Don,

I think bringing up the Bosnia war would serve your argument better than the bringing up the Kosovo war.

When the war in Slovenia started (which then led to the Croatian and Bosnian wars), Jacques Poos was the foreign minister of Luxembourg, which held the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 1991.
He declared, "The hour of Europe has dawned."

And we all know (now) that the EU was not ready in the early 90s.

So your point is that Germany did not have the capacity to help the US in Vietnam. Same situation now in regard to Iraq.

I just took issue with Kupchan's statement "That NATO became only tangentially involved in a crisis of the magnitude faced by the United States in Iraq speaks volumes about the erosion that has taken place in Atlantic solidarity."

The US crisis in Vietnam was of greater magnitude than the one in Iraq now.

Speaking of "erosion" of solidarity does not make sense to me.

NATO's purpose was and is neither to fight communists in Vietnam nor to bring democracy to Iraq.

Lord Ismay is often quoted, when the purpose of NATO is discussed, although nobody has yet found an original source of that quote. The supposed quote goes something like this:

NATO's purpose is to keep the Russians out of Western Europe, the Americans in Europe and the Germans down.

Those might have been some of the reasons why the Clinton admin wanted NATO to fight in Bosnia and Kosovo: a) Keeping the US in Europe; they were about concerned about European defence cooperation. b) Russia supported Serbia... And c) German Foreign Minister Genscher's early recognition of Croatia might have raised more than a few eyebrows in Washington... Okay, yes, a lot has changed. Keeping Germany down is not on the agenda anymore.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on my previous Kosovo comment?

> Nor was NATO's purpose to have anything at all to do with a
> civil war in the Balkans

Why not?
The Balkans are in Europe. NATO is for Europe. Russia supported Serbia. NATO was meant to keep Russia out of Europe. That's why NATO is expanding to the East.

> So be it. You have set the 'new' terms of the 'alliance'.

What new terms? Nothing changed. As I said, NATO did not get involved with Vietnam. Why should NATO get involved with Iraq?

The United States now wants to change the terms of NATO. Nobody else does.

> Live with them - they will not be loosened absent a public
> repudiation by the French and German governments of the
> policies followed by the Chirac and Schoeder governments
> between 2001 and the present.

You keep saying that. The US always acts primarily in her interest. Not in other people's interest. If there is a war in Europe, the US will join it, if it is in her interest. Otherwise the US won't. It has always been like that and it will always be like that. It does not matter how betrayed and angry Don is.

As I wrote before, the Europeans did not beg the US to fight in Kosovo.
If you disapprove of Clinton's decision to go to war over Kosovo, then blame him rather than the Europeans.

> I can visualize a future conversation between one 'AM' and
> one 'HRC' concerning a crisis in Romania circa 2011:

Can you also visualize the conversation between the US president and the Romanian president or prime minister, who reminds the US that he has said "Yes and Amen" to every US policy since Romania got independence. He will also remind the US people of how many Romanian soldiers were sent to Iraq.

Fuchur has raised this point repeatedly with you.

Why do you want to punish New Europe for the alleged wrongdoings of Old Europe? Why punish Romania for what Germany has done?

I am sure Romanians read various blogs and they raise their eyebrows, when they come across statements like yours. Romanians will stop supporting US policies if they read comments like yours.

You just don't care about Romania. You don't care that they supported the Iraq war. You will not remember it, if Romania will have a crisis. You will only support a US involvement, when it is in your interest.

Americans are not so altruistic that they fight wars ONLY to help others. The primary objective has always to be the advancement of US interests. And that is fine. It is normal. That is sovereignty. Likewise, other countries fight a war, when it is in their interest.

So, please, get over your frustration with the Kosovo war. Or at least direct your anger to Clinton rather than to the Europeans.

What was shameful about having NATO protect the West against the Soviets?

Your understanding of sovereignty is too old fashioned. The world is very complex and interconnected in the 21st century. Sovereignty of nation states like in the 19th century does not advance any countries interest anymore.

