Thursday, February 7. 2008
German Politician Urges Canadian PM to Pressure Germany
Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, February 7. 2008
Hans-Ulrich Klose, vice-chair of the Bundestag's foreign affairs committee, supposedly told the Canwest News Service that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper should put more pressure on countries like Germany and France to station troops in the more dangerous southern parts of Afghanistan. Klose is a member of the Social Democratic Party, which is part of Chancellor Merkel's coalition government. And he wants the Canadians to pressure his own government... So crazy, it could be true. Well, to his credit, Klose has also been outspoken in the German press calling for German troop deployments to the South.
New quote from Gates, which he spoke to a congressional committee:
"I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's security and others who are not," the Pentagon chief said overnight. "And I think that it puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure and perhaps even get worse."
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23173398-5005961,00.html
What I answered on my "fighting place", where the Germans were the "bashing subject" (well, don't worry, we had our lot before)
"it’s evident that the Nato countries, (except you) are waiting for :
1- the next Nato meeting (I think next spring) that aims to redefine its goals, its organisation, its subventions…
2- The EU Nations know perfectly that Bush is “over”, from November there will be a new president, a new administration, new objectives… so they are not engaging more costs of persons and money in a policy that might be over at the end of this year.
3- Seems that Afghanistan doesn’t want Nato troops, but more help to form their own army
4- The conflict seems more located at the Pakistan borders ; in anycase Pakistan is the real reserve of jihadists, then, why not invadind or bombing Pakistan…"
Hey Franchie,
Regarding point 1 and 2, I have made this argument before: I don't think a big transformation/revision/review/whatever of NATO is going to be taking place at the Bucharest Summit this spring (in April), as you suggest. Perhaps the Bush administration would try to push such a change, but as you mention the Europeans are probably pretty close to writing him off as old knews, if they haven't already.
I think 2009 will be the big year for NATO.
What if Gates is wrong and the mission in Afghanistan has nothing to do with "protecting people's security"? Why should Germans - or any other troops - "fight and die" for a failed strategy?
No reason at all, unless they expect us to do the same for them. Which, of course, they don't, because Europe as a whole does not believe they face any military threats. Which is why we should scrap NATO as soon as possible.
"No reason at all, unless they expect us to do the same for them. "
Precisely correct. Actually it's worse than that in the German's case - they have bounced a cheque for repayment of services dating from 1950, even though the repayment asked for is a very small proportion of the cost in recources and blood laid out on Germany's behalf on the part of the other allies over that period.
So I guess it's 'In God we Trust, all others pay cash' in dealing with the Germans. I once thought we were partners, but that beauitiful theory has been slain by brutal facts....
I am sure that it has never ever crossed the mind of those of David’s ilk that SECDEF Gates could be correct.
Then again it might not matter if either HilGal or Hussein becomes POTUS. HilGal has stated her first act in office will be to withdraw US Forces from Iraq within 60 days. Hussein, without the same level of experience as HilGal, will take a bit longer. Either of these withdrawal plans should be easy to accomplish with the current leadership in Congress. One can assume M$M will spin this either as a victory or the correction of a huge mistake caused by President Bush. I am equally sure the David’s of the world will insure us this will bring stability to the ME and long term security to the US and her trusted allies such as the french and germans. It will also enhance the image of the US within Europe. This last objective might be the most important of all.
Of course having troops in Iraq is not the real problem or I hope it is not. If it is then having troops in Europe might be a problem too. Having troops in Iraq who become causalities is probably closer to the truth. If this is not the truth then all bets on NATO are off.
Once out of the mistake called Iraq, it will be time to reinforce Afghanistan or to also withdraw there. Another policy question facing a new POTUS. Again in some quarters the question might be does withdrawing from Afghanistan make the US safer or less safe. The argument could be made as is now being made by much of the german public – why worry about Afghanistan, it is a long way from here and what have they ever done to hurt us. Simple Withdraw let Afghanistan revert to what it once was and no one will really care except the unfortunate souls who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Having retreated from Iraq the decision to leave Afghanistan will be easier that is unless Hussein decided to invade Pakistan. Consider this paying attention to and copying European foreign policy. Works for them should work for the US too.
