I see Germany’s point, however. They don’t want to go to war with Libya — and that is what this “no fly zone” is, —yet they as a NATO member may still be drawn into it because of the “all for one” nature of the NATO alliance. So naturally they want to opt out of this one early and firmly.
They simply are a free loader, a moocher, someone wishing to reap all the benefits of the world order in a post colonial world, from regional stability, security etc. But they themselves don't want to pay for it in terms of:
*** Economic disadvantagement- When you deal with threats like the US or UK some nation like Libya or Iran will exclude you just like you exclude them from trade. There are economic consequences. Just like we slap import restrictions on these rouge nations, they place export restrictions on us. They push back too, and nations like Germany are quick to jump in and fill that void in trade.
*** Security threats- By staying in the shadow and side lines, you're a second or even third tier target by either the rouge states or ideologically bent nut jobs. To the radical elements the Germans are still infidels, but they aren't the number one target like we are, or even a second order target like the UK. When you stand out front you put a big bulls eye on yourself. By staying in the background, you are a lower priority target and will generally have less trouble even internally.
*** Direct cost of intervention- These military campaigns are extremely costly, costing billions upon billions and they don't want to pay up. Hell, even without war the Germans don't carry their fair share in defense spending and never have! As far back as Casper Weinberger the US had to prod the Germans to pay more into NATO’s or even their own defense budgets. Ultimately you will loose people and machines as well as expend large amounts of resources executing these wars.
*** The political cost- War brings home bad pictures and fallen soldiers. It's difficult to politically justify logically a war when you have caskets on the cover page of magazines. War will bring with it targeting errors, bombs that went astray, soldiers that make mistakes....... War is for a politician a big weight that drags them down, i.e. Bush (Iraq), Johnson (Vietnam), Clinton (Somalia)........ As a politician a war not only could, but it will long term likely damage you, ask Blair how that works. That is why even Obama now is trying to wage this war from the air and is trying to rid himself of this hot potatoe as quickly as possible, telling everyone how this is not NATO's baby.
The Germans are simple to understand. This isn't some high concept of morality, some great insight or exercise in intellectualism that persuades them to inaction on nearly anything, anywhere, anytime. At the low level, for the Schmidt on the street it is, but in reality that's the heuchelei. They have these fake intellectual arguments, these fake moral arguments and they even portray weakness as strength as with Iraq. By the time it was all said and done, the Germans thought themselves as strong not by fighting a ruthless regime like Saddam's but for having told the US “Nein.” Weakness becomes strength, and these “Kein Blut fuer Oel” chants are just more of the same, heuchelei. For the Germans it's about minimizing costs to oneself while still maximizing the benefits there of. The Germans are in Iraq today, selling their crap big time (Generators, telecommunications, cars.....) just like they were during the Saddam regime! Their conscience isn't holding them back from that. lol
Their behavior and inaction on MOST of these national/international security issues isn't noble.