"Don´t you get it? After having fought against half of the world for two times, we suddenly needed help from others to stay alive. What could be even more shameful?"

I think most Germans consider it shameful, an utter disgrace and the worst crime to start two world wars.

I think you are in a very small minority, which considers NATO membership shameful. Well, some leftists consider it shameful, since they blame NATO for imperialism and all evil in the world.

"Back to present: The less we rely on other powers the better. By arming up our capacities, our possibilities will increase again. This (no matter in which century) is what makes a country"

The world does not work this way. Every military expert (generals and civilian professors of war and strategic studies) knows that.
Please let me know of one expert, who supports your viewpoint. One link to a book or paper by an expert (not an armchair strategists or someone enthusiast of the boardgame "Risk").

"You know, convincing others works best by providing arguments."

I agree.
Since you started it, why don't you provide some arguments for your thesis that it would be best to cut all ties to our allies?

Sorry for the exaggeration.

Wieso "gekränktem Stolz"?

I just apologized for having put words in your mouth.
Contrary to what I wrote, you did not claim that all ties to allies should be cut.

Regarding your other points: Maybe someone else wants to debate them. I lack the time. Yes, in a sense it is resignation.

Feel free to elaborate your ideas. Perhaps they will become more convincing then. Right now, I do not consider them convincing.

Any idea, which spy master will take over after Putin's term in office ends?

Don, I have repeatedly asked you present some evidence of Germans (or Europeans) pressuring the United States to get involved in Kosovo.

You have not provided a single quote of German (European) politican calling for the United States to fight in Kosovo or deal with Kosovo.

"Sorry, I don't have time to argue this - ever."

So why do you constantly bring up Kosovo and entertain this myth that the Europeans begged for US help and the US has saved Europe, but now the ungrateful Europeans refuse to fight in Iraq? Okay, you did not use those exact words, but that is the essence of what you have been saying in many comments under several posts.

Rather than repeating yourself in so many comments, you could substantiate your argument with some quotes from European politician or prove me wrong, when I said that Clinton intervened in Kosovo to advance US interests.

"You just sit there inside that little bubble of unreality and reflect on the profound righteousness of all that is the German and French worldview."

I see. When I challenge your wishful thinking and ask you to substantiate your claims, you refuse to do so and accuse me of the unreality bubble and righteousness. You sound like you prefer to live in that bubble yourself and entertain righteousness.

Again: Since you are angry about the Kosovo war, you should complain to Clinton, not the Europeans.

"Do not under any circumstances entertain the possibility that many in the US do in fact see things rather differently; and not merely pissed-off Republicans who now hold a very large minority position in the US congress - but fairly exasperated Democrat 'realists' like Joe Biden - who may be the next Secreatary of State should a Democrat win the Presidentcy."

You have said that many times before. You told us that we should not expect any US help in the future, because Americans are pissed of that we did not join the Iraq war. Am I supposed to be scared now?
Are Americans angry that we did not fight in Vietnam?

More and more Americans consider the Iraq war a mistake. Thus, why should they blame Europeans for not making the same mistake?

Besides, why do you want to punish Romania (which supported the Iraq war) for Germany's opposition to the Iraq war?

"Why should I be angry at Clinton?"

Because you often write that Kosovo was not important for the US because it was so far away and that the US only intervened to help the Europeans.

"I'm angry at the European reaction to the Kosovo war. The charges of 'war crimes',"

Which European prosecutor has charged the United States for war crimes? None.

As far as I know, only a prosecutor can charge someone with war crimes.

A handful of leftists might have accused the US of war crimes in Kosovo. Likewise, they are accusing Germany and all other NATO countries of war crimes in Kosovo.
Don, what is the big deal?

