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

Monday, April 16, 2007

Sweet Dreams

Abrham Linconln is attributed with saying "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." That is a quote to keep in mind as one ponders this excellent essay by Victor David Hanson.

I recently had a dream that British marines fought back, like their forefathers of old, against criminals and pirates. When taken captive, they proved defiant in their silence. When released, they talked to the tabloids with restraint and dignity, and accepted no recompense.

I dreamed that a kindred German government, which best knew the wages of appeasement, cut-off all trade credits to the outlaw Iranian mullahs — even as the European Union joined the Americans in refusing commerce with this Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic, and thuggish regime.

NATO countries would then warn Iran that their next unprovoked attack on a vessel of a member nation would incite the entire alliance against them in a response that truly would be of a “disproportionate” nature.

In this apparition of mine, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in Syria at the time, would lecture the Assad regime that there would be consequences to its serial murdering of democratic reformers in Lebanon, to fomenting war with Israel by means of its surrogates, and to sending terrorists to destroy the nascent constitutional government in Iraq.

She would add that the United States could never be friends with an illegitimate dictatorship that does its best to destroy the only three democracies in the region. And then our speaker would explain to Iran that a U.S. Congresswoman would never detour to Tehran to dialogue with a renegade government that had utterly ignored U.N. non-proliferation mandates and daily had the blood of Americans on its hands.

Fellow Democrats like John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Harry Reid would add that, as defenders of the liberal tradition of the West, they were not about to call a retreat before extremist killers who behead and kidnap, who blow up children and threaten female reformers and religious minorities, and who have begun using poison gas, all in an effort to annihilate voices of tolerance in Iraq.

These Democrats would reiterate that they had not authorized a war to remove the psychopathic Saddam Hussein only to allow the hopeful country to be hijacked by equally vicious killers. And they would warn the world that their differences with the Bush administration, whatever they might be, pale in comparison to the shared American opposition to the efforts of al Qaeda, the Taliban, Syria, and Iran to kill any who would advocate freedom of the individual.

Those in Congress would not deny that Congress itself had voted for a war against Saddam on 23 counts — the vast majority of which had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and remain as valid today as when they were approved in 2002.

Congressional Democrats would make clear that, while in the interests of peace they might wish to talk to Iran, they had no idea how to approach a regime that subsidizes Holocaust denial, threatens to wipe out Israel, defies the world in seeking nuclear weapons, trains terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq, engages in piracy and hostage taking, and butchers or incarcerates any of its own who question the regime.

. . . I also dreamed that the British government only laughed at calls to curtail studies of the Holocaust in deference to radical Muslims, and instead repeatedly aired a documentary on its sole Victoria Cross winner in Iraq. The British, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, and Spanish foreign ministers would collectively warn the radical Islamic world that there would be no more concessions to the pre-rational primeval mind, no more backpeddling and equivocating on rioting and threats over cartoons or operas or papal statements. There would be no more apologies about how the West need make amends for a hallowed tradition that started 2,500 years ago with classical Athens, led to the Italian Republics of the Renaissance, and inspired the liberal democracies that defeated fascism, Japanese militarism, Nazism, and Communist totalitarianism, and now are likewise poised to end radical Islamic fascism.

Europeans would advise their own Muslim immigrants, from London to Berlin, that the West, founded on principles of the Hellenic and European Enlightenments, and enriched by the Sermon on the Mount, had nothing to apologize for, now or in the future. Newcomers would either accept this revered culture of tolerance, assimilation, and equality of religions and the sexes — or return home to live under its antithesis of seventh-century Sharia law.

Media critics of the ongoing war might deplore our tactics, take issue with the strategy, and lament the failure to articulate our goals and values. But they would not stoop to the lies of “no blood for oil” — not when Iraqi petroleum is now at last under transparent auspices and bid on by non-American companies, even as the price skyrockets and American ships protect the vulnerable sea-lanes, ensuring life-saving commerce for all importing nations.

I also dreamed that no columnist, no talking head, no pundit would level the charge of “We took our eye off bin Laden in Afghanistan” when they themselves had no answer on how to reach al Qaedists inside nuclear Pakistan, a country ruled by a triangulating dictator and just one bullet away from an Islamic theocracy.

