A few months ago I had lunch with a US army officer who told me that the Germans were “basically running Afghanistan for us.” No doubt having the Germans in Afghanistan is somewhat useful when the US wants to get on with other projects. I was reminded of this when reading the latest egregious anti-European outpourings from the Victor Davis Hanson . The French come in for most of his venom, but the Germans get it too, and then this:
We are in a race for civilization like none other since World War II. And yet, due solely to the courage and skill of an amazing generation of American professional soldiers battling in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are winning — as this difficult war is beginning to resemble 1944 far more than 1939.
Such gratitude! No wonder Hanson Davis finishes by calling for
a much-needed honesty that will soon curtail both the deceitful rhetoric and hypocritical behavior that have insidiously warped us all in the West during the last 20 years.
Chris Brooke has another snippet on Hanson Davis .
I believe the ‘soley’ refers to action in deposing governments. Even in Afghanistan Germany wanted interminable negotiations with the Taliban. On at least 3 occasions before we invaded Afghanistan there were official and very public German promouncements saying that we shouldn’t ‘rush’, that we needed to ‘exhaust all possibilities’ and other diplomatic ways of screaming STOP. Just because Germany didn’t resist as hard as they would in Iraq, doesn’t mean that they didn’t offer a high amount of resistance. The fact that they are helping in the rebuilding is great. But if Schroeder had his way the Taliban would have been removed by non-military force, which is to say in reality not at all.
I believe that Canada has the largest number of troops of any nation in Afghanistan. Might be wrong, but my impression is that we have over 2,000 troops there right now.
And Sebastian, do you have a link to back up that statement about Germany resisting the invasion of Afghanistan?
I believe the ‘soley’ refers to action in deposing governments
Well believe what you like, but it’s quite visible that it doesn’t. The sentence is in the present tense.
Sebastian, this is inaccurate. See here and here for what Schröder said in September and October 2001. Some people in Germany disagreed (there are, among other things, major constitutional issues concerning the use of German armed forces on foreign soil), but you were specifically talking about Schröder, who at that time offered nothing but “unconditional solidarity” with the USA, including military assistance and noted that “the overcoming of the Taliban regime is seen as an integral requirement for a humane future of Afghanistan”.
It’s amazing how wrong-headed conservatives like Sebastian are.
Haven’t we had this conversation before?
It is a fact that the US has more troops in Bosnia and Kosovo than the Germans have in Afghanistan. In fact, the US has more troops in Bosnia and Kosovo than our allies in the aggregate have in Afghanistan.
If we were to simply move those troops from Bosnia and Kosovo and let the Europeans take care of Europe, there’d be no need for German troops in Afghanistan. Our allies, however, object whenever we propose reducing troop levels in Kosovo and Bosnia.
Moreover, the international force in Afghanistan isn’t actually fighting anyone, and wasn’t involved in removing the Taliban from power. Instead, US troops are continuing to do the dirty and dangerous work, as they’ve done all along.
The German government started to get worried as soon as September 16, 2001. CNN link .
At this point they are already using all of the classic phrases which ended up being used in 2002 and 2003.
“This is an attack on the whole of civilisation…Therefore we must react with civil means.”
“Measured response” (the classic European response which never ever works)
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stresses that political responses should be considered alongside military action if existing conflicts were not to be heightened.
I know we are all smart enough to be able to properly interpret Fischer suggestion here. We all know that this is a fairly sharp way of criticising military action.
“Alain Richard, the French defence minister, said the NATO move was a “political declaration” and refused to use the word war to describe the attacks on the U.S.
Germany’s Scharping also insisted: “We do not face a war.”
Nope, no war, not even when talking about Afghanistan.
September 16, 2001. The Germans didn’t resist us very much when we decided to strike in Afghanistan. But do not pretend that they wanted it.
The reuters link I usually use no longer seems to work. Germany made a half-hearted effort to force us to stay within diplomatic channels with Afghanistan. True, it was eventually brought around (mainly by the fact that we didn’t listen to the sillier arguments), but don’t mistake that for enthusiasm. I’m thrilled that Germany is helping the building of Afghanistan (heaven knows why we call it rebuilding).
Anyway, if you are going to complain about Hanson I’m sure you could find something better than carping over the world ‘solely’ by pointing out an AWACS overflight and French boats sitting around. The fact of the matter is that the US has done the fighting, and the Europeans are relieved about that. Unless you are going to argue that there was some strong sentiment that German forces should have been involved on the ground in Afghanistan during the actual invasion….? Hmm, didn’t think so.
