RSS

November 3, 2008

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

The US needs a strong European partner in order to continue it's role as the global policeman, but unfortunately Europe has not been up to the job.

Europe's role has often been to order the US to do something, then pile up the faggots for an auto-de-fe when the US follows orders. When the US came in and sorted out the Balkan crisis of the 1990's, Europe's gift to the US was an ICC treaty under which the US could not operate. Most cordial thanks. Europe was unable to contribute to the Kosovo war in much of a material sense. So what did Europe do? did it build up it's own armed forces after that failure?

No, Europe did the opposite; it cut defense expenditures while vociferously demandng more and more influence upon events which which Europe was steadily expending fewer and fewer resources upon.

I am not going to suggest that Europe actually do more, because experience has taught me a hard lesson; whenever an American makes a good-faith suggestion europeans will instantly do the opposite of the suggestion. No, the only thing the US can influence is it's own actions. The US can pull back from missions it undertook long ago in amuch different world - and allow Europeans to fill the gap if they choose to.

Europe has considered itself to be the 'soft power' expert, but the financial crisis has shot that argument largely to bits. European financial powers and 'superior' regulation have not saved it from a banking crisis of perhaps twice the magnitude of that in the US. It has been the US who have had to stand up and lead in this crisis - much more than Europe has been able to do.

If Europe 'needs' a strong US, I suggest it might consider the idea that Europe needs to perform as a strong partner. It's not that Europe has to do everything, but right now Europe all too often chooses to do little or nothing on shared missions necessary to global governance. This leaves Europe feeling like it has no influence - and the US feeling enormously overstretched and wanting to leave.

November 4, 2008

Francisco J. Ruiz, Spanish Armed Forces, Gold Contributor (116)

As usual, the Donald's bitter comments make difficult, even for an openly pro-American European, to get a common ground for agreement and cooperation between the two sides of the Atlantic, something that even Mr. Robert Kagan (after the unilateral euphoria of 2003/04) considers essential now. I fully agree that Europe has not been up to the job, but we can't forget that most of the time the US has favored that status-quo.

Regarding the reference to the ICC, it is obviously a consequence of the 90's events (wars in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda...), but in any case was created against the US, and in no way would prevent the Americans from operating wherever they want. It would be too long to discuss about the ICC particularities, but the most relevant fact is that it only acts when the national authorities have not investigated/prosecuted the potential war crimes. So the US would keep full jurisdiction over its nationals, taking into account that any report of misconduct is always investigated by your military justice (for instance, Abu Ghraib). We perfectly know that some anti-Americans would try to use it as an instrument against your country, but who would be able to force the US to send its servicemen to The Hague? In a worse-case scenario, if the ICC was used systematically against the US interests you always could denounce the treaty and get out.

On the other hand, the fact is that the US systematically refuses to sign most of the international agreements. I'm not thinking on the Kyoto Protocol (which utility is doubtful), but on the ban of landmines, the military use of space, or the UN Convention of Law at Sea (UNCLOS). For the latter, even the US Maritime Services members are unable to explain the reasons for not signing it. In general, the damage for not signing is, by far, worse for the US than the implied restrictions.

Talking about the financial crisis, I just don’t believe that it is being more severe in Europe than in the US; as a matter of fact, the “garbage mortgages”, one of the main causes of the crisis, were invented in America, and their consequences have spread all over the world due to the globalization of the markets. I don’t know the specifics on the situation in the rest of the EU, but in Spain we have very strong regulations for the banks (because of old abuses) and we don’t need such extreme measures as the POTUS has put in place for buying “toxic actives”.

But coming back to the Security and Defense realm, the US has always been reluctant to a military relevant EU. Not only in 1998, after the Saint-Malo summit, when the "multilateral" Clinton’s administration showed its concerns about the European Security and Defense development, but also nowadays. The last week there was a very interesting article in "Defense News", written by an American guy, talking about how dangerous is for the transatlantic link the consolidation of the ESDP, and proposing to recover the Madeleine Albright's "3 d's" for the relation between NATO and the EU.