…

And then I woke up, remembering that the West of old lives only in dreams. Yes, the new religion of the post-Westerner is neither the Enlightenment nor Christianity, but the gospel of the Path of Least Resistance — one that must lead inevitably to gratification rather than sacrifice.

Once one understands this new creed, then all the surreal present at last makes sense: life in the contemporary West is so good, so free, so undemanding, that we will pay, say, and suffer almost anything to enjoy its uninterrupted continuance — and accordingly avoid almost any principled act that might endanger it.

Read the entire article here. The only thing I would add is that Mr. Hanson failed to finish with a descritiption of the only possible logical concluding act to the Path of Last Resistance.

Read More...

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Europe - Islamicization From Within

I had previously posted here and here on the rising tide of Islam in Europe based on information from Gates of Vienna. Today, in the Washington Times, Paul Belien takes a sobering look at Muslim's voting patterns and their impact on European politics.

For almost four decades, Muslims have been the fastest-growing segment of the population in Western Europe. As a consequence, the Muslim vote is becoming ever more important. This first became apparent in the September 2002 general elections in Germany, when Socialist candidate Gerhard Schroeder beat Conservative opponent Edmund Stoiber with the slightest of margins -- barely 8,864 votes. Germany is home to almost 700,000 Turkish-German voters -- in addition to nearly 3 million non- (or rather not-yet-) voting Turkish immigrants. The Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Schroeder.

They did so again in 2005, though then the native, or "German-German," vote went to the right to such an extent that it resulted in a narrow victory for Christian-Democrat candidate Angela Merkel. As time goes by, however, it will become ever more difficult to counter the Muslim voting bloc.

Last year the Muslim vote tipped the balance toward the left in the local elections in both the Netherlands and Belgium. . . .

Most of the immigrants who came to Europe during the past decades were attracted by the generous welfare benefits that Western Europe lavishly bestows on the "underprivileged." Today, as more and more young Muslims reach voting age, European parties have begun to cater to Islamist causes. Left-wing politicians in Europe introduce separate swimming hours for women in public pools, impose halal food on cafeterias and demand that schools banish the Holocaust from history lessons.

Pundits who predict that Western Europe is about to witness a shift to the anti-immigrant right are mistaken. This trend will be over by the end of the decade, when the impact of the immigrant vote will move European politics dramatically to the left. The right's chances of winning elections are dwindling.

. . . Nicolas Sarkozy, the candidate of the ruling center-right UMP party, . . . is speaking out loudly against an Islamist takeover of French urban neighborhoods, such as the Parisian suburbs. If Mr. Sarkozy's strategy proves to be the right one, it shows that many French have come to realize that these elections offer the last chance to preserve something of the old France.

Some politicians on the European far-right, however, seem convinced that the Islamization of Western Europe has become inevitable. Like the parties of the left, they hope to counter electoral decline by striking a deal with the Islamists. This explains why last week Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the anti-immigrant National Front in France, emphasized that, unlike Mr. Sarkozy, he does not want to "clean the suburbs out with a high pressure hose." Mr. Le Pen told the Muslim youths in the suburbs: "You are the branches of the French tree. You are as French as can be." . . .
Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Sunday, April 1, 2007

Our German . . . Ally?

If you are not a student of military history, you might not get get the significnce of this picture. It is a picture is of General George S. Patton pissing in the Rhine, circa 1944. As you read on, I think you will find it an approrpriate commentary.


According to recent polls, where is America more popular - Iran or Germany?

Iran, of course. Over 50% of people polled in Iran within the past twelve months have a positive view of the US. It is one of the few countries in this world where our currency is rising. That shouldn't be a surprise - the theocracy has mucked up their country just incredibly badly while blaming all evil in this world on the Great Satan. Thus, the Iranians, disenchanted with the mad mullahs, are thinking that, if the mullahs are dead set against it, then maybe the Great Satan isin't so bad after all.

Not so with Germany, who feel it stylish to believe the Americans uneducated and uncultured boors. Not only do they detest America, but after years of a steady diet of anti-Americanism from Government and the media, 48% of Germans believe that the US is a greater threat to the world then a soon to be nuclear armed Iran. With allies like these . . . ?

