Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

A Primer On The Euro Crisis

The Euro is the official currency of the "eurozone," adopted as the national currency by 17 of 27 of the member states of the European Union. It is the world's second largest reserve currency as well as the second most traded currency behind the dollar. All monetary policy for the Euro is set by the European Central Bank (ECB).

The Euro officially became an "accounting currency" subject to ECB control in 1992, with members of the Eurozone normalizing the value of their currency to a "Euro" standard. The euro as an actual physical currency didn't occur until 2002.

Nominally, the adoption of a single currency was sold on several theoretical benefits. It would eliminate the currency exchange fees from the cost of doing business between the European states. It would encourage competition by allowing quick comparison of prices. And by encouraging stability and efficiency, the hope was that the euro would stimulate economic growth, reduce the unemployment rates in the eurozone, and encourage international investment.

The reality has proven that the downsides were not sufficiently examined. Because all monetary power, including the power to set EU wide interest rates, resides with the ECB, this poses a huge problem for nations with weaker economies during times of economic downturn. One way in which weak nations have been able to survive such problems is to intentionally devalue their currency by speeding up the printing presses. While such a move brings inflation, it gives the nation a window in which to pay off its debts. The flip side of such a drastic action is that, if there is not enough discipline in the government to carefully limit the presses and pay off the debts, you end up with Zimbabwe.

It also poses a problem for nations that need to stimulate growth. Normally, a sovereign nation that wants to stimulate growth will lower its prime interest rate. But again, that is not something that the individual member states of the EU can do. They are stuck with whatever ECB decides for the eurozone as a whole - and the ECB is avoiding inflation like the plague. That leaves only tax policy to stimulate growth among the troubled eurozone members, but at this point, each is being pressured - and indeed, has agreed - to raise taxes in an effort to lower its sovereign debt.

Several people, such as Robert Samuelson, have painted the Eurozone crisis as simply a failure of the European welfare state model. Others, on the left, such as Paul Krugman, have claimed that the crisis has nothing to do with the welfare state model. Setting that argument aside for a separate post, it seems clear that the high cost of the welfare state has played a role. But there are also systemic issues, mentioned above, that are combining with a host of issues unique to individual countries such that at least five Eurozone member countries sit on the brink of fiscal ruin. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are all in danger of defaulting on their sovereign debt. The general rule of thumb is that, when a country cannot sell 10 yr. bonds with a rate of return below 7%, the likelihood of an eventual default becomes real. With the exception of Spain, all of the troubled EU nations have crossed the 7% level. Spain is flirting with it.

In the cases of Greece and Italy, deficit spending on a bloated public sector and overgenerous welfare state drove their national debt significantly above 100% of GDP (Greece - 142%; Italy 119%). Ultimately, this drove their cost of borrowing above the magic line - 7% on 10 year bonds.

Portugal is Greece without the international press. It has a debt to GDP ratio of 93%, much of it coming from deficit spending over the past decade on the welfare state. Their cost of borrowing reached a high this month of 13.47% on ten year bonds. That said, Portugal is in the midst of cutting public sector benefits and increasing taxes.

Italy, unlike Greece and Portugal, has a strong manufacturing base and a relatively frugal population. Nonetheless, Italy "suffers from an overall failure to implement reforms needed to boost productivity and growth," which, when combined with the size of their national debt, is proving toxic.

Ireland is also in dire straights. Ireland's welfare state was not overlarge, and indeed, Ireland was running a budget surplus through 2005. But today, Ireland has a debt to GDP ratio of 94.9% and is having to borrow over 40% of every Euro to finance its government spending. What drove Ireland into its hole was an ill advised easing of credit standards and a housing bubble that burst in 2007. The Irish government than stepped in and nationalized the bad debts being held by the banks, causing a massive increase in publicly held debt. Ireland's cost of borrowing is today 7.74% on ten year bonds.

As to Spain, it's national debt was a comparatively paltry 61% as of last year, though much of that has come with recent increase in deficit spending. Spain's true problems are massive privately held debt and a horrendous economic outlook. Unemployment at or near 20% combined with both a housing bubble that makes the U.S.'s look small by comparison and a country that, because it does not produce any domestic energy, is subject to extreme shock when the price of oil jumps as it did in 2008, have all combined to make Spain's economy look extremely weak. All that has driven Spain's cost of borrowing rising, recently to a high of 6.7%:

In many ways, the economic situation in Spain is now even worse than the economic situation in Greece. Spain's unemployment was already above 20 percent even before this recent crisis. There are now 4.6 million people without jobs in Spain. There are 1.6 million unsold properties in Spain, six times the level per capita in the United States. Total public/private debt in Spain has reached 270 percent of GDP.

The BBC has a very good article on Spain's deep economic troubles and how its problems do not fit the mold of profligate welfare state spending.

It is safe to say that, in each of these countries, the fact that they cannot manipulate their currency or make monetary policy has removed the traditional tools of the sovereign for saving their countries from economic disaster. To explain in greater detail, this from Edward Harrison:

Now that crisis is upon us, the currency trilemma of a currency union that is the Impossible Trinity of fixed exchange rates, independent monetary policy and free movement of capital has reared its head. Hands are tied; in a currency union, there is no devaluation to recoup competitiveness, no room for fiscal freedom, and no control over monetary policy. This leaves so-called internal devaluation and/or sovereign default as the remaining ways to escape crisis. The political will to go through this is impaired because internal devaluation (across the board wage and price cuts) leads to a long and arduous depression . . . And default leads to massive creditor losses – not just in Ireland but also in Germany. So the Eurozone is trying to figure out how to keep its union together while minimizing costs – with the ECB and IMF integrally involved.

On the flip side of the coin, there is no central authority overseeing individual nation's budgets or taxes, as if the EU were a true sovereign. So, essentially, the Eurozone presents the worst of all worlds.

In an effort to save the Euro, those five nations in trouble are being forced to adopt significant "austerity" measures. Those measures, across the board, mean a significant reduction in the size of government and their welfare programs. For example, in Greece, the public sector is set to be reduced in size by and all public sector wages are being cut by almost a third. Collective bargaining is limited. The pensions of public sector workers are being sliced by 20% to 40%.

Further, all nations in the EU, led by Germany (the rise of the Fifth Reich), are meeting to consider systemic changes to the eurozone in an effort to save the Euro. This from Reuters:

Germany - Europe's biggest economy - was intent on changing the European Union's treaty to enshrine stricter budget discipline and penalties for countries that failed to adhere to them, to ensure there could be no repeat of the current crisis. From the German perspective, only by reforming economies, cutting social benefits and working longer would the indebted members of the euro zone and the single currency project itself emerge from the turmoil. Printing money would buy only a temporary respite and would remove the incentive to reform.

As to whether the Euro can be saved, the general consensus seems to be that it cannot. That said, a detailed analysis from Goldman Sachs concludes that the Euro may be salvagable, but that all ways forward are problematic. Ultimately, the eurozone countries must either come together in a much tighter economic union with a structure much like the U.S., or Germany and other core nations are going to have to weaken their economies in favor of the "peripheral" nations. In any event, Goldman Sachs paints the consquences of the failure of the Euro as dire - with the seizing up of credit and equity markets as the first step.

But the Euro crisis is also having another, much more insidious impact. The European Union is anti-democratic, and that this monetary crisis has been the springboard for actions that are direct assaults by the EU on democracy in the European states. Indeed, both Italy and Greece have been subject to coups at the direction of the EU.

Read More...

Monday, February 28, 2011

The Wages Of Green

Britain is about 5 to 10 years further on than the U.S. in the insane push for green energy. Besides putting their economy on the path to destruction with outrageous prices for inefficient, highly subsidized energy, the push is, according to British economists, costing 3.7 jobs for every one job it creates. This from the BBC:

Government support for the renewable sector in Scotland is costing more jobs than it creates, a report has claimed.