So the first consideration to be made is that a strong, united, and military relevant Europe would not be a problem for the US, but a benefit. As a matter of fact, the Americans should request to the Europeans: first, to get a single posture in foreign policy; second, if the EU wants to be a relevant partner, to invest a minimum percentage of their GDP (let's say 2%) in defense, if they want to maintain a collective security agreement with the US.

In that way, as you say, we would prevent Europe from “choosing to do little or nothing on shared missions necessary to global governance”, and not keeping the obsolete NATO as the US instrument to have a footprint in the European security. That is just the excuse for some European countries to further reduce their defense budgets, taking for sure that, just in case, “Uncle Sam” would come under article V of the Washington Treaty to clean the mess.

Finally, I know that "perception is reality", so I respect the Donald's perception that "whenever an American makes a good-faith suggestion europeans will instantly do the opposite of the suggestion", but I firmly believe that this is unfair, inexact, and quite exaggerated. To talk about the “Europeans” as a whole is, in my humble opinion, an oversimplification that makes no sense.

November 5, 2008

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

It has been difficult formulating a response to Francisco's critique of my "bitter comments" because I actually understand and even agree with many of the sentiments he expresses - from a european POV.

What I see from many Europeans is a failure to understand that US interests are distinct and different from European wishes. Europe has taken strong control of the process of creating international treaties and controlling the international agencies set up after WWII in recent years, and many in the US have come to see ourselves as at best junior partners or increasingly not partners at all. Certainly not equal partners any more.

This is apparently not visible to many in Europe, or is regarded as natural and just. But there are implications to this profound shift in transatlantic relations which I think are not visible to Europeans. In my small way I have trempted to make those implictions visible to people on this forum.

Let me examine a single issue, the Land Mine Treaty which the US has refused to ratify. Senor Ruiz seems to view this as baseless US obscurationism.

The Land Mine Treaty is a worthy idea with one crippling problem from the POV of most Americans; Korea. One of the things protecting US and South Korean forces from a large and well-equipped North Korean army is a belt of land mines in the DMZ. In it's final form the treaty would force this belt to be removed, thus increasing the vulnerablilty and decreasing the reaction time that the defensive forces have to an invasion. The US negociators pointed this out, but the Europeans decided that they would be the judge of what additional risks the US and South Korean forces should afford to take,and forced the treaty through over strong objections. So what is the US here? Partner, junior partner, - or lackey?

There have been a series of such actions over the past 15 or 20 years. The pattern is the same or similar, whether it is ICC, Kyoto, the debasement of the UN Human Rights council(s), the removal of Wolfowictz as President of the World Bank. European strong-arm diplomacy. One action would not matter much, but this is an established pattern.

So I point out the obvious - that the US should be an equal partner in the transatlntic alliance, and that in the long term the US will not accept redustion to junior partner - or to lackey.

November 6, 2008

Francisco J. Ruiz, Spanish Armed Forces, Gold Contributor (116)

Donald,

Great arguments and great points; I'm not sure as you are that US and EU interest are so different; as a matter of fact I think that are similar in a high percentage. What is different (sometimes) is the attitude for signing or not signing widely agreed international norms and regulations. Maybe we sign them too fast, confused by the European positivism (sometimes harmful for our own security), but the US is extremely reluctant, and in case of a minimum doubt the answer is always negative.

Let's talk about the APL (Anti Personnel Landmines) ban. First, let me say that "Senor Ruiz seems to view this as baseless US obscurationism" is a bold comment, considering that my American mates and I, we spent several days examining this "Case Study" in the Naval War College, as a part of the "Policy Making and Process" trimester (why do you consider so poorly based the other’s opinions?).

In that case the US took the lead for banning the APL’s, including the Senator Leahy Moratorium in 1993, the National Security Strategy in 1996, in which the US laid out its commitment to APL control, the sign of the control protocols amending the CCW (Conference on Conventional Weapons) in January 1996, and your government was also considering to sign the Ottawa Process Treaty (ratified by 122 countries) when the Korean question arose, as you mention.

Even then, President Clinton ordered to eliminate the use of dumb mines by 2003 (including Korea) and smart APL’s by 2006, so the US would be able to ratify Ottawa at that deadline. But the new Bush’s administration immediately margined all the related initiatives in place.

