America’s Fickle ‘Old Europe’ Allies

Europeans have been hyperventilating over their self-perceived “victories” vis-à-vis the United States at the recent NATO Summit in Romania from April 2-4. “France and Germany Thwart Bush’s Plans,” ran a triumphant headline in the Hamburg-based Der Spiegel. “Europe Waits Out the Bush Administration,” read another. “Only One Lame Duck Here” said the London-based Guardian in commentary that waxes giddy about Russia’s growing stranglehold over Europe. “NATO Should Disappear” said the Madrid-based El Pais.

But behind the spin, the 26-member NATO Summit (arguably the most important such gathering since the end of the Cold War) exposed a security-dependent Europe that is divided, weak, and fickle above all else.

Consider Spain, for example, where newly re-elected Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was far less concerned about Spanish (or European) security than about getting some one-on-one face-time with US President George W Bush. Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist pacifist who is arguably the most anti-American leader in Europe today, is (unsurprisingly) one of the only such Europeans never to have been invited to the White House.

But in the Byzantine logic of Spanish politics, that elusive visit to the Oval Office (to see an American president who is broadly despised by most Spaniards) also happens to be the main litmus test by which Spaniards will judge whether Zapatero gets promoted from provincial politician to international “statesman” during his second term.

Thus Zapatero’s permanent non-relationship with the most powerful leader in the free world has become something of a media obsession in Spain, with the issue generating many miles of ink in national newspapers.

Imagine, then, the internecine recriminations when Zapatero’s much-vaunted “mini-summit” with Bush lasted all of about three seconds…just enough for Bush to shout three words (which brings to a grand total of 18 words the two leaders have exchanged during the last four years) that appeared in newspaper headlines all across Spain: “Hola, Hola, Felicidades.” (”Hello, Hello, Congratulations,” referring to Zapatero’s re-election.)

Zapatero then took to the podium and tried to persuade bemused members of the Alliance… to merge NATO with the United Nations! And, just for good measure, the prime minister also announced that Spain would not be sending more troops to Afghanistan, with or without the UN.

Not surprising, then, that Zapatero was captured in a politically devastating Summit photograph sitting in isolation, while the rest of the leaders present were huddled around Bush at the other end of the conference hall. The picture, which made the front page of every newspaper in Spain, opened up yet another pained debate about Spain’s declining influence in the world since Zapatero took office.

Then take Greece. It refused to allow Macedonia to join NATO because Greece wants its northern neighbor to change its name, which Greeks say jeopardizes their claim as the only the rightful descendants of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC).

The controversy erupted in 1991, when the former Yugoslav republic declared its independence from Belgrade and took the name Republic of Macedonia. Although more than 120 countries have now recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its current name, Greece says the name proves that Macedonia harbors implicit territorial claims on the northern Greek region also known as Macedonia. Never mind that by joining NATO, Macedonia would provide Greece with much-needed stability on its northern border.

Then consider Germany and France, arguably the greatest free-riding beneficiaries of American security since World War II. At the Bucharest Summit, they (together with Spain) refused to extend NATO Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine because they were afraid of provoking Russia, thanks to Europe’s growing dependence on Russian energy.

Germany, for example, already imports 35 percent of its oil and 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, more than any country in Western Europe. The problem of energy dependency is being exacerbated by leftwing energy policies that are phasing out the country’s production of nuclear energy in favor of increased reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, Germany’s (and Europe’s) dependence on Russian energy imports may reach 70 percent by 2020, which (if current German behavior is any gauge) will give Russia a de facto veto over decisions on German (and European) security.

Europeans, in any case, know that keeping Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO will not appease Russia for very long. Indeed, the Germans appear to be looking for a face-saving way out of Europe’s long-term geo-strategic dilemma. On March 4, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gave a speech titled “Towards a European Ostpolitik” in which he suggests that Europe’s future lies in staking out a position mid-way between the United States and Russia. Say what?

Well, if Germany insists on turning Europe into a province of Russian, then debates over the future of NATO will be moot anyhow.

