Fuck The Germans

[BiBottomBoy]

Whether or not you agree we should be bombing Libya, I think we can all agree that the Germans pulling out of NATO and refusing to take part is complete bullshit - particularly since while doing so they are describing themselves as a "pacifist" nation.

If it wasn't for NATO - including the British, The French, The Italians, The Spanish and the Portuguese, the Soviets would have fucking taken their entire country instead of half of it.

This is the thanks NATO gets for more than 50 years of defending these people.

[alanalt]

Would you like to source your claim that Germany is "pulling out of NATO"? Because that's a story that not only I have missed, but hasn't shown up on any of the news sites I frequent and it's not usual for CNN or the BBC (for example) to miss a story of that magnitude...

NATO is, at its heart, a defensive alliance that commits its member nations to regard the 'attack upon a single member as an attack upon all'. But, of course, Libya hasn't attacked any NATO members. So to compare the threat offered by the USSR against NATO members during the Cold War with the threat 'imposed' by Libya is ridiculous. Moreover, Germany was hardly the only country threatened during the Cold War - NATO members Norway and Turkey had actual land frontiers with the Soviet Union, for instance. And I don't see Norway or Turkey rushing to get involved in Libya - indeed, Turkey spent most of last week vetoing the assumption of NATO military control over the aerial missions against Libya!

Yes, Germany has decided not to participate in the NATO operation in Libya at this time. Newsflash: it doesn't have to. Again, the sovereignty of its member nations is not at issue here, so it's up to each member of the alliance to decide whether, and how, it will participate. Not every NATO country participated in the NATO operation against Kosovo in the last decade or in the current NATO operation in Afghanistan and you can bet that Germany is not going to be the only NATO member sitting on the sidelines in Libya!

Personally, I can't blame Germany for taking the position it has. The UN Security Council Resolution allows for considerable 'mission creep' beyond enforcing a no-fly zone or a blockade or arms and munitions. Nor do the NATO members seem to have any common agreement on what the ultimate goal is. Are we seeking regime change, democratic reform, or the de-facto partition of Libya? Are we trying to end or prevent what looks increasingly like a civil war, or help one side win it? No one can seem to decide, which begs the question of why fight if we really don't know what we're fighting for?

Alan

[MsGuy]

I think that, given its druthers, the administration would have limited US involvement in Libya to tsk tsking from the sidelines. And I suspect in terms of pure US interests the administration would have been right. Further, we have repeatedly warned the Europeans of the dangers of getting half-way involved in this kind of situation.

But England and France are important US allies. They give every evidence of having self-defined intervention in Libya as critical to their national interests, and that's simply not something they have the assets to accomplish on their own. They need our c&c, battlefield intel and, at least initially, our stock of cruise missles and stealth bombers.

Under these circumstances, I can see why the US would reluctantly agree to backstop their military intervention, much the same as when we quietly backstopped England's war with Argentina. Sometimes it's their call; that's the way alliances work.

Just as long as it's THEIR troops on the ground if it comes to that. Their call; their troops. I'm praying that Obama made that abundantly clear.

----

LOL, BBB, you've been watching way too much French TV.

----

Alanalt, I have no idea why Canada has signed up for this potential mess of dog barf, other than its traditional kneejerk Anglophilia may have over-run its good sense. Who knows, maybe your PM was distracted by the on coming no confidence vote.

[TampaYankee]

If it wasn't for NATO - including the British, The French, The Italians, The Spanish and the Portuguese, the Soviets would have fucking taken their entire country instead of half of it.

This is the thanks NATO gets for more than 50 years of defending these people.

We seem to recall different histories. I recall that W Germany, now Germany, being a solid reliable partner in NATO since its inception in contrast to France. In 1967 DeGaulle removed French armed forces from NATO command and kicked out of France all NATO forces. They kept some sort of tenuous political membership. Thus they wanted to have it both ways -- trying to influence the political stance without commiting military support. In addtion to DeGaulle feeling slighted, he wanted to be in a position to cut a separate peace agreement should war break out between the Soviet Eastern Block and West Europe, so it has been reported.

I could go on taking a depricating tone toward France, justifyably, but I prefer to overlook the past since Sarkozy has brought France back much closer to the alliance.

I you are going to piss on Germany over NATO participation from French territory, I adivse wearing heavy rain gear for the blowback.

[Guest zipperzone]

Who knows, maybe your PM was distracted by the on coming no confidence vote.

I don't think distracted is the right word. Elated, perhaps. He got what he wanted and initial indications are that he has a good chance of winning a majority government. I personally think "Shark Eyes" as some call him is a disgusting scoop of dog poop who would have all gays locked up in a NY minute if he had his druthers.