David at Medienkritik has been saying for years that German media bias against the U.S. is the worst in Europe. I did not fully grasp the depth of hatred for America in Germany until reading this article written by Der Speigel's Berlin bureau chief. He examines this curious German phenomenon - and is appalled.

Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs
By Claus Christian Malzahn
March 29, 2007

Forty-eight percent of Germans think the United States is more dangerous than Iran, a new survey shows, with only 31 percent believing the opposite. Germans' fundamental hypocrisy about the US suggests that it's high time for a new bout of re-education.

The Germans have believed in many things in the course of their recent history. They've believed in colonies in Africa and in the Kaiser. They even believed in the Kaiser when he told them that there would be no more political parties, only soldiers on the front.

Not too long afterwards, they believed that Jews should be placed into ghettos and concentration camps because they were the enemies of the people. Then they believed in the autobahn and that the Third Reich would ultimately be victorious. A few years later, they believed in the Deutsche mark. They believed that the Berlin Wall would be there forever and that their pensions were safe. They believed in recycling as well as in cheap jet travel. They even believed in a German victory at the soccer World Cup.

Now they believe that the United States is a greater threat to world peace than Iran. This was the by-no-means-surprising result of a Forsa opinion poll commissioned by Stern magazine. Young Germans in particular -- 57 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds, to be precise -- said they considered the United States more dangerous than the religious regime in Iran.

The German political establishment, which will no doubt loudly lament the result of the poll, is largely responsible for this wave of anti-Americanism. For years the country's foreign ministers fed the Germans the fairy tale of what they called a "critical dialogue" between Europe and Iran. It went something like this: If we are nice to the ayatollahs, cuddle up to them a bit and occasionally wag our fingers at them when they've been naughty, they'll stop condemning their women to death for "unchaste behavior" and they'll stop building the atom bomb.

That plan failed at some point -- an outcome, incidentally, that Washington had long anticipated. Iran continues to work away unhindered on its nuclear program, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reacts to UN demands with an ostentatious show of ignorance. The UN gets upset and drafts a resolution.

Another item on the Iranian president's wish list is the annihilation of Israel. But that will take a bit longer. In the meantime, just to make sure it doesn't get out of practice, the regime had 15 British soldiers kidnapped a few days ago. But it's still all the Americans' fault -- that much is obvious.

Inherently evil

We've known just what they're like for a long time. The 19th-century German author Karl May taught us about the American Wild West, and Karl Marx warned us about unbridled capitalism. Besides, we've all been there at least once -- on vacation, of course. Be it in California or Florida (that's where you get the best deals on rental cars, you know), we can see right through the Americans.

For us Germans, the Americans are either too fat or too obsessed with exercise, too prudish or too pornographic, too religious or too nihilistic. In terms of history and foreign policy, the Americans have either been too isolationist or too imperialistic. They simply go ahead and invade foreign countries (something we Germans, of course, would never do) and then abandon them, the way they did in Vietnam and will soon do in Iraq.

Worst of all, the Americans won the war in 1945. (Well, with German help, of course -- from Einstein and his ilk.) There are some Germans who will never forgive the Americans for VE Day, when they defeated Hitler. After all, Nazism was just an accident, whereas Americans are inherently evil. Just look at President Bush, the man who, as some of SPIEGEL ONLINE's readers steadfastly believe, "is worse than Hitler." Now that gives us a chance to kill two birds with one stone. If Bush is the new Hitler, then we Germans have finally unloaded the Führer on to someone else. In fact, we won't even have to posthumously revoke his German citizenship, as politicians in Lower Saxony recently proposed. No one can hold a candle to our talent for symbolism!

Anti-Americanism is the wonder drug of German politics. If no one believes what you're saying, take a swing at the Yanks and you'll be shooting your way back up to the top of the opinion polls in no time. And on the practical side, you can be the head of the Social Democratic Party and endear yourself to the party's hardcore with a load of anti-American nonsense, and still get invited back to Washington -- just look at Gerhard Schröder. In fact, you could, like leading German politicians in the debate over the planned American missile shield in Europe, be accused of having "an almost unbelievable lack of knowledge" by a former NATO general, and even that wouldn't matter. It's all about what you believe, not what you know.