In France, meanwhile, the government on April 8 faced down a vote of no confidence, as leftists accused French President Nicolas Sarkozy of a dangerous “Atlanticist drift” that risked turning France into Bush’s poodle. Socialist leader François Hollande said Sarkozy decided to send 700 French troops to Afghanistan “under pressure from the Americans” and that France risked losing its independence on the world stage.

With allies like these, expect trouble ahead for transatlantic relations, regardless of who occupies the White House next January.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group

The allies practically had air superiority over Western Europe by mid-’44. Operation Overlord would have failed if the Nazis had a viable air force at this time. The numerical advantage alone spelled certain doom for Nazi fighters by ‘45.

To make it short:

This is a operation my grandfather was involved in:

Unternehmen Bodenplatte

Unternehmen Bodenplatte was a quite unusual operation, but it shows that the Luftwaffe was very well able to let planes fly in late 1944 to mid 1945.

Somehow all your so called "knowlege" that someone told you about WWII is obviously complete BS and brainless Hooray-propaganda. You are well advised to buy yourself a well balanced history book.

Of course there is no question that nazi Germany, the German Wehrmacht, the nazi German government was evil and the German crimes committed in that time are nameless. Nevertheless the allied propaganda machine worked as smoothly as the German one. It is not only you but many of your compatriots suffer from this kind of hooray-propaganda-BS. A example from WWI:

To people who understand German the phrase "Teufel Hunden" is wrong in a absurd way. Grammatical BS. The correct expression would have been "Teufelshunde" (devil dogs) or "die Hunde des Teufels" (the dogs of the devil). Of course the US-Marines were and are respected soldiers among their German colleagues but absolutely no one would have ever would called them "Teufel Hunden". Another fairy tale of war propaganda. Therefore it is extremely funny to most Germans when your Marines still declare themselves as "Teufel Hunden" from time to time...

You see, it is worth to scrutinize things.

The fact that France funds its own military is irrelevant if the French military is inadequately applied.

If the perception is about American ex^penditures, then I am afraid French expenditures are also relevant. One cannot say “hey, I paid for this” and refuse to hear about what the other side has paid.

As for the relevancy of French intervention, it is up to the French citizens and government to assess it - the French forces’ duties are first and foremost to defend Franc, its people, and its interests. But let’s have a look at French militray operations in the past 50 years :

- Suez, vs a pro-Soviet Egyptian regime
- Korean War, against the North Korean regime
- IndoChina, against a pro-Soviet Communist insurrection
- Algeria, against a pro-Soviet insurrection
- The Kolwezi raid in 1977, against a rebellious group of soldiers who helf Westerners hostage
- Chad in the early eighties, against Lybia and its proxies
- Operation Desert Storm, against Baathist Iraq
- Somalia (1995), against Somalian warlords
- Ex-Yugoslavia (1992-present), trying to separate warring ethnic groups
- Afghanistan (2001-present), against Taliban
- Haiti (2003), trying to maintain peace in the nice post-Aristide island
- Ivory Coast (2004) trying to separate warring ethnic groups
- Congo (2007) - trying to seperate warring ethnic groups
- Somalia (2008) against pirates.

You’ll note than in six of these operations, French troops deployed alongside American ones. So what are the inadequate operations there ?

“Unternehmen Bodenplatte was a quite unusual operation, but it shows that the Luftwaffe was very well able to let planes fly in late 1944 to mid 1945. “

You’ll note that, as noted in your link, ‘The operation failed to achieve Air superiority, even temporarily, and the German Army continued to be exposed to air attack’. They were able to ‘let planes fly’, which I never disputed, but that is a far cry from your earlier claim of your grandfather having an ‘easy’ time with our bombers in ‘44 and ‘45. In fact, anyone who tells you their experience in WWII was ‘easy’, on either side, is probably telling you some tall tales. Particluarly if they’re referring to the task of going up against allied air superiority.

“Somehow all your so called “knowlege” that someone told you about WWII is obviously complete BS and brainless Hooray-propaganda.”

I’ve learned about WWII from multiple sources as I’ve been studing it for years. Which one of my claims are you disputing? Can you be specific?

“To people who understand German the phrase “Teufel Hunden” is wrong in a absurd way. Grammatical BS. “

Oh yeah, well I am a jelly doughnut.