I am not sure these questions will be asked by the likes of the David’s of the world. But one thing for sure without having to support deployed forces, DOD can be gutted as it was under the former President Clinton. These savings can be better spent on providing health insurance for those who do not have it. This would be a much more compassionate use of funds.
Equallly the German political elites will be happy that the pressure is no longer on them to actually honor a NATO commitment. In fact, it will give them more sand for their moral superiority mountain they stand on. They can say if the US had only listened to Berlin Afghanistan would have turned out differently. We had nothing to do with this defeat; we provided vital support to insure a successful outcome. Not our fault. That is a fair assessment by the germans especially given their aspiration to be a global player. None of this should worry our allies in Europe even if it does at some point it becomes your problem. Europe has both the capability and the ability to accomplish much more than the US given its rising influence.
Iraq and Afghanistan might be the lesser of the problems faced during the term of the next POTUS. The real problem will be what to do about a nuclear-armed Iran. Yes, I know everyone was so overcome with joy about how the NIE undercut that warmonger Bush but then maybe you have not been paying attention to the testimony of the DNI McConnell before Congress this week. You probably have not as it makes the POTUS appear to be correct in what he has been attempting to do to contain Iran.
Once again the European should not worry. This is especially true if David’ guy, Hussein, is elected. He has promised to open dialogue with Iran. We all know how well and what was accomplish by the EU3 during their long dialogue. So Hussein will be following a proven and successful course of action. Then what is there to really worry about gven there is the missile defense system being installed in Europe…Oops forgot David’s crew believes this to be a waste of money. The greater need is to fund abortion on demand with taxpayer dollars.
They do have the EDSP, which provides for their own protection. Besides Europe has strong police forces and terror is really criminal activity whether it is exported from Iran, Iraq or places like Afghanistan or not.
Anyway none of this is a big deal. David and the rest of the world survived 8 years of Bush so America is stronger than we know and besides America is in a state of decline. Need proof? We only have to go as far as Dr. Crane, Dr. Khanna, or any french or german citizen on the street to confirm this.
"her trusted allies such as the french and germans"
we have good reasons not to be blind, uh, it reminds me the feodality, we don't need to be addoubed as your faithful knight, the new born EU countries do.
frenchi
At least we know stability in the ME is not a concern for you. Seems I have overstated my position. Fair enough.
Oh BTY how is the EU's mission to Chad coming along? But that is not the ME just a former colony.
yes, Chad was a former colony, independant though ;
bizarre, that the UN did give us the mandate there though !
"At least we know stability in the ME is not a concern for you"
yes it does, not quite in your ways though, as the "job" is begonen, I guess we'll have to manage the imperfections :
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/
"bizarre, that the UN did give us the mandate there though"
Of course, this resolution question is a joke. Unlike the US before the 2003 Iraq invasion, France kept about 1,400 troops stationed in Chad for years.
Indeed, the lack of a UN resolution didn't bother France in Cote d'Ivoire in 2002. You got your resolution only after you began the intervention (just like the US did in Iraq a few months later).
And let us not speak of French support for her clients in Rwanda.
Still, it's nice to have that UN resolution for Chad.
Getting those resolutions is so much easier when no-one threatens to veto it.
yeah, bizarre that your country is likely behind each evenment there too :
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO305A.html
Now, as far as our involvment in Chad, it’s not new and had nothing to be considered as a Sarko volition : our army is in Chad since the president there called us for help, when Qhadafi was trying to invade Chad : that was during earler Mitterand’s reign ; that was also one of our militaries proud facts : destroy the Qhadafi’s airport that was injustly set on northern Chad ; well the things got bad with Qhadafi, it’s when we had our civil plane blown-up above the Tenere desert ; before it got worst, Mitterand and Qhadafi decided to meet through diplomats and look for an agreement.