Finally, when you talk about “risk assumptions”, you have to consider that not only the US faces threats, as the one in Korea; we (Spain) have a potential conflictive border with Morocco in our North African cities, but the current defense technologies provide alternatives to APL’s, and sometimes a higher interest is worth of a limited risk.

November 7, 2008

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

"we (Spain) have a potential conflictive border with Morocco in our North African cities"

True, but I doubt if the Spanish mainland is at all at risk, is it? If those cities were to somehow disappear tomorrow would Spain miss them? Keeping the cities is possibly a matter of national pride, just as keeping Gibraltar was for the UK for many years.

As you are aware there are two schools of thought in the US, the self-styled 'internationalists' like Clinton and Leahy who will bend over backward to accomodate 'enlightened global opinion' (again self-styled), and who are willing to take major risks with the lives of US servicemen in order to gain or retain the good opinions of Europeans, many of whom care very little about the lives of such people.

On the other side there are people like Bush, who of course are also playing politics by being stalwartly on the side of the serviceman and against those Euro 'weenies'.

At the time the treaty was being negociated I was mildly for it as long as it didn't decrease the security of US servicemen or incurr large costs to the taxpayer. At the same time I was not at all impressed by some of the most fervent activists, who included the Germans. They were cutting their defense at flank speed and demanding that the US come to sort out Kosovo for Europe, but with Europe given veto power and full information over the orders given the US troops. The more I saw of it the less I liked it, particularly when very loose talk about war crimes began dominating the headlines coming from ertain countries in Europe.

It angered me then and angers me now, as you perceptively noted. It seems to me that the US is being pushed into accepting more and more of the actual fighting mission risk while there is a constant push to force the US to give away operational and even strategic control of our forces, and to add other restraints on the Us armed forces seems to be way too much of a leap psychologically. for me at least.

Had some of the 'do-gooder' countries offered to send large contingents of their own forces to Korea to accept some of the risks of the US tripwire forces there, that may have changed my thinking, but of course this kind of thing is never offered. It is always what the US 'must' do; rarely if ever is any other country materially affected by such ostensibly well-meaning treaties.

If the US doesn't ratify we'll never hear the end of how evil we are, eh? And if we ratify then pull back, or ratify and violate we'll REALLY NEVER hear the end of it, correct? Even if it's a desperate situation. Nope, international Law as interpreted by 'enlightened' opinion admits to no exceptions at all. No 'benefit of the doubt'.

I used to trust the judgement of continentl NATO allies, until I saw that judgement (or lack of judgement) shown at work during the Kosovo War. Under the president everyone praises now but surely did not then. But I was only mildly angry and mistrustful then.

Until 9/11. One day we were attacked, and virtually the next day the pack of attack dogs were in full cry. I saw a BBC program three days after 9/11 in which a group of 'distinguished' leftist journalists ravaged the US ambassador. The US 'brought it on ourself', and we 'should be humble' and accept the direction of our 'eise' allies. This wisdom being personified by the Beeb, Le Monde, and certain German publications who struck early and hard. I saw that and I - lost it. For quite some time, I confess.

I am not even going to mention a certain head of state who withdrew his country's forces from Iraq with two weeks formal notice - if that much. I can't be objective about that - or him.

Now I'm working on acquiring a certain coldness, and have made considerable progress, at least when I carefully avoid thinking about certain topics.

November 7, 2008

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

"and accept the direction of our ‘eise’ allies"

Pardo, I meant 'accpet the direction of our "wise" allies. as personified by BBC journalists and the editor of Le Monde.