;-)

I never disputed, but that is a far cry from your earlier claim of your grandfather having an ‘easy’ time with our bombers in ‘44 and ‘45.

I said: "He had an easy game with your poorly trained but quite well equipped kids in the skies." and refered to his personal experience of being a officer and flight instructor in the German Luftwaffe that was flying warplanes of all kinds since early 1934. This has nothing to do with a "genetic" difference between Germans and Americans but with the individual knowledge of years. I never said that he had an easy time. During the last stage of a lost war with a family (thank God all of them survived the bombings and the Russians without physical injury or direct harassment) on the run to the safe west (he was deployed in Silesia between 1941 and 1943 and his young wife still lived there until January 1945) and the bitter duty to kill foreign kids in bomber planes nobody sane could talk about a "easy time".

My granddad shot down several allied bombers and fighters from 1944 to 1945 and I have absolutely no reason to doubt that. He has never been a Hartmann or a Rudel, but he was for sure a very dangerous soldier with high efficiency. Maybe I should not give insight into authentic European and family history just because some complete idiots here argued that the Germans lost all their good German blood in Russia blanking out that the German breed was subjected to a perfect genetic selection through the war. Self-satisfied national autoerotic seems to a be a wide-spread attribute among some of your compatriots. Such is a strange attribute since being loved throughout this planet is obviously a American obsession. It is no wonder that some of your fellow citizens are that unpopular abroad and it has for sure nothing to do with particular anti-Americanism.

This is sad because it makes our (and your other) relations unnessessary miserable.

Oh yeah, well I am a jelly doughnut.

This is a good play on words. :)

Regards from good old Europe!

A.B.

Let us ignore the last 50 years, and concentrate on the last 5. Adequate, from our perspective, would have been at least division (say, 10,000 troops) to Iraq, and another division to Afghanistan. As of March, 2008, I find this list of troops in Afghanistan (From Foreing Policy Magazine): U.S. -- 29,000 U.K. -- 7800 Germany -- 3,210 (Mostly non-combat) Italy -- 2880 Canada -- 2500 Singapore -- 2 Austria -- 2 Ireland -- 7 Luxembourg -- 9 Iceland -- 13 France -- not listed. (By the way, here's Foreign Policy's comment about the German contingent: What they’ve done there: German troops lead the ISAF effort in northern Afghanistan. Some are part of a reconstruction team that is providing security to aid agencies, and German reconnaissance planes have engaged in aerial surveillance of Taliban-occupied areas. German participation, however, comes with many restrictions. Last November, The Times of London reported that German helicopter pilots, who provide medical evacuation, have to return to their base everyday at “tea time” so they can be back before dark. In one instance, they abandoned Norwegian and Afghan soldiers in the middle of a daylong firefight against the Taliban. Haiti, Congo, Ivory Coast, and Somalia are small potatoes. If you compare France's contribution to the current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, to France's population of about 62,000,000; and then compare that percentage to our contribution, you can see why we perceive that we do all of the heavy lifting. Absent greatly increased participation from its non-English speaking contingent, NATO ought to be disbanded.

You had claimed that ‘There is rather understandable fear in YOUR DoD that future German governments could kick out the remaining American installations and/or close the German airspace..’. Who in our DoD expressed such fears? Did you just make this up?

Of course your DoD never said that openly (would you drop your trousers in the public?), but there is a actual example for a certain form of US installations that had to be closed because neither the German government nor the German public was willing to tolerate them anymore:

ECHELON

The Echelon-base in Bad Aibling on German soil was forced to close after it was understood as a instrument for spying against Germans and other Europeans in 2004. The EU launched a successful legal procedure against the US because of industrial espionage and de facto the NSA was kicked out. Politicians of course say it in friendly tones, but the final result is obvious. The US army then installed something comparable in another location in Germany, Griesheim during 2005. This station is also forced to close in 2008 since again there was broad reluctance and antipathy among the local German population against it.

A link to a related German newspaper article (in German): http://hp.kairaven.de/bilder/griesheim_ende.gif

This process can happen anywhere else if the actions of the relevant deployment is in contradiction to European and German laws, values and policy. Since your DoD does not consist of complete idiots, they are well aware about this fact and for sure know that their deployment in continental Europe can not be used against the will of the Europeans.