A study by consultants Verso Economics found there was a negative impact from the policy to promote the industry.

It said 3.7 jobs were lost for every one created in the UK as a whole and that political leaders needed to engage in "honest debate" about the issue. . . .

The report, called Worth the Candle? The economic impact of renewable energy policy in Scotland and the UK, said the industry in Scotland benefited from an annual transfer of about £330m from taxpayers and consumers elsewhere in the UK.

It said politicians needed to recognise the economic and environmental costs of support for the sector and focus more on the scientific and technical issues that arose.

Richard Marsh, research director of Verso Economics and co-author of the report, said: "There's a big emphasis in Scotland on the economic opportunity of investing in renewable energy.

"Whatever the environmental merits, we have shown that the case for green jobs just doesn't stack up."

Co-author Tom Miers added: "The Scottish renewables sector is very reliant on subsidies from the rest of the UK.

"Without this UK-wide framework, it would be very difficult to sustain the main policy tools used to promote this industry. . . ."

The Executive Summary of the report is here. The BBC, which has made an industry of global warming alarmism, actually reports this story in order to attack it, as noted at Biased BBC. Be that as it may, this report comports with reports from both Spain and Germany, showing that this insane push into green energy negatively impacts both jobs and the economy. Germany has recognized this and has resumed building coal fired power plants. Spain, upon whom Obama modeled his push into green energy, touting its employment benefits, is an economic basket case teetering on national bankruptcy. Nonetheless, Obama is pushing us down this same path at break-neck speed, between massive subsidies for green energy and his extra-constitutional assault on our energy infrastructure and domestic production of coal and oil. If he wins reelection in 2012, our nation will likely never recover, at least during our lifetime.

Read More...

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Links For Sunday

Germany goes solar coal for cheap energy.

U.S. exports coal to China for their cheap energy - while at the same time Obama and the EPA conduct their own war on coal and our energy infrastructure. We do not have an energy policy in this country, and it is very shortly going to bite us in the ass - hard. As usual, those who suffer most will be those on the low end of the economic scale, the people the left supposedly represent.

At Nature, they are discussing what to expect in 2011. Among the hot topics:

. . . The North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM) project reached bedrock in July 2010, at a depth of more than 2,500 metres. The fruits of that effort should soon be seen, now that researchers are analysing gas and particles trapped inside the ice core to reveal details of the climate of the Eemian interglacial period (130,000–115,000 years ago), when the average global temperature was about 5°C warmer than today.

That is a whopping 9 deg. Far. hotter then today. Nine degrees when there was no appreciable human contribution to carbon dioxide. And NASA's resident nut, Jim Hansen, is trying to convince us that 2010 is the "hottest year on record." Talk about requiring a willful suspension of disbelief.

Sage advice to the new Congress from Prof. Glen Reynolds:

. . . [R]emember that fortune favors the bold. It's true that ordinarily in politics, most progress occurs at the margins. But it's also true that these are not ordinary times. Big money-saving and government-shrinking proposals in the House, even if they're shot down by the Democrat-controlled Senate, will nonetheless establish a tone.

They're trying to hide it, but the Inside-the-Beltway permanent-government political class is currently scared. Keep them that way, while showing the public at large that you're serious. . . .

The NYT notes that the public is waking up to the toxic scam of public sector unions. Let us hope that the debacle in NYC, where lives were lost while the public union slow rolled clearing snow, becomes the icon for ending the pox of public sector unions on America. It is a fifty year old exercise in corrupt Dem. politics that needs to end before it buries us. As John at Powerline notes:

Enough is enough. Legalization of public employee unions has been a disaster. It is time to end the experiment and make them illegal once again, at both the federal and state levels. I expect that this will become one of the great political issues of the next decade.

And while we are waiting for that sea change, the next big step is to pass the legislation proposed by California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes (he's a lonely guy) that will require states to account for the degree to which their public sector pension funds are undercapitalized while also establishing a ban on federal bailouts of public pension programs.

The AP finally comes around to the position that the entitlement state is a disaster.

At the American, a fascinating article on how the government caused the Great Recession. In particular, they point to "a potent mix of six major government policies that together rewarded short-sighted collective risk-taking and penalized long-term business leadership." As an aside, it is worth noting that Obama's "bipartisan" Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is finally set to release its fictional report in January, 2011. The Commission refused to consider the role of Fannie and Freddie in the crisis. Indeed, so useless is the report that Obama felt no need to wait on it before passing new financial regulations ostensibly intended to fix the causes of or financial meltdown.

Commenting on the MSNBC interview with GOPROUD chairman, Chris Barron, shown below, John at Powerline remarks: "[L]iberalism is all about screwing certain people so that others can enjoy a windfall, and trying to cobble together an electoral majority out of that corruption. Conservatism, on the other hand, is all about building a better society for everyone." Amen. And that indeed is a point that needs to be hammered home to each of the victim constituencies that the far left relies on for their power base. We want them to emerge from victimhood, the left, to survive, needs to keep them there.



And on this day in history, in 1492, the Reconquista of Spain was complete when the last Muslim ruler of Granada, Muhammad XII, surrendered his kingdom to Isabella I of Castile.

Read More...

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Iran's Allies?


An EU/German corporation has announced a major deal with Iran to transfer technology that will allow Iran to largely circumvent what are expected to be American led sanctions targeting their gas industry. This from Yahoo:

Iran has signed a one-billion-euro (1.44-billion-dollar) deal with a German firm to build 100 gas turbo-compressors, an industry official said in newspapers on Wednesday.

The contract provides for the unnamed German firm to transfer the know-how to build, install and run the equipment needed to exploit and transport gas, said Iran's Gas Engineering and Development Company head, Ali Reza Gharibi.

The German company has already delivered 45 such turbo-compressors to Iran, Gharibi said, according to Iran Daily. Industry experts said he was apparently referring to Siemens. . . .

The government daily Iran Daily said the contract was signed at the start of the week and would be a "relief for many German businesses that have long complained about restrictions on trade with Iran" under sanctions.

The illegitimate Iranian regime is going at full speed towards a nuclear arsenal. The regime is unstable, fanatical, bloodthirsty on a level not seen since Khmer Rouge, and it is a regime in large measure responsible for the increasing destabilization of the Middle East. The regime is an intractable enemy of freedom, the West and its own people. They present the greatest threat to the world since Nazi Germany. Yet Germany is quite willing to partner with them. This goes beyond amoral and greed.

I have little doubt American blood is going to be spilled to end the theocracy's scourge. Yet the Germans, who have relied on America to rebuild their economy from utter ruin after WWII and have relied on America to protect their nation ever since, are doing nothing more than exacerbating the problem with Iran for their own profit. This is not merely scandalous, but a critical issue of national security - not only our's, but Germany's and the EU's also. Germany is now a province of the European Union. If Germany is going to engage in this conduct and the EU is going to condone it, then Obama and Clinton should be making this a cause celebre in the press. Someone pass the message to our President of the World.

Read More...

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Germany Calls It - Obama Ist Ein Versager

It is somehow appropriate that the nation wherein Obama kicked off his campaign for President of the World should be the first to proclaim Obama a lame duck in American politics. Der Spiegel has the story and the roll-up. I think this adds another level of humor to yesterday's Dems in the Hitler Bunker vid.

Read More...

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Pelosi: We Need Green Socialism For Jobs, Jobs, Jobs


Nancy Pelosi, speaking in Copenhagen before taking an early flight home to beat a blizzard bearing down on Washington, spoke of the need to pass the utter abortion that is the Waxman Markey climate change legislation, stating "Our legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs for Americans, . . ." This is her common refrain as she attempts to support by repeition what cannot be supported by fact.

