize a failing ally and impose "godless socialism" on a fairly conservative Muslim nation. The Taliban came to the front in the infighting among the exhausted Afghan insurgent groups that occurred AFTER the Russians left. It essentially exploited the other insurgent groups' weaknesses. The Taliban never actually fought the Russians. They are now thoroughly discredited by their actions while in power and they are not the popular choice of the Afghan people. The only program they have to offer is intimidation and murder.
In short:
NATO and the United States are not the Russians.
The Taliban does not have the backing and resources of any government.
Except for the Pashtun, the Taliban does not have the support of the Afghan people.
The Afghan government of 2006 is a popularly elected Islamic government, not a socialist satellite of the Soviet Union.
We kill them by the hundreds and will continue to kill them in the hundreds whenever they come out to fight in substantial numbers.
Maybe you heard of the Brits who lost a whole army when they tried to annex Afghanistan into their empire a long time ago.
So?
This is the 21st century, not the 19th century.
No one is attempting to annex Afghanistan into anything except the family of free, peaceful, prosperous, and democratic nations.
Just because something worthwhile is hard, doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. Or just because something worthwhile has ended badly in the past, doesn't mean it should ever be tried again.
The French attempted to build a sea-level Panama Canal in the 1870s and failed because of technological limitations, the magnitude of the engineering effort, and disease. Yet the economic advantage of doing it was undeniable. So, building on the French work already done, the United States formulated a plan for a more complicated lock version of the canal in the late 1890s, figured out what the disease Yellow Fever was and how to treat it, and built the canal through the determination and driving for of President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt.. The world has benefited from it ever since.
All trials to subordinate this country ended in a disaster so far.
Yes, if our purpose was to subordinate Afghanistan and make it a satellite, the effort would probably end in failure.
But that is not our purpose.
We were finally brought into Afghanistan because the country was being used as a base for international terrorism and its government was willingly aiding the group that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Prior to that date, the United States had been content to make half hearted attempts to kill bin Laden through use of air power (primarily cruise missile strikes). After that date, nothing less than invasion and removal of the Taliban AND bringing bin Laden to justice was going to be enough. But merely smashing the Taliban was not enough. Something positive has to fill the void left by their defeat. So the United States, NATO, and the United Nations must create a strong and democratic state or the Taliban will intimidate and murder their way back into power. Presently, this state is weak because of decades of warfare and the many compromises that were made with the various ethnic groups and warlords in order to establish the government. The country needs outside assistance, including sustained substantial military assistance, in order to create the environment of stability to allow an authentic Afghan-style democratic government to develop.
Therefore the contemporary strategy of cooperation with moderate Afghans is probably the only possible solution.
As I noted above, it is the radical Taliban and al Qaeda, not moderate Afghans, that are causing the problems. You cannot negotiate with Islamic fascists because the only terms acceptable to them is for you to surrender! And even if you did surrender, you would still be subject to punishment because you are
kaffir, infidels, to them whether or not you are a Muslim. No, they must be displaced and something positive put in their place. That requires the use of force.
To do this we do not need more soldiers in this country.
Wrong. In order develop and function, a civil society must be protected from outside attack. In an ethnically fragmented society like Afghanistan (an Iraq, for that matter), the protecting force must be free of loyalty to one group over another. To create this force in Afghanistan requires that its members shed many generations of ethnic group social conditioning and begin to think of the nation as a whole instead of just their part in isolation. Until that time comes, the protecting force must be drawn from sources that do think of Afghanistan as a whole and are committed to seeing a functioning civil society develop. The present force, some 30,000 (10,000 Europe (NATO) (including by your report of 3,000 Germans), 12,000 US troops under NATO command, and an additional 8,000 US troops operating independently) is simply not enough to carry out all the infrastructure security tasks AND keep the needed pressure on the Taliban until they crack. My estimate, not that anyone in authority cares, is for a European corps plus the British and the US forces, about 90 to 100,000 in total. I have already discussed above how that corps would be used.
Besides of this we Europeans have small countries with limited possibilities. I.e. Germany had to rebuild a half of its country after reunification.
I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be a counterbalance to United States politically and economically (as the European Union does) and then cry about your poverty whenever called upon to demonstrate some of that political and economic power by doing something difficult, dangerous, and expensive. The United States also has many unmet domestic needs, yet it does not hesitate to commit forces and revenues where and when needed.
Look at the economic figures from Wikipedia I posted above. Whether it is the European Union, the European portion of OECD, or the European portion of NATO, Europe has just as much population and just as large a GDP as the United States has. Europe is simply not making a good enough effort.
I agree that there are SOME of the smaller European countries that probably should be exempt because their populations and GDPs just do not allow participation. Yet they ARE participating as they can. But there are a number of countries, and Germany is one of them, that have more than sufficient population and GDP to play a much larger and more energetic role on the world stage.
We simply can and will not spend 4% of our GDP on defense as long as there is no direct threat from a hostile nation to our own nation or to our allies.
I am not suggesting you spend a whole 4% of your GDP on your armed forces. I am suggesting you use the armed forces you have more actively to assist the United States in confront a common enemy to Western Civilization.
The
Bundeswehr presently numbers about 250,000 personnel. The
Heer has five panzer grenadier divisions (down from 12 since 1990, you'll note).
