Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

"The Germans to the Front!"

by jandsm Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 10:26:51 AM EST

On June 22, 1900 the British commander-in-chief Lord Seymour gave the straighforward order I use as a headline for this diary when he launched the attack on Fort Hsiku (or Hsi-cheng) during the so called Boxer Rebellion. For German turn of the century imperialists it was the moment of their greatest pride: they felt being recognized as equals by their role models, the British. Paintings were drawn and that strange cocky empire continued its cranky flag-waving descent towards the August 1914 madness - not without committing genocide against the Herero and killing another tens of thousands in the Maji Maji war in what is now Tanzania.

My question today is, are we back at the gates of Fort Hsiku already?

A great discussion in the comments - from the diaries ~ whataboutbob


Colonial brutality was of course only the prélude of what was to happen next in continental Europe. Two world wars, tens of millions dead and the killing of whole peoples just because of their religion or ethnicity.

Six decades later, here is today's New York Times:

Germany has made it official: it is prepared to move out of its postwar pacifist mode and undertake a greater role in global security. Good. There has been no good reason for some time why Germany should not do its share of global peacekeeping and peacemaking. Defending Germany's borders, to which its army was restricted after World War II, is hardly a consuming mission in today's Europe. <...>

The specter of German militarism, once terrifying, is a thing of the past. Contemporary Germans are, if anything, more sensitive than their neighbors to episodes of military wrongdoing. Last week's publication of photographs of German soldiers in Afghanistan toying with a skull prompted a suitably anguished public reaction. But it should not raise questions about transforming the Bundeswehr into a global intervention force. There's a lot of work to be done, and it's time the Germans joined in.

Here is what I mean:

Rightly, the allies made the decision in 1945 to dismantle the German military and to crush Germany's military complex. For nearly 10 years, Germany did not have an army. Then the cold war changed everything and the West-German conservative government saw the best and fastest way to regain sovereignity via anti-communism, re-militarization and joining NATO. The majority of Germans disapproved, and the foundation of the Bundeswehr - the German Armed Forces - was pushed through against massive popular dissent and demonstrations. To cut a long story short: the Bundeswehr and the draft did not re-militarize the German society in the way the Prussian military culture did - it did not have the same transformative power. In my opinion, most of the time Germans don't care about their military.

The 1990's of course brought a lot of change. Starting with Cambodia in 1992, German governments started to use the Bundeswehr within the context of international peacekeeping missions under UN command. Germany's supreme court - the Bundesverfassungsgericht - issued a key ruling allowing the government to do so with the consent of parliament. This was the major change because the constitution only allows to defend the country. German soldiers then served in Somalia and the Balkans. The first real participation in an armed conflict came during the Kosovo military campaign.

Germany gradually moved towards a militarized foreign policy. These also caused changes in the Armed Forces, especially the new Kommando Spezialkräfte (KSK), a special forces unit within the Bundeswehr. The participation of Germany in the war in Afghanistan was the next step. We do not know what the KSK did in Afghanistan, yet we know that Germany has one of the largest troop contigents in place and it shares the command with the Netherlands. Asked about the reasons to support the intervention in Afghanistan militarily, then-minister of defense Peter Struck infamously claimed: "Today, the German interests are defended at the Hindukush".

So far however, German troops have not fought openly alongside other military forces. Thus there are virtually no deaths in combat. But this may change.

Just this week, the Federal government released a new White Book. A strategy document on the future of the role of Germany's army.

From Der Spiegel:

The 2006 White Paper is aimed at upgrading the national security policy for an era of "assymmetrical threats" like terrorism and providing peacekeeping or security-building forces in Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere. In the wake of 9/11 Germany is also part of that assymetrical threat. In one of the more controversial points, the paper cites "the need to expand the constitutional framework for the deployment of the armed forces," including on home soil in exceptional cases where police authorities alone cannot overcome a threat. The new White Paper also affirms Germany's international commitment in particular to NATO and the European Union, and mentions the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as a potential threat, and defines keeping sea channels clear for international free trade and "secure access to energy resources" as primary national interests.

Particularely the last point is worrisome to me. Yet I want to debate something different here.

I am really proud and happy about the very low role the military plays in the German society. After two centuries of being a militaristic society, I believe it was time for this country to become civilized and civil. My fears are that a changing role of the German army will eventually change the German society. We are getting back to that culture of uniformity and death. If German soldiers die in combat, we would see flag-draped funerals again and I just don't want that. I believe after blowing up the world twice in the last 100 years, Germans should abstain from the use of military force.

One example, when parliament recently voted on the mission of the German marine to secure the Lebanese coastline, the opposition and the government shared one goal from the outside: It would be unimaginable that a German army would have to use force on Israeli troops. A confrontation would have to be avoided at all cost. Hence, Germany only sent some ships. Yet things did not go well. There have been at least three incidents involving German and Israeli forces.