That is one of the most important reasons why the US deployment in Germany is reduced from currently 70.000 to 80.000 (actually there are only maybe 30.000 - 40.000 in Germany because of the war in Iraq) to 24.500 men in 2014 anyway.

Re : French forces in Afghanistan : go to CENTCOM and you’ll see what the number is, for chrissakes. Nine French soldiers died in Afghanistan since 2001, that should tell you something about the level of commitment there, which is around 1,800 and peaked at something around 4,000 IIRC - once again, CENTCOM’s website will give you the numbers.

You may think whatever theater of operations where US forces are NOT deployed “small potatoes”, but I think 1) the pople who live in these hotspots might disagree, and 2) so would the guys deployed there.

Sure, if you take each of the theaters and compare the forces deployed to the total number of French citizens, I guess nothing will satisfy you. I could say “oh, wait, you have only 29 thousands guys in A-Stan, come one, you are a country of over 300 million, you can do better !” and it wouldn’t make any more sense. France’s Army isn’t 62 million, it’s 250,000 in peacetime. A full 11% of it is deployed overseas as we speak, and if you pay a visit to the French Defense Ministry’s website you’ll see where, why, and how many.

You want to disband NATO ? Fine, do it, and good luck with running the English-speaking only elite club you have in mind. We non-Anglo country bumpkins sure don’t want to be a hassle on youse finer folks. Tss.... ;)

Here are the numbers about French commitment in Afghanistan, taken straight from the US Central Command’s website :

“Support to the Global War on Terror (Operation Enduring Freedom):

Historical perspective:

French commitment to OEF has been strong and resolute since the beginning of the operation. The French liaison team to HQ USCENTCOM was established on 10 October 2001 to coordinate all matters/issues related to the French contribution to OEF. As soon as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1378 was issued on 18 October 2001, France forces were sent in Afghanistan. French forces arrived on the ground as early as 2 December 2001, securing Mazar-e-Sharif. The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and her escort operated in the Indian Ocean as soon as December 2001 launching air strikes over Afghanistan. Since October 21, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign. They were reinforced at the beginning of 2002 by French air force transport planes and fighters. Indeed, France was the first country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan in direct support of American ground troops. Since then, several tours have been completed by both Air Force and Navy air assets in support of OEF. From 2001 to 2006, special Forces troops fought against the remnants of the Taliban by conducting armed reconnaissance in the south of Afghanistan. In total, more than 10000 French service members were sent to the region since the beginning of the war.

Today:

Today, some 2150 French service members are involved for Afghanistan in OEF or within the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The French commitment is the following:

Army: 1100

French ISAF battalion: In addition to being responsible for security of Warehouse Camp, the French ISAF battalion also helps to maintain a safe and secure environment by conducting daily patrols in Kabul area. The French battalion also performs Civil Military Operations in its area of operations to help Afghan people to rebuild their local economy and infrastructure (medical help, school building, well drilling etc.).

ISAF and RCC (Regional Command Capital) HQ : The French Army provides staff officers for ISAF an RCC headquarters. France assumed the RCC command until April 2007. In 2004, Lt. Gen PY was the ISAF Commander.

Operational Mentoring Liaison Teams: France has already deployed one OMLT in Wardak and Lowgar provinces, within the 201 ANA corps. Three additional OMLT will be deployed by the end of 2007.

Afghan National Army (ANA) training: Since the very beginning, France has been a major partner in ANA training. In early 2002, France assumed responsibility for training three initial ANA battalions. In 2003, France specialized in providing officer training for the subsequent battalions. In addition, France has led the General Staff College lead in Kabul since its creation in February 2004. Many classes have already received training from French instructors. Today, France focuses on company commander and Special Forces training.

Navy: 550

Several French war ships are operating in Combined Task Force 150 along with the allies to fight against illegal maritime activities and to deter terrorism at sea. French contribution, two frigates in minimum, accounts for approximately a quarter of this OEF naval force. France took command of CTF 150 on September 2003, June 2004, August 2005, Mars 2007 each time for a 4 months tour. Besides these assets, one Maritime patrol aircraft deployed in Djibouti (ATL2) under national control is participating in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance missions of the AOR. Regularly, the French aircraft carrier “Charles de Gaulle” provides aerial support to OEF operations. At this time, French Super Etendard (SEM) and Rafale fighters fly RECCE and CAS missions over Afghanistan from Northern Arabian Sea.