November 8, 2008

amarjyoti acharya

Sometimes it gets difficult to change the rules of the household when, let us say that, dad is away for the week-end. The grocery bills and the other payments, etc. may not follow our routines and convenience and we may discover - should we try and change the rules - that some of them may not have been made by us or dad - in the first place. Something like the morning newspaper being delivered in the evening when we get over our hangover over a wild night out.
But then most Presidents stay longer than a week-end in power and are as powerful as dad can get - in our own households. For example, how powerful dad really is in the household, should he want to change some rules. There are quite a few things to be considered over and over again, before one can even imagine about wanting to change the rules.

simple answers. Sometimes Presidents and Presidentships are like that. The driving may be more pleasant and the route may be more picturesque. The car may move smoother and have a newer sound system with better collections of music in it. The good parts of a great President or a Prime Minister or any head of the state. Sometimes dad can even change the destination if on a holiday. But yes, it is difficult. The larger the household, the more needs and concerns are there to be taken care of.

November 8, 2008

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

Francisco J. Ruiz writes:

"It would be too long to discuss about the ICC particularities, but the most relevant fact is that it only acts when the national authorities have not investigated/prosecuted the potential war crimes."

I have heard it explained otherwise, that there are exceptions and circumventions to this rule. But, perhaps you've studied the laws more than I have, so let's assume this is the correct interpretation of the law.

Where are the European voices (editorials, popular conferences, diplomatic papers, academic papers, etc. other than perhaps your own comments) pointing out that ICC investigation of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Haditha, etc. is irrelevant because US national authorities have already investigated (in the case of Gitmo, multiple times) and taken appropriate actions? These voices barely exist. Who, other than US diplomats and pundits, has dared to suggest to an allegedly outraged European public that ICC prosecutions are not appropriate and indeed not possible in these cases?

Which major European government, faced with the mere chance of a limited or general strike, has signaled its willingness to stand with the US on this abstract ICC jurisdictional/competence question?

Where are the calls from pro-ICC Europeans (other perhaps than yourself) to moderate their anti-Bush or anti-American rhetoric in order to convince the Americans that they will get a fair hearing at the ICC? I would be delighted to believe that these calls exist, but I haven't seen them. Where are they? Perhaps US newspapers have done a poor job of reporting the willingness of these voices to speak, so I am hoping you can help me find these voices.

"who would be able to force the US to send its servicemen to The Hague"

My understanding of the ICC treaty(s) is, if the Hague indicts an American who is under US control, the treaty would require US authorities to deliver that person to the Hague for arrest. Failure to do so can lead the authorities, including the President as commander of the armed forces, to be indicted under US law for violating the treaty. So the answer is, the treaty would require us to force ourselves to obey it.

"In a worse-case scenario, if the ICC was used systematically against the US interests you always could denounce the treaty and get out"

If the US believes that we cannot get a fair hearing at the ICC, why not avoid the additional accusation of hypocrisy and avoid agreeing to the treaty in the first place?

Next, lets talk about the ban on land mines. I don't know if you are familiar with the debate about the phrase "war on terror"? In my opinion, one of the fatal flaws with that phrase is, it is a logical fallacy to declare war on a military tactic. Are we saying that, as long as the opponent avoids certain tactics, we will not oppose him? Of course not. It seems to me that what we might call the war on land mines will work about as well as the war on terror, the war on drugs, or the war on handguns: if land mines are illegal, only rogue states will use them.

Besides, APL's are so 20th century. The hot, new fashion for killing civilians is Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs). Are we going to ban artillery shells, cars, fertilizer, oil, and cell phones as well? People who abuse APLs will have no trouble finding other gadgets to abuse.

For another example, consider the Geneva Conventions. In the modern (post WW II) period, I can think of exactly one (1) conflict in which both sides observed them: the Malvinas (Falklands) War. So that's one medium-size conflict out of how many? Over 100? The success rate of the Geneva Conventions in modern times is probably less than 1%.

Which doesn't mean that we should just give up on the concept of International Law. But it does mean, that maybe the foundations of International Law need to be revisited and strengthened, before we layer on additional laws like the ICC or the Land Mines ban. Putting too much weight on a weak foundation will lead to dramatic collapse just when the foundation is most needed. We need to find ways of making international criminal law and war crimes law more like international commercial law, which has a pretty good success rate.