In an earlier post, I wrote: "A German federal court decided Thursday [October 26, 2006] that families of civilians killed in a 1999 NATO air strike on a Serbian town cannot seek compensation from Germany, affirming that civilians may not sue countries for war damages. Thirty-five survivors and victims' family members from the Serbian village of Varvarian had been seeking about 500,000 euros ($638,200) from the German government until the German Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe, Germany's highest court of appeals, ruled Thursday that civilian victims of war cannot claim such damages.
The incident dates back to 1999 when a surprise NATO air strike in the town of Varvarian at the height of the Kosovo war killed 10 civilians and injured another 30.
Although no German planes took direct part in the raid, the plaintiffs claimed that German troops serving with NATO helped select the target and that Germany therefore shared responsibility for the NATO action."
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/484-Prosecution-of-Secretary-Rumsfeld-in-Germany-UPDATE.html

You see, they were filing a lawsuit to get compensation from Germany, although Germany planes did not take part.

It is a free country. Everybody can file a lawsuit. Nobody in Germany is making a big fuss about them.

You make a big fuss and often talk about "charges of 'war crimes'", but you don't present any evidence.
I assume you do not mean charges in the legal sense, but just some protests from left wing groups or a headline in Spiegel. No big deal! Schroeder, Fischer, Scharping have been accused of war crimes in Kosovo as well. Nobody is making a fuss about it. It's a free country.

Another example: I wrote in a previous post that an association of peace groups filed a lawsuit against Chancellor Merkel and Defense Minister Jung for "preparing an offensive war." They claim that the White Paper on German Security Policy violates Germany's constitution, reports Die Welt (in German).
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/486-Two-American-Experts-Comment-on-the-European-Reactions-to-the-U.S.-Elections.html

To conclude: The US is not singled out. Those few leftists, who accuse the US of war crimes, accuse German politicians of war crimes as well.
Besides, their number is small.
Why do you and quite a few other bloggers/journalists exaggerate Anti-Americanism in Germany? See the latest post about the Dallas Morning News, which takes one comment in vlog and then writes an editorial (!) to accuse us Sourkrauts of laughing at the US.

Why?
Sometimes it seems that US journalists only listen to Anti-Americans in Europe, ignore everybody else and then pretend that all Europeans are Anti-American.

I think it is time to call the exaggeration of European Anti-Americanism as a form of Anti-Europeanism.

Medienkritik worte that German correspondents in the US would like to write articles that describe the US point of view, but their editors don't want those articles. It seems to be similar in the US: US editors like to print articles about Anti-American Europeans, but they are not interested in articles about pro-American Europeans.

"lack of rewciprocity."

Let me repeat my question: What has the United States done in Kosovo, what Europeans are not doing in Afghanistan?

Unlike in Afghanistan, the US did not send ground troops in the Kosovo war. Kosovo was fought from the air. Not a single American soldier died in combat. Two helicopter pilot crashed in a non-combat incident.
Germans took similar risks in Kosovo as the Americans.

Besides, Germans are taking higher risks in Afghanistan than Americans did in Kosovo. Some 20 Bundeswehr soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. Compare that to US fatalities in Kosovo.

"Sent soldiers in great numbers?"

Germany has 2900 soldiers in Kosovo and about 2800 in Afghanistan. The US only has 1700 soldiers in Kosovo left. I don't know how many the US had earlier. Perhaps you could look it up. It seems US committment to Kosovo was not that big compared to Germany's committment to Kosovo and Afghanistan.

"Fought? Fought willingly? Not tried to shuffle off the dangerous jobs onto their allies?"

It seems Blair and General Clark wanted ground-troops in Kosovo, but Clinton was not willing to send them.

Please, tell me what kind of fighting has the US done in addition to dropping bombs from high up in the air with little risk to the pilots?

Sure there have been risk and some fighting after the air campaign, but other nations (incl. Germany) participated as well. In fact, Germany participated in the air campaign as well. So, tell me, what was so special about the US participation in the Kosovo war?

"When Germany sends 25,000 troops to Afghanstans and takes the major combat role there (as the US did in Kosovo) I'll listen."

What is this number based on?

What "major combat role"? Do you want Germany to drop some bombs over Afghanistan as the US did in Kosovo?
Do you think that would be brave? Do you think that would lead to victory in Afghanistan? It won't. The US and the Brits and others have tried that for years now. The thousands of bombings did not defeat the Taliban, but killed many civilians, who hate NATO now and might be fighting against NATO now.