Air Force: 510

French C-160 planes, based in Dushanbe (Tajikistan), perform regular tactical airlift missions to all airfield in Afghanistan. French Mirage 2000, Mirage F1 CR and Rafale fighters, also based in Dushanbe, provide daily aerial support to OEF operations with CAS and RECCE missions. French KC-135 planes operate from Manas (Kyrgystan) for refueling missions. And French helicopters, based in Kabul, conduct support missions to troops on ground.

Liaison teams:

The French Armed Forces have embedded liaison officers at all HQ levels:
- Office of Military Cooperation (OMC-A) and Combined Forces Command (CFC-A) in Kabul - Combined Task Force (CTF 76) in Bagram - Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Mazar-e-Sharif and Konduz - Combined Task Force Horn Of Africa (CJTF HOA) in Djibouti - Combined Air Operation Center (CAOC) in Al-Udeid - US Naval Central (NAVCENT) in Bahrain. “

Let us ignore the last 50 years, and concentrate on the last 5. Adequate, from our perspective, would have been at least division (say, 10,000 troops) to Iraq, and another division to Afghanistan.... ....NATO ought to be disbanded.

Let me ask a simple question (apart from the point whether the war in Iraq has its justification for the US or not). I think that there is no doubt that the warfare in Iraq was offensive and not defensive (i.e. after a direct attack on US or NATO soil). The attack on Iraq was executed by the US alone without serious consultation of its traditional NATO-allies. Since the NATO treaty is only relevant in a defensive action* neither Germany nor France have any legal or practical reason to join into a offensive war against a third country.

In the case of Germany such offensive warfare is strictly forbidden by the German constitution, the Grundgesetz. Furthermore this war was not approved by the UN or the security council. In both Germany and France the vast majority of its people and its governments were and are not convinced about the reasons for the Iraq-war and therefore dismissed any involvement into it. So far nobody found any WMDs in relevant quantities.

Can you tell me then why Germany or France should have a obligation to send 10.000 men each into wars they do not approve? Is being in NATO a duty to stand aside the US in every possible war of conquest?

Talking about Afghanistan we can say that the German Army, the Bundeswehr holds and secures large parts of the country with great success while France was heavily involved during the bombardments during the first phase of the war. France deployed the aircraft-carrier Charles de Gaulle, 3 frigates and 3500 men on ships in the beginning of the war while they had 2000 men in Afghanistan itself and 6 planes in Tadjikistan. Germany is involved into naval operations around the horn of Africa with several frigates and roundabout 1.800 men on sea. Beside of this there are 3300 men deployed in northern Afghanistan. It is true that the German troops in the north followed a different strategy than the US-troops in the south. Violence was avoided as far as possible and in effect the German soldiers were able to gain the trust of most Afghanis there. The effect is a quite stable and peaceful situation in the areas that are controlled by the German forces.

I am sure that both the German and the French people would like to see their boys at home and not in this godforsaken country. Therefore just do what you say: Disband NATO and we can take them home.

Regards from good old Europe!

A.B.

Source: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Op%C3%A9ration_Enduring_Freedom_%28Afghanistan%29

Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enduring_Freedom

* Article 5 of the NATO-treaty and its defensive character:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

The best defense is a determined offense. Saddam Hussein was obsessed with causing mayhem for the U.S.. There is good evidence that he was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and many other terrorist actions (see Christopher Ruddy's and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's writings on this subject), and he certainly wasn't above collaborating with any convenient terrorist or radical organization. I suggest you also read the book Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror ( http://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Media-Myths-Undermine-Terror/dp/0895260069/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209556724&sr=1-1 ) for a good background on the subject. Iraq and Iran have been the source of most anti-western terror for most of the last 30 years. Terrorists sponsored by these states have waged an ongoing war against the United States, and the U.S. is very correct in invoking its NATO rights of collective defense. Remember, too, that France and Germany exist as free nations today because of American efforts. It's time to carry your share of the load. As for the U.N., it is a nest of parasites. Its beauracracy is corrupt to the core--incorrigible. It is also a reflexively (even fanatically) anti-American organization. (You can search the FR archives and find many articles on the subject of U.N. corruption and dishonesty). The U.N. ought to be abolished; at the very least, we would be very foolish to depend upon U.N. approval to engage in any action that is vital to our health and survival. Many of the member nations of the U.N. want nothing more than to see the U.S. destroyed.

