Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "American Success in Iraq Shuts Europe Up"

Comments

July 21, 2009

Marc William Zedler, Alumni Touro College Berlin, Gold Contributor (79)

I like this comment! What's this?

As an American living in Germany for several years now my impression was that Europeans in general wanted Americans to fail in Iraq. Public sentiment was heavily anti-American and this sentiment was allowed to foster by many Western European governments. European media in general viciously attacked American policy and predicted its disaster from the start i.e. Der Spiegel & Le Monde. I would have hoped our strong transatlantic partnership would have overcome such a difference of opinion, but this was not the case. Political egos on both sides of the Atlantic trumped our common interests. What leaves a bitter taste to many Americans was the fact that many in Europe predicted and even wanted Americans to fail. Differences in opinion are only natural but the manner in which they were projected was tactless. I am not saying the Americans dealt with the situation perfectly but as allies the tone of disagreement was very harsh. I agree with Mr. Suess that Afghanistan will be a true test to the transatlantic relationship. The task at hand in Afghanistan is far more difficult than that of Iraq and it would be a step in the right direction if our NATO allies would put more boots on the ground, but I am not holding my breath.

July 21, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

"Let's sit back and watch the US gets its ass kicked."

Precisely so. And now there is a overwhelming temptation for many of us in the US to leave good old Europe to it's own devices. To leave NATO either de jure or de facto:

"Let's sit back and watch Europe gets its ass kicked."

Not excluding myself. I've been making the argument here and elsewhere that when Germany said 'Yankee Go Home' that is exactly what was meant; and the US should comply with unseemly haste.

Who said it? Perhaps not Merkel, and Schroeder/Fischer merely implied it. But several million Germans (and other Europeans) hit the streets in 2002/2003 to denounce the US, Bush, and individual Americans who did not agree with them in the most venomous terms comparing us with defunct European political movements of the 20's and 30's (you know what I'm referring to).

So let's see some convincing counterarguments. Europe have made a compelling case for Yankee Go Home; I think an equally compelling case needs to be made for Yankee stay.

July 21, 2009

Marc William Zedler, Alumni Touro College Berlin, Gold Contributor (79)

I like this comment! What's this?

Donald that type of talk is counter-productive and would only further strain our relationship with our European allies. To leave NATO is not an option, period. The repercussions would strain ties politically and militarily. Thus, weakening the US and NATO. When there is a problem we should not walk away from it, we should confront the issue and discuss our disagreements. Our relationship with our European allies is like a marriage - we may sometimes fight but in the end we stick together because we hold the same values.

The "Yankee Go Home" concept is materializing but the reasoning is not due to a strained relationship. Many bases are being shut down because they have served their strategic purpose; let’s not forget the Cold War is over. Of course there will be some bases left in Europe but the number will be drastically cut and relocated to other areas of strategic importance, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey come to mind.

My biggest objection was of the political tone that came from Western Europe and how political officials pandered to the public and encouraged anti-Americanism. Which I find ironic as Germany did support the US’s endeavor in Iraq by allowing the US Air force to ship material from Germany to Iraq and vise versa.

July 21, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

I'm glad that you concede that Iraq is far from a done deal, and that much effort is still required and likely will be for years to come. We Americans have a tendency to prematurely declare "mission accomplished."

While it is inexcusable that certain politicians or political factions inside Europe would openly state their desire to see U.S. efforts in Iraq fail, it should come as no surprise given some of the rhetoric on the part of the administration in the lead up to and during the military campaign. Did you really expect our "us vs. them," "bring it on," unilateral mantra to really yield something besides a rebuke on the part of European allies?

Don't underestimate how poorly the neocon grand strategy suited the globalized world. It was a strategy which amounted to some twisted combination of primacy and Wilsonian ideals-- applied to a situation in Iraq under false pretenses and carried out in a supremely incompetent fashion. Throw in our unwillingness to welcome regional cooperation--for instance, from Iran--and you have a situation that makes it all too easy for the French to sit back and say: "told you so."

And please, it's abominable to act as if the recent success in Iraq somehow justifies the thousands of avoidable deaths that occurred as a DIRECT result of misguided leadership. Success is easy to overlook with plentiful images of collateral damage in the form of dead Iraqi children. Failing to secure munitions, stop looting, preempt the militia's violence, and allow a timely return to normalcy has cost Iraq dearly. There are numerous consequences besides the dead, such as the brain drain, that I won't even get into.

I agree, "willful ignorance" most definitely has a negative effect in transatlantic relations, but none have been more guilty of that in recent years than we Americans--citizen, journalist, and politician alike. Arrogance, too, can be just as destructive. Unfortunately, arrogance permeates your piece, Mr. Suess, beginning with the title.

The bottom line is that until we make transparent and regularize our mode of processing politically bankrupt states, we'll have critics in the world smirking as we work ourselves into a frenzy with all the "imminent threat" and WMD speeches.

