Trent:
This is worrisome. I see a combination of hubris and agressivenss creeping in. The American administration is learning the wrong lesson. It isn't just muscular military action, there's diplomacy, intelligence sharing, free trad eetc. Quite frankly, I'm not impressed at America's adeptness on those fronts. I'm sure I'll be proven wrong but for now I'll maitian my position.

It's too bad Schorder and Chirac screwed up but I hate to break it to the administration: Germany and France are still important economies and no matter how much Eastern Europe will benefit with the eastward shif of NATO, Eastern Europe isn't the continents motor. To reiterate my turgid position, politically isolating France and Germany and tanking their economies ill-serves American interests.
America with a few countries on the good guys list can't run the world economy. Weak South Korean, German and French economies will only reinforce anti-Americanism in each country because the population will percieve that America maliciously damaged their economies to serve as both as a lesson (no one will ever dare oppose the U.S.) and as a warning (if you ever do, your economy tanks immediately)
Worse is that it'll make the war on terrorism last longer than it should because of the cold relations between like minded countries.

xavier

I disagree that the withdrawl of US troops will have any national (as opposed to local or regional) impact on Germany or on Schröder politically. It's a point I've repeated a few times at my own blog.

- Most of the troops are already gone. The number of US troops in Germany in 1990 was about 400,000. By 2001 that was down to about 75,000.

- Those troops are concentrated in southwestern Germany, areas that already voted against Schröder and the SPD in the last election. I, for instance, live near Hamburg, and the impact of the US military on our local economy is nil.

- Assuming rather generously that each soldier supports one local job, the impact of an immediate total withdrawl would be the loss of 75,000 jobs. Germany currently has nearly 5 million unemployed. An extra 75,000 would be a drop in the bucket.

- The presence or absence of US troops will make absolutely no impact on German defense spending, since homeland defence is no longer a priority for the German military. German military policy today is focused more on Europe (EU/NATO) and special forces.

xavier,

Ruthlessness and agression are signatures of the American government at war. Get used to it.

France and Germany are irrelevant because they chose to be, not because of anything America did. Iraq simply forced the American government's Euro-phils to admit to that reality.

As far as I am concerned, NATO and multi-lateral trans-Atlantic security lost it's moral credibility in Srebrenicia. It lost it's military credibility in Kosovo. It lost it's political utility over Afghanistan. And it became a flat hinderance and a tool of America's enemies in Iraq.

The American Straussian neo-cons are winning the foreign policy debate inside the American government because they have something and their multi-lateralist opponents in the Federal Executive branch, Congress, Europe and the global media have NOTHING.

You cannot beat something with nothing.

Multi-lateralism has failed the audit of war and will cease to be anything but a minor and career ending (for the fools that suggest it) tool of American diplomacy.

Scott,

I made no claim about all of Germany. I said the following:

"This pull out will tube the Bavarian economy, which at the moment is the strongest and most capitalist province in Germany."

Trent,

You did however argue that stationing troops is a way to reward friends and punish enemies. The German economy is simply too big for punishment to work here.

If only the Bavarian economy gets tubed, then Schröder will really enjoy it, given the permanent absolute CSU majority there and state elections coming up this fall.

(And one could argue whether the interventionist policies of the Bavarian state government, e.g. massive loans to Kirch, are particularly capitalist or not.)

Relations with France and Germany will improve when the next political generation moves up. The current generation may have hastened their demise with their over the top anti Americanism and insensitivity to the internal politics of their countries.

Corruption cedrtainly isn't helping them but, that seems almost a side issue to the trend.

Hmmm, where to start with the disagreements.

[1] That making every country in the world a democracy is a sane, desirable, or extant goal of U.S. foreign policy - extrapolates far too much from a regional solution to a global one.

[2] The damaging or even slowing Russian oil production is U.S. policy, given the demographics and projected worldwide demand which this administration well knows. Both Iraq and Russia will be encouraged to ramp up, with diplomacy around Russia centered on keeping Central Asia from becoming Russian vassal-states by giving them other transport options for their oil & gas (that means Turkey, and one day maybe Iran too).

[3] That the troop pullout itself will be an economic blow to Germany, though the Germans understand that it signifies weaker ties and distrust. THAT is what they fear, because lower American demand for their products WOULD be a serious punch.

There are moves afoot by the Americans to reduce their dependence on Germany, and France will be punished. South Korea is also learning that the U.S. will no longer be jerked around, and that their alternatives are narrowing to "base the Americans where they choose, or kiss them goodbye." These are all good things (xavier and I disagree there), and rather than reinforcing anti-Americanism it will quiet it sharply by making the game cost something real. Living in Canada, where he can see the beginnings of this effect first-hand, I'm surprised Xavier made this mistake.