November 9, 2008

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@Eckart von Klaeden:

"This is all the more true given that Europe enjoys a higher standing than the US in certain regions of the world, and involving Europe significantly increases the chances of joint success - for example in the Middle East"

What are the examples of this type of joint success in the Middle East? Has Hariri's killer and the country(s) who ordered it been brought even one step closer to justice? Is the Lebanon closer to having a functional government, or is most of their government holed up in a hotel in fear for their lives? Is Afghanistan better or worse than Iraq? I am not attempting to blame anyone for these problems, I just don't see the evidence that joint efforts lead to significantly greater chances of success.

What, in your opinion, are good examples of this joint success in the Middle East?

November 9, 2008

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

John, the trend which concerns me is that I'm seeing ever more coercive attempts to regulate the US. The proponents of these treaties claim that the idea is to regulate everyone, but as you point out - the rogue regimes will simply ignore the treaties and continue as before. So if the US ratifies the latest fad it will be the US which is constrained and basically not their major adversaries.

It's like loading straws on the camel's back, one day you will either break the camel (or more likely) royally piss the camel off and get tossed off his back along with all the other crap you have loaded onto the poor beast over the years.

Get this, folks - the camel is feeling overloaded and beginning to get pissed off.....

November 9, 2008

Francisco J. Ruiz, Spanish Armed Forces, Gold Contributor (116)

John, Donald,

The trend that really concerns me, as an European deeply interested on a balanced and useful transatlantic relation (and I could add, without any negative attitude against the US, just the opposite, as well as the main problem is the lack of interest of the Europeans on Security and Defense) is the is the fact that some Americans seem to feel more comfortable dealing with the GCC countries (all of them pathetic dictatorship regimes) than coping with the EU nations (respectful democracies, even if they occasionally don’t fully support your actions).

What is disgusting to me is that the camel feels overloaded and pissed off due to the European critics (believe me, not so often based on a radical anti-Americanism as you always believe), but feels comfortable when the al-Saud family ride it, giving them billions of dollars, which in part go to "charity" organizations and madrassas, and then to Mr. bin Laden and his criminal network. The "poor beast" is more overloaded (and I'm thinking on the Army and the USMC) due to your own mistakes than due to Monsieur de Villepin's speeches in the UN.

I could understand that under the shock caused by the 11-S events, and the resentment against France and Germany for not supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (something that you considered justified at that moment) there was a clear gap between Europe and the US; but these days are gone, and unfortunately most of the problems envisaged by some European leaders have come true, specially because of the catastrophic decisions during the "phase IV" operations in Iraq (some day we could debate on Mr. Paul Bremer III's decisions and their consequences for the US servicemen/women)

The US military, who I fortunately know very well after sharing with them experiences and debates for one year, in an academic freedom environment, clearly understand how important is the international cooperation and how useful would be to integrate all the elements of national power (interagency). Mr. Robert Kagan, who got a bunch of money saying that “Americans are from Mars and European from Venus”, now is saying that maybe we are not so different and that makes sense to articulate a "league of democracies”.

So I respect your opinions, but I consider them a little bit old-fashioned and not very constructive (if we are interested on building something). They were so even during the second term of President Bush, and I'm sure they will be so with the new administration. And don't consider me a do-gooder, please, I perfectly understand that the world is a messy place, but I firmly believe that even the most extreme solution (let's say, military intervention) is more effective if we do it together.

It makes no sense to go on and on discussing about the ICC, I’m not a lawyer but I still think that The Hague can not indict an American who is under US control, if he/she has been previously tried by the American legal system, which is fully recognized by the international law.

We could debate about the “war on terror”, and the legal consequences of calling it “a war”. I just can tell you that we have in Spain a terrorist group (the ETA), that has killed more than one thousand citizens, and we have always considered them just criminals, disregarding their claims of being “Basque soldiers” and denying them any legitimacy as combatants.

Finally, it is not so relevant the fact that the rogue states (or the terrorists as al-Qaeda or the ETA) don't play under our rules; the relevant fact is that we are the good guys, what we do is right and our values are superior. Otherwise, our struggle against extremism wouldn't deserve the sacrifices made.

Best regards.

November 12, 2008

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

Old fashioned, eh Francesco? ;)

What a CRUSHING critique! Such immense eridution and wit is simply - unanswerable.