Firstly, our success in Iraq is not ours but that of the Iraqi people, and it comes in spite of the American civilian leadership that made the decision to invade a large country unprepared (Schwarzkopf wouldn't even touch Kuwait without a half-million troops, and even then reluctantly). Insofar as we deserve recognition for success, it is entirely to the credit of a military force that remains severely underfunded in the areas of civil affairs, peacekeeping, and counterinsurgency--three areas that were the key to success in Iraq. Again, I believe that credit belongs mostly to the Iraqi people, but as for us, were it not for the adaptability of our military, and the belated ascension of Petraus, there would still be plenty of failures for the Europeans to point out.

July 21, 2009

Christoph Suess, Hanauer Anzeiger, Gold Contributor (77)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr.Lane,

thank you for your comment. It was not my intention to sound arrogant or to suggest that the US was right in every move it undertook regarding Iraq. My piece was merely meant as a self-critical assessment given the latest US move.

I am still not sure if the decision to invade Iraq was correct - history will show that. We need more time to see how things develop there. A civil war is still possible and the country may fall apart, destabilizing the whole region and making Iran the number one for the years to come.

The US invasion is a fact now and we - both - have to live with it. So we Europeans should better start thinking how to deal with that country once the US withdraws completely. And we should all be VERY thankful that it did not so prematurely. At the end of the day we are located much closer to this area and instability there would affect us more directly than you - terrorism, refugees, economic disadvantages. It is kind of scary, but I am really asking myself what would have happened if Yankee would have gone home from Iraq two years ago - Europeans did never have a plan B apart from the total unwillingness to engage in Iraq. Luckily events on the ground seem to remain silent. Lets wait!

Furthermore, I doubt that Europe is ready to contribute its share to Afghanistan. I doubt that we have learned much. Sending 100 more soldiers to the North is a big issue here and we are debating things as the separation of litter rather than what we can do to actively stabilize the situation in the entire country. While you get your asses kicked daily in the South, we sit back and relax - Iraq reloaded...we learn too slow!

July 22, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

I'm sure you wrote with the best of intentions. I suppose it was just some of the wording that gave me pause.

In the end, Europe's proximity to the Middle East and Central Asia gives Europe the right to be critical of how the U.S. conducts itself militarily. If America turns a blind eye to the concerns of Europe's leaders, we do so with grave consequence. As was demonstrated in Madrid and London, the potential for terrorism inside Europe is still a major concern. Isolated, on the other side of the Atlantic, we have relatively little vulnerability to this kind of thing.

So it is absolutely crucial that the U.S. understands the geo-political effects of its actions. I believe this too was disregarded and can therefore be linked to some of the anti-Americanism in Europe. And anyway, there are two sides to every coin. Anti-Europeanism has been quite prevalent in the States in recent years.

If I may, I plead with you and others not to be swayed by portrayals of European weakness. For those of us that acknowledge history, we understand why it is such a big deal for European countries to commit blood to war. The conflicts that brought Yankee to Europe in the first place left a legacy that is unfathomable to Americans. Our culture still very much celebrates the glory of war, and it is easy for us to be lost behind the banners once the patriotic spirit is untethered.

When we pander about the unwillingness of Europe to use military force, it is only because we have not endured in our homes and amidst our families--in a great many years at least-- the kind of warfare that preceded the decades of peace that Europe has enjoyed since 1945. It is a peace that should be coveted and nurtured to the fullest. Europe should maintain its reluctance for war; lately it has been the only counter to our mania. Europe will by necessity return to a position of military strength, and act as a major defender of human dignity and economic prosperity throughout the world. And absolutely, it should be done before the memory of war fades completely (if such a thing ever happens), so as to act with the full realization of what it means to build an army and use it. But I for one don't fault Europe at all for its patience in this matter.

And anyway, there is no need for Europe to build a huge military. The U.S. builds enough and spends enough for the world. What we don't build is a peace force, and that is a role that Europe should hope to fulfill someday. It is the obvious strategic choice for both sides. Our unparalleled capacity to wage war combined with European soft power, peacekeeping, and civil affairs. Might I also add that this kind of collaboration would naturally lead to the use of the ICC in prosecuting terrorists. No more Guantanamo, no more Abu Ghraib. It is precisely the process that occurred in the Balkans. The U.S. should have sought those conditions again, and followed that process accordingly. We've already been shown that it works.

July 22, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

@Amrc,

"Donald that type of talk is counter-productive and would only further strain our relationship with our European allies."

There are some European allies, like the British and possibly some of the Eastern Europeans. But some whom you count as allies have not acted materially as such for a very long time now. Moreover, there are many who are not spending enough to defend themselves, instead rationalising that little spending is actually needed because of the supposed weakness of potential threats, but actually relying upon the security guarantees extended by the US, UK, and Canada. All while denouncing the latter - as you documented above. Not true? Please explain why it isn't, then, if you will?

"To leave NATO is not an option, period."