Since then our army is there, it has many times prevented from human catastrophes ; rebels who want to take power, the Darfur borders, since there is oil in Chad too, ya see why there are some people who looks for ruling the country ;
I bet Sarkosy made the mediatic announce, he is clever at that, to confort his position in the international broadcast
anyway, Chad is going to explode like Darfur, and yes something need to be emphasised there, we know well this territory, the people there expect our help, so yes, we’ll do it !
and the last UN resolution was not unanime as you pretend, the Russians objected ; bizarre, that no other nation wants yo get there though, idem to Darfur
as far as Ivory coast is concerned, your Nation (Bush, he was so busy elsewhere) ask France to intervene, if we didn't make it, you could count another hmassacre or genocide, against the white population, against the opposite tribes that weren't of the President"s.
we did ask for help to our EU partners, they weren't "hot" to get involved in former french colonies
The article Franchie links to, is obscene.
"The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives."
"The civil war in Rwanda was a brutal struggle for political power between the Hutu-led Habyarimana government supported by France and the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) backed financially and militarily by Washington."
Suppose for a moment this were the whole truth (which it isn't), or that the extreme conclusions followed from the few true facts presented (they don't). Then, France was supporting the side that attempted genocide, and the US was supporting the victims of genocide.
Yet the article wants to conclude that somehow, US support for the [b]victims[/b] of genocide was the cause of genocide.
This is a common tactic of rapists: blame the victim. It's her fault, she was hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Franchie, if you truly meant what you wrote, you have no honor, and you should be ashamed.
Speaking of shame: If this is the absurd state of discourse on the French left, it is no wonder they lost to Le Pen.
And no, I do not support Le Pen.
"yeah, bizarre that your country is likely behind each evenment there too :
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO305A.html
Now, as far as our involvment in Chad, it’s not new and had nothing to be considered as a Sarko volition : our army is in Chad since the president there called us for help, when Qhadafi was trying to invade Chad : that was during earler Mitterand’s reign ; that was also one of our militaries proud facts : destroy the Qhadafi’s airport that was injustly set on northern Chad ; well the things got bad with Qhadafi, it’s when we had our civil plane blown-up above the Tenere desert ; before it got worst, Mitterand and Qhadafi decided to meet through diplomats and look for an agreement.
Since then our army is there, it has many times prevented from human catastrophes ; rebels who want to take power, the Darfur borders, since there is oil in Chad too, ya see why there are some people who looks for ruling the country ;
I bet Sarkosy made the mediatic announce, he is clever at that, to confort his position in the international broadcast
anyway, Chad is going to explode like Darfur, and yes something need to be emphasised there, we know well this territory, the people there expect our help, so yes, we’ll do it !
and the last UN resolution was not unanime as you pretend, the Russians objected ; bizarre, that no other nation wants yo get there though, idem to Darfur
as far as Ivory coast is concerned, your Nation (Bush, he was so busy elsewhere) ask France to intervene, if we didn't make it, you could count another hmassacre or genocide, against the white population, against the opposite tribes that weren't of the President"s.
we did ask for help to our EU partners, they weren't "hot" to get involved in former french colonies"
1. God inlvented war to teach US geography. Now that we know the location of Afganistan and of Pakistan we can go home and concentrate on Spring Training.
2. Get US out of NATO. NATO was created to defend Europe from invasion by USSR. That threat is gone.
3. Get US out of Europe all together. Out of Kosovo. Out of Germany. Out of Italy and Belgium. Keep the planes in UK and the subs in Scotland. Everybody else home in time for the Easter Parade.
4. Get us out of Korea and Okinawa, too. Let 'em fight their own wars.
5. I'm an American and damned proud of it. Our family has paid enough for European BS. We got 'em buried in France.
Ciao
"Everybody else home in time for the Easter Parade."
A bit too precipitate a shcdule. In time for Opening Day is more like it, or maybe in time for the first game of the college football season.... ;)
if Stephen Harper doesn't work , I guess Hitler's once ambition will wake up Merkel's clan anyway.
Contact Us
ar-team AT atlanticreview.org
We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions.
Subscribe and Follow
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW,
a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis.
More about us.
Follow Atlantic Review on
Facebook or on
Twitter.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter.
Sponsor
SUPPORT THIS SITE
or 
:Blogroll
Hot Topics
Afghanistan
Anti-Americanism
Economics
Iran
Iraq
Merkel
Polls
Terrorism
Click here for the full list of all topics.