"Salvage & Destroy" isn't a bad way of seeing current policy, and it yields some real insights if used judiciously. But triumphalism ill-befits a country still in the middle of its war, and stringing together a number of leaps of logic on questionable foundations will yield a scenario whose uncertainties and unlikelihood multiply with each addition. I wouldn't put 5 cents on this plan as presented, a plan which obscures rather than illuminates the key point of the article.

Xavier,Chirac and Scroeder took the anti-American line partly because they calculated there wouldn't be any serious payback from the Americans.So far,they have been right.Both know that whatever the amount of invective created,USA will still protect their countries from external threats,just as it has done for the past 60 years.

On the plus side,Schroeder won the election that could have ousted him from power. Chirac,meanwhile has gained unprecedented popularity in his own country as well as lots of new friends in the Arab world.So what's there to lose?Anti-Americanism having proven a winning formula,it will now be used over and over again in European politics.In a short time,"blaming the yank" has gone from a marginal leftist position to a vote-winner in most European countries.

In other words,if you think this is it,well,you ain't seen nothing yet.

"Too flippin' late Fritz, America is leaving."

Oogh. I do hope that the 'adults' in charge of our country have a plan that amounts to more than pouting and sulking, and taking our ball and going home. While it might feel good to be able to say 'So there, you rotten europeans, how do you like that? You won't have Dick Nix^HH^HH^HH^HHAmerica to kick around anymore!' it really strikes me as something less than a... productive approach.

Evidently, Andrew and xavier advocate approaches that result in France and Germany avoiding the consequences of their own actions. Trying to cast the action they disagree with as "juvenile" is a poor way to present an argument. Finding it sophisticated to continue to subsidize countries that undermine us is a rather bizarre position.

Dailypundit has also covered this topic and 2 Germans actually gave their opinions.

No biggie. But we've made our arguments, they've made theirs and now it's "wait and see."

Besides, we move out and that's one less thing they can rag US about. I'm tired of their whining AND it has been 60 years. However, with this last little collaboration and delusions of grandeur, move em out. Talk about not growing up, yeesh.

I hope we're not leaving Germany. I liked my duty there, when my son enlisted I recommended it to him.

So, my son just got to Germany in January, now has to go to Iraq for a year, has an enlistment contract for EUROPE, not some bleak place like Ft. Riley, Kansas.

Sheesh, bad enough to have occupation duty for one year, but then to have to go from there to Nowhere, USA instead of the pleasant Bundesland of Hesse, that sucks.

for one, the sf-chronicle is riddled with errors and misrepresentations. check my entry here and please tell me who the f%ck is Hasenstein. Second, Koch as a Christian Democrat will use anything (even 250 in 5 million) to attack Schroeder on economic issues. Finally, please stop confusing criticism with anti-Americanism. Where does that crap come from? Our countries have been good friends for over 50 years, we disagree with you and consequently don't support you on one issue, and suddenly we're anti-American?
Finally, as to whether the US needs Europe, well it seems Kissinger disagrees here. And while K. may not be particularly influential (though he's on the Def. Pol. Board) he definitivly is an expert in foreign affairs.

brmic, don't confuse anti-Americanism with criticism.

Because that's what's driving this whole thing from the European populace, anti-Americanism. It's been there for decades, and building. When it came up in public, which was often, Americans have previously been polite enough to pretend to not notice.

Well, no more. We've had it.

As to the European leadership, that's been driven by motives much more cynical and self-serving than anti-Americanism, but they were happy to piggyback on the anti-Americanism of the populace.

Spare us the backpedaling and the "oh we were only criticizing, can't we do that?" Old Europe was actively conspiring with the enemies of the United States. Knowingly. In the expectation that the US would do nothing, and it would be a win-win for them. Well, this time it ain't gonna work that way. Get used to it.

As to all this claim that "we're still allies", keep telling yourself that. Because that's not how it looks from over here.

Joe:
My concern is just how sincere will the pro-Americanism be in some countries? To me, we'll just see a façade of pro-Americanism; at worse we'll see some will reduce their bilateral relationships because they'll conclude that right now it just isn't worth the aggravation to irriatate the Americans no matter how trivial a disagreement.
I'm preparing a blog article on a strange decision brought about by the Administrationn's desire to punish those countries that opposed the war.

Trent:
The world might get used to ruthlessless and agression but that doesn't mean it'll put up with it for very long.

Robert: No I don't advocate that France in particular should be immune from the consequences of its action. What I expect is proportionality that's lacking. I'm not the only one increasing voicing this concern:
cf:
http://www.beautifulhorizons.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_beautifulhorizons_archive.html#93627928
He's American living in Brazil (Belo Horizante to be specific)

xavier

xavier,
You're daft if you think ruthlessness and aggression haven't always been the law of the land. It's just that before it was much more hidden.

