Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Strongbow said:I understand that, but its irrelevant to what I was discussing which is simply Germany's ultimate policy decisions and actions regardless of how they were arrived it domestically. Whether you fault the political situation, the people or something else, I'm looking at the result and saying that as a country, Germany technically could be doing a lot more. Germany is not some impoverished third world country with an under developed political system.
Is this the new American dictate or are may we remain a sovereign nation that makes its own decisions?
Actually it is not, but even if you were to blame that you don't need to look any further than the fact that Germany is not keeping pace with other NATO countries in spending on its military. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP by Germany is currently lower than most other countries in NATO. But Germany still has a more capable and better equiped military than most of the other countries that have sent troops to Iraq as well as most of NATO. Germany has the 4th largest military and 3rd largest Army in NATO. The German deployments to Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Lebanon, and Afghanistan are not so large that the Bundeswehr could not make a contribution to Iraq. The German military currently has 245,702 active members and 161,812 members in the reserve. The number of German military personal currently deployed worldwide is just under 10,000. The German military could make a singificant contribution to Iraq.
If you talked to German soldiers, most wouldn't speak too proudly of how our military is working, and how they often find much to critizise regarding the equipment. The military currently is underfunded and as an administrative organisation wasting resources.
On the other hand, we don't have much interest in increasing our spending. A bit more efficiency would do.
Also you would have to take into account that we don't have any ABC weapons, and especially A weapons are making up a large part of what countries like France are paying for their military.
But even without they might pay more for their military, but that is their good right. We don't want to spend more, and since the 90's gradually reduced our military and plans are to reduce it further.
The figures about our military personnel ignore a key fact: A large part is just doing their required nine months, and when you just do your basic military service you can refuse to going abroad. You have to accept getting sent aboad, and then extent your time in the military or sign up for getting a professional soldier doing service of two years to a lifetime.
Our military reserve certainly won't be counted as being "available", so you can leave them out either.
I would rather have German troops in Somalia, or if things should turn more ugly, Kenya, than in Iraq, and support for those missions certainly is bigger.
The future for Iraq is way too uncertain. Now it might look better, I seriously don't know, but who says that in one year there won't be kind of a counter surge? We didn't bring the mess, and we certainly don't want to be in the middle of a greater mess, thank you.
And I have heard several reports that the situation in Afghanistan isn't that stable, so it would be crazy to stretch our military resources even more. Keep in mind, we are lacking large transportation planes, and the A400M is even getting delayed, and there is already complaints by German soldiers about a lack of timely supplies of basically everything.
In 2008, some the chief differences are the level of Al Quada activity in Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan were there is little or no activity, and then the obvious geographic and natural resource reasons which make Iraq a much more important country in regards to US, German, and global security.
Yes, blood for oil it is commonly called and not exactly a good USP for going there. Quite to the contrary, rather, it's why people are so opposed to the war. I know that Iraq has huge oil reserves, and I know the whole region is crucial to a steady oil supply, and I know it isn't favorable to risk those resources as long as we keep ourselves so dependent on oil, but all this wouldn't get you any support for a military operation.
I can just repeat myself, we are quite open to support Iraq with any means civil, but a military solutions from Germany isn't on the table. We didn't support going in there in 2003, and we didn't see any reason to do so in 2008, and I would say, even if in 2009 there should be a CDU/FDP government, there would be no troops sent into Iraq.
There have been large improvements in Iraq, but outside of the 5 Sunni Arab majority provinces, the other provinces always had lower levels of violence throughout the occupation. The main reductions in violence in 2007 have occured in the 5 Sunni Arab majority provinces where most US troops currently operate. German troops could certainly help with security or alternatively relieve some of the great burden that is on the US military. After all, Germany has one of the largest economies on the planet and benefits directly from the improvements in security in area(the Persian Gulf) so vital to the global economy. The United States and the coalition can eventially accomplish its goals in both Iraq and Afghanistan without the German military, but their contribution would and does help and helps spread the cost and burden of the operations around more which benefits everyone.
We didn't want this war, and now we should help you spread the costs of this mess? No, thanks.
I would prefer investing this money in getting less dependent on oil and instead of making enemies by invading them, help them to get up on their own. Might sound idealistic to you, but I think there are other ways to deal with such problems before going in with armed forces.
And speaking as opportunistically as businessmen are (though I'm becoming an economist), we will benefit from a secure and stable Gulf War region no matter if we pay much money going in there ourselves, or staying out of it. And it might gain us a better cost-benefit ratio.
Additionally, I would say we are a better help the way we are supporting Iraq currently.
There are plenty of other European countries especially in Eastern Europe that would be happy to host US troops and bases in 2008. The fact that the United States continues to have those bases in Germany is actually a benefit to Germany and many Germans do not want to see the United States shift such bases to Poland, Romania, Hungary or Italy.
Yes, and you were just about to leave, but now, as far as I know, are, or have been, re-thinking your relocation plans. If I'm right, most of the plans were scrapped after the assessment showed that despite some of the benefits (testing and training ranges directly neighbouring the living quarters, governments that are blindly following, reduction in costs, closer to the middle east and whatnot) in the end moving there wouldn't be that favorable. Another reason might be that Rumsfeld isn't Minister of Defense any longer.
Also, food supply for the bases mainly comes from Denmark. It sure would be a loss for the regions where those bases are, but I think we have to settle with the fact that one day those bases will be closed.
But nontheless, I'm talking of 2003, when you were about to invade. Back then, you were relying on using your German bases and getting the overflight permissions, as you couldn't relocate overnight. So your relocation plans didn't matter much back then.
The fact remains, your country continues every year to support the continued occupation in Iraq in the United Nations, that was brought about by the coalition invasion in March 2003.
Even Annan said that the war was a violation of the law of nations.
I still hold that we need the UN, and even argue that we now need it even more, and much stronger, but still say that with the Iraq war the UN showed how powerless it still is and how a country like the US can ignore the UN without fearing any repercussions. If it followed closely it's own Charta, it would have to condemn the war strongly and firmly.
But it just is to weak an institution, and that's a shame, and this "support", well, what should we do? We said Don't do it, you did, now should we drop you? That's one of the biggest issues with the UN.
It doesn't change a thing, we won't go in.
The fact remains that Germany will benefit from both a stabilized and developed Iraq as well as a stabilized and developed Afghanistan. Germany has troops in Afghanistan helping in this regard and could indeed have troops in Iraq which would help the mission and Iraq as well as benefit Germany in the long run, given Germany's interdependence with the global economy which is dependent on the security of Persian Gulf Oil.
Yes, and in other cases Schroeder was more than happy to put economic interests over human rights and freedom, like his friendship with Putin and his China policies show us.
Back in 2003 we didn't see it benefitting enough to invade Iraq, and today, for several reasons, our stance hasn't changed.
Our goal at the moment is to getting less dependent on the Persian Gulf region, and Germany isn't a country that is too keen on using it's military for gaining economic benefits. A war for oil isn't backed by our own constitutional laws, and our courts already ruled that according to our laws and our interpretation of the UN Charta the Iraq war is illegal. Any military officer or soldier actively engaging in the Iraq ar would make himself braking law, and thusly a criminal.
I'm pretty certain that we will benefit more if we stay out of such adventures, and we will be better off if we get less dependent of oil, especially Middle Eastern oil, instead of fighting for the last drop.