Good point; Hanson is over the top.
So, too, are all those who conveniently ignore the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, insisting that our invasion was and remains “unilateral.”
Good grief, Sebastian, that has to be the most half-hearted attempt to prove something that I’ve seen in a loong time. Let’s see if I can summarize.
“Measured response”. You mean, as opposed to an unmeasured repsonse? Hardly a damning phrase.
“German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stresses that political responses should be considered alongside military action.” Why, that treasonous moderate scum. How dare he consider ANYTHING alongside military action. Splutter.
The French Defense Minister “refuses” to use the word “war” to describe the action. Weeelll, there’s your smoking gun!
“September 16, 2001. The Germans didn’t resist us very much when we decided to strike in Afghanistan. But do not pretend that they wanted it.” Aha. they didn’t resist you much. Or at all. That proves your point that they were completely opposed to it.
Sebastian, I must commend you on getting double-think down to a fine art. And remember, this week the chocolate ration was increased from 20 grams to 5 grams.
Fun stu, you think you are able to identify doublethink, but you can’t identify doublespeak. Diplomacy, especially in Europe is all about saying one thing while meaning another. If you can’t recognize that term ‘measured response’ is diplomatic-speak for don’t attack Afghanistan, you don’t know much about diplomacy. If you can’t properly interpret Fischer’s statement as being a ‘yes, but…..’ which becomes a no with interminable delay, I really can’t help that. But go ahead and believe that Fisher’s response is support. Try using your analytic abilities on all sides of an argument, you might be surprised that people who agree with you can be misleading too.
Hey, if we can start interpreting people’s words in any way we want that supports our arguments as the sole burden of proof, it’s going to get interesting.
C’mon, point to a UN resolution or veto or something. There’s just GOT to be more to your argument than this.
Sebastian,
You might be right that the Germans thought the US should deal with the Taliban by diplomacy rather than vi et armis; then again you might be wrong.
Whatever about that, the fact remains that after the US had gone into Afghanistan and done some whupping, Schröder sent troops to shoulder some of the Americans’ burden. As Mr Behrends has noted, this was no easy undertaking. Quite apart from the German constitutional issues, the move was highly controversial, not least within Schröder’s own party and that of his coalition partners, the Greens. Schröder literally bet his office on the issue, submitting to a confidence vote (he survived, obviously, though not without a bit of mildly entertaining grand guignol).
You really ought to be a bit more thankful to our Hun cousins. After all, even Bush managed a grunt of gratitude.
Just for the record: the brigade-plus (5,500 personnel) ISAF force in Kabul was led for the first 18 months by the commander of the senior national contingent present… first Britain, then Turkey, then Germany. In August the Germans handed it over to NATO officially, with an overall HQ drawn from all of NATO. It has as its major military element a brigade with three battle groups (ie, battalions): Canadian, French and German. Canada currently also supplies the brigade headquarters. The overall commander on the ground is German. His second-in-command and brigade commander are both Canadians.
Seems like a lot of detail oriented positioning to claim credit for defending the Mayor of Kabul.
Who’s in charge of the hinterlands in Afghanistan? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
I’m not ungrateful. I’m thrilled that they are doing something. But 5,500 troops isn’t very many so I don’t think you need to go overboard about the amazing stuff they are doing either.
And none of this changes the fact that even in Afghanistan Germany never would have put actual troops in play during the invasion. And France had minor air support, which we couldn’t even rely on because they would refuse to provide covering fire when requested by ground troops. As mentioned above, the NATO forces in question don’t even approach the US commitment to Kosovo, and they have to rely on us for logistical support. Maybe it is difficult for Germany to place troops, but frankly they aren’t placing many in the scheme of things. I think that is really part of the problem. Many European governments seem to think that token help somehow entitles them to full decision-making participation. (Though that is more regularly a French failing than a German one.) When Germany can regularly help out as much as Australia they can complain about not getting enough gratitude.
Stu, if you think that most diplomacy gets carried out at the UN Resolution level, you are sadly mistaken. Last I heard, Germany can’t veto in the UN. So asking me to point out a German veto is a bit much.
Sebastian,
I don’t pretend the German contribution in Afghanistan is amazing stuff. Getting German troops in country was a little amazing, though, given the domestic oppostion Schröder (and Fischer) needed to overcome.