The idea that "green jobs" is the wave of the future is a proven canard. Where that idea has already been embraced, in Spain, and to a lesser extent, in Germany, it has been a significant economic drain. This today from Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine, highlighting Germany's experience:

. . . Given the array of government energy mandates and billions in subsidies poured into cleantech, there is no doubt that those sectors will see increased jobs. The effect on overall employment is far less clear. Cleantech energy is currently more expensive than conventional sources of energy. Many argue that the price difference simply reflects the fact that conventional sources—chiefly fossil fuels—are cheaper because no one is being forced to pay for their externalities, e.g., damaging the climate and health. Once people have to pay for their externalities through, say, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme, then renewable energy sources become more competitive. Fair enough. But either way, the price of energy is going to go up. If people and businesses are paying more for energy that means that they have less left over to buy other products and services, a fact that would tend to reduce employment downstream.

Yet green energy proponents have produced reams of studies that show that carbon rationing leads to more jobs. For example, Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told The New York Times, “We found that you get four times the number of jobs from investing in efficiency and renewables than you get from investing in oil and natural gas.” This is largely because renewable technologies “are more local and they’re more labor-intensive.” . . .

Other countries have tried to use energy policy to produce jobs. Germany is often cited as an example of how government policy can drive the adoption of renewable energy and produce scads of green jobs. For example, in his opening statement at a May 2009 climate change hearing, Sen. Kerry praised Germany for putting “in place strong policy mechanisms to drive investment in solar power and other renewable energy sources. As a result, renewable energy usage has tripled to 16 percent, creating 1.7 million jobs. By 2020, Germany's clean energy sector will be the biggest contributor to the nation's economy.”

However, a study released in October finds that the German green job miracle is largely a mirage, and an expensive mirage at that. The report, published by the nonprofit German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI), notes that as a result of the German government's energy policies, Germany leads the world in solar panel installation and is second only to the U.S. in wind power generation. Great, right? Actually terrible, says the report. Let me quote some of the report’s sobering conclusions at length:



While employment projections in the renewable sector convey seemingly impressive prospects for gross job growth, they typically obscure the broader implications for economic welfare by omitting any accounting of off-setting impacts. These impacts include, but are not limited to, job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity prices, private consumers’ overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment.

Proponents of renewable energies often regard the requirement for more workers to produce a given amount of energy as a benefit, failing to recognize that this lowers the output potential of the economy and is hence counterproductive to net job creation. Significant research shows that initial employment benefits from renewable policies soon turn negative as additional costs are incurred. Trade and other assumptions in those studies claiming positive employment turn out to be unsupportable.

In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000). …


Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits. . . .

Read the entire article. This comports with the experience of Spain where a study found that "[e]very “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job." In short, the canrd of "green jobs" is yet another massive market distortion proposed by the far left that will do grave damage to our country and to the rank and file of America. It is being sold by Pelosi as a pancea for job creation. The reality is that it is another push by the left to cripple capitalism and establish socialism on a grand scale in America.

Read More...

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

German Scientists Dissent On Global Warming

A group of sixty German scientists - some themselves members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - have penned an open letter to PM Merkel dissenting from global warming, calling the IPCC a fraud, global warming a "pseudo religion," and pointing out that carbon dioxide levels have no impact on our climate. This from a letter translated at Climate Depot:

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past. . . .

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Read the entire article here. It would seem the German media is much the same as our own. Regardless, that was a superb letter. Possibly the only quibble is that, under the circumstances, the scientists should have thought to nail a copy to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg.







Read More...

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Taheri On Obama's Perfidy & Naivity


Amir Taheri opines in the NY Sun today on Obama's world tour, providing some fascinating observations from his sources in Iraq and Europe. They track with what I have been saying since I started this blog - that the far left wants to declare Iraq illegitimate and a defeat for political gain. It is perfidy, partisanship and naivity writ on a grand scale. And in part, Taheri explores the hypocrisy and consequences inherent in Obama's call to leave Iraq in order to shore up Afghanistan with two combat brigades.
______________________________________________________

This from Amir Taheri:

Termed a "learning" trip, Sen. Barack Obama's eight- day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo ops to enhance his international credentials.

"He looked like a man in a hurry," a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. "He was not interested in what we had to say."

Still, many Iraqis liked Obama's claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would've achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007.

In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama's analysis is "way off the mark." Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn't have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad.

Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician wants to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than the man who may become the next US president.

Iraqis were most surprised by Obama's apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he'd been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States," a senior Iraqi official told me. "As far as he is concerned, this is Bush's war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat."

Even so, Obama knows that most Americans believe they're still at war with an enemy prepared to use terror against them. So he can't do what his antiwar base wants - declare an end to the War on Terror and the start of a period of love and peace in which "citizens of the world" build bridges between civilizations.

That's why Obama is trying to adopt Afghanistan as "his" war. He claims that Bush's focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan an orphan in need of love and attention. Even though US military strategy is to enable America to fight two major wars simultaneously, Obama seems to believe that only one war is possible at a time.

But what does that mean practically?

Obama says he wants to shift two brigades (some of his advisers say two battalions) from Iraq to Afghanistan. But where did that magical figure come from? From NATO, which has been calling on its members to provide more troops since 2006.

NATO wants the added troops mainly to improve the position of its reserves in Afghanistan. The alliance doesn't face an actual shortage of combat units - it's merely facing a rotation schedule that obliges some units to stay in the field for up to six weeks longer than is normal for NATO armies.

Overall, NATO hopes that its members will have no difficulty providing the 5,000 more troops it needs for a "surge." So there's no need for the US to abandon Iraq in order to help Afghanistan.

The immediate effect of Obama's plan to abandon Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan is to ease pressure on other NATO members to make a greater contribution. Even in Paris, some critics think that President Nicolas Sarkozy should postpone sending more troops until after the US presidential election. "If President Obama can provide all the manpower needed in Afghanistan, there is no need for us to commit more troops," said a Sarkozy security adviser.

Obama's move would suit Sarkozy fine because he's reducing the size of the French army and closing more than 80 garrisons. Other Europeans would also be pleased. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will soon face a difficult general election in which her main rivals will be calling for an end to "the Afghan adventure."

Today, with the sole exception of Spain (where the mildly anti-American Socialist Party is in power), pro-US parties govern Europe. These parties feel pressure from the Bush administration to translate their pro-American claims into actual support for the Afghanistan war effort. By promising to shoulder the burden, Obama is letting the European allies off the hook.

. . . Having announced his strategy before embarking on his "listening tour," he couldn't be expected to change his mind simply because facts on the ground offered a different picture. . . .

Read the entire article. One of the things Taheri misses in the above is that Obama is the Chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee for Europe. While our problems in Afghanistan are NATO related, Obama has yet to hold a single hearing to find out why our NATO allies are not cooperating and to bring pressure on them to do more.

I could think of no man less qualified to be commander in chief than Obama. That belief is far from predicated on his lack of any military experience. It seems clear that his decision making will be guided by political expediency rather than principle. It seems clear that his decision making will always prioritize the political over military necessity or force protection. While he will no doubt make the American hating far left happy, what that translates into for those who have volunteered to served and defend this nation is dead U.S. soldiers.


Read More...

Saturday, July 26, 2008

McCain Ad Takes Obama To Task For Cancelling Visit To Troops In Germany

Obama made a mistake by cancelling a visit to see our wounded soldiers when told it would have to be sans his massive press entogrague. McCain rightfully is holding his feet to the fire on this one. This is McCain's latest 30 second ad.

Read More...

Saturday, May 31, 2008

The Perfidy of Europe


According to a Telegraph poll, a plurality of Europe's citizens see America as evil. Further, the socialists of Europe join the ranks of Ahmedinejad, Castro, FARC, Ghadaffi, and other assorted haters of America in desiring to see Obama as President.
_______________________________________________________

The Telegraph ran a poll of several thousand people in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia to determine attitudes towards America. Question 1 was do you consider America a force for good or a force for evil in the world. The results:

Britain - Evil 35% / Good 33% (Et tu, Britain, et tu?)