Probably not. But the US can pull back, visibly lessening it's committment to European security. What I call de facto withdrawal, withdrawal as a gradual process. As in fact I think it is doing.

"The repercussions would strain ties politically and militarily. Thus, weakening the US and NATO. "

Also reducing commitmens and possibly forcing continental Europe to reassess their own extremely minimal contribution to their own security. Which would in tuen strengthen alliance capabilitues - if not the ties. But the close ties have been weakened steadily - from the European direction already, and that must stop and be reversed. I see litle likely prospect of the kind of action needed to make that happen.

"When there is a problem we should not walk away from it, we should confront the issue and discuss our disagreements. Our relationship with our European allies is like a marriage - we may sometimes fight but in the end we stick together because we hold the same values. "

We have discussed it virtually endlessly - but the street controls in the end. Marriages can end in divorce or annulment.

"The "Yankee Go Home" concept is materializing but the reasoning is not due to a strained relationship. Many bases are being shut down because they have served their strategic purpose; let’s not forget the Cold War is over. "

It's - both. The US presence in Europe is causing a strain there. And the fact that Russia is less of a threat has caused many to believe that the US is an unwelcome interloper and much the greatest threat to peace. Let's not wear out our welcome (I feqr we already have). Let's - leave....

"Of course there will be some bases left in Europe but the number will be drastically cut and relocated to other areas of strategic importance, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey come to mind."

Whay are these of particular 'strategic interest' to the US? Ok, I can see Turkey to a degree - but Romanian and Bulgaria? Why? Look at the map. Geographically there is no strategic reason why the US and Russia ought to be enemies. Except for - Continental Europe. But Europe has told the US to take a walk. So no reason remains....

"My biggest objection was of the political tone that came from Western Europe and how political officials pandered to the public and encouraged anti-Americanism."

They surely did that. Yet another sign we've worn out our welcome. And another sign that the security gurantee is seen as of little or no value. What one doesn't value one doesn't get to keep.

July 22, 2009

Kevin Sampson

I like this comment! What's this?

‘To leave NATO is not an option, period’

Why? NATO was indeed like a marriage, of the shotgun variety, of the US and Europe, brought about by the common threat posed by the Soviet Union. That threat no longer exists. If you don’t believe it, just ask any (western) European. Therefore NATO, as a deterrent to the FSU, is as obsolete as slide rules. Re-branding it as some sort of ‘Team NATO – World Police’ will be a debacle, if its performance in Afghanistan is any indicator.

The truth is that Europe and the US have always had serious differences in how we view the world, where our national interests lie, and how best to pursue those interests. These differences were suppressed by the need to present a unified front during the Cold War, but are now, inevitably, manifesting themselves again. I think it is imperative that we, on both sides of the Atlantic, come to terms with this. The world is bigger than just Europe and North America and we need to stop looking at it through the prism of NATO. Much to my surprise, I think Obama realizes this and is taking the first steps in this direction. Good for him.

July 22, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

"The truth is that Europe and the US have always had serious differences in how we view the world, where our national interests lie, and how best to pursue those interests"

Arguably "national security" is more and more synonymous with global security. Europe and the U.S. have much different approaches, but the long term goal is largely the same. Defining our various roles is what is important.

What does it mean for NATO? Time will tell, but international organizations are the conduit for cooperation. In the absence of another major security partnership, this one needs to remain intact.

I'm not sure why you define the effort in Afghanistan as reflecting poorly on NATO. First, it isn't the only conflict in which NATO has had a major role in the last decade: the success in the Balkans remains THE major precedent for NATO since the end of the Cold War. Second, the challenges in Afghanistan are extraordinary by any measure. The difficulty in that mission is not a reflection of NATO's obsolescence but rather that of the incredibly complex circumstances surrounding what has been a war torn and impoverished country for several decades. As the Soviets learned, and as the U.S. has learned, even the most sophisticated military capability is not enough to bring proper security to that country. The effort will be ongoing for years.

IR "realists" claimed that NATO would cease to exist after the end of the Cold War, but it hasn't. Did political scientists and experts on the Soviet Union feebly lay down and die when it collapsed? No, they redefined themselves, just as NATO has. There is clearly still demand for the existence of organizations like NATO. Simply maintaining a platform for cooperation among militaries is justification enough. The Soviet Union is no more, but new threats exist.

July 22, 2009

Sarwar Amin, , (5)

I like this comment! What's this?

Good point to be highlighted. As an Iraqi-Kurd I have noticed a sluggish European policy towards Iraq issues in general, which for whatsoever reason, in my view, doesn't serve anyone. Things could have been better with more European engagement.

Although US made improvement which can be seen, still let's not forget this has been done by militarizing the Iraqi society again. By militarizing "ex-insurgents" to hold the Shiet-Sunni balance, and the Kurds which led a moderate line supporting US to this point feel their bigger issues which was always the problem with the Iraqi center have not been solved. i.e. not a decisive US engagement towards Kirkuk issue, many other disputed areas, Oil & Gas issues.