I just fear where this may end. On the one hand, it may be selfish to keep the German military out of conflicts while other countries see their soldiers die. On the other hand however, I am so glad, we managed to get rid of our demons. The wars on the Balkans show that wherever we go, we meet our history. It is like the British failing to secure Iraq - again.

What is your opinion on this? Most of you in Europe live in countries that have been at one point under German occupation. I have a rather negative view on the concept of the use of military force in General, but what do you think of the prospect of a strongly armed Germany ready to pursue its interest along the other powers? Laurent Fabius already came up with the idea of a Franco-German military alliance.

Have a nice evening.

Display:
Well, I think German planes over Belgrade were obscene, but I might be biased (I'm Russian). Other europeans seemingly didn't care.
by Sargon on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 01:30:19 PM EST
I don't know about "planes over Belgrade", but I can tell you the bombing of the TV station and the Chinese embassy didn't go down well with the European public.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 02:08:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One of the reasons that the USA decided to use "coalitions of the willing" rather than NATO was their unhappy experience with the war on Serbia where targets had to be cleared by the alliance and various European countries limited the number and quality of targets (I know about France blocking the bombing of the bridges of Belgrade, and of Italy blocking other stuff, but i'm sure others did the same)

But to get back to Sargon's point, one of the scariest moments in the past 20 years was in late 1990 when newly united Germany and France went their separate ways to recognize Croatia and support Belgrade, respectively, in an ugly reminder of 1914. Things calmed down quickly between France and Germany, but not within Yugoslavia, with the terrible price we know.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 02:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was positiively scary how quickly France and Germany resurrected 75-year-old alliances.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 02:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was a frightening reminder of the long-term conservatism of the "chancelleries", or in other words, the persistence over decades of the shape of foreign policy. Like closing your eyes and seeing behind your eyelids the outline of what you were looking at before.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was very shameful, indeed. But for me the ugly reminder was the WW2 and Germany's coorporation with the Croat fascists.

Still, I think the civil waould also have happend without the recocgnition.

by jandsm on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 02:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
bridges and water purification plants in the first wave. Undoubtedly few other countries would b insane enough to support the destruction of at least the water purification plants.
by observer393 on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 12:02:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't remember much connection to WWII being made, but there was heavy discontent with the bombing in Serbia both in Germany and elsewhere. Some opposed it from the onset, others when realising that it is senseless destruction and won't even achieve its target (force Milo to concessions with terror bombing).

There is also a court case in Germany that got much airtime, a suit against NATO and due to its membership Germany for the bombing of the bridge at Varvarin. Though courts in two instances refused to accept competence in the case, newspapers brought the damning details (there was an agriculture fair at the time, the [US] pilot saw and reported tractors but his order was reinforced, there was a second bombing run on the already destroyed bridge while people tried to save survivors from the river; all the while the bridge was in Serbia, was unsuitable for the passage of tanks, and analysts say the only reason it was bombed was that bad weather prevented the plane to reach its primary target in Kosovo, but the bombs had to be dropped to fulfill the day's bombing tonnage quota).

Beyond the bridge bombings and the Chinese embassy and refugee trails and refineries, here in Hungary, the 100% senseless bombing of the bridges in Novi Sad (to the North of Belgrade with zero military significance, in a city controlled by the opposition) had the strongest effect.

I note I don't know about German planes over Belgrade, the German Tornados usually cruised over Kosovo to give air cover by bombing radar equipment (that's what those Tornados were equipped for).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:13:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some opposed it from the onset, others when realising that it is senseless destruction and won't even achieve its target (force Milo to concessions with terror bombing).

Not to discount individual crimes or the deaths of 1500 civilians, but the bombing campaign over Serbia did achieve its target. Of course, in the end it was backed up with a credible threat of a ground invasion, but still.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:30:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There was no large-scale ethnic cleansing in Kosovo before the bombing campaign. The start of bombing actually triggered it.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's another thing, and worth to add: ethnic cleaning continued, but in the inverted way (ex-KLA thugs hunting away Serbs) after NATO moved in.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:42:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a completely different argument again. Whether the tactics were used were correct, or effective, is a different from the question whether the operation should have been undertaken at all.

The large-scale ethnic cleansing was a deliberate reaction by Milosovic, it might be added. Presumably, he would also use this tactic in the case of a ground invasion (it would be far more disruptive to allied operations in the case of a ground invasion).

Before, we had small-scale ethnic cleansing and the occasional massacre. Should we have given Milosevic free hand in pacifying Kosovo after talks came into a deadlock?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have to say the Kosovo operation was what turned me away from interventionism. I agreed Milosevic had to be stopped or removed, but the way the operation was carried out convinced me that military intervention is too blunt a tool.