France - Evil 40% / Good 28%

Germany - Evil 39% / Good 25%

Russia - Evil 56% / Good 16%

Italy was the one country, surprisingly, that has a very positive view of America - Good 49% / Evil 27%. It is also the only country that has finally rid itself of communists and elected a true conservative to head its government.

I am not surprised by the British response, given the stranglehold socialism has on that country, though I am depressed about it. Britain is a natural ally and our closest European ally.

It should also be noted that in a poll taken last year, 48% of Germans believed that the US is a greater threat to the world then a soon to be nuclear armed Iran. With allies like these . . .

The poll also asked several other questions, including whom would you like to see elected President. In every country, the overwhelming majority went for Obama. The sum total of all polled went for Obama, 52% to 15%. You can find the poll results here.

We pulled Europe out of the fire in two world wars. We spent a great deal of our wealth rebuilding all of Western Europe with the Marshall Plan following WWII. We protected Western Europe against the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Even with the fall of the Soviet Union, we are still spending billions each year in support of European defense through NATO. Indeed, virtually all European nations have taken advantage of the situation to run minimal defense budgets and rely on the U.S. for their protection. With all of that, one might expect a bit of good will towards the U.S. But there is little to be found among the perfidious socialists who dominate Europe. Indeed, Der Spiegel, the BBC, and many of the state owned media outlets of Europe promote a virulent form of anti-Americanism.

The photo at the top of this post adequately sums up my take on this. If you have not seen it before, its LTG George Patton urinating into the Rhine in 1945. Can the U.S. get out of NATO and the UN fast enough? And as to the Middle East, if we can get our oil from other locales, we should leave Iran to the Europeans to worry about. The nuclear missles they will have in two years won't reach America, but Brussels will likely be in range. And while I am willing to defend the classical values of western civilization with my life and the life of my progeny, when I see things like this, it leads me to conclude that there is little of such civilization left in Europe to defend.

Read More...

Friday, April 4, 2008

Der EU

A reader in Berlin has been kind enough to send information on the status of the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty ratification in Germany, where his government, like the government's of virtually all of the other EU countries, is intent on transferring its sovereignty to an EU superstate without allowing the German people a say.

_______________________________________________________

Stephan Ossenkopp writes:

. . . [W]hat most people are unaware of is the fact that the EU constitution of 2005 has never been officially ratified in Germany, either. What an expert in this field revealed to an audience a few months ago was, that, although both houses of parliament (Bundestag and Bundesrat) have passed it by a great majority (of corrupt suckers), the constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to give the German president permission to sign it, because of a clear violation of the principle of the Grundgesetz (our constitution) that only the German people can vote up a new constitution. So in order to prevent a backfire, he did not sign it. Any law can only pass after a signature of the president.

The EU "Lisbon" treaty is scheduled to be ratified on I think the 23rd of April in the Bundestag, and on the 25th of May in the Bundesrat. The president would have to sign it afterwards. What I and some others are doing is, getting the German public to realize that they can actually prevent it from being ratified by forcing attention on this, and by demanding a referendum, which is their right guaranteed by the Grundgesetz. If you want to be "complicit" in our conspiracy, then I can send you some articles to spread, because the problem is that the average citizen is not supposed to know according to the authors and promoters of the treaty, like Jean Claude Juncker et al. We are getting out flyers and leaflets on the streets (I live in Berlin) as well as produce publications, videoclips and online radio shows.

If you would like to take up Stephan's offer, you can reach him at stephan.ossenkopp@googlemail.com.

As an aside, I would add that the German papers, such as Der Spiegel are far more dissatisfied, vocal and realistic about the problematic nature of the EU and this non-democratic transfer of sovereignty than any of the papers I have read in Britain. Perhaps there is a shot to derail this grand experiment in non-democratic socialism at the Rhine. I am going to take Stephan up on his offer, and would urge all interested parties to do likewise.

And by the way, if you are concerned with freedom and preservation of Western culture, you need to be an interested party. The fundamental dangers posed politically, economically and culturally by the well meaning socialists of the EU are extensive, potentially existential, and the ramifications do not end on European shores.


Read More...

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

McCain Lights Into Obama Over Iraq

John McCain responds to Obama's continuing criticism of his "hundred years in Iraq" remark, stating that Obama has no "experience or background" as regards the military and our national security. Its sort of the Clinton's "3 a.m." ad on steroids.








_________________________________________________________

If Obama thinks that he has a bullet with which to attack McCain by claiming he wants, to paraphrase, endless warfare, he is sorely wrong. Besides taking McCain's "hundred years" in Iraq remark out of context, it also highlights the grave weaknesses in the Democrats calls to pull all troops out of Iraq and to do so within a short time frame. And today, McCain has responded appropriately.

“It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we’ve maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism. And I understand that because he has no experience or background in any of it,” McCain said. “(He) either hasn’t read or (doesn’t) understand…the history of this country in warfare, and the way that we secure alliances and secure the peace–and that’s through military government to government agreements that call for United States presence and mutual defense. Not only in that country itself, but also in the region. Our troops in Japan maintain a military presence in Asia. Our troops in Japan and South Korea maintain stability in Asia. The same thing was true after World War II about our troops in Germany.”

You can read the story and hear McCain's remarks here.

McCain is completely correct on this. The case against the war needed to be made in 2003. Once the decision was made to go in, the only appropriate place for the argument that "the war was wrong" was in the history departments of academia. Once we crossed into Iraq, we had and still have only two options - to win or to lose. Winning, in the long term, means establishing a functioning democracy with a functioning economy that is free from external aggression. This requires a long term committment - as it did with Japan, Germany and Korea. All of those countries, in the end, flourished. That is winning for any on the left still having trouble defining the word as regards Iraq. And on a side note, it took nearly thirty years for Korea to actually develop a functioning democracy.

Obama's argument that we need to leave Iraq now is completely political - and laughably sophomoric. His argument, that the war was wrong at inception and thus we need to leave -wholly ignores all that has occurred since March 20, 2003. It ignores that Iraq has become the main battleground for the Wahhabi extremists of al Qaeda and it ignores the designs the Shia theocracy of Iran - arguably the West's most dangerous enemy today - has upon Iraq. Whatever the situation in 2003, it has no bearing on the reality in 2008. The only things that have not changed since March 20, 2003 are our strategic interest in the Middle East and the existential threats posed by al Qaeda and Iran's theocracy. Obama does not address these arguments.

But history has showed us how to "win" in Iraq, and McCain does a good job of discussing them in thumbnail fashion in the video linked above. The other option, the one being touted by Obama, will clearly lead in another direction. Obama, some time ago, dreamed up the idea of protecting us by relying on some sort of quick reaction force operating out of Kuwait to keep Iraq free of al Qaeda and, I would assume, from Iranian aggression. That is ridiculous on so many levels it is almost impossible to know where to begin.

1. It is taking well over 150,000 of our soldiers in country to try and break al Qaeda's hold on the Sunni areas of Iraq and to limit Iran's deadly meddling. How a QRF of a few thousand combat soldiers could possibly be expected to accomplish a similar mission and how they would gather the intelligence necessary to attack specific targets inside Iraq is simply unimaginable.

2. If we leave Iraq, the likelihood of a real civil war, driven by al Qaeda and Sunni countries on one side and Iran on the other, is palpable, if not probable.

3. If we leave Iraq, under what possible scenario do we think that the Iraqi government will allow the U.S. back in, whether to attack Iraq al Qaeda targets or Iranian targets. It is quite probable that the weak central government would fall under Iranian influence - and I severly doubt Ahmedinejad and his cronies will allow a sattelite government to roll out the red carpet for the U.S.