Anti-Americanism is hypocrisy at its finest. You can spend your evening catching the latest episode of "24" and then complain about Guantanamo the next morning. You can claim that the Americans have themselves to blame for terrorism, while at the same time calling for tougher restrictions on Muslim immigration to Germany. You can call the American president a mass murderer and book a flight to New York the next day. You can lament the average American's supposed lack of culture and savvy and meanwhile send off for the documents for the Green Card lottery.

Not a day passes in Germany when someone isn't making the wildest claims, hurling the vilest insults or spreading the most outlandish conspiracy theories about the United States. But there's no risk involved and it all serves mainly to boost the German feeling of self-righteousness.

Not so safe

Iran is a different story. The last time someone made a joke on German TV about an Iranian leader, the outcome was not pleasant. Exactly 20 years ago, Dutch entertainer Rudi Carell produced a short TV sketch portraying Ayatollah Khomeini dressed in women's underwear. Carell received death threats. The piece, which lasted all of a few seconds, led to flights being cancelled and German diplomats being expelled from Tehran. Carell apologized. Jokes about fat Americans are just safer.

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the American historian who in his 1996 book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" deprived the Germans of the belief that they didn't know what was going on back in the day, is currently studying the history of genocides in the 20th century. One of the things he has noticed is that the politicians or military leaders who planned genocides and had them carried out rarely concealed their intentions in advance. Whether the victims were Hereros, Armenians, kulaks, Jews or later Bosnians, the perpetrators generally believed that they were justified and had no reason to hide their murderous intentions.

Today, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about a world without Israel while dreaming of an atom bomb, it seems obvious that we -- as Germans of all people -- should be putting two and two together. Why shouldn't Ahmadinejad mean what he says? But we Germans only know what we believe.

The Americans are more dangerous than the ayatollahs? Perhaps the Americans should take the Germans at their word for a change. It's high time for a new round of re-education. The last one obviously didn't do the job.

Claus Christian Malzahn is SPIEGEL ONLINE's Berlin bureau chief.

Read More...

Sunday, March 25, 2007

The EU Turns 50

As the EU turns 50, various sources are looking back at its long and turbulent history. The Washington Times observes, rather tongue in cheek, that the EU has been "confounding skeptics and disappointing supporters at nearly every step along the way."

The WSJ looks at the EU's birthday, commenting upon the good, the bad, and the French. Niall Ferguson observes that the EU is "unloved and mistruted, even by the French." The BBC notes the latest calls for reform of the EU, and gives their own retrospective on the Treaty of Rome and various aspects of the EU's history here, here and here. The BBC also examines the EU's economic performance as well as EU foreign policy, and other alleged benefits of EU membership. The Guardian sees the EU as being in a mid-life crisis. I have my doubts about the EU as anything other then an economic bloc, at which it has been relatively successful, and as a mechanism to keep the Europeans from killing each other en masse every thirty years or so. I think EU attempts to forge a common foreign and social policy are misguided at best, but I will save the long essay on that for another time.

Update: Tim Harnes of the U.K. Times has a somewhat jaundiced view of the EU's birthday:

Though the occasion symbolised a collective detachment from reality, it contained a message within the pious “Declaration of Berlin” that was formally launched yesterday. The heirs to Thomas Jefferson will have no reason to fear the competition from this.

The text is turgid and it is contains near-comic double-talk. It starts with the statement that “Europe was for centuries an Idea” (and there were those of us who thought that it was a geographical landmass). It moves on swiftly to “European unity has enabled us to live in peace and prosperity” (Germany has stopped invading France) and “we have to thank the love of freedom of the people of Central and Eastern Europe that Europe’s unnatural divisions are today finally overcome” (sorry that it took 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall to let you in, but never mind).

It detours into “only together can we preserve our European social model in the future” (we would rather put up with unemployment than do anything that smacked of the American economy). It pledges that “the European Union will continue to live in the future on the basis of its openness” (unless you happen to be Turkey, in which case the door will be superglued closed).

Do read the whole article.

Read More...