[alanalt]

MSGuy, your Falklands War analogy is not really applicable here. Sure the US provided some valuable diplomatic, intelligence and logistical support to the UK in 1982, but the fighting was done by British forces. In Libya, it's the US that's doing the heavy lifting. The last time I looked, the US was responsible for 2-3 times the aerial sorties and missile strikes of Britain and France combined!! I don't think that there's anyone in NATO who wants to put troops on the ground, rather they're hoping that this can all be resolved in the air as in Kosovo, something I think is highly unrealistic. But, of course, it's hard to know what's 'realistic' since I still have no idea what the actual goal in Libya is! LOL

As for Canada's participation, my theory is that the government is using this as an example of why Canada needs new fighters, the purchase of F-35s being likely to be an issue in the election. But the reality is that Canada's grand participation commits half a dozen fighters and a frigate (which was already in the Med) none of which is really going to make a difference. On the other hand, US forces - which will really make-or-break the success of this whole operation, are being used (under a Canadian general, which is a hoot) in a mission where it's really hard for me to see how US (or even NATO) interests are involved...

And since you brought it up, this may be about the most useless general election we've ever had, which is saying something. It's true the Conservatives are up a bit in the polls, but I'll bet that most of that increased vote will come in seats they already control and that when the dust clears on May 3, we'll see the Conservatives again as the largest party in the House of Commons, but just short of an outright majority - in other words, back to square one...

Alan

[MsGuy]

MSGuy, your Falklands War analogy is not really applicable here. Sure the US provided some valuable diplomatic, intelligence and logistical support to the UK in 1982, but the fighting was done by British forces.

Little known fact: While publicly still plumping for a negotiated solution, the US airlifted a substantial hunk of the war reserve of our latest and greatest air to air missiles to the Azores, where they were loaded aboard the Brit carriers on their way to the South Atlantic. W/O those, the subsonic English Harrier jump jets would have been completely out-classed by the French Mirages flown by the Argentinians. We don't talk about it, for our reasons; the English don't talk about it, for theirs. There were other munitions supplied via the Azores, but the air to air stuff was the sine qua non.

In Libya, it's the US that's doing the heavy lifting. The last time I looked, the US was responsible for 2-3 times the aerial sorties and missile strikes of Britain and France combined!!

I don't mean to minimize the US role in this but my impression is that we are limiting ourself to taking down the Libyan air, air defense, and C&C. Responsiblity for the armor and SP guns (& acting as the tactical air arm of the rebels ) is being tasked to France and England. Since we own all the Stealth and the bulk of the cruise missiles, most of the initial missions would naturally fall to the US.

I don't think that there's anyone in NATO who wants to put troops on the ground, rather they're hoping that this can all be resolved in the air

Which is exactly why the US has been foot dragging for the last 4 weeks. I'm hoping that Obama has positioned us for a "heads we win; tails, you send in the troops" end game in Libya.

I still have no idea what the actual goal in Libya is! LOL

Kadaffy and Sons relocating the family business to Caracas? Dangling at the end of a rope? It's all good. And if we save a few thousand Libyan civilians in the process, why that's a nice bonus.

As for Canada's participation, my theory is that...Blah, blah blah

(Yawn) C'mon, Alan, surely by now you know that we Americans know nothing and care less about Canadian politics.

[BiBottomBoy]

The goal of the Libya thing seems obvious - MoMo and sons dead - either in a ditch or at the end of a rope.

[RA1]

MsGuy-

You surprise me with your knowledge of the military aspects of the US. However, sometimes, I am easily surprised. That is not a stone cast in your direction but remarking only upon the fact that you are "on the side of some intervention"; would that have been true during the late Bush administration? Just curious and just asking.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

KMEM, as far as Libya goes, I was pretty much on the side of tsk tsking and hoping for the best (from far far away). But I am also on the side of maintaining an active alliance with France and England. I am ok with Obama keeping our allies jolly about their relationship with us, giving them a little reminder of how much they are dependant on us to help police their own back yard and, incidentally, picking up a few markers we may need to cash in some day.

As for Bush, I honestly believe any American president perceived as foot dragging on going after al Queda in Afganistan would have risked impeachment. In my lifetime I can't recall anything even remotely like the way folks got worked up about that 9/11 attack. And, near as I can tell, our European Nato allies (not to mention Russia and China) were just relieved the US didn't go totally berserk and start lashing out in all directions.

As for Iraq II, for the life of me I couldn't figure out any sane rationale for the war, was queasy about the possible consequences from the git go and horrified by the incompetance of the idiocracy that was our post 'mission accomplished' administration of Iraq. What else is there to say?

[BiBottomBoy]

Iraq II was all about his daddy issues.

[MsGuy]

Cameron and Sarkozy finally came out of the closet and admitted that their war aim in Libya is regime change and Kadaffy out. Surprise, surprise.

[TampaYankee]

Cameron and Sarkozy finally came out of the closet and admitted that their war aim in Libya is regime change and Kadaffy out. Surprise, surprise.

That's fine as long as they send their troops over to get it done. We could even sell them some A-10s with crash training to take out Khadafy's tanks. We could use the balance of payments.