David seems a bit sniffy about them defending the mayor of Kabul. Do let the Germans know that they’re not needed; I’m sure they’d be glad to come home. In fact, telling them so would seem a logical next step in America’s brilliantly successful coalition-building programme.
Sebastian Holsclaw at January 13, 2004 05:52 PM
I guess that the American government got what it was looking for in the decades following WWII, an essentially pacific Germany. The fact that the Germans aren’t going to turn around on a dime and start supporting all American foreign “interventions” must be galling to conservatives. But, the fact is that the American gov’t got what it was looking for.
Tangent.
If that second post regarding Victor Davis Hanson is true, this Judith Hallet character really looks bad. Yep.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/05/25/the_farmer/
I cannot even imagine. What a self parody.
Sebastian,
The us commitment in Kosovo is around 2500 troops and the presence in Bosnia is around 1500.
So the Nato presence in afghanistan is larger.
It seems odd that Hanson is regarded as a serious commentator on current affairs, when he’s regarded as something of a joke within his own specialised area… a man who keeps writing the same book, who his mistaken his own theory for evidence.
As for Franco-German opposition on Afghanistan, let’s not forget that they offered full support to America but did so as part of NATO… only when Bush and Co scorned NATO did any reservations begin to be raised.
Why the obsession with France & Germany? What about China, India or even Canada and Mexico?
Is Hanson regarded as a joke within his own area? Tell us more. I’ve wondered. I once read his (and that other guy’s) Who Killed Homer? and thought it was astonishingly silly. It keeps talking about ‘thinking like the Greeks’ as if they’d all thought the same thing, or even close to it.
Come on, guys, where’s the love for Togo and Benin?
But seriously, the Bush position of denigrating the capability of the allies on one day but trumpeting their involvement on the next may be expedient in the short run, but it has consequences.
If you’re willing to bear those consequences and the risks associated with them, just admit it.
Kenny has it exactly right, and I retract a portion of my earlier statement: our allies in the aggregate have about 1500 more troops in Afghanistan than we have in Kosovo and Bosnia.
I don’t retract, and emphatically restate if I didn’t make it clear before, my belief that the German contribution is utterly inconsequential and could be replaced without much difficulty at all.
Well, calling what he writes a joke is perhaps a little strong, but he has really only had two ideas of any value.
The first was that in Greek warfare people fought to protect their land as a largely symbolic space, rather than as a genuinely productive area; the Greeks only had three major crops, being olives, vines, and wheat, and attacks on the crops could only seriously damage one of the three, being the wheat.
Unfortunately, the ancient sources are quite open about the fact that this is exactly what enemies attacked, so his claim is hardly new. What’s more, it’s not as if the Greeks got a mere third of their calories from wheat and two thirds from wine and olive oil! Attacks on crops really threatened Greek states.
Secondly, Hanson generated the most compelling picture of Greek battle ever in ‘The Western Way of War’. Unfortunately, in his determination to believe there was a ‘Greek way of war’, which inspired and indeed inspires our way of war, he mistook his map for the territory.
It looks like Greek states fought in many different ways at different times in their history, with different martial philosophies and expectations. Contrary to the central belief of Hanson’s book, and everything he’s written since, when the Greeks spoke of battle, they hardly ever meant a clear pitched battle fought by heavily armed farmers who would not cease fighting until the result of the battle was no longer in doubt. There was no ‘Greek way of war’; ancient Greece was a school of war.
Hanson put forward the latter thesis in 1989; since then he has merely rehashed these flawed arguments again and again, allowing no new ideas in, and refusing even to consider that his theories might not perfectly reflect the realities of ancient warfare.
His views on modern warfare are grounded wholly in his misconceptions of Antiquity.
Why the obsession with France & Germany? What about China, India or even Canada and Mexico?
Because the ungrateful bastards have the third and fifth largest military budgets in the world, and are considering merging their defense establishments into the alliance of the Chocolate Makers, therefore becomming the second largest military in the world. (it would only make them a quarter the size of the US, but way to powerful to be taken head on)
Hanson is no worse than the European politicians who openly equate Bush with Hitler. The Germans may well have the largest number of troops in Afghanistan but I’d bet the number is lower than the number of US troops in Germany (still). As for their ‘sophisticated’ way of dealing with thugs - Milosivic would still be filling his mass graves if it weren’t for the ‘naive’ Americans (again)!