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

German Court Cites Koran to Allow Domestic Violence in Muslim Marriages

A German court, in adjudicating a divorce case between a young muslim couple, applied the concepts of Sharia law that allow for a husband to strike his wife in deciding that the woman's basis for seeking a divorce, that her husband had battered her and made repeated threats to kill her, was not justified. Citing to the Koran, the judge wrote in his decision denying a speedy divorce:

"The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law)," the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge's letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.

"The right to castigate means for me: the husband can beat his wife," Becker-Rojczyk said, interpreting the judge's verdict.

Read the story here. I am near speechless. While my knee-jerk reaction is to be hyper-critical of the Germans, accusing them of quickening the pace of their march towards dhimmi status, I have to be fair and note that most Germans seem appalled by this decision and are seeking discipline of the judge.

Read More...

Friday, March 16, 2007

Perhaps There Is Something to Look Forward To In Retirement

There is little like senior citizen discounts. See here.

Read More...

Friday, March 2, 2007

Turkey takes to Iran

I have long suspected that the great secular experiment undertaken by Attaturk to secularize and westernize Turkey would fall to radical Muslim resurgence in the middle east, particularly after Erdogan was elected. From all I have read and researched, it would seem that in Ankara, the two competing ideologies balance slightly in favor of Islamism at this point.

Now it appears that Iran is courting Erdogan with billions in cheap oil -- offering to increase trade from $6 billion to about $17 billion. Iran's purpose, of course, is to offset the effects of current and proposed sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. This could be ominous, or it could be simple a temporary engagement in byzantine politics that many full members of the EU are playing. By that I mean Germany and Italy have extensive economic ties to Iran, and neither is going along at this point with significant sanctions. In fact, both are seeking to hold off on further sanctions and reopen talks with Iran -- in essence, throwing in with Iran and allowing the U.S. and the U.K. to shoulder the vast majority of the burden and costs of protecting the West from the threat Iran poses. It may well be that, under the circumstance, Erdogan is playing real polotik and sees it to Turkey's advantage to take current economic advantage.

Certainly Iran and Turkey are not natural allies in the grand scheme of things -- Iran being a Shia nation, Turkey being a Sunni nation, predominantly Sufi with an increasing influence from the Wahabbists. And the U.S. has been a strong ally of Turkey for many years. Nonetheless, with Islamism on the rise, even a shia may appear more palatable to Erdogan in the long run then does the support of U.S. military action against a Muslim state.

Villagers with Torches, posting on the Maverick News Network site, sees this closening of ties with Iran as a very ominous step by Turkey out of the secular and into the Iranian camp. And he may well be right. I certainly agree with him that Turkey, as a member of NATO, cannot have it both ways in this matter and that we need to impress upon Erdogan, as well as our other European NATO allies that all of them need to make a choice of who to support in this matter. And they need to do so soon. The greater they delay and hinder sanctions against Iran, the greater looms the possibility of war, with all the attendant ramifications that such may have for NATO as a whole and Turkey in particular.

Read More...

Thursday, March 1, 2007

Euro War on War on Terror

As the U.S. fights against radical Islam, our natural partners in such a fight -- those countries generally considered a part of Western Civilization -- seem more intent upon punishing the U.S.

Many European lawmakers and human rights groups have accused the CIA of violating European sovereignty and international law by covertly apprehending and detaining terrorism suspects on the Continent. They have also criticized European intelligence services for taking part in the operations or failing to stop them.
Germany, Italy and the EU have each conducted investigations into activities by the United States in regards to the U.S. renditions program. Germany and Italy have both issued warrants against CIA employees, and the EU investigation resulted in a report that has been described as "unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair" by the State Department's senior lawyer, John Bellinger.

"I do think these continuing investigations can harm intelligence cooperation -- that's simply a fact of life," Bellinger said Wednesday.
Read the whole story here.

Read More...

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

U.S. & Germany Address Leaks Of Classified Information

Secrecy News is reporting on legislation proposed by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to criminalize the unauthorized disclosure or publication of classified information "concerning efforts by the United States to identify, investigate, or prevent terrorist activity." Read the whole story here.