As for the U.N., it is a nest of parasites.

So what? It is true that the UN is corrupt. This is no wonder since many if not most of its members are corrupt. Just think of nations like Kongo, Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Angola, Zimbabwe etc. etc. etc.. It is also true that the UN is (and can be) no direct US ally, because it is a representation of all nations and not of a few. Nevertheless it is still the only organization where all nations are represented. Beside the corrupt nations you have many members that are far apart from any corruption. Therefore it does not matter if the UN is corrupt or not since it is needed as a good tool for communication among the nations and for minimum standards that are accepted by all members.

One of those minimum standards is the CHAPTER I, Article 1 of the UN charter:

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace...

http://www.unric.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=196&limit=1&limitstart=1&lang=en

This charter was signed in 1945 by the United States of America and 50 more nations. The problem of the UN is rather its outdated organization than its corruption. The security council i.e. does not reflect the real circumstances on this planet. Nations like India i.e. have a right for better representation.

If you want to leave the UN then leave it. Nevertheless you loose a unique platform to speak with those you have reason to talk to.

Saddam Hussein was obsessed with causing mayhem for the U.S.. There is good evidence that he was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and many other terrorist actions, and he certainly wasn't above collaborating with any convenient terrorist or radical organization.

It is indeed true that Saddam Hussein was a enemy of the US and the entire western world. Because of this he was also a enemy of Germany and France. He started several offensive wars (against Iran, Kuwait and last but not least his own people). Therefore his removal was in my personal opinion a honorable thing. Nevertheless it has to be said that the “good evidence” for his involvement into warfare on US territory is not conclusive. Beside of this there is still absolutely no evidence for the real official reason of this war: The existence of WMDs in relevant quantities. Furthermore Saddam Hussein was a toothless tiger in 2003 and no danger for anyone outside Iraq anymore. Therefore this war was facultative from our point of view.

Frankly, do you really think that Germans or Frenchmen are obligated to follow the US in every war it is starting??! The governments of Germany and France were acting wrong (in my personal opinion) when they criticized the US for their attack in the security council. It is not suitable to do this with an ally. On the other hand I am happy that we and our soldiers kept out of this crazy mudpool. It is not our war, we have no interests there and the attack of the US and its allies was not based on the NATO principle of “collective defense”.

Therefore it is your very own party. Go with it.

Remember, too, that France and Germany exist as free nations today because of American efforts. It's time to carry your share of the load.

This does not make us to footmen of the US. I am very thankful for the US presence during the cold war. Nevertheless it has to be said that the existence of a non-soviet Germany had rather strategical than humanitarian reasons. Poland i.e. was simply sold by Roosevelt and Churchill in Yalta to Stalin although the US would have had the power to shape Europe in a different way at that time. Germany and Poland were used as the bumper zone between NATO and the Warsaw Pact that would have been destroyed in any conflict while a big global thermonuclear war was unlikely at any time. This extremely high risk was the price we western Germans had to pay. We were well aware that a nuclear slugfest would have been restricted to Germany and Poland. Since nothing happened until the end of both the Soviets and the occupation of Germany in 1990 we were the lucky ones in history and the pro-American policy of Adenauer payed out.

The times are a changing. The occupation of Germany is over and we are free to do whatever we want. Germany is of course helping the US if it is really attacked. No doubt about that. Nevertheless it is up to us to decide about the commensurability of our means in such a conflict. German politics and people do not think that the current warfare in southern Afghanistan is very effective and a solution to the key problems there. Therefore we go a different way in the zones we are deployed and keep out of your areas. If you dismiss our help in the areas that are controlled by Germany and France just make your president to say that. :)

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.