4. Obama's suggestion is the equivalent of a politician playing general - a scenario that is disastorous the vast majority of the time. Yes, I know he has General McPeak at his side. McPeak is an Air Force officer and, if this was his idea, he is just completely clueless about the reality of ground warfare.

There are two theories. One, Obama is making his pronouncements wholly to feed a far left base that is completely out of touch with reality and only concerned with destroying conservativism in America through a toppling of Bush. Two, Obama really does have no clue about the lessons of history or about the capabilities and limitations of our military. While both are possible, neither one is remotely acceptable. In either case, really, McCain's remarks are dead on point.


Read More...

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Kissinger On Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and German Perfidy

Der Spiegel recently interviewed former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger about American politics, the war on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan and several other issues. Kissinger comes out strongly in support of George Bush and the war on terror and he is critical of the lack of European, and particularly German, support.







____________________________________________________________

This is a priceless interview between a left wing interviewer from Der Spiegel and the realpolitik Henry Kissinger about Iraq, Germany's Afghanistan mission, the tepid European commitment to combatting Islamist extremism and whether direct talks with Iran should go ahead.

SPIEGEL: Dr. Kissinger, you have endorsed Senator John McCain as your choice for the White House. McCain, though, has said he would be prepared to stay in Iraq for another 100 years. Are you sure he is the right man for the job?

Kissinger: John and I have been friends for 30 years. I have great confidence in him.

SPIEGEL: Most Americans would like to see a rapid withdrawal from Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. But McCain has made his motto "No Surrender."

Kissinger: He was trying to make a distinction between American military forces in a country where they were there as part of a civil war and military forces that are part of an alliance accepted by the population, such as in Germany after World War II. He did not say we should stay in Iraq in a combat mission. He was trying to make exactly the opposite point.

SPIEGEL: The Democrats have promised a rapid withdrawal. Is this a realistic option?

Kissinger: The issue is: Are American forces withdrawn as part of a political settlement? Or are they withdrawn because America is exhausted by the war? In the latter case, the consequences of an American withdrawal would be catastrophic.

SPIEGEL: Do you think there would be another eruption of violence?

Kissinger: There would be a high possibility of killing fields. Radical Islam won't stop because we withdraw. A rapid withdrawal would be a demonstration in the region of the impotence of Western power. Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaida would achieve a more dominant role, and the ability of Western nations to shape events would be sharply reduced. . . .

Thank you Dr. Kissinger. I have been making this point over and over. Iraq is a zero sum game. If we withdraw, regardless of how its spun in the states, the reprucussions of that event for our national security and our ability to conduct foreign policy would be catastrophic, if not existential. We must succeed in Iraq. We must be seen as having succeeded throughout the Muslim world. As Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote a few days ago in the Washington Post, al Qaeda and Sunni extremism are taking a beating world wide because of Iraq. To walk away from that now would be suicidal and insane.

Kissinger: . . . The virus [of energized radicalized terrorist organizations] would have huge consequences for all countries with large Muslim populations: India, Indonesia, and large parts of Europe

SPIEGEL: That is not how many Europeans see it.

Its almost passee here to point out that the socialist left which dominates Europe is corrupt, weak, and incredibly unrealistic. They invite radical Islam into their bosoms, make common cause with them for the purposes of retaining political power, and then rely on the United States for their defense against this scourge. Given the actions of Europe and, in particular, Germany, I think that we should seriously consider, if not ending NATO, than reducing our military presence in Europe significantly. Europe is, at the moment, relying on U.S. blood and gold for its protection, and most of the nations are not showing either loyalty or responsibility. If they wish to engage in the fantasy that they are under no threat, we should not be the ones underwriting their security while they blissfully bash America as the true evil in the world.

Kissinger: Some Europeans do not want to understand that [Islamic terrorism] is not an American problem alone. The consequences of such an outcome would be at least as serious for Europe as for the Americans.

SPIEGEL: What does Europe not understand? Paris, London and Berlin do not see the "war on terror" as a common challenge for the West?

Kissinger: I don't like the term "war on terror" because terror is a method, not a political movement. We are in a war against radical Islam that is trying to overthrow the moderate elements in the Islamic world and which is fundamentally challenging the secular structures of Western societies. All this is happening at a difficult period in European history.

SPIEGEL: Difficult why?

Kissinger: The major events in European history were conducted by nation-states which developed over several hundred years. There was never a question in the mind of European populations that the state was authorized to ask for sacrifices and that the citizens had a duty to carry it out. Now the structure of the nation-state has been given up to some considerable extent in Europe. And the capacity of governments to ask for sacrifices has diminished correspondingly.

SPIEGEL: Thirty years ago, you asked for one phone number that could be used to call Europe.

Kissinger: ... and it happened. The problem now is: Nation-states have not just given up part of their sovereignty to the European Union but also part of their vision for their own future. Their future is now tied to the European Union, and the EU has not yet achieved a vision and loyalty comparable to the nation-state. So, there is a vacuum between Europe's past and Europe's future.

I think Kissinger's observation is only partly correct. My own observation of the modern socialist left that is ascendent in Europe is that they are incapable of mounting strong actions of self defense for a whole host of reasons that I will go into in a seperate post, though I will note in passing that the vacuum exists in part because of narcissistic welfare societies and the socialist / multiculturalist ethos that denigrates the history of the West. In essence, why fight when there is nothing to preserve.

SPIEGEL: What do you expect from European leaders? Should German Chancellor Angela Merkel step up and ask the Germans to make sacrifices in the fight against terrorism?

Kissinger: I think Angela Merkel, like any leader, has to think of her re-election. I have high regard for her. But I do not know many Europeans who would deny that the victory of radical Islam in Baghdad, Beirut or Saudi Arabia would have huge consequences for the West. However, they are not willing to fight to prevent it.

SPIEGEL: For example in Afghanistan. Does NATO need more German troops in the southern part of the country?

Kissinger: I think it is obvious that the United States cannot permanently do all the fighting for Western interests by itself. So, two conclusions are possible: Either there are no Western interests in the region and we don't fight. Or there are vital Western interests in the region and we have to fight. That means we need more German and NATO troops in Afghanistan. What I am not comfortable with is that some NATO members send troops primarily for non-combat missions. That cannot be a healthy situation in the long term.

Indeed, it is intolerable in the short term. Bush has done some things right, but several things very wrong - one of which is how he has dealt with intransigent members of NATO. If NATO is to survive, than Bush should be shaming its members publicly for the current travesty and drawing lines in the sand. He has utterly downplayed the incredibly poor performance of several members of NATO, Germany chief among them, which will eventually lead to a crisis that he might have forestalled with a bit of decisive action.

SPIEGEL: Many Germans say we have to stand up to the terrorists, but that Germans can't do the actual fighting, partly because of our history. You are intimately familiar with German history -- your family left Germany when you were nearly 15 years old. Is it fair for today's Germany to refer to the constraints of history?

Kissinger: I understand it, but it is not a sustainable position. In the long run, we cannot have two categories of members in the NATO alliance: those that are willing to fight and others that are trying to be members à la carte. That cannot work for long.

SPIEGEL: Do you think the Germans can be persuaded to change their approach?

Kissinger: The Germans have to decide that for themselves. But if they stick to that attitude, Germany would be a different kind of nation than Britain or France or others.

SPIEGEL: Isn't German and European opposition to a greater military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq also a result of deep distrust of American power?

Kissinger: By this time next year, we will see the beginning of a new administration. We will then discover to what extent the Bush administration was the cause or the alibi for European-American disagreements. Right now, many Europeans hide behind the unpopularity of President Bush. . . .