In addition, I was on a physics student mailing list and there was one Serb member who started posting dispatches from under the bombs in Belgrade, and I was shocked that others on the mailing list couldn't distinguish the civilian population (and one of their peers, who they might have met at a previous conference) from Milosevic or the government. Some people literally told him to die, already. It's disgusting what taking the war propaganda at face value will do to people.

DoDo calls himself a "recovering interventionist". I wonder what his turning point was.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:11:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is no clear turning point, indeed I haven't fully given up on intervention as theory. But after Kosovo (which was a process of growing ever more sour on it not a moment of realisation), it was Afghanistan (back in late 2001, NOT when "needed troops were removed to Iraq" as some accuse Bush); and before it, I already wasn't too pleased with how the Bosnian campaign and then occupation was conducted. (And it was the post-Yugoslav wars that made me an interventionist the first time.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:23:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In theory, as Idiot Savant diaried recently, first, do no harm.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:09:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure I agree with the "do no harm" theory. If somebody gets control of a government and starts doing bad things, at what point is intervention required? Perhaps an example is to compare Hitler and Stalin. Both were terrible dictators and killed millions of people, but in Hitler's case the world cooperated to shut him down, while in Stalin's case the world let it ride. Is that latter model the one we wish to follow? Just let a dictator murder people, because it is too hard for us to agree about the right way to do something about it?

I suppose one can say that yes, the best strategy is to allow each country to run its own internal affairs however it likes, and not worry about what goes on inside. But then one must not listen to whining about the civilian populations of Darfur or North Korea or where-ever--just let them rot.

by asdf on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 10:32:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the theory is that saving people from a dictator by killing more of them than he ever did or could and making life even worse than he did isn't a winning scheme. Intervening to make the situation worse is not helpful and if you can't think of an intervention that won't do that then maybe you shouldn't intervene.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 10:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, using the current war in Iraq as a model, my understanding is that Saddam Hussein was responsible for upwards of 1.5 million deaths during the Iran-Iraq war (depends on who you think "started" it, but Iraq invaded first), and then there are couple of hundred thousand more in the Gulf war, and a few tens of thousands of Iraqis in internal issues after that. So if the U.S. has "only" been responsible for 600,000 casualties, then we're ahead of the game, correct?

There must be a better way to decide this sort of thing...

by asdf on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 09:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So if the U.S. has "only" been responsible for 600,000 casualties, then we're ahead of the game, correct?

In fact, correct. Even counting all Iraq/Iran-War casualties for Saddam and using a high number for domestic casualties, 2 million over 25 years is a lower rate than 0.6 million over 2.5 years. Furthermore, it is not right to count absolute numbers: the real comparison is between Saddam in a contained state (e.g. since the summer of 1991) and US occupation. And 0.6 million is really the number of excess deaths, the death rate above what it was just before the US invasion.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 04:03:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Military intervention is always blunt, but in the case of the Kosovo war the results were relatively benign (so far). The situation in Kosovo is still not resolved, but it's not warlike anymore. Milosovic was removed from power by the Serb people, which may not have been possible if he had not lost the war/given in to NATO demands, or if it hadn't happened and he was still able to pose as the great protector of the Kosovar Serbs.

Serbia is on the way to become a functioning democracy, Montenegro is a free country, a crisis in Macedonia spun off by the aftermath of the war was resolved diplomatically. So to employ Colman's rule, intervention didn't create a bigger mess than was there before. If there would have been a less painful way, I don't know.

Of course, this argument can fall apart if you look at the larger consequences of the war, which were that the Republican party of the USA drew all the wrong lessons from it and that it may have fueled a resurgent nationalism in Russia. But both of these relations are rather tenuous.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 12:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with you that those relationships are tenuous at best, but would invite you to re-examine your theory of "bigger messes".

In Kosovo, US-led NATO involvement may not initially have created a bigger mess than was there before, but it did involve the subsequent purging from most of Kosovo of all ethnic Serbs. And, having no central authority to speak of and essentially being run by organized crime, Kosovo is essentially now the entrepot through which heroin, sex slaves and illegal immigrants from SW Asia and SE Balkans transit. Not an ideal situation.

As for Serbia, the fact of the matter is that the NATO intervention did not drive Milosovic from power. Rather, violent Serbian protests in response to widespread election irregularities over a year later did. This election result arguably would have happened either way, given the state of the Serb economy and its painful (by contemporary European standards of the time) diplomatic isolation. The 96/97 environment was almost assuredly a thing of the past by 1999, given the deteriorating situation in Serbia even prior to the bombing campaign. In any event, arguing that intervention put Serbia on a path to western Democracy is discutable, given it has arguably not improved much since.

Also of note is the banditism in Serbia which, although not as acute in Albanian Kosovo, is still pretty