Posted on 03/22/2011 6:53:59 PM PDT by 11th_VA
Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.
A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.
The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.
Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
How about we bring that Corp home and station them along our own border.
Give them the mission, "MAKE IT A BORDER!"
You know Jimmy only did one term, he's still eligible to do one more.
He was born in Georgia as were both of his parents.
Jimmy is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN unlike Comrade Barry.
Germans don’t like relying on a Kenyan in Brazil.
That would make too much sense, the Marxist-in-Chief would never allow it.
Yes.
They are taking their ships in the Med that have been on a NATO anti-terror operation out of NATO command.
Germany doesn't want to get sucked into a situation where they will have to use military force to enforce a weapon's blockade NATO is forming against Libya.
They are not pulling out of NATO.
ConorMacNessa wrote
I was speaking out of frustration. I fear we have socked the Tar Baby in the Mideast. God help us and God save our gallant troops!
Lamh Foistenach Abu!
LOL! You too are right about “socking the tar baby.” Great analogy and one that will undoubtedly be straight on.
Weld? Who said anything about weld? It’s probably got a couple of cotter pins holding it in place.
A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.
After the fact the Germans ALWAYS do the same thing. They bad mouth the legitimacy, the find every accident or mistake, they create arguments of ethical and intellectual superiority based on their “inaction.”
Just wait a while, soon they will focus in on their new version of some Abu Gharib story, some story about alleged vast untapped oil reserves in Somalia or a pipeline we want to build through Afghanistan......since this makes them feel good about themselves for having done nothing, once again.
Three points:
1. The Germans always choose the path of lowest risk and cost when it comes to national security or supporting their allies, trading partners, etc. You didn't see the Germans volunteer anything when North Korea attacked South Korea on two occasions, did you? This was even the case in the Cold War when their own rear was threatened and they as a percent of GDP were spending less than nearly all other NATO members. They are near worthless in Afghanistan, as they are off the shore of Lebanon........ They do as little as possible, from as far away and as late as they can get away with. They actively politically jockey to ensure they are in more stable and safe areas and they try to take more supporting type roles and vehemently resist being part of any real combat operations.
2. Without US “leadership” the Europeans aren't capable of managing their own way out of a wet paper bag. They will talk a big game, as with Iran since 2005 (Where they went into secret double dare probationary negotiations after threatening and the Iranians blowing them off, lol). Even in their own back yard, the Balkans they were essentially impotent. If the US doesn't lead it, it ain't happening because they lack the political resolve and willingness to take the damage like the US was (pre Obama). The only exception to this was ironically a Social Democrat Helmut Schmidt with his Mogadishu GSG9 operation which had it gone wrong would have ended his political career. They lack the strategic capabilities in logistics, force projection and mass. They lack the C2 at the higher levels, our national level intel collection capabilities and the don't have the ability to really work in a high threat environment because they have a piecemeal doctrine (usually borrowed from us albeit they never admit it, slightly modify it and call it their own) that lacks the capabilities to really be effective and minimize casualties to oneself because they lack certain specialized hardware and capabilities. If Obama acts like a typical Euro Bureaucrat hiding behind committee decisions and supra national institutions to avoid a black eye, there will be no leadership and consensus.
3. They are a nihilist society (by definition: highly secular, i.e. Godless, low national self identity, with a broken family unit where you have 1.38 child per woman and emasculated) and because of this, even if their own countrymen are blown up in a La Belle Disko, they care about it little today because life is about oneself and today. There is no principal behind their actions and while they will ALWAYS spin it as if we're the simpletons with ulterior motives and executing the war in a horrible fashion (That's the Schadenfreude and Heuschelei to self rationalize) in reality there is no concept of liberty, justice, freedom, democracy, that is driving their foreign or domestic policies. As the Germans said it best themselves when existentially threatened by the Warsaw Pact, “Lieber Rot wie Tot!” (Rather red than dead). Not even their own freedom and republic is worth fighting for to many of them! It is in reality “they” who are driven purely by business interests, over look injustices of the past for some economic gain. Profiteer from the self imposed trade restrictions of others....etc. Germany was indeed bragging that they were one of Saddam's largest trading partners, as they are with Iran today and yes, they have no trade restrictions with Cuba, Venezuela......... German society didn't learn to fight evil in WWII, they took from it that fighting itself is evil and because they are a nihilist society, nothing is worth fighting for anyhow. The best pop culture analogy would be that they are like the Ferengi on Star Trek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi
The clock is ticking........ We asked them to do something and they don't want to, so now we will hear about some horrible atrocity, cover up, ulterior motive, failure here/there/where ever........