Apparently, Kyl's proposal is already generating significant organized opposition from liberal organizations. This is hardly a surprise, given just how much democrats and liberal organizations have relied on selected leaks to damage the Bush administration. At a minimum, I hope there are hearings on this legislation so that we are able to learn just how much damage has been done to the U.S. counter-terrorism efforts as a result of the New York Times' six years of leaking.

On a related note, Germany has taken the opposite approach, giving constitutional protection to the unauthorized disclosure of State secrets. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's Constitutional Court ruled on Tuesday that journalists cannot be legitimately accused of betrayal of state secrets for publishing classified information obtained from informers." See the whole story here.

Update: The Hill is reporting that opposition to the Kyl bill will likely result in watered down legislation. See the story here.



Read More...

Europe, NATO, Afghanistan and the War on Terror

Other then the U.S. and U.K., support of NATO members for the war in Afghanistan, as well as for U.S. efforts to protect itself and other Western nations from the threat of radical Muslim terrorism, has been problematic, to use the understated language of diplomacy. There is an excellent editorial on this topic from the WSJ, and I include it here in its entirity for those unable to access the WSJ pages.


'Allies'
February 27, 2007; Page A16
By BRET STEPHENS

On Oct. 2, 2001, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization took the unprecedented step of formally invoking Article 5 of its 1949 Charter, which says that "an armed attack against one or more of them. . . . shall be considered an attack against all of them." Lord Geoffrey Robertson, then NATO's secretary-general, gave a press conference saying he wanted to "reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism."

In recent weeks, we've been reminded once again just how cheap those promises were. On Thursday, Stéphane Dion, who leads Canada's Liberal Party, announced that as prime minister he would bring an end to the country's 2,500-strong military commitment to southern Afghanistan. "Neither Canada, NATO nor the Americans anticipated how violent and dangerous Kandahar would become in 2006," he said, adding that the proper role for Canadian forces is "to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people."


Also in recent weeks, the Italian government of Romano Prodi briefly collapsed after it was unable to muster the votes to approve the enlargement of a U.S. Army base in Vicenza along with the continuance of Italy's 2,000-man deployment in Afghanistan. George W. Bush has had to plead publicly with NATO nations to increase their troop commitments and -- would it be too much to ask? -- deploy them in areas where they are likely to see combat. To make up for the NATO shortfall, Britain is sending in another 1,400 soldiers, while the U.S. is extending the tour of the Tenth Mountain Infantry Brigade and sending in troops from the 82nd Airborne.

It is a statistical certainty that American and British soldiers will pay a price in blood this spring because their French, Spanish, Italian, German and -- if Mr. Dion has his way -- Canadian counterparts mean to keep their moral slates clean. A century ago that would have been a mark of martial and national dishonor, of "letting the side down." Today, it is a concession to the political reality that most NATO governments cannot muster political support for anything except a "peace mission" in Afghanistan. "If you are non-U.S., implicitly there is a political calculus," says a senior U.S. Army officer about his NATO colleagues. "You are looking over your shoulder to Ottawa. You're asking: 'Will getting five killed-in-action mean a phone call about the wisdom of this particular operation?'"

Afghanistan, of course, was supposed to have been the "good war" -- the war that, unlike Iraq, everyone was willing to fight. Now the best that can be said for France, Germany, Italy and company is that they will not actively stand in the way of its being fought, so long as they're not fighting.

But even that is an improvement over the way some European governments are conducting themselves in the war on terror closer to home. Earlier this month, an Italian court named and indicted 25 CIA officers and five Italian officials for the rendition to Egypt of a cleric named Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, aka Abu Omar. Germany, too, has issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA officers involved in the abduction (in Macedonia) of a German man of Lebanese descent named Khaled al-Masri. Mr. Masri has since become a cause célèbre back home -- a living indictment of the Bush administration's perfidious approach to fighting terrorism.

In Sheikh Omar's case, even the Italians don't dispute the Egyptian was a dangerous actor: He is believed to have recruited terrorists and plotted an attack on the U.S. embassy in Rome. Mr. Masri, by contrast, is usually depicted as an innocent caught up in a web of CIA intrigue. But as John Rosenthal of the invaluable Transatlantic Intelligencer blog notes, it was German, not American, intelligence that first became intensely concerned about Mr. Masri's activities.