"Deep distrust of American power?" What an arschloch. The degree of disloyalty and sheer idiocy in that question is mind boggling. If one cannot determine who are their allies and who are their enemies, they fully deserve the fate that awaits them - whether that might be speaking Russian or giving up beer because it is against the dictates of Allah.

SPIEGEL: What do you see as the biggest mistakes?

Kissinger: To go into Iraq with insufficient troops, to disband the Iraqi army, the handling of the relations with allies at the beginning even though not every ally distinguished himself by loyalty. But I do believe that George W. Bush has correctly understood the global challenge we are facing, the threat of radical Islam, and that he has fought that battle with great fortitude. He will be appreciated for that later.

SPIEGEL: In 50 years, historians will treat his legacy more kindly?

Kissinger: That will happen much earlier.

SPIEGEL: Will the next president of the United States ask for a greater European commitment?

Kissinger: It is not impossible that a new administration will say that we can't go on without more European commitment. And that they would use this as an excuse for withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't think John McCain would do that, though.

SPIEGEL: Barack Obama also says the conflict in Pakistan is the war Americans really need to win. Is he right?

Kissinger: You can always say there is some other war I would rather want to fight than the one I am in. What does it mean to fight the war in Pakistan? Should we use military power to control the tribal regions in Pakistan and to conduct military operations in a region which Britain failed to pacify in over 100 years of colonization? Should we use military force to prevent a radical take-over of the Pakistani government? Should we prevent the Pakistani state from splitting up into three or four ethnically based groups? I don't think we have the capacity to do that.

SPIEGEL: What about pushing for more military action against al-Qaida terrorists in the border regions with Afghanistan?

Kissinger: The audience listening to such exhortations believes that there is a master plan to bring another government there and that this democratic government will fight the tribal regions. In the short-term, this is an illusion. . . .

SPIEGEL: . . . Should the new US president fly to Tehran and sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Kissinger: Some believe that the mere act of conversation will alter the tension. I believe that negotiations succeed only if they reflect an objective reality. The key issue with Iran is whether it sees itself as a cause or as a nation. If Iran wants to be a respected nation-state in the region without claiming religious or imperial domination, then we should be able to come to some form of understanding. But we will not reach that goal unless Iran realizes that this is not a historical opportunity to resurrect Persian dreams of glory.

SPIEGEL: And the Iranians need to feel Western pressure to come to that conclusion?

Kissinger: We need a mixture of pressure and incentives. We must realize that painless sanctions are a contradiction. . . .

Kissinger manages to paint Obama as the dangerous neophyte that he is and fisk Germany for their failure, to this point, to participate in serious sanctions. That's a two'fer.

SPIEGEL: But looking at legacy again, will historians look back one day and write: The Iraq adventure prevented the US from focusing on other strategic challenges -- such as the rapid rise of India and China? Is the Superpower distracted rather than over-stretched?

Kissinger: I think we face three challenges currently: The disappearance of the nation-state; the rise of India and China; and, thirdly, the emergence of problems and challenges that cannot be solved by a single power, such as energy and the environment. We do not have the luxury to focus on one problem; we have to deal with all three of them or we won't succeed with any of them. The rise of Asia will be an enormous event. But we cannot say that we should therefore keep other challenges, such as the fight against radical Islam, in abeyance. . . .

Read the entire interview. We face a lot of challenges ahead. I agree with Kissinger that the best option to face these challenges will be McCain. Obama or Clinton would likely be a disaster. That said, in any event, I think it is time European nations step up to the plate and become allies and partners instead of whining protectorates.


Read More...

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Interesting News - Super Tuesday Edition



This is it. Super Tuesday is here.
Big Lizards Guide to Uber Tuesday for the Perplexed is a where to go for your scorecard. And pundits are using their columns to try and influence the vote. E.J. Dionne has found his personal savior in Obama. Can we have a "hallelujah" Indeed, we now know the debate is over and the only ones who consider it otherwise are racists. Could they be as racist as the head of Trinity United, however? On the right side, Andres Martinez leads with the question of whether McCain has accepted Jesus as his personal savior, while Rick Moran ponders the redefining of what it means to be a Republican. I happen to share the view of the Glittering Eye on McCain.

John Bolton ponder how our spy chief, Mitch McConnell, can undue the tremendous damage of the NIE on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program when he testifies before Congress this week.

David Aaronovitch ponders the horrendous ramifications of a withdrawal from Afghanistan. As does a professor in Pakistan. America will not abandon it, but NATO is shaky indeed, compliments of the cowardly and disloyal Germans who have refused to provide combat soldiers that would actually fight in the NATO operation.

As I have blogged previously, Gordon Brown plans to get upwards of 30% of the UK’s energy through a massive construction of wind turbines throughout Britain. It was nuts to begin with, and now its worse. "Nato has begun an investigation into British findings that wind farms make overflying planes invisible to radar . . ." Meanwhile, Labour has given £1 billion in tax receipts to energy companies to start building them – which the companies have pocketed while energy prices in the UK skyrocket.

More insane PC silencing of free speech in Britain. "Schools are being ordered to drop the term "mum and dad" in case it offends pupils from a single-parent, homosexual or turkey-baster ‘family.’" And if its not the PC crowd, it’s the bureaucrats doing in the quality of life.

"A new study says that mandatory diversity training backfires: After looking at data from 830 workplaces, researchers discovered that sensitivity seminars and their ilk led to declines in the number of women and minorities in management."

What will you do to celebrate Waitangi Day tomorrow, take a Mori tribesman to dinner?

Sleaze goes Goracle green. He is the modern version of a war profiteer.

More on the travesty of justice in the Maldives following the gang rape of a 12 year old girl by members of the religion of peace.

Gloria Steinem editorializes at TNOY as to the many accomplishments of the "womyn’s" movement in America. You will find a few of the accomplishments surprising, beginning with the more equal distribution of STD’s


Read More...

Thursday, January 31, 2008

NATO's Future in Deutschland's Hände

The U.S. has asked Germany to honor its NATO committments and provide a battalion of combat soldiers to Afghanistan. Whether Germany agrees to honor its NATO responsibilities will likely have far reaching implications for the future of NATO. An article today in Der Spiegel examines the debate in Germany - and its tenor is shocking.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATO is at a crossroads, with only a handful of nations meeting their committments in Afghanistan. For extensive background on this issue, see here here, here and here. One nation that has limited its involvement in Afghanistan is Germany. Although Germany has committed soldiers, they have done so on the proviso that the troops remain in the North of Afghanistan where there is little or no combat.

Germany's decision to limit its involvment in NATO's mission in Afghanistan was sharply criticized by German General and former NATO Commander Klauss Naumann. He recently "delivered a blistering attack on his own country's performance . . . 'The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner.' By insisting on 'special rules' for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin [is] contributing to 'the dissolution of Nato'".

Secretary of Defense Gates has formally called upon Germany to live up to its NATO committments and provide a combat battalion that could be deployed as needed into combat in the south of Afghanistan. At least one nation, Canada, has threated to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan if Germany refuses to meet its committment. The ball is now in Germany's hands and it is far from clear what they will do. Should they refuse to provide these soldiers, it will have significant ramifications for the future of the NATO alliance.

The matter is currently under debate in Germany. This today from Der Spiegel:

A day after NATO formerly requested that Germany send combat troops to Afghanistan and two days after Canada warned it would leave if more help didn't come south, Germans are debating whether sending more troops means more danger.

Germany announced on Tuesday that NATO had made a formal request . . . that it provide combat troops to replace the Norwegian Quick Reaction Force currently stationed in northern Afghanistan and due to end its mission there at the beginning of the summer.

The announcement came one day after Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned that his country would only extend its own mission in Afghanistan if other NATO countries deploy more troops to the more violent south.

Germany will make a final decision in the coming weeks as to whether it will deploy up to 250 combat troops to the country to supplement the 3,500 German soldiers already serving there, primarily in the more peaceful north.