That's typical media sensationalist create controversy stupid stuff....... but the fact that they in their typical do nothing approach aren't helping in Libya is bad enough.
The Germans are a moocher within NATO. They DEMAND that others come to help in the Balkans crisis, a war which they were one of the political instruments for (They pushed for this war). They DEMAND that they be put under the NATO missile defense umbrella even though they internally use this issue for political gain and bash the US (Destabilize the world, cause a new arms race.....). They will politically play games and tear into US intelligence operations that are forward deployed in their country like at Bad Aibling, but they also EXPECT that we share intel with. They EXPECT that our and other Navy's come to the rescue of their merchant ships in hostile waters. They EXPECT that when Germans are taken hostage in Latin and Sounth America we assist them since we have a huge influence in this area. They EXPECT that if there is a non-combatant evacuation operation as in Africa that we evacuate their citizens too....... But they themselves see no obligations, commitments or requirements towards anyone else. ***Don't ever depend on them, not even after 911!*** What did Schoerder’s “Uneingeschraenkte Solidaritaet” really mean? But they will DEMAND that they have complete and free access to all the worlds shipping routes via air and sea, strategic resources (traded on free markets all have access too and are required to sustain an industrial and high tech economy: oil, cesium, platinum, gold, silver, copper), that others come to help if there is a national security issue relevant to them such as in the Balkans. Most importantly to them, as in Iraq today, they think even though they sabotaged the war effort, that they should be given full and unrestricted access to these markets even though they did nothing and even worked against those removing the Ba’ath regime and later stabilizing the nation. That's the German moral “high ground.” As the Austrians, they are a “schmarotzer Staat” that post 1989 when the threat picture went away became a complete waste of time. Post 1989 because they have no immanent and direct threat they became not only a do nothing, but they even began to abuse and exploit these campaigns politically.
The Germans take this do as little, as late, from as far away as possible approach and then try to spin it as if this is an issue where they have the moral high ground, are more intellectual and cultured for having done nothing, once again. And it's ALWAYS the same story. But I guarantee you- no matter what the outcome in Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, etc..... they will want to sell their crap there while they scream “kein Blut fuer Oel” at us! Who knows, maybe some German Chancellor can get another job at Gazprom? lol
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.
You have a point regarding past German behavior, especially during the Cold War. But then again, it was their nation torn in two, not ours, and the likely theater of a hot war would have been their land.
On Libya, I think, frankly, it is us who are hyperactive. Surely, if we wish to sort out other nation’s civil wars, it should be our own initiative, — or France’s, or whoever is in the mood to fight wars, not NATO’s, which is a defensive alliance, and not Germany’s, which probably finds these days that the best defense is national solvency and strong economy.
The collective security threats are the same for Germany as they are for the US. Only Germany chooses to do nothing, can't be forced to take action, and her politicians and Volk think they are in fact better than thou for being “schmarotzer.”
Let me ask you this, Did the Serbs attack Germany? It was Germany that was one of the political engines behind this war! And guess to whom they ran for help? NATO!
The war in Afghanistan, the incident in the Republic of Georgia and the attacks on South Korea highlight a much greater issue and NATO is center stage in this show. You have the US, she CANNOT break her agreements, she CANNOT shrink in the face of this adversity, even may it be Clinton or an Obama that are in charge. Funny how GITMO is still open and Obama has now allowed military tribunals (lol), how we still have 70,000 troops in Iraq........... The US is a not only a member, but the greatest contributor in money, forces, C2 and the congealing force that binds allies together as part of these missions may that be Somalia, Iraq etc........ We bring to the table the means to deal with the high threat scenario's and even though our own allies often want to minimize our contribution, we do the door kicking, take the most dangerous area's and if things get bad, we are the ones that box others out. If the US fails to rise to her commitment, it would be a break in confidence and a probable death of the alliance system all together, believe it or not. The problem is that within these alliances NATO and ANZUS the other parties and “pick and choose” when they want to behave like allies. They can choose not to contribute at all, when, with how much, what sort of assistance etc they want to come to the show with if it fits into their small narrow minded picture, i.e. Germany in Lebanon or Afghanistan. As mentioned before, even if the US is attacked, if 3,000 civilians are murdered and the Germans admit themselves that the bad guys are in Afghanistan etc., they still didn't really rise up and beared their fair share of the load. The US had to coerce, had to negotiate and ask for help, that shouldn't be. I assure you, if Germany were directly attacked and 3,000 people perished, if we sent a few troops and tried to do little to nothing, they would be screaming bloody murder!
