Dillydallying, intervening late and preemptive discounting any commitment of ground forces sets the conditions for failure. ***Intervening in Libya wasn't a bad idea, it's how we did it.*** The way we went about it does not stack the deck in our favor to have the revolt succeed because intervention came late (Qaddafi had time to shore up support, kill man rebels etc) and our reluctance to get more involved on the ground more or less removes us as a major player in shaping the post Qaddafi Libya if the rebels do win.
Germany was threatened during the Balkan campaign in so far that the refugee crisis flooded them too. Germany at one point had in excess of 250,000 refugees within her borders. Furthermore, the problem was spreading with the Turks having volunteers go there to fight, skirmishes break out across the Greek border, the Russians getting involved on the side of the Serbs....... sounds very WWIish. The Germans are historically and economically tied to Croatia, and the Germans helped destabilize and tear Yugoslavia apart by recognizing Croatia as a sovereign state (Genscher) while on all political maps this was still one nation. Later the Germans pushed to have Croatia be a member of the EU as quickly as possible....... It's funny in a sort of way. The Euro’s see themselves as intellectual, cultured and far more cosmopolitan than us Americans, but in reality even today they are provincial and short sighted in thinking. The Germans supported the Balkan intervention for a slew of reasons to include a political need as pictures rolled in of mass graves, mortar attacks in markets, impotent UN peacekeepers etc. You had a desire to play old cards like with Croatia and a huge issue with displaced/refugee people that were flooding Germany and being put up in tent cities. From the German perspective, intervention was a definite “need.” But 7 years later, the Germans said “nein” after 3,000 Americans perish in a terrorist attack.
Furthermore, the Cold War wasn't really cold. Dozens of Americans died even in Europe in what was essentially a proxy and shadow war with the Warsaw Pact at the hands of terrorist attacks or in clandestine operations. Germany was very much so in “need” of NATO then and would have never acted the way she does today, because her own @ss depended on these institutions and the mutual trust and support we provide for each other. The problems with Germany didn't really begin to raise its ugly head until AFTER the fall of the wall (1989). That's when the threat picture went away and they felt not only a new sense of national identity but also liberated from a threat and able to play the sort of back stabbing games they did in Iraq with the US.
NATO for most our allies is a one way road.
Oh really? Libya isn't a security risk? You mean to tell me that Libyan missiles impacting in Sicily, their former chemical weapons program, their involvement in the Pan Am 103 attack, the La Belle attack, their “Line of death” in the Mediterranean......... isn't a threat? If I was Italy or France, I would be very concerned about Qaddafi and Libya and it would be a near permanent security concern even prior to this intervention. Furthermore, Libya is an OPEC nation and one of the worlds major oil producers. This nation has strategic value especially to Europe, which as with Iraq gets more oil from there than we do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
And and and.........
I look at what happened in Libya as an “opportunity.” In this case possibly a squandered one. You have a legitimate case to make for intervention, the support of the local population in Libya, a weakened dictator that has done some horrible things in the past and can't be trusted today. The Libyan intervention isn't a bad idea, it's just that somethings need a real effort and commitment to them in order to achieve a good outcome. Partial, sort of a cancer treatment will not bring the same probability of a good outcome as a quick, decisive, aggressive and full spectrum treatment of this disease.
Instead of assigning emotionally laden words like Libyan “adventure” (What Schroeder did with Iraq in 2002) assign the word “Opportunity.” It's the Libyan opportunity. Decisions such as this shouldn't be made based on emotional arguments with no substance though. The politics of the matter should not trump the national and Western interests. So far what scares me, is that the one who should be a leader has abdicated all responsibility in order to get credit for having taken action, but shed himself all responsibility of the aftermath and consequences or even if this mission fails all together. Leadership isn't about “managing by committee” or “appealing to higher authorities” or “blaming others” or “avoidance.” Pretty speeches, ones physical appearance, posturing and political maneuvering is not what leadership is about.
The way we went about it is wrong, but intervention was a good idea.
True. And so they are concerned. Germany isn't.
I look at what happened in Libya as an “opportunity.”
If you look for wars, I suppose, it is that.
If they want to be worthless freeloaders and we can't force them, fine; but don't damage the mission or create these BS arguments to make oneself feel good about being a moocher
Often, freeloading is the case. In the case of Libya, it is no threat to Germany, and therefore Germany is not freeloading. That is all I have to say about this specific issue. More broadly, I understand that America's superpower role is an accomplished fact, but I wish we erred on the side of inaction more often. Our greatest threat is internal.