Except a few things nag at one's mind. You and your US cohorts are 'building' comething, whereas I'm being a dog in the manger taking shots at such a worthy goal. Fair enough, but don't forget that we've been through this little exercise of 'rebuilding NATO' once already during the 90's, and it came apart like economy toilet paper in a hurricane, basically because nobody took account of public opinion in the major countries. Not only Germany but also the US, France, etc.

I see you making the same mistake this time. Perhaps I am wrong, bu the implicit argument you made in that last post was 'Leave this to the Professionals, Ignorant Yob'!

That's what you did the last time - how did it work out? Not that well, just look at Afghanistan. I am an engineer by trade, and one thing I have learned is that in building a mechanism (whether a machine or an organisation) one has to design for the stresses it will actually undergo, not the stresses you think it should. Ignoring the effects of public opinion within NATO countries, as you seem to be doing in being so dismissive of laymen such as myself seems feckless.

November 12, 2008

Member deleted

Respectfully, the EU has a strong partner with America.

Co-operation: We have had our differences with each other over hundreds of years now, some lead to wars and economic collapse for many of us. Looking back we seem to be having some high school popularity contests. Who is the coolest? Who is the richest? Who is the strongest? Interestingly, we always make great efforts to become the best of friends again. None of us are perfect, which oddly enough makes team work more important. Each of us individually have something to add to the collective and at the same time we each receive something from the collective.

Peace Keepers: In a modern effort to help more countries we have worked together militarily, sometimes rescuing entire countries, other times rescuing individuals from terrorists. Some see this as NATO and the UN meddling in their affairs. This creates resentment toward the countries providing military. As this resentment grows, terrorist spring into action to take revenge.

Economic Factors which target our countries: Obviously the attraction to resources (oil) in the Middle East brings many foreigners to a region that likes to keep to itself and keep to its strict religious beliefs. Foreigners with different clothing and different beliefs disturb the locals who sometimes believe their very afterlife is at stake if others do not convert and follow the same routines and rituals. Also having foreign technicians come and take many jobs, so the lower class cannot find work, while the upper class gets sickeningly rich, creates inequality and a very upset lower class. Some Saudi youth make as low as $6,000 per year.

Following the Rules: The terrorist rule is to not follow any rules. In fact the more rules they break the more people notice and remember the terrorists. Guerrilla warfare has a goal to get governments to increase restrictions and take more and more privileges and resources away from the civilian populace, until the civilian populace sees the government as more oppressive than the terrorists. At this point the guerrilla / terrorist movement can recruit more people into its ranks and increase its efforts. Both sides keep escalating until the terrorists loose or the government is overthrown.

Where we as combatants and counter-terrorists get into trouble is the proximity to civilians and friendly units we do not recognize. We keep talking about, how we should follow all the rules at all times when the enemy never will. So what does it really require to be able to follow all the rules in a counter-terrorist combat situation? Start with this statistic from the 1980’s army counter terrorist course I attended “For every terrorist that gets away, he will kill 100 civilians” Fact.

1. Know where you are at all times.
2. Know where you are going.
3. Be totally familiar with an unfamiliar environment.
4. Know where your team members are at all times.
5. Be able to determine hostile threats instantly.
6. Know where all friendly units are at all times.
7. Be an excellent marksman, hit a target in a crowd.
8. Be proficient in all weapons issued.
9. Be proficient in all tactics used.
10. Be proficient with radio equipment.
11. Speak basics in the language.
12. Know who is a civilian and who is a terrorist.
13. Kill every terrorist you encounter, before he kills someone.
14. Keep radio contact with HQ

So…. If you fail in these duties you were probably not trained well enough in each skill, and you, a team mate, a friendly unit, or some civilians may be wounded or dead. Rule books do serve a purpose, generally to keep people safe. In my personal experience it is superior on-going training that keeps people safe, and the rule book is just more weight to slow your highly trained instincts. Identify, shoot, move and communicate.

November 12, 2008

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

Pardon me. I meant Francisco, too lazy to go look before writing. My apoplogies, didn't mean to mistake your name.