Not only the Cold War.... Hell, after 911, within three MONTH the Germans made an about face and did all they could to get their forces into safe areas, avoid being part of Enduring Freedom and combat ops, and placed such high ROE on their forces that they became essentially worthless. This was the alleged campaign where their chancellor spoke of “Uneingeschraenkte Solidaritaet.” Really, had the Germans left in 2006, nothing would have really changed in Afghanistan at the macro level and long term. Their commitment was more a token effort than any real contribution. The same goes for UNIFIL where as in Afghanistan the German's jockeyed for a role where their troops are not exposed to any threat by having them in ships off the shore while the fighters and weapons come across the Syrian boarder on land. What a joke!
It cannot be that the US is left flapping out in the wind, paying the economic, political and security costs of dealing with our “collective” security risks and concerns while some allies even play games with these issues in cheap internal opposition political efforts as Schroeder did in 2002 to get reelected! As was the case when Germany chose to shoot their mouth off about missile defense, all awhile they joined in on MEADS, bought 300 Patriot PAC3 missiles, are part of SM3 and said they would support NATO in the stationing of Interceptor in Poland as long as Germany is under the umbrella as well. In the meantime their politicians are running around screaming their typical “saberrateling, cowboy, destabilization, new arms race” BS. The status quo is unacceptable! Believe me when I say that everyone, 100% of those that call themselves members of NATO and ANZUS, have an “expectation” that we would intervene if there were an issue that hit them personally, but only few will step up to the plate reliably as allies dealing with the real threats we all face when they personally aren't directly affected. Most are fair weather allies and contribute the minimal they can get by with, knowing others will be de facto forced to deal with the issue even if they choose inaction all awhile "they" personally benefit from these actions. You don't think germany is affected by an Islamic terrorist threat? You don't think Germany sees Iran as a threat? You don't think Germany sees Libya as a threat?............ They benefit, others pay. It is a literal moocher type of relationship and those doing the mooching or freeloading in this case have a vote in if and how the status quo should be changed. The biggest resistors to NATO reform historically where the biggest freeloaders. Germany is one of them.
Any action the US takes to “force” allies to assist her ultimately have the following dangers:
1. A return to a near colonial era. If the US cuts nonsupporting allies out of the picture in those campaigns where their is no support given, you would see literally a new era of colonialism emerge. Those that own the real estate control and own what's in it. One of the key differences between today and say the colonial era is that you have free access to markets and resources that are traded to which all have access. Go back in time and essentially what was mined in those areas under the Spaniards control belonged to the crown.
2. The Alliance systems would collapse. If the US tries to force allies through threats of nonsupport or holding back if the “schmarotzer” is affected, they would scream and while they themselves are “do nothings” would declare NATO or ANZUS dead, with some insiders seeing this as an opportunity to grow in influence and actually helping this death along, i.e. France. Ironically, the “do nothing Schmarotzer” that would declare these organizations as dead is the same person that likes to talk about “multilateralism” when convenient to them.
3. The US, while paying disproportionately and playing a disproportionate role cannot really force NATO or ANZUS to reform. While the US created NATO and it has really served Europe more that the US, the US has no omnipotence in this organization. Those that are in the freeloader position more or less have to agree and themselves vote to change the status quo, and of course they don't. They like it just the way it is. When they need/want something they think everyone is “required” to help them, but when they are called upon, it's a matter of sovereignty and stupid arguments of some heuchelei (false intellectualism and morality) and an attack on the legitimacy are used to rationalize ones inaction. "Schadenfreude" is then used to make oneself feel superior and justified in having done nothing, once again.