Two comments about Germany: (1) It has often been said in the past that NATO in Europe was to keep the US in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. It will be interesting if the British people still feel that way. The troops have not been needed to keep the Germans down for decades but bad feelings sometimes last. (2) The divide between North and South Germany is even larger than that between East and West Germany these days. The US should suggest that Bavaria join the EU as a member state instead of as a state within Federal Germany. If the Germans are serious about the EU this shouldn't bother them but somehow I think the mere suggestion would drive them crazy.

The mere suggestion will cause the Spanish and the English (who have Basque and Scottish/Welsh independence movements to consider) to at least start debating the EU situation again.

ruprecht, it is my impression that the EU promotes regional identity at the expense of national identity, the better for it to supersede national identity. What I saw in Europe were constant references, celebrations and promotions of these "regions," e.g. an exhibit/festival regarding the Castile/Leon region of Spain in Amsterdam, Sicilian exhibitions/food fairs in Ireland. All funded by the EU. Degrade the national to establish the supernational.

Klaatu, I do not disagree. My point is that the Eu elites have considered this and probably accepted it as necessary but the masses have not absorbed the ramifications.

It's one thing to be proud of your province, its another to have direct representation.It's one thing for Germany to promote the EU, and another to watch the wealthy Bavarian taxbase leave the Federal Republic.

Yes, I agree, ruprecht. This is a totally EU elite-driven strategy: seemingly innocuous but insidious. They are trying to promote regional identity, get people to think of themselves as Bavarians, Sicilians, etc.

Trent - I know we don't see eye to eye on many issues around Europe, but skipping that, I think your hubris is writing checks that America really can't cash...

The thing that the anti-Americans forget is their irrelevance. America is strong enough now that it can dispense with unreliable allies....to do what?? Beat a third- or fourth-rate conventional military?? yes, we can do that, and no individual state - not even China - can realistically stand up to our military; but there are a lot of states out there.

I think you're misreading changes in the American-European alliance...which were inevitible after the fall of the Wall...with sea chanegs in the role of America in the world.

I'll chew on this and maybe blog something...

A.L.

I said most of this in the comments section of another post, but it bears repeating here.

To start with, the old relationship with Germany has failed the audit of war.

Germany is in a peaceful backwater and the bases we have there are too far away from where America needs to project military power -- Central Asia and the Middle East.

Exactly what is in it for America to more troops back to Germany from the Middle East? We did that after the first Gulf War. Why should we incur those costs to return troops to German bases again and chance their deployment being held hostage to German domestic politics next time?

Hells bells, the nominally more allied Italians held up the deployment of the 173rd Brigade to Iraq for 2-3 days. Something that was missed by the newsies during the war.

The chances that the Germans will do the same in the future approaches certainty because the Italians got away with it this time.

Nope. You are going to see a permanent rotating deployment of one to two heavy divisions to Iraq with Germany virtually American ground troop free.

The advantages in sailing time for American fast sea lift ships to the Mid-East with heavy equipment from the American East Coast, compared to a German Baltic or North Sea ports, amounts to 12-48 hours. It just is not worth putting up with continental European politics for the sake of that small time advantage.

America will have a forward garrision in Iraq to cover heavy equipment preposition sets of another 1-2 heavy divisions for troops airlifted from America. Bases in Europe will be primarily for American air refueling tankers and naval stores.

And please note, Rumsfeld was planning this German base realignment back during the Bush Administration transition in 2001. The political manna from the Iraqi victory gave him his window to do what he wanted too anyway.

Trent -

You're making my point. This isn't a punitive response to Germany's bad behavior, it's a rational one to respond to the real threats our military needs to face.

A.L.

A.L.,

Good politicans rarely do anything for a single reason. That is the mark of good policymaking.

What I detect throughout much of this thread is a blurring of personal feelings/perceptions about individuals (whether they be French, German, American, or whatever), versus what constitutes a coherent foreign policy and defense posture for the US or Europe. People can't decide if they personally hate Chirac, selected Frenchmen, all French, or just the policies of the French government. Americans, on the whole, have taken this a lot more personally than Europeans probably expected.

I have friends throughout Europe and none of the events of the past 18 months has had any real effect on those friendships. I understand their concerns about the US throwing its weight around a bit recklessly, they understand my frustration about Euros giving us the middle finger after all the sacrifices we have made in protecting their freedoms. We leave it at that.