. . . Bernhard Gertz, head of the German army federation -- a kind of union for the armed forces -- warned this weekend that the Bundeswehr had to be prepared to "see comrades coming back in wooden boxes after this type of fighting." On Wednesday, responding to the NATO request, Gertz voiced doubts about whether Germany has the correct weapons and communications devices to equip a rapid reaction force in Afghanistan. Speaking to the Passauer Neue Presse, he said that Jung had to address these issues: "That has to change quickly: the defense minister has to invest here."

Meanwhile, Germany's Green Party warned on Wednesday that the deployment of combat troops to northern Afghanistan could lead to the spread of the German mission to the volatile south of the country. Party defense spokesman Winfried Nachtwei told the Leipziger Volkszeitung that the Quick Reaction Force should not "open the door for the Bundeswehr in the south," and that the government should "guarantee that the limits of the mandate up to now are maintained." Nachtwei insisted that the combat troops should only be allowed to support troops in the north and not be sent to fight the insurgency.

The German media on Wednesday looked at the implications of the NATO request, which could see Germany further embroiled in Afghanistan.

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"The defense minister is once again having a hard time explaining the decision, which had been made quite a while ago, to a predominantly critical public. Once again he has to hold out as a rationale the fiction of 'NATO's request,' which one can't turn down. This time even a letter from NATO headquarters was ordered. And that it just happened to arrive on the day that Minister Jung visited Kabul can be no coincidence. This unnecessarily defensive tactic for reinforcing your own troops serves neither the substance nor the debate about the deployment in Afghanistan. The Canadians, who have already lost 83 soldiers in the south, are threatening -- and not without due cause -- that they don't intend to stay there much longer, if soldiers from other members of the coalition don't get involved there."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"There's no reason to panic, but there surely is reason to worry. ...The arguments of the critics who are warning of the dangers of the new Afghanistan deployment are justified. The politicians should stop playing them down and allaying them. It is right to not change the German army's basic strategy in Afghanistan and to not go on the offensive against the Taliban. But it is also right that the mission of a 'fire brigade' deployment is differentiated from those of the combat troops working with the regional reconstruction teams, the so called PRTs. 'QRF is not PRT,' said Inspector General Wolfgang Schneiderhan (referring to the Quick Reaction Force), which is exactly the issue."

"The German army is providing the Quick Reaction Force, because no other NATO partner is ready to assume the task. In doing so, Germany is not immune to additional demands by its allies."

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"Germany cannot turn down the request from Brussels, demanding loyalty and solidarity with the allied partner countries -- the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Great Britain -- who are under constant fire in Afghanistan. There is also no doubt of the rightness of the allied mission against a nihilistic opponent, who -- if it ever got the chance to again -- would impose its totalitarian and inhumane world view on Afghan society. But there must be more truthfulness in the discussions concerning Germany's deployment. Won't the NATO partners just increase their demands on Germany, just as they are indirectly doing with Canada now?"

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes about the "trans-Atlantic relationship's test of endurance:"

"Of course, it's easy for the Americans to point the finger at the other allies. But it's also true that it was in no way the case that all Europeans were convinced of the usefulness of the mission to Afghanistan in the first place. (It) is far away. The overthrow of the Taliban is already six years behind us, and yet the allies are preparing themselves to stay there for many more years. The burdens have already been enormous. There's no chance that voters are going to allow further adventures."

Read the entire article.

I would hate to add up the costs we have paid over the last half century to rebuild Germany after WWII and then defend that country as part of our pledge to NATO. In light of that, the tenor of this debate, at least among the socialist left, is shocking. It is disloyal to an astonishing degree, it is cowardly, and it is incredibly short sighted both as to the ramifications for NATO and as to the refusal to recognize the threat to Germany from the Salafi Islamists should they retake Afghanistan. Indeed, as to European targets for Salafi terrorism, Germany tops the list. In any event, Germany has a choice to make, the ramifications of which will echo far beyond Afghanistan.

As to my own commentary on all of this - a picture is worth a thousand words:


Read More...

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

A Short Primer on NATO's War In Afghanistan


Afghanistan is more and more in the news with the regrowth of the Taliban and al Qaeda from their safe havens in Pakistan, the shadow the conflict has thrown over NATO, and the increasing tempo of military operations in the country.

From the CIA Factbook, Afghanistan is a country of 31 million people settled across a land locked country that is just slightly smaller than the state of Texas. The life expectancy of a person born today in Afghanistan is about 43 years, and the literacy rate among males is about 43%. The birthrate is an incredibly high 6.64 children per woman. The per capita GDP is approximately $800 per person with a growth rate of 8%. The largest cash crop in Afghanistan is opium. The country is mostly Sunni Muslim with Shi'a Muslim and other accounting for 20% of the population.

Politically, the country is dividied into twelve provinces:



Ethnically, Afghanistan is a mix of Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%. The geographic distribution of these ethnicities is show on the map below.



Currently, US and NATO forces in Afghanistan number approximately 54,000 soldiers. You can find the order of battle for 2007 here. According to Bill Rogio at the Long War Journal:

During 2007, Afghanistan experienced its most violent year since the overthrow of the Taliban regime in early 2002. Suicide attacks, improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and small-arms attacks reached new heights in 2007. The Taliban, with its sanctuaries in the Northwestern Frontier Province and Baluchistan in Pakistan, have stepped up attacks against the Afghan military and the International Security Assistance Force in an attempt to destabilize the Afghan government and force the Western governments to withdraw.

The southern, southeastern, and eastern regions, all which border Pakistan, experience 73 percent of the Taliban-inspired violence in Afghanistan. Kunar, Kandahar, Khost, Nangarhar, and Paktia provinces, all of which border Pakistan, experience the most Taliban-driven attacks in Afghanistan. Kunar, which borders Pakistan's Bajaur province, an al Qaeda command-and-control hub, is Afghanistan's most dangerous province.






Read the entire post here. The increasing violence in Afghanistan coupled with less than enthusiastic support from several of our NATO allies has caused increasing friction. This from the Council of Foreign Relations a month ago:

. . . U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, frustrated by an inability to secure additional helicopters and soldiers, lashed out at member nations ahead of meetings in Scotland on December 15. Britain’s top defense official, Des Browne, also has called on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) “to share the burden” (BBC) in rebuilding. Those allies on the receiving end of such messages—including Germany, which supplies the third-largest contingent of forces to the effort but refuses to conduct major combat missions—responded coolly (Spiegel Online). The criticism will be “taken seriously,” a spokesman for the German interior ministry said, “but is not entirely new.”

Bickering between capitals underscores the challenges facing the Afghanistan mission six years after U.S.-led forces invaded. Suicide attacks are on the rise (PDF), aid workers are increasingly targeted (Times of London), and the Taliban has surfaced in once-peaceful regions. U.S. and British pleas for multilateral assistance also say much about the health of NATO itself—and the price of failure for the strategic alliance forged in the early days of the Cold War. Until this year’s Taliban resurgence tied up NATO forces, particularly from Canada, Britain, and the Netherlands, the alliance had focused largely on development and reconstruction. There are 41,700 troops from thirty-nine countries in the International Security Assistance Force (PDF), including fifteen thousand Americans. But the United States also has an additional twelve thousand non-NATO soldiers who conduct counterinsurgency missions. The two forces don’t always coordinate.

. . . Julianne Smith of the Center for Strategic and International Studies blames the United States and its partners for neglecting broader regional issues (PDF) such as the deepening unrest in neighboring Pakistan. She says an inability to stem the influx from Pakistan’s tribal areas, home to training camps for al-Qaeda and the Taliban, has prompted some NATO partners to “lose confidence” in the mission.