Europea just days ago was happy to see Iraq getting involved as a first step in the "Nabucco" project which in future pumps gas/oil out from Iraq/Kurdistan of Iraq to Europe.

There is a Kurdish proverb which says (translated) " You want to catch fish, and not your ass get wet?" i.e. if Europea, US as well need to see a peaceful Iraq, as one piece, prosperious to a degree to pump gas/oil peacefully to their market as a stable partner. They need to get more involved and not just do shuttle missions, rather by a clear rather unified plan, trying to solve the real issues.

July 22, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

@Mr. Lane

"IR "realists" claimed that NATO would cease to exist after the end of the Cold War, but it hasn't. Did political scientists and experts on the Soviet Union feebly lay down and die when it collapsed? No, they redefined themselves, just as NATO has."

NATO tried to redefine itself during the 90's. The events of the past decade has shown how well that redefinition worked. Not very well at all. NATO was designed to deal with the massive army of the ex-USSR. It was not designed to meet current security obligations, and has not been able to do so.

"There is clearly still demand for the existence of organizations like NATO. Simply maintaining a platform for cooperation among militaries is justification enough."

I might agree with this, but NATO is a creaky old organisation which hasn't been able to make the leap. Not least because the public's of the various member states either didn't appreciate what the attempted reforms meant or because they didn't appreciate the implications. So the post-9/11 conflict has come as an enormous and disillusioning suprise both to to central Europe and to the US. The former because they were expected to contribute to defense in a new kind of war far from the national borders, and the latter because public opinion rebelled - and most European governments refused to meet their new obligations.

Cooperation between militaries may be justification for a treaty - but not necessarily justification for NATO in it's traditional form, this because NATO has evolved into a one-sided alliance, and alliance which serves the security needs of Europe but not the US - at all, really.

NATO also tend to tie the hands of the member states, to general dissatisfaction.

"The Soviet Union is no more, but new threats exist."

Then a new treaty, a treaty in which contributions somewhat match benefits derived and influence exerted. But don't call it NATO - that is too confusing. NATO II might work for a name - the fact that the new treaty is fundamentally new has to be made absolutely obvious to the public.

July 22, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

"NATO tried to redefine itself during the 90's."

As did many military organizations, with less than stellar results. The U.S. military itself is now in the throes of a conflict in which the consequences of improper force structure are costing lives.

"NATO was designed to deal with the massive army of the ex-USSR. It was not designed to meet current security obligations, and has not been able to do so."

This is a result of the aforementioned problems with force structure. Again, I don't believe that NATO is directly at fault for this, but rather is subject to the same problems that we have in the Pentagon with our strategists. They have been planning for great power war for years, ignoring the reality of asymmetric threats and what it means for the future of war.

"alliance which serves the security needs of Europe but not the US - at all, really."

Really? I honestly believe that if we don't broaden our idea of national interest, we risk being left behind by the global era. This is not the time for firewalls and narrow definitions of security interests. Connectivity is the key. We need to leave behind the zero-sum way of thinking.

"Then a new treaty, a treaty in which contributions somewhat match benefits derived and influence exerted"

I agree. NATO needs a name change and some organizational reform. But it should continue to function, and the U.S. should remain a member until its successor is created.

July 22, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

"Really? I honestly believe that if we don’t broaden our idea of national interest, we risk being left behind by the global era. This is not the time for firewalls and narrow definitions of security interests. Connectivity is the key. We need to leave behind the zero-sum way of thinking."

We need to broaden our perspective globally. 'tis true - but NATO is not a global alliance. It is an alliance which by it's very structure asserts the primacy of Europe at the very moment when Europe is most secure and the real threats lie elsewhere.

Europe and the US share an interest in meeting these new threats. Or at least we Americans believe they should. But there is scant evidence that European public opinion actually percieves this or (I think) is capable of seeing it. At least as long as the 68'ers remain in control of European mass media.

Europe demands that the US stay at home and defend Europe from non-existent threats. Gratis, of course - it is their birthright. Moreover they now want command, or at least veto power on US foreign policy, and have become very disgruntled that they have not recieved what they regard as their due.

The US needs a perspective change as well. Being the sole superpower is becoming a negative, it imposes obligations upon the US which are too expensive and too limiting. I believe the US should scale back it's vision to being first among the great powers in a concert of powers. An obvious place for scaling back is the defense of Europe. Europe is rich, populous, and completely able to defend itself if it had the will. SO why the US security guarantee? It's a policy at least 40 years out of date.....

July 22, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

"Europe demands that the US stay at home and defend Europe from non-existent threats."

The U.S. rightly views security as a commodity, and has been the main supplier of that commodity for many years. It is something we desire. We've also pursued primacy in earnest throughout the 1990s. Europe scarcely need demand anything, we've been all to willing.

"SO why the US security guarantee?"

A better question: why the U.S. security guarantee for Taiwan? but that's another matter.