All the hot missions? Got a source for that?

I do not doubt your numbers regarding the share of sorties of the USAF and Luftwaffe, but still would be interested in the source.

When I wrote "Germans took similar risks in Kosovo as the Americans." I meant that each pilot took similar risks. It was not like in Afghanistan, where Germany is in the North and the US is fighting in more dangerous South.

You are right in the sense that the US and Britain (and others) provided much more pilots than Germany. So the total risk for the US that one of their soldiers would return in a body bag was bigger, because the USAF flew more much sorties than the Luftwaffe

Still, my point was that Kosovo was an air war. I don't understand, why Don believes that Germany should send 25,000 troops to Afghanistan, because the US fought an air war in Kosovo. I assume he is thinking of 25,000 ground troops. A ground war in Afghanistan is more risky than dropping bombs over Serbia. Much more Germans died in Afghanistan than Americans who died in the Kosovo war.

All your links refer to the execution of "Deliberate Force" in Bosnia in 1995.

The topic of discussion here is the Kosovo war in 1999.

The percentages of sorties by USAF and Luftwaffe, which you mentioned earlier, refer to Bosnia as well. Not to Kosovo. The share might have been a bit different for Kosovo.

In an earlier comment I told Don that he would make a better case, if we would refer to Bosnia rather than to Kosovo.

Thanks for looking that up, Joe!!!

Quote from the House of Commons report, which you linked to:

"Operation Allied Force was from the spectator's viewpoint, as our witnesses from the news media suggested, a rather undramatic, uneventful and relatively small scale operation, deploying (with some exceptions) only airpower operating at considerable height against a limited range of targets."

Compare the risks in the Kosovo war with Afghanistan.

Don, why do you think that Germany is obligated to send 25,000 ground troops to fight in Southern Afghanistan, because the US dropped bombs from a considerable height in Kosovo? Or am I misunderstanding your comments?

Joe,

"Germany flew 536 sorties none of which were strike missions."

Wow. What were they doing? Identifying and marking targets in low altitude flights?
Perhaps such a task is more dangerous than dropping bombs in strike missions?

I don't know. I just wonder.

I do NOT doubt at all that the US carried by far the largest burden in Kosovo. For Germany, the Kosovo war was a big shift from previous defense policies. Germany did much much more than it has done ever post 1945.

"Many of the problems identified during the Deliberate Force in Bosnia would later surface again and again during Allied Force, Desert Storm,"

Desert Storm was before Bosnia. NATO was not involved in Desert Storm.

"consensus for Bosnia and Kosovo would have collapsed if NATO had decided to launch a ground attack."

I am not sure, I understand the "grammar" here.

NATO is not one actor, but is the consensus of the NATO members. So...: If NATO had decided to launch a ground attack, then there had to be a consensus for this ground attack first, i.e. NATO can't break a consensus.

Or do you mean by "NATO" the US general, who is the head of the military side of NATO?

You see, this is what bothers many Europeans. They see NATO as primarily an American organisation.


I know, you and others think that it is the European members who prevent NATO from being effective by not providing sufficient resources.

Though, you have to at least see the European point: Many in Europe think that the US calls the shots in NATO, because it is always a US general, who heads NATO's military side as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander. The Europeans think that the NATO secretary general (who is always a European) is not all that important. He is just a secretary...

Would the US be willing to change that?
Would the US let a European general be Supreme Allied Commander? (Then an American can be the NATO secretary general.)
I doubt it.

Americans don't want to put US troops under the command of a non-American general, while at the same time Americans expect other countries to send thousands of their troops to be led by an American generals, who in the end follows orders from the Pentagon, which has not made such wise decisions lately.

Yes, the US has committed about 10,000 troops to NATO in Afghanistan. Those troops are being led by a British general in Afghanistan.

That is a noteworthy change. However, that is a fairly recent development. And in the end, NATO's overall strategy is determined by NATO headquarters, i.e. by a US general.

