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.
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.
All supported the UN intervention on behalf of Korea in the 50s. But who's there today?
All supported the Coalition intervention in Desert Shield/Storm in 1991, but who ended up dealing with it in the inter war years 1991 - 2003?
All said it was horrible what was happening in Columbia where judges were being assassinated etc. but who was left dealing with that?
Who for nearly 40 years has been sitting in the Sinai?
The US “IS” the Wests policeman. Used in a condescending manner, the reality is that we are the economic, political, cultural, symbolic and military powerhouse of the West, Judea Christian, free industrialized world (to which Singapore, Japan, S. Korea etc. belong). The US by default because of her size and capabilities becomes the lead player in these issues. When Obama side steps or wants to step back it's a joke, because in the end, I assure you, we'll still be the key player in all this, even as we tell the TV camera to take more pictures of the French, Italians and Brits....... In the end, we are usually left with the baggage, and unlike our allies that can pick and choose their battles, we are nearly committed/required to act on their behalf. That's the reality of things.
I guess from an emotional and personal perspective, my biggest gripe is when some of our allies play games with our collective security concern or when they belittle our efforts and those with us to self justify their inaction and freeloading status. 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. Mooch and go crawl away into the shadows, don't try to look us in the eye and say you're better than us because you did nothing (A personal perspective).
When I say "I" or "you," you personally are not meant, OK?