July 22, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

Or South Korea, come to think?

July 22, 2009

Marc William Zedler, Alumni Touro College Berlin, Gold Contributor (79)

I like this comment! What's this?

“There are some European allies, like the British and possibly some of the Eastern Europeans. But some whom you count as allies have not acted materially as such for a very long time now. Moreover, there are many who are not spending enough to defend themselves, instead rationalising that little spending is actually needed because of the supposed weakness of potential threats, but actually relying upon the security guarantees extended by the US, UK, and Canada. All while denouncing the latter - as you documented above. Not true? Please explain why it isn't, then, if you will?”

Spending more money does not necessarily mean being less able to defend oneself or less committed. Remember, 13 years ago it was considered taboo for German troops to be deployed abroad, now they are in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia. The Bundeswehr was formed as a defensive army and has only been in conception for a short period of time. Having the Bundeswehr take a more active role is a step in the right direction and Americans should encourage this. We should not expect too much so quickly. Also, an additionally 600 troops will be sent to Afghanistan during election period! Certain political parties have different policies. The previous SPD government was one of the most difficult partners in a long time (so was Bush), but that does not mean that US does not have friends in Europe.

“Probably not. But the US can pull back, visibly lessening it's committment to European security. What I call de facto withdrawal, withdrawal as a gradual process. As in fact I think it is doing.”

In total agreement and this is happening, but it won’t be a total withdrawal. Joint military exercises create strong bonds of understanding between the host country and the US and does improve combat effectiveness. Not to mention that there is always a need for supply points.

“We have discussed it virtually endlessly - but the street controls in the end. Marriages can end in divorce or annulment.”

Have we? It was only less than a year ago that the US was intensely disliked but now we are the talk of the town. You are right that the “street controls in the end” but at the same time the street is very fickle. There was heavy anti-Americanism during the Bush era because this was trendy, but now it’s trendy to be pro-American under Obama. The difference is professionals in government know we must maintain strong ties with one another. We hold the same underlining values; freedom of speech, right to vote, human rights etc. Granted both sides of the Atlantic did not go about our differences in an appropriate way and relations were at their lowest level. Nonetheless despite the turbulent 8 years we are now proactively building stronger ties and rekindling our love-affair. Doesn’t that say something about the strength of the transatlantic relationship?

“It's - both. The US presence in Europe is causing a strain there. And the fact that Russia is less of a threat has caused many to believe that the US is an unwelcome interloper and much the greatest threat to peace. Let's not wear out our welcome (I feqr we already have). Let's - leave....”

Russia maybe a less of a threat to the Western Europeans but you would hear a different story from the Ukrainians, Poles, Baltic States, and Eastern bloc countries. Europe has not told the US to “take a walk,” we have mutually decided adapt to meet new challenges.

July 22, 2009

ROBERTO GIANNELLA, LUISS GUIDO CARLI UNIVERSITY, ROME, (9)

I like this comment! What's this?

While the US president George W. Bush had many reasons to attack Iraq in 2003, Europe had none. The White House certainly aimed to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and urged for a regime change in Baghdad. Moreover, 2003 was a crucial year for the international relations: the Bush administration decided to further the war on terror in Iraq, also because Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated both several UN resolutions and many Iraqi’s human rights. The US president adopted a tough unilateralist approach, claiming that it was his moral duty to liberate the country: in his opinion, history was calling the US to action. It cannot be forgotten that many seemed to be convinced in Washington that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al–Qaeda – and as a consequence that Iraq was an imminent threat both for the region and for the US. I believe that the Bush administration made the decision to attack Iraq not just to give a warning to other terrorist nations, but also for evident economic reasons. Having said that, many political analysts pointed out that the war in Iraq was a dreadful mistake, which put in danger the good relationship between the US and the EU. Today, Mr. Obama is the new White House’s tenant. The US still dominates the international system, particularly in the military sphere. However, the approach adopted by Washington has completely changed: multilateralism now characterizes the US foreign policy. President Obama decided to gradually withdraw the American troops from Iraq. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the war has been won. There is still turmoil in the country; suicide attacks have not ceased and Iraqi security forces have not succeeded in taking full control of the country’s security yet, although remarkable steps forward have been made. It is fair to remind that almost all EU governments were against the military operations in Iraq: only Mr. Blair granted unconditional support to president Bush. President Obama – himself – never supported the Iraq war. If he had been the US president in 2003, the war in Iraq would not have taken place at all. President Obama will certainly not stick labels on America’s foes, as his predecessor did. The US president reinforced the troops in Afghanistan after scaling down in Iraq: this shows that having the necessary hardness does not mean to make the wrong decisions. The EU and the US will certainly cooperate to achieve their common goals. The good news is that now America does not want just to be feared in the world, but also respected. By everybody.

July 23, 2009

Christoph Suess, Hanauer Anzeiger, Gold Contributor (77)

I like this comment! What's this?

"The good news is that now America does not want just to be feared in the world, but also respected. By everybody."