My personal opinion is somewhere between: I see the European point of view, but I don't consider it all that important that NATO is run by a European general for a change.

I think the Europeans have enough say in the various NATO decision making processes.

Again and again, Americans say that the Europeanshave to share more of the burden.
And again and again, continental Old European governments say that the US has to involve them more in decision making. The US sees itself as a leader and the Europeans have to follow the leader. That's why the Europeans are not ready to commit resources. They say: First let us play a bigger role in the decision making process and crafting of (military) strategy etc, then we provide more resources to NATO.
The Americans say it has to be the other way round.

I'd say both has to happen at the same time.

Anyway, back to your statement: "consensus for Bosnia and Kosovo would have collapsed if NATO had decided to launch a ground attack."

I remember that PM Blair and General Clark pushed a little bit for ground troops, but Clinton and Albright were against it. Thus, it was not the Europeans, who stopped America from sending ground troops.

I think, NATO made the mistake of ruling out ground troops early on. If NATO had internally and secretly agreed not to send ground troops, but publicly threatened Serbia with ground troops, then Milosevic might have given in early and NATO did not have to bomb for some 78 days.

IMHO, the damn politicians should never rule out anything, no matter how big public pressure is.

I did not equate them. (I defintely did not mean to). YOU brought up Kosovo, when we discussed Afghanistan. You seemed to be arguing that Germany had to do more in Afghanistan because of what the US did in Kosovo. And I am trying to understand the reason behind your thinking.

"... Germany would have had to make an effort on that scale for it's Afghan effort to be anywhere near comparable the scale of the effort the US expended in Kosovo (and Bosnia before it)."

I wonder on what basis you compare the Kosovo air war ("only" two US casualties) with Germany providing ground troops in Afghanistan (20 German casualites).

I consider patrolling in Northern Afghanistan riskier than dropping bombs over Serbia from the safety of a fighter jet high up in the air.

Effort. Okay. So explain to me why it is a bigger effort for a few hundred pilots to drop bombs over Serbia from a high altitude for 78 days than it is for 1300-2900 soldiers to go on patrols on the ground in Northern Afghanistan for nearly five years.

Anyway, IMHO you have to look beyond "effort" and "willingness to take risks," if you want to to judge a country's value as an ally.

The US has taken high risks by invading Iraq and has put a lot of effort into Iraq and -- to a much much lesser extent -- into Afghanistan, but the US has also made many mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The result is that the US has not achieved much in Afghanistan, and has matter worse in Iraq -- for itself, for Iraqis, for Israel and other US allies in the Middle East, and for Europe.

Effort and risk taking is not enough. You need to have a strategy that works and produces results. At (nearly) every workplace, employees are judged by the results, not by how effort they put into something. Noble intentions are not enough.

"Jorg always wants you to provide links."

He does. And you don't provide a link for your claim "the vast majority of those loses [German deaths in Afghanistan] had nothing to do with combat but were accidents."

How do you define "vast majority"?

Look at the numbers here:
http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationality.aspx?hndQry=Germany

The website has not been updated for a year. It lists 18 fatalities till November 2005.

Seven fatalities in helicopter crash. One in a vehicle accident. That makes a total of eight deaths by accident.

Now tell me, why do you think 8 out of ten is a "vast majority"

The other ten fatalities are not due to accidents.

You claimed that the "vast majority" were "accidents."

Six of the other ten fatalities are considered "hostile".
Four of them are considered "non-hostile", but they were labeled "defusing anti-aircraft missile" and "ordnance explosion". That sounds pretty hostile to me.

Now, Joe, explain to me why you think that the "vast majority" of German fatalities were caused by accidents.

Do you call a death by defusing an anti-aircraft missile to be an accident like slipping in the bathroom?

"Remember the US only used 2600 to drive the Taliban from most of Afghanistan to the southern part of the nation where combat is currently taking place."