Revamping the alliance’s role has therefore become a key concern for Washington and Brussels. The Bush administration, under pressure (WashPost) to shift resources from Iraq where violence levels are declining, is said to be considering an increase in troops to Afghanistan. The top NATO commander in Afghanistan supports the increase. A series of strategy reevaluations (NYT) are also planned to bolster counterinsurgency and development efforts. On December 20 President Bush said his “biggest concern” would be for NATO countries to withdraw troops prematurely. Meanwhile, the United States and Britain are seeking to install a “super envoy” (Reuters) to coordinate international efforts and some alliance members are considering an extension of their mission.

Washington can use the help; the Bush administration’s ability to foster NATO success in Afghanistan is seen as vital to the alliance’s future (PDF), and to that of the region. Chaos in Afghanistan could embolden regional actors, including Iran (thought to be supporting the Taliban), and militants in Pakistan. Yet a renewed and vibrant NATO alliance is far from guaranteed. CFR President Richard N. Haass, writing in the Financial Times, argues Europe’s “capacity for global intervention is diminishing, especially in the military field.” . . .


Read the entire article. And there is this today from the Washington Post:

The U.S. plan to send an additional 3,200 Marines to troubled southern Afghanistan this spring reflects the Pentagon's belief that if it can't bully its recalcitrant NATO allies into sending more troops to the Afghan front, perhaps it can shame them into doing so, U.S. officials said.

But the immediate reaction to the proposed deployment from NATO partners fighting alongside U.S. forces was that it was about time the United States stepped up its own effort.

After more than six years of coalition warfare in Afghanistan, NATO is a bundle of frayed nerves and tension over nearly every aspect of the conflict, including troop levels and missions, reconstruction, anti-narcotics efforts, and even counterinsurgency strategy. Stress has grown along with casualties, domestic pressures and a sense that the war is not improving, according to a wide range of senior U.S. and NATO-member officials who agreed to discuss sensitive alliance issues on the condition of anonymity.

While Washington has long called for allies to send more forces, NATO countries involved in some of the fiercest fighting have complained that they are suffering the heaviest losses. The United States supplies about half of the 54,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, they say, but the British, Canadians and Dutch are engaged in regular combat in the volatile south.

"We have one-tenth of the troops and we do more fighting than you do," a Canadian official said of his country's 2,500 troops in Kandahar province. "So do the Dutch." The Canadian death rate, proportional to the overall size of its force, is higher than that of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, a Canadian government analysis concluded last year.

British officials note that the eastern region, where most U.S. forces are based, is far quieter than the Taliban-saturated center of British operations in Helmand, the country's top opium-producing province. The American rejoinder, spoken only in private with references to British operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is that superior U.S. skills have made it so.

NATO has long been divided between those with fighting forces in Afghanistan and those who have restricted their involvement to noncombat activities. Now, as the United States begins a slow drawdown from Iraq, the attention of even combat partners has turned toward whether more U.S. troops will be free to fight in the "forgotten" war in Afghanistan.

When Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier visited Washington late last month, he reminded Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Canada's Afghan mandate expires in January 2009. With most of the Canadian public opposed to a continued combat role, he said, it is not certain that Ottawa can sustain it.

Bernier's message was that his minority government could make a better case at home if the United States would boost its own efforts in Afghanistan, according to Canadian and U.S. officials familiar with the conversation.

"I don't think he expected an express commitment that day that they would draw down in Iraq and buttress in Afghanistan," the Canadian official said. "But he certainly registered Canadian interest and that of the allies involved."

According to opinion polls, Canadians feel they have done their bit in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Stephen Harper last fall named an independent commission to study options -- continuing the combat mission, redeploying to more peaceful regions, or withdrawing in January 2009. The commission report, due this month, will form the basis of an upcoming parliamentary debate.

With a Taliban offensive expected in the spring, along with another record opium poppy crop, the new Marines will deploy to the British area in Helmand and will be available to augment Canadian forces in neighboring Kandahar.

Both President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have toned down their public pressure on allies. When German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Bush at his Texas ranch in November, U.S. and German officials said, she told him that while Bonn would step up its contribution in quiet northern Afghanistan, any change in Germany's noncombat role would spell political disaster for her conservative government.

"It's not an excuse; it's simply reality -- coalition reality and domestic reality," a German official said. Merkel came away with Bush's pledge to praise Germany's efforts and stop criticizing.

Although Gates began a meeting of NATO defense ministers late last year by saying he would not let them "off the hook" for their responsibilities in Afghanistan, he said in a news conference at the end of the session that further public criticism was not productive.

Still, the Defense Department hopes that increasing its own contribution -- nearly half of an additional 7,500 troops Gates has said are needed in Afghanistan -- will encourage the allies. "As we're considering digging even deeper to make up for the shortfall in Afghanistan," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said, "we would expect our allies in the fight to do the same."

Many Europeans believe that the United States committed attention and resources to Iraq at Afghanistan's expense. But U.S. officials say the problems of NATO countries in Afghanistan have roots in not investing sufficiently in their militaries after the Cold War. Canada, U.S. officials say, needs American military airlift for its troops in Afghanistan because it got rid of a fleet of heavy lift helicopters.

At the same time that they want more from their partners, however, U.S. defense officials often disdain their abilities. No one, they insist, is as good at counterinsurgency as the U.S. military.

U.S. and British forces have long derided each other's counterinsurgency tactics. In Iraq, British commanders touted their successful "hearts and minds" efforts in Northern Ireland, tried to replicate them in southern Iraq, and criticized more heavy-handed U.S. operations in the north. Their U.S. counterparts say they are tired of hearing about Northern Ireland and point out that British troops largely did not quell sectarian violence in the south.

The same tensions have emerged in Afghanistan, where U.S. officials criticized what one called a "colonial" attitude that kept the British from retaining control over areas wrested from the Taliban. Disagreement leaked out publicly early last year when British troops withdrew from the Musa Qala district of Helmand after striking a deal with local tribal leaders. The tribal chiefs quickly relinquished control to the Taliban.

Britain, with a higher percentage of its forces deployed worldwide than the United States, is stretched thin in Afghanistan. Not only did the British have insufficient force strength to hold conquered territory, but the reconstruction and development assistance that was supposed to consolidate military gains did not arrive.

"It's worth reminding the Americans that the entire British army is smaller than the U.S. Marine Corps," said one sympathetic former U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

After 10 months of Taliban control, Musa Qala was retaken in December in combat involving British, Afghan and U.S. forces. The new Marine deployments will supplement British troops, and both sides insist they have calmed their differences. "Whatever may or may not have been said between the two in the past," said one British official, ". . . we are now in the same place."

Now, he said, "the much more interesting question is where do we go from here, and can we sustain a cautiously positive picture in Musa Qala" and elsewhere.

British officials hope that new deployments and stepped-up Afghan security training by the Marines will address one of Helmand's biggest problems -- the expansion of the opium crop. Opium provides income for the Taliban and is a major source of corruption within the Afghan police and government, yet the allies are divided on how to stop its production.

U.S. officials in Afghanistan, led by Ambassador William B. Wood, have insisted that the current strategy of manually destroying opium fields is ineffective and have pressed to begin aerial spraying of herbicide. . . .


. . . More important, programs to provide rural Afghans with alternative income sources remain underfunded and poorly coordinated. Each of NATO's regional Afghan commands operates its own provincial reconstruction teams, and scores of nongovernmental organizations work in the country. But with few exceptions -- such as Khost province under U.S. command in the east, where military and reconstruction resources are meshed -- they share no overriding strategy or operational rules.

The United States has pressed U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to appoint a high-level representative to coordinate non-military activities in Afghanistan. Karzai has resisted, and Ban is said to be worried about taking responsibility for what he sees as a worsening situation.


Read the entire article. As Iraq draws down, the problem of Afghanistan looms ever larger.


Read More...