Former Bavarian Prime Minister and German Defense Minister Franz-Josef Strauß has once famously said: "If you try to be everybody's darling, you will end up being everybody's idiot".

Just a thought...

July 24, 2009

Oliver Hauss, -, Platinum Contributor (348)

I like this comment! What's this?

Yes, Fischer said "Not convinced", And rightly so. Because the material used to justify the war was forged. And pretty blatantly so. But if the right people present a testimony of their scientific illiteracy, you will apparently buy it hook, rope and sinker.

Declaring a recruiting campaign for terrorists worldwide a "success" for the US, just because after years of getting mired deeper and deeper, the right people finally came to the right positions and were given the resources to do their best to undo the damage already done is a strange definition of that term..

One has to commend Gen. Petraeus for his achievements and his insight into the situation. The problem, of course, not the least in your article, is the missed fact that a lot of the policies he used were given as advice by British officers early in the war. Only that then, the US leaders thought themselves to know better than that tiny remnant of an empire - and never mind they had experience operating among partially hostile civilians.

And returning to Fischer, last I checked, the German constitution is still in force. Whether you like what it says or not. Trying to skirt that issue by quoting a politician who never had a lot of respect for its values either is not particularly helpful. But I assume you forgot much like you forgot the huge bodycount of innocents that Strauß had such interesting ideas as holding prisoners hostage and shooting them as government policy. Not to speak of the fact that using a friend of Alfredo Stroessner in the context of an invasion to topple a dictator is schizophrenic at best.

July 24, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

"Spending more money does not necessarily mean being less able to defend oneself or less committed."

The drastic cuts in German defense budgets is not the only data point. The fact that Germans declared themselves 'exhausted' by the effort of mantaining mostly peacekeeping forces of 11,000 troops abroad, many of them virtually next door in the former Yugoslavia..... Add to that that the German's effective force is (was?) about 25% of Cold War levels.....

Not to mention lack of experience and apparent logistical shortcomings and it's easy to argue that you get what you pay for - and Germany was perhaps not even getting that much.

Committment? It's hard to read minds. One can only judge by actions. And to me, Germany seems like the most reluctant ally imaginable. To the point where the message being delivered was that they would rather not be allied at all, or only be allied if nothing was required of them.

Now we at least are seeing German forces actually fighting in Afghanistan. It took almost 8 years, and 300 troops. Contrast that with Canada. With a third of the German population, Canada has maintained a force of 2200 effective fighting troops in Afghanistan for a long time.

I would have had some sympathy for 'cannot expect too much too soon' 5 years ago. Today? It's more than a day late and a euro short, I fear. Much more. Canadians, and Americans, and British have died in part because Germans would not allow their troops in harm's way. And this has been going on for years.......

July 24, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

@Mr. Lane,

"The U.S. rightly views security as a commodity, and has been the main supplier of that commodity for many years."

Security may be a commodity, but if so it's a commodity like the buggy whip. The 'consumers' whom we used to sell our commodity are no longer willing to pay for this commodity in either participation or influence. Indeed they have not paid their bills for 20 years or more.

Like any business, the US must therefore find new markets which will pay for the commodity, or prune line's of business, beginning with those making the biggest losses. Which is, without a doubt - NATO....

July 24, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Stadler,

I confess to possessing an overwhelmingly liberalist perspective in terms of International Relations, and therefore believe that those "consumers" to whom you refer, pay for the security we provide simply by being a part of the global economy. So long as their actions seek to promote the more positive aspects of globalization, and mitigate the more negative effects, by all means give them military support.

The realist in me says that NATO is just a branch of the U.S. military. As such the U.S. is in no way hamstrung by its existence. Though I sometimes question our strategists, there is no doubt in my mind that enough of a realist influence exists at the Pentagon that we would leave the organization if we weren't getting something very valuable out of it. There is a lot more at work here than just the presence of American military personnel in Europe.

You should ask yourself, what have our obligations and commitments to NATO cost us in recent years? What has our presence in Europe cost us? And what have we gained? Would you prefer that our operation in Afghanistan be a strictly American effort? What are the benefits of operating out of the European continent when we are engaged in military conflict in EURasia ?! It is my feeling that a simple cost-benefit analysis might surprise you.

You discussed the particular case of German involvement in Afghanistan. I think it is quite a stretch to blame North American and British deaths on a lack of German support. You might first look to the fact that the administration chose to fight a two-front war. And then you might look to the volatile conditions of the Afghan battlefield, and then you might look to our own belated improvisation against asymmetric tactics, and then to the nature of our enemies. Then, maybe, after all that, can you begin to critique allied involvement. Given the conduct of our foreign policy at the outset of the Iraq war, we should be thankful anyone is in Afghanistan at all. Finally, I'll return to my comments about the cultural aspect -- in particular in the case of Germany since you mentioned it. Perhaps some of our German peers could speak to this in greater depth, but it seems you have an inadequate understanding of the situation in Germany, politically and culturally. It has been only recently that German pride and patriotism has rediscovered its forms of expression, most notably in the last world cup where Germany was quite successful. I have German friends who said it was a tremendous step to see people waving flags without having to worry about the connotation. Now just imagine fielding a military and deploying it on foreign soil in that kind of atmosphere. It is difficult to imagine for us, with our flag lined streets, and our "God Bless America" bumper stickers and anthems; where every soldier is deemed a hero and one could be looked down upon for not displaying in full view their 'support the troops' magnets. Germany, and all of Europe, is still coping with the past. Prudence is at a premium today, and I'm glad to see our new administration exercising it more often in the international arena.