The US is essentially forced to take whatever others wish to give in whatever amount they choose unless she wants to jeopardize these international security organizations and yes, believe it or not the entire modern day world order on which our economies are built. The US only has a hand full of solid allies helping her deal with the real threats out there (Global Warming isn't one of them, lol), MOST are freeloaders to a varying degree. They ALL of course want to be members of these security organizations though!
(Examples)
Nations that are carrying their weight and are more dependable: UK, Poland, Netherlands, South Korea, Australia.
Nations that contribute little and aren't really reliable: France, Germany, Denmark, Japan, Italy, Spain
Nations that are complete worthless freeloaders: Hungary, New Zealand, Check Republic, Austria, Greece
The larger nations like Germany really can't completely avoid involvement because of their influential role and the degree of involvement as well as personal benefits they have. For example, when UNIFIL was stood up, could Germany as Europe's largest economy, the worlds largest trading nation with major imports and exports to the Middle East and North Africa and most populous nation in the EU really do nothing? Even their own European partners would have torn into them had they done absolutely nothing while France and Italy commit substantial troops to the ground etc. The Germans to lesser degree like the US are forced to act in at least some cases and can't completely avoid contributing entirely as is the case with some of the smaller Euro nations that are completly worthless while sucking on the teet of this modern world order. Think Austria, direct benficiary from the Balkan campaign, does little to nothing anywhere but benefits from: Free open air and water ways (trade). Protection of intelectual property. Regional stability. Needs access to strategic resouces to keep her transportation, information, high tech and industrial economy alive, i.e. cesium, Platnum, gold, silver, oil, etc. Requests assistence when their own citizens are in peril, i.e. non combatant ecacuation operations, kidnappings, etc abroad. Yet what do they do? And I prmise you! The average layperson has this idea of a near superiority because of their "do nothingness." They feel powerful and sovereign because they tell those Americans "Nein" to the use of their air space or something like that but what do they do when people are assasignated in their own country at the hands of a foreign government?
Could I ask to to translate your German phrases? I don't speak German and have limited time to respond to you, let alone consult dictionaries.
The collective security threats are the same for Germany as they are for the US
Yes, but none of them are military. Our threats are danger of national default and even greater danger of losing the Christian identity. A danger of terrorist incidents exists, but is relatively small, comparable, for example, to the threat from natural disasters. So, quite possible you and I just don't see the world in the same way.
Did the Serbs attack Germany? It was Germany that was one of the political engines behind this war!
Yes, and the aggression against Serbia was foolish for Germans, and for everyone involved. The outcome of that was an islamic terrorist state next door to Italy and a loss of trust in NATO in the Orthodox world. But that was quite a while ago; isn't it time we all learned something?
if Germany were directly attacked and 3,000 people perished, if we sent a few troops and tried to do little to nothing, they would be screaming bloody murder!
But Germany wasn't. I think, war in Afghanistan was justified, but it also was naturally a primarily American effort.
paying the economic, political and security costs of dealing with our “collective” security risks
Libya wasn't a security risk. In fact, it may end up greater risk now that Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda become in charge. Democracy has a funny way of turning about. We in America have a habit of lumping together every tension point int he globe and calling it a single big security risk an American business. Germany doesn't have that habit. In fact, no other country does. Global security is a job the American government uniquely wanted for itself, now it got it, and so the job is ours. We shouldn't assume that every time a two bit dictator in the sands of Africa shakes a fist int he air, everyone should spring to attention and forget that we have an economic crisis at home, and several wars we already have that we should wind up.
The problem the US faces is that it can't force others to really carry their fair share
Correct. We can't. In a democratically governed country wars are a national effort. If the German people do not feel like fighting a war, there is nothing we can do to make them want to fight it. The only way to spread the perceived shares around is to institute a world government. Otherwise, the best we can do is persuade others, and I don't think it can be done in the case of Libya. In some other cases you mention perhaps something can be done, maybe even with military means, but the adventure in Libya is at the most for the French and the Italians to sort out as they share the pond with them and seem to have the desire. I would not blame any other country for willing to stay out.
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.