However, as a coherent foreign policy for the US, it makes no sense to have unreliable allies, or to locate troops where they cannot be effectively brought to bear against the most likely threats. The "facts on the ground" are that Germany and France, as official policy, actively atempted to thwart us in a legitimate and morally admirable cause, and gave assistance to an adversary. Furthermore, this is part of a broad, ongoing pattern of behavior, and appears to reflect popular opinion in those countries. I think most Americans take the view of "do your arguing inside the house, not out on the street". France and Germany took it to the street.

If France and Germany believe that their foreign policy, economic, and defense interests are vastly different from ours, it is their perogative to form their own alliances and military force to defend those interests (personally, I think it's a crazy idea on numerous fronts). France has for many years had a "let's have it both ways" foreign policy, and they need to rethink that. As for a multi-polar world, we tried that 100 years ago and wound up with that lovely production known fondly as World War I.

It also makes sense for the US to reorient its policies and alliances. I don't think this is a one-time disagreement; it's a fundamental and lasting shift in foreign policy views. In the world of foreign affairs, it is better to have weak but reliable allies than to have unreliable ones. As mentioned in other posts, the nature of the threat has also changed dramatically since 1989.

It is now the policy of the US to remove terrorists and the rogue states that sponsor them, using unilateral force only as a last resort. The majority of Americans support this policy, and we need allies who support this policy. Americans are simply not going to let their national security be held hostage by French or German politicians trying to win popularity contests at home. If France and Germany believe that these regimes should be supported, defended, or negotiated with ad infinitum, let them do so separately and without the baggage of pretending to be our allies. On the other hand, a lot of Americans also have personal friends in Europe, and will continue to do so.

Realistically, this argument only has two sides (ignoring abstinence as a "side"). If you attempt to thwart the US in dealing with terrorists and their sponsoring states, you are, de facto, supporting those states. The messages Americans are getting from Europe are "we hate oppression" and "we're opposed to regime change". It comes off sounding rather incoherent and silly. After all, you can't really be against hangovers and in favor of drinking binges. Noble though both causes may be, they are logically inconsistent with each other.

The Bush Administration, in spite of other shortcomings, reached the conclusion (rightly, I think) that these regimes (Iraq, Syria, N. Korea, et. al.) are not interested in negotiating, compromising, or "making nice" with us. As with any totalitarian regime, they play an elaborate shell game designed to extract concessions from us, keep them in power, and keep their citizenry oppressed. On the other hand, they understand the harsh reality of being on the receiving end of a smart bomb quite well - sort of a "Big Carrot, Big (and accurately aimed) Stick" approach.

As for personal feelings between Americans and Europeans, I'm reminded of a conversation I overheard once between an American co-worker and an Indian co-worker. The American wondered why all the Indians he knew seemed so mellow, intelligent, and hard working. The Indian fellow said, "because that's the kind who come over here; trust me, there are plenty of loud, lazy dumb-asses back in India" (picture this being said in a lilting, Hindo-British accent).

I've run into a few rude, arrogant Frenchmen in several trips to Paris, but there were far more who were friendly and helpful. There's lots of stereotyping going on, and things being taken personally. It's entirely possible to have French and German friends, travel in Europe, be trading partners, and at the same time disagree with French and German foreign policy, or even, perish the thought, not be official allies. In the end, it's people who are friends, not countries.

DL
Washington, DC

DL, that was a remarkably well-argued and coherent comment. Thanks for taking the time, that was great.

Yeah!! What he (Joe) said.

I'm reserving much of my judgement on this to see if the more hyoperbolic claims of duplicity (passports in Syria, etc.) prove out.

I am highly confident that France and Germany (along with much of the EU) supported Hussein in a number of legal and probably extralegal ways, and that they did so both because they saw it as their geopolitical interest, and because Saddam exploited the corruption inherent in any large bureaucracy.

I need to talk more about corruption and bureaucracy, but have an old post on the subject.

A.L.

"¹ That making every country in the world a democracy is a sane, desirable, or extant goal of U.S. foreign policy - extrapolates far too much from a regional solution to a global one."

We are not talking a five year plan. We are talking a 100 year plan. I like it.

"² The damaging or even slowing Russian oil production is U.S. policy, given the demographics and projected worldwide demand which this administration well knows."

The projections do not take into account changes in technology. Hybrid vehicles coming on to the market in a big way in the 2004 model year will start to slow world wide oil consumption. Part of the reason for the war is that the oil producers now have a limited time to sell their goods before demand collapses. Oil left in the ground 20 years hence will not have the value it has today.

It will take 5 to 7 years before the new technologies are sufficiently deployed to start to bite economically.

After 15 to 20 years of hybrid vehicle production wind derrived hydrogen will start to be cost effective. That is when oil use will really start to decline.

The thing to remember about this war is that what motivates the enemy soldier is not necessarily what motivates his master.