To actively hinder the spread of globalization is unforgiveable. To simply show reluctance at fully backing a belligerent and vengeful hegemon seemingly out of control in its lust for primacy, is quite understandable.

July 24, 2009

ilyas mohsin

I like this comment! What's this?

Heeding J Taylor's wisdom may help us all, "Reeckon not on your chickens before they are hatched."

July 24, 2009

ROBERTO GIANNELLA, LUISS GUIDO CARLI UNIVERSITY, ROME, (9)

I like this comment! What's this?

"Former Bavarian Prime Minister and German Defense Minister Franz-Josef Strauß has once famously said: "If you try to be everybody's darling, you will end up being everybody's idiot".

Being respected by everybody does not mean being everybody's darling. That was the mistake made by the Bush Administration: decisions were made regardless of the UN, of the EU or of anybody.

President Obama understood right away that in order to be respected, the US cannot adopt an arrogant unilateralist approach.

July 24, 2009

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (531)

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Lane,

I'd like to thank you first for your insightful comments on Iraq and NATO. You asked for a German fellow to comment on the situation in Afghanistan. I'd like to mention that the vast majority of people I know strongly dislikes the German engagement in Afghanistan, and is afraid that this will lead to German involvement in new wars, more terrorism, and neo-imperialism. What I find in particular irritating is the lack of clear goals in Afghanistan, which strongly reminds me to the Soviet endeavour. I wrote a piece on the topic last year that can be found here: http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/Open_Think_Tank_Article/Win...

The political elite in Germany and the west usually blames normal people, and the foreign enemies, for their lack of understanding for the wars which have to be fought for the sake of freedom and prosperity. What this elite does not see is that these wars weren't necessary if wiser, more far-sighted policies had been pursued earlier. I think the use of force is in always a clear indicator of failed policies, which in the case of the west may have to do with a moral decline that permeates through all aspects of our societies.

I'm sad how the "success" in Iraq is celebrated and used to justify politics that were characterised by arrogance, imperialism, and lack of insight in different cultures. Thanks god Iraq now stabilised, which happens partly because the US forces are withdrawing. Do the achievements justify the war?

History will tell us some time, but in my opinion, it is already now forseeable that Iraq will enter history books as disaster and cause for a strong decline of US power. The change to democracy could have happened by itself had the country enjoyed peace and been given time. If one knows the US allies in the Near East, it is clear that the western idea of democracy is not directly transferable to that area, and that the US usually does not care about the political system as long as a country supports it.

The negative legacy of Iraq is impressive:
- international law was broken, and it seems questionable whether trust in that law can ever be restored
- opponents of the US who don't have WMDs will try to get them as soon as possible, because only the possession of such weapons will save you from being invaded "pre-emptively"
- distrust and the cultural gap between the west and the Islamic world deepened
- terrorism was promoted and has grown impressively
- large parts of Iraq were polluted, partly with radioactive weapons (uranium ammunition). The pollutants entered biosystems and the food chain and were even blown to the neighbouring countries. It will take decades and enormous efforts until the war damage to Iraq is repaired.

I think it was not worth it. It was a disaster. But Mr. Suess is right in one aspect: we have to look forward now and make the best of the situation.

July 25, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Lane,

"The realist in me says that NATO is just a branch of the U.S. military"

You have a a good insite here, congrats.

Unfortunately you don't take your analysis far enough because you
might find the conclusions of such analysis - uncomfortable. That conclusion
supports my arguments, not yours.

The fact is that in the 'peace dividend' wars of the 80's and 90's there was a race to the bottom - How low can you go? The US lost that war, Germany was the undoubted victor
with many very close behind. So the US is stuck with the booby prize, subsidizing
European defense for countries who don't care to defend themselves.

My proposal is that the US cut miltary to French or German levels (about 2.5% of GDP) while giving up many missions of only marginal value to the US. The NATO 'security guarantee') is merely one of them.

July 25, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

Judging by your proposal you advocate some form of a neo-isolationist grand strategy for the U.S.--

What, might I ask, is the criteria by which you judge the value of a mission?

July 25, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

Being an ex-Atlanticist I do know that calling someone an isolationist of any stripe is virtually as bad as calling them a brownshirt.