Not two weeks after 9/11, Mr. Masri was already being investigated by authorities in Baden-Württemberg as a "follower of Bin Laden." A classified report from Germany's Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigations notes that Mr. Masri maintained "numerous contacts to dangerous persons and accused suspects in the domain of Islamist terrorism." He had a friendship with a militant Islamist named Reda Seyam, suspected of involvement in the 2002 Bali bombings. He frequented an Islamic Cultural Center known for distributing audiocassettes with such charming messages as "Whoever fights against the Christians, the Jews and their allies is a martyr." It was shut down by Bavarian officials in December 2005 and the organization that ran it was banned.

For all this, Mr. Masri may be guilty of nothing more than fellow-traveling. The same might be said of the German government, which at a minimum involved itself in the abduction it now means to prosecute by agreeing to keep the whole matter secret. "The German government, witness to the entire incident, pretended not to know anything," the German newsweekly Der Spiegel reported in 2005. "In a court of law, such behavior amounts to the suppression of evidence."

The German government also involved itself in another apparent CIA kidnapping in December 2001 of a German citizen and terrorist suspect named Mohammed Haydar Zammar, who was later rendered to his native Syria. Rather than demand his instant repatriation, however, the government of Gerhard Schröder arranged for investigators to interview Mr. Zammer in Syria, in exchange for which it dropped charges against two Syrian agents in Germany. Mr. Zammar remains in a Syrian prison.

None of this need shame the German government: Mr. Zammar is reported to have recruited some of the 9/11 hijackers and his fate is richly deserved. What is shameful is that the same governments that actively colluded with the U.S. to bring the worst terrorist cases to some kind of justice are now bending to the demands of activist prosecutors and the prevailing anti-American mood, and again allowing the U.S. to take the flak for what were often joint operations. For the indicted CIA officers, that flak is less deadly than what the GIs in Afghanistan can look forward to this spring. But the principle is the same.

Asked what he worried about most in wartime, Napoleon is said to have replied, "Allies." Plus ça change.

Read More...

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

COUNCIL OF EX-MUSLIMS LEADER INTERVIEWED

Der Spiegel interviews Iranian-born Mina Ahadi. She is currently living under a death threat from radical muslims for criticizing Islam and denouncing her faith. The interview is short and an interesting read. I do not believe that she is correct in her belief that it is not possible to modernize Islam, but if it does happen, it will not be in our lifetime. Unfortunately, Islam has never undergone a renaissance or reformation, and indeed, the internal mechanisms for such modification - ijtihad - were frozen over one thousand years ago.

Read More...

Sunday, February 25, 2007

WHY DOES THE WORLD HATE THE US?

Distinguished Prof. Niall Ferguson pens a provocative article discussing who, according to research polls, has a dislike for the United States. His answer -- just about the whole world. His assessment -- a lot of it is quite natural and has to do with the U.S. simply being the biggest kid on the block.

I would add that much of the West is dominated by political parties and a press that is mildly to significantly left of center with a strong secular and pacifistic bent to all of it. America's politics tend to center right, and are often twinged with a religious flavor that makes the Europeans cringe. Add to this that we present no threat to these countries, and what you get is a high degree of scorn heaped upon the U.S. with no counterbalancing response.

To get a good feel for this, I would suggest occasionally perusing David's Miedienkritik, a site which does a yeoman's job of documenting the excesses of anti-Americanism we face in Germany. In Britain, the anti-U.S. sentiment is even easier to see. Just read the opinion pieces and comments thereto in The Guardian and articles on the BBC -- where one of today's headlines is "Iraq Crackdown Doomed to Fail." You might also want to look at the internet site Biased BBC. If you prefer book form, you might want to read While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, which documents the same phenomenon in the context of the influx into Europe of radical Islamists.

In the rest of the world, particularly that dominated by salafi Islam, it is no surprise that we are hated by a radicalized populace and their intelligentsia. And not surprisingly, elsewhere in the Middle East, our highest poll numbers are found among rank and file Iranians. I say not surprisingly because the theocrats in power have abused their populace, made a train wreck of their economy, and secularized a large portion of the populace.