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr)
What are you doing with those divisions? Who and what are they guarding you against? A sudden thrust north by the Swiss? A revenge attack by the French? Is it the Danes that worry you? Or is the Polish you fear? Do you think that a nation with a population of 82 million and a 2.2 trillion USD economy might be able to spare more than 3 to 4 regiments to help out in this struggle? Do you think you might be able to let them actually engage in combat?
(Source: Germany Population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union)(selective)
(Source: Germany GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union) (seelective)
Some crazy Islamiacs are simply not enough for us to change into a war economy like during WWII.
No one is suggesting that you do. The United States is presently not on a war economy.
During WWII, the US civil economy did shut down. No new cars, limited supplies of tires, food rationing, scrap metal drives, etc. With a population of roughly 100 million, every tenth American was in uniform. We fielded 100 infantry or armored divisions, the Navy numbered 1200 capital ships, and I simply don't know how many fighters, bombers, and transport aircraft we manufactured for ourselves and our allies.
By contrast, today the United States civil economy remains the largest in the world. The armed forces number less than 1% of the total United States population of 300 million. In real terms, the size of our
all volunteer military has decreased since the end of the Cold War and, when adjusted for inflation, so has military spending. Our navy now numbers below 300 capital ships.
Nevertheless we try to be helpful where we can. In the moment Germany has 3000 men in Afghanistan and 3000 more on the shores of Lebanon to help Israel. Furthermore we engage ourselves with 3200 men (SFOR) in Kosovo and 1300 (KFOR) in Bosnia. There are many more smaller contingents all over this planet to stabilize the situations and to provide freedom.
Oh, you poor suffering Europeans. Stretched to your last resources. Well, I guess 500 million people and a 13 trillion USD dollar economy just doesn't go very far any more. Nonsense! It is well within the capacity of Europe collectively and Germany individually to do a lot more than this.
And Europe should be doing more because it is in your self-interest to do it, not because you feel sorry for the Americans after 9/11. Europe has plenty of reason to want the defeat of Islamic fascism: numerous bombings and attempted bombings, religiously motivated murder, rapes, attacks, and cultural intimidation, massive riots, plots to cause massive civilian deaths, use as a staging base for terrorist acts in other parts of the world, honor killings and forced marriages, and attempts to declare exclusive Muslim enclaves in sovereign countries.
But - as you already pointed out - if we are no friends such crap like NATO does not make any sense in the future anymore. Think about it - there are 3 solutions:
a) You continue to whine about those bad and evil Europeans like a petulant child.
b) You make a sharp cut and leave your origin behind.
c) You accept the fact that you can not dictate Europe its policy anymore (if you try the outcome will be simply awkward for you). Therefore the trans-atlantic relations have to be redefined due to the new and changed situation after the cold war. NATO should not only be a millitary alliance i.e. but also one that regards common economic interests if it wants to survive.
It is up to you.
You are right. Given European resources and European reluctance to support out-of- Europe commitments under the NATO framework, it is time to reconsider whether or not the continuation of the treaty makes sense. I'm sure the Russians would like nothing better than to see an end to NATO. Then it could intimidate all those newly free countries in Eastern Europe back into their sphere of influence. Pretty soon there would be a new Iron Curtain and Russian forces would again be on Germany's borders. Then YOU could go about figuring out how you were going to defend yourselves by yourselves and all by yourselves. You can do it. Why you have just as much population as the United States has and just as much GDP. You'll be fine.
As for your three choices, I choose all three.
a) You continue to whine about those bad and evil Europeans like a petulant child.
YOU may regard it as whining (you really love that word, don't you?) or anything else that you like. I regard it as speaking with utmost frankness to a supposed ally and trading partner who is failing internally and not measuring up to their potential in international relations. If you don't like being criticized, do better. You can start by stopping all this equivocating over your commitment to the war against terrorism and start putting forth a real effort, one consistent with your potential, to combat it both inside Europe and outside Europe.
If you can't warm up to the mission in Afghanistan, and find Iraq beneath consideration, how about taking on Iran and North Korea? Or how about really bringing the government of Sudan to account about Darfur. Or how about keeping Somolia from becoming an al Qaeda training center again? Or if you are really feeling energetic, how about insisting that Hezbollah in Lebanon really be disarmed?
b) You make a sharp cut and leave your origin behind.
Personally, my family psychologically left Europe behind a long time ago, thanks mostly to you Germans. By birth, I have a European racial heritage and a European family name. I speak a European language because that is the language of this country's founding generation. That's all. There is nothing in my religious beliefs, political thought, or cultural life that I reference off of post-WWII Europe.
c) You accept the fact that you can not dictate Europe its policy anymore (if you try the outcome will be simply awkward for you). Therefore the trans-atlantic relations have to be redefined due to the new and changed situation after the cold war. NATO should not only be a millitary alliance i.e. but also one that regards common economic interests if it wants to survive.
NATO doesn't need to survive. It is a creation of the Cold War. The primary benefit of the treaty was coordinated military protection while facing a common foe at a time of vulnerability in Europe. Europe has fully recovered and the common foe has, at least for the moment, passed from the scene. If, for the sake of politics, trade, and domestic tranquility, Europe wants to go whoring after the Arabs, the Iranians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, and every other disreputable and malignant group, the United States is not obligated to follow. The United States can and will continue to trade and militarily support its allies and friends on either a bilateral or multilateral basis. Common forums for coordinating standards and efforts are useful but not absolutely necessary. It will simply be the old politics again. Maybe things will work out better this time.
Good luck. You'll need it.