November 16, 2008

Member deleted

A note about Geneva Convention Rules
Although this now serves as a guide to world soldiers to avoid conflicts with civilians, historically it was only used to punish Germans. Even though the extremes of a world war got out of control and many on all sides if held to the standards of the Geneva rules of engagement would be on trial. Yes, just watch the history channel to see American soldiers (after the war was over) ordered to and carrying out the execution of German children all deemed to be Hitler youth whether they were or not.

Education: Many recent studies indicate the increase of our technology and requirements for jobs demand more attention given to improving our children’s understanding and knowledge. A variety of new educational techniques are now being developed (quantum learning, super memo, brain gym) all to improve our ability to function at new levels in the job market. Were German education programs at that time so far off from what we are attempting now? They were very enthusiastic about education as with everything else. Was part of our misunderstanding and fearing them, because they saw this far into the future and knew the technology levels would be much higher, therefore the education level must also be higher?

Hebrews: Yes the Jews along with many others on all sides got their butts kicked. Yet were they so perfect also? In ww2 Hebrew leadership wrote a book called Germany must perish. Parts of it were printed in New York news papers and magazines. This lead to the forming of the Morgenthau Plan which called for the extermination of Germans and the partitioning of German land, part of which would go to the Hebrews. This lead to the carpet bombing of German cities, which had many Jews living those cities. Any modern day government would have very extreme reactions to any such plan about their own country. 1970’s Israel had standing orders to kill 10 Muslims for every 1 Israeli killed. Modern day terrorist succeed against Israel because some Masad agents and other Israeli resources are still chasing German Great Grandpa. It is time to forgive the past and focus on the present and the future.

Economics: Economist Magazine in the mid 1990’s said “because of stealing German technology and scientist after ww2 we made 1400% ($14 to every $1 invested) from this technology.” I say it was a complete loss of money because the cost of the war offset any profits gained. In the 1980’s successful corporations invested 30% of their profit margin into research and development. The economist magazine assessment was based on the USA and Russia not having to spend so much money on research. I also say it is much better to make business deals with Germany, the EU and other countries and learn from each other in mutually beneficial ways.

Germany and the Geneva Convention: It is historically clear that the rules have only been used to beat Germany over the head and is still continuing to do so by the sick process of chasing German Great Grandfathers. This is all to justify stealing all the German technology (while demanding Germany return all stolen property of other countries). Also the USSR and NATO continued the battle to rule the rest of the world like ww2 never even existed, those wishing to follow the rules and trained appropriately did follow the rules. Please get off Germany’s case, stop pretending we are perfect and get on with proper training of modern forces.

November 16, 2008

Francisco J. Ruiz, Spanish Armed Forces, Gold Contributor (116)

Donald, this article has gone to the "old files" sections and I'm not sure you are going to read it, but just let tell me just a couple of things:

First, I would never consider nobody else (and specially you, as you have an outstanding grasp in security and defense issues) an ignorant, I consider myself too educated to do that. I've been always trying to show my respect for everybody's else opinions in this community blog, so I would kindly suggest you to think twice if my "implicit argument" was really a part of my comment or a product of a permanent deffensive attitude and a resentment that is present in all your comments.

Please, be sure that not everybody that disagrees with you considers you an ignorant; it is just the opposite. If I were so dismissive as you say, I wouldn't ask to your comments. In addition to that, my English is far from perfect, so maybe some expressions sound worst for an American than for me when I write. When I said "old fashioned" (actually I wrote "a little bit" but, who cares?) I meant that even in the US military, a cohesive and quite conservative community, the points of view have changed after the 2004/2005 events in Iraq, and now they are less unilateralist and look for more "cultural awareness" and international cooperation. That is a reality, wheter you like it or not.

Finally, I have already checked that most of the time you ignore 90% of my reasoning and my comments, you just look for some detail (mainly based on language shortcomings) in order to answer more and more aggresively and upset. So (unfortunately as I found it quite interesting) I've decided not to debate with you again, as it is not worth the effort of writting so much to finally see you focused on the minor details. Have a good one and my best wishes for the future, and I apologize again if you have thinked that I've dismissed you at any moment.