But I would retort by asking what is so bad about cutting the US military budget to French levels? Are the French 'isolationist' by any valid definition? I think not. Neither are the Brits. My proposed cut would still leave the US with a spending level comparable if not a little higher than any of the other western allies. If you wish to find an isolationist - look to your German friends. They mask it somewhat by sending people to Bruxelles, but look at the political rhetoric.

The German want no part of any cooperation which costs Germany a pfennig. Not milirary opertions outside of Germany, no economic subsidy from comfortable Germany to much harder-hit neighboring countries, no - nada.

Germany has to be brought kicking and screaming to do anything at all. I watch actions, not talk. The German leadership talk a very good game, but actual concrete implementations of the talk are lacking, and direly late and tiny when they do come.

So look no further for your 'isolationists', I have identified them for you!

July 25, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

Well it's unfortunate you didn't answer my question, but I suppose the isolationist jab struck a nerve. Forgive me, but where I came to that conclusion was not by the proposal for a percentage decline in spending, as that has few implications on HOW we use our military. Even with that percentage of GDP, we'd still outspend everyone.

What brings me to that conclusion is the second half of your statement, about the "giving up many missions of only marginal value" If NATO is part of that, I just wonder what missions are worth our effort in this hyperconnected, globalized world? With NATO on the chopping block, I suppose we need to focus on protecting the Rio Grande and the Canadian border, eh?

July 25, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

Very well, Mr Lane. I will answer your question. Even though it was asked in a sarcastic tone and not in the true amity of debate. Sometimes even a reasonable man has to belabor the obvious, I fear.

"What, might I ask, is the criteria by which you judge the value of a mission?"

I don't have a complete set of criteria, but neither do the Atlanticists in the Pentagon, the State Department, the universities, or the think tanks. I can give a rough list of the staggeringly obvious, however, as a beginning point.

There are missions which are of obviously high value to the US. The security and stability of our neighbors Canada and Mexico are an obvious example. I could easily extend this to all of Central America, the Carribean, and strategic Islands in the North Atlantic as well. I don't advocate direct action or military intervention in the vast majority of cases, history has proved that a very light hand is the best way to go.

Even a Hugo Chavez can be and should be handled with patience rather than force. That would change if he sponsored terrorist attacks on the US or on other states in the region, but he has not and will not, I think. So King Log is best.

Further afield the US needs a different set of criteria. We must act in partnership with regional powers or superpowers, and we should seek to be the deciding factor. That does not mean decider, but rather provide enough to supplement the efforts of our friends. But that presupposses that our friends provide the bulk of support for their own security, and also perhaps significant support for events outside their sphere which affect their own security. They should also be willing to contribute as significantly to the defense of US interests as the US has contributed to the support of their interests, at least on a regional basis.

Within these criteria some European nations fit, others do not any longer although they once did. The UK is an example of the former, Germany the latter.

July 25, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

What about the Czechs, Poles, Turks, and other nations of eastern or southeastern Europe that either fall into the former category, or are small enough to warrant our full involvement? Should we abandon NATO after helping to facilitate their membership?

I'd really be curious to know what our presence in Germany costs us in quantitative terms, since those pure numbers seem to be the basis for how we are measuring the worth of a mission in this conversation.

You're mistaken to think I asked that question with anything but debate on my mind.

July 25, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

What about those nations, Mr. Lane? Strategically and economically they are far from the US, very close to Germany and the other commercial powers of the EU. In many ways they bear a similar releationship with Germany as Mexico and Canada have with the US. And soon German banks will own them even more than they do no, as they are verging on bankruptcy, many of them.

Germany ios a commercial rival and a nominal ally of the US currently. I see no reason why the US should continue to serve as an unpaid and reviled policemen protecting the German commercial empire.

The US has been treated as mercenaries. So, what do you suppose unpaid mercenaries do? Civilized mercenaries leave or perhaps change sides, if the other side pay them to do so. Uncivilized mercenaries sack and pillage the cities of their former employers to recover their fee.

We have been treated and reviled as mercenaries, but I propose we act as civilized ones and leave. Perhaps change sides, but that is a question for the future and unlikely in any case.

August 3, 2009

Aqil Ghiavadvala, University Of Essex, (2)

I like this comment! What's this?

Failure whether great or small is still failure.

Americans war in Iraq has been greatly unsuccessful, has not the Republican parties great failure during the 2008 US elections show how much the war has hurt, success today should always be undermined by the fact that reasons for a war in Iraq were false. The American people were told that Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed a great threat to the world especially due to the fact that his government had possession of nuclear weapons that were capable of mass destruction. Today we know that no such weapons existed when battle plans were drawn up. And that all information contained within the government dossier was either falsified or data dating back before 1992.
My response to the author is this, Europe has not shut up now that the USA is succeeding, Europe is finally happy with the administration within the white house, and now it believes some good may come from what it see’s as a bad situation.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org

RSS

Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

July 21, 2009 | 33 comments | Print Your Opinion

American Success in Iraq Shuts Europe Up

Community