>Seems like a lot of detail oriented positioning to claim credit for defending the Mayor of Kabul.
>Who’s in charge of the hinterlands in Afghanistan?
I know this one too! It’s the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, isn’t it?
Séan a mhic,
there are doubtless many more US troops in Germany than German troops in Afghanistan. I think you will find, though, that the missions are rather different. (I don’t think the GIs are guarding the mayor of Heidelberg, for example).
…”if Schroeder had his way the Taliban would have been removed by non-military force, which is to say in reality not at all”…
Milosivic would still be filling his mass graves if it weren’t for the ‘naive’ Americans
Conservatives really are masterful predictors of counterfactual history. Throw in a bunch of assertions about welfare, minorities, frivolous lawsuits, and repressive regulations, and you really have the whole steaming pile of cr*p that is popular conservative political idealogy. In my opinion, of course.
A point though: we lefties, in an effort to be reasonable and moderate (and to lend credibility to our Iraq war opposition) often concede the “necessity” of a war in Afghanistan. But was it so? The Taliban offered to turn over OBL. Whether they would have is not known. We could have definitely pressured them. We could have put an enormous force in a deserted corner of Afghanistan, told them we were coming for him and to destroy the al Queda facilities (if there were any) and at the first hint of resistence, go ahead and prosecute the war.
The Taliban and Arab al Queda did not speak the same language (less than .01% of Afghans speak Arabic) were culturally distinct, did not share aims. The Taliban were 70% illiterate, most had never travelled far from their birthplace. I’d bet a tiny minority had ever been on an airplane. These were not the same as college-educated Saudi Arabians and Egyptians who knew how to fly airliners. Al Queda was morphed into the Taliban by our political masters (and then into Iraq).
But it’s not clear it had to be so. Conservatives scoff at the idea of a well-armed police action, instead of war. But could the Taliban have been persuaded to allow the US to crush al Queda in exchange for cash and/or their limited survival? They were strangers to each other. This might have a worse outcome for the country (for women?) but it isn’t indisputable that the proper thing, the humane thing, was done.
But like Tom Friedman’s newest version of the real rationale for the Iraq war, I think a hyperforceful police action wouldn’t have provided the necessary fireworks - for the demonstration effect on muslims and for the bloodthirsty bastards cheering the home team.
I really should stop, but:
if conservatives think anything short of a complete war in Afghanistan “just would not have worked” to solve the al queda problem…
then they are either extremely extremely extremely sure of this prediction, or they ascribe very very very little value to the 1000-3000 innocent Afghans killed. Which is it?
To my - “Milosivic would still be filling his mass graves if it weren’t for the ‘naive’ Americans.”
I get - “Conservatives really are masterful predictors of counterfactual history. Throw in a bunch of assertions about welfare, minorities, frivolous lawsuits, and repressive regulations, and you really have the whole steaming pile of cr*p that is popular conservative political idealogy. In my opinion, of course.”
You are entitled to your opinion, but given that you have not addressed the subject and have resorted to insults, I will give it as much consideration as your opinion that your wife is good looking and your children are smart!
“Conservatives really are masterful predictors of counterfactual history. Throw in a bunch of assertions about welfare, minorities, frivolous lawsuits, and repressive regulations, and you really have the whole steaming pile of cr*p that is popular conservative political idealogy. In my opinion, of course.”
What crap. We don’t have to spin counterfactual webs. The UN had its chance for 12 years with Saddam. He remained firmly in power the whole time. France, Germany and Russia gave up in January 2002 when they suggested that the UN should remove sanctions and all relations to be normalized with Iraq.
Peaceful international pressure did nothing in Kosovo except let thousands of civilians get slaughtered.
Peaceful international pressure hasn’t helped much against Mugabe either, but that might be because the French prefer to invite him to their parties.
That is actual history. No counterfactuals need. But feel free to continue ignoring it.
In answer to you last comment though…
No reasonable person (conservative or otherwise) could be absolutely certain of anything.
But, your use of “We” in - “WE could have definitely pressured them. WE could have put an enormous force in a deserted corner of Afghanistan…” sounds a little hollow.
Your beloved UN sanctioned operations in Afghanistan and all we hear from you is how WE should have done it differently.
Seems like WE are damned if we do and damned if we don’t!
Note: WE is taken to be the US as they’re the only ones who are able to DO anything.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review