At any rate, I find all of this so frustrating mainly because we face a series of threats - the threat posed by radical Islam, the threat posed by Venezuela and Russia which have become bellicose dictatorships, and the threat posed by China that is quite rapidly developing military capabilities to challenge the West -- often with stolen or purchased U.S. technology. America, while the largest and richest country, has neither the population base nor so large an economy that we could face down each of those threats alone. And unfortunately, it would appear that the continental European powers are too petty and insular to take a realistic assessment of the current threats they and we face, and to develop appropriate strategies.

For example, all of Europe is threatened today by the march of radical Islam, whether Shia or Sunni. Yet, Germany and Italy have developed potentially lucrative economic ties with the mullahs of Iran. Consequently, it is they who apparently are voicing opposition to an immediate strengthening of sanctions against Iran. Is that really where their long term interests lie? Can they comfort themselves by relying on the U.S. and the U.K. to protect them while at the same time justifying their actions by pointing to the stupidity and aggressiveness of Americans? Or what of France's Chirac, an amoral thorn in the West's side who has long publicly advocated that Europe make a complete break with the U.S. and form a wholly European power. Why would they do that -- well, simply because Chirac sees that as a path to the return of the glory of France. Is it in France or Europe's long term best interest? I think clearly not. But you tell me?

Read More...

Saturday, February 24, 2007

UK TAKES UP NATO SLACK IN AFGHANISTAN

Britain is deploying another 1,500 troops to Afghanistan after pleas for more combat soldiers made by the NATO commander to the other European members of NATO fell upon deaf ears.


“Those [extra] troops should be coming from countries such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain who have so far not shown the adequate resolve to be part of a full Nato complement in Afghanistan,” he told Today on BBC Radio 4.

Nato is running the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan with a total complement of about 35,000 troops, but most of the contributions from Nato members are small. The United States has provided the biggest force —27,000, of whom 15,500 serve under Nato — followed by Britain.

“Too many of our European partners are now pocketing the Nato security guarantee but leaving UK taxpayers and the UK military to carry the cost,” Dr Fox said.

Read the whole story.

I could not agree more with Dr. Fox on this one, though I would add the U.S. taxpayers and military to his last statement. The showing of Germany, France, Italy and Spain has been disgraceful. And the problem of Afghanistan is not going to go away anytime soon. Allowing an enemy a power base that is untouchable is a sure recipe for a long, and possibly losing war. That was the true lesson of Vietnam. And now we are seeing it repeated again as the Talian has a secure base in Pakistan's Fronteir Provinces, protected from attack by NATO because it is nominally a part of Pakistan. And now protected from the Pakistani military as a result of Musharraf's treaty with the provinces. Both the NATO problems and Taliban safe havens will have to be addressed as the war in Afghanistan progresses.

Read More...

Thursday, February 22, 2007

GERMANY WAKES UP TO IT OWN PROBLEMS WITH FUNDEMENTALIST ISLAM. There is an excellent and lengthy article in Der Speigel charting the growth of a seperate society of fundemental islamists in Germany's midst.

Surveys in the country have charted a significant a significant increase in fundamentalist attitudes, particularly among younger Muslims. The experiences of Ekin Deligöz, a member of the German parliament representing the Green Party, underscore the potential dangers. Having called on Muslim women to remove their headscarves, Deligöz faced death threats and now receives police protection.

Disturbing as this trend may be, it cannot be pinned exclusively on Muslim groups. Under the guise of religious tolerance, German society stood blithely by as some parts of its Muslim communities began turning into parallel societies. For years, the country's courts have been excusing Muslim girls from coed swimming lessons and class outings - citing the most absurd reasons for their rulings.


Read the whole article.

Read More...

Saturday, February 17, 2007

DID GORE VET THIS SPEECH? Kurt Volker, a State Department official, gave an excellent speech setting the record straight about the status of America's ecology and climate control efforts before members the German Marshall Fund. The Germans, who have arguably the most anti-american press in Europe, seemed to have little response. You decide. David Kaspar at Medienkritik has the entire speech.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

 

View My Stats