Too few troops. Big mistake. Bin Laden slipped away. The Taliban are still not defeated. You have been fighting the Taliban in the South for five years now. You have dropped a huge number of bombs. I can't remember the exact number of bombs that were dropped and how many civilians you accidentally killed, which just leads to more support for the Taliban.

You have failed to defeat the Taliban in five years. Why do you think German troops could defeat the Taliban, if they entered the fight in the South?

I think you don't expect to win. You just want to see more Germans sharing the burden for your losing strategy.

Yes, the US carried most of the burden in Kosovo and in Afghanistan. I have said that repeatedly.

I only take issue with Don's claim in comments to several posts in recent weeks that Germany has to do more in Afghanistan because the US has done so much in Kosovo and that Germany has an obligation in Afghanistan because the US somehow saved us in Kosovo or so.

You can't compare the 78 days air campaign in Kosovo with the ground operations in Northern Afghanistan for nearly five years. Patrolling on the streets is riskier than dropping bombs over Serbia from high altitude. Germany has made a bigger effort (more soldiers, more money, higher risks) in Afghanistan than the US has in Kosovo.
About 20 German soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan.
3 US pilots were killed in the Kosovo war. That tells you about the risks about those two different wars.

Germany has still some 2800 troops in Kosovo. The US only has 1700 troops in Kosovo: Primarily Germany and other European countries finish the job, which primarily the US has started in Kosovo on behalf of NATO during the air campaign in 1999. There you have effort.

Besides, there are not any US troops left in Bosnia, I believe. The EU is finishing that job as well. Germany has still some 800 or 900 troops there.


It is unlikely that Germany will send a large number of ground troops to join the combat operations in Southern Afghanistan because US/UK strategies don't work there. You have tried for five years now. Not enough reconstruction work has been done by you guys in the South. Why are you repeating the same mistakes Russia made in the 80s and Britain made about a hundred years ago?

Germany has to increase its efforts in the North. Build schools, hospitals, roads, create jobs, train the police etc. That is important. Germany has big shortcomings in those fields.
We should do more in those fields rather than wasting resources and risking lives in Southern Afghanistan for a failed strategy.

Why do you want Germany to support a strategy that has led to a success in the last five years?

Do you really think, that all that is needed for peace and defeat of the Taliban are German troops in Southern Afghanistan?

I rest my case.

"Joerg is demanding 'proof' that the US efforts in Kosovo and Afghansiatan are greater than the German ones,"

I never said that. Please read again what I wrote.

Joe, I am giving up to argue with you.

You wrote that "the vast majority" of German deaths in Afghanistan were "accidents."

I showed you that 8 out of 20 fatalities were accidents.

Then I asked you, why do you think 8 out of ten is a "vast majority"?

Instead of admitting your mistake, you now talk about death in hostile action.

Six of the other ten fatalities are considered "hostile".
Four of them are considered "non-hostile", but they were labeled "defusing anti-aircraft missile" and "ordnance explosion". That sounds pretty hostile to me.

"However I am open to a discussion on how a third of something repersents a majority."

Whenever someone proves that you got your facts wrong and you are at the end of your wits, you make some ridicilous comment, that is supposed to be funny or cynical or whatever. It is just pathetic.

I never claimed that all fatalities were in combat. I just showed that you are wrong in saying that the vast majority of fatalities occured due to accidents.

You constantly downplay German contributions to the alliance, while you never actually argue why German should do more. Why do you want German troops supporting a failed strategy in Iraq or Southern Afghanistan?

Be constructive. Argue your case! Getting killed with other NATO soldiers is not a sufficient argument.

Germany should not support a failed strategy in Southern Afghanistan in order to get more combat fatalities and prove loyalty to the alliance. First the US and UK etc. should describe what their strategy for victory in Southern Afghanistan is. I don't see such a strategy.

A high number of combat fatalities in itself is not prove of commitment to the alliance.

Would you send soldiers to Southern Afghanistan?
If yes, what is the purpose?

Thank you, influx.

I feel bad now for having counted how many soldiers died. And I feel bad for having used statistics about fatalities to make an argument. I should not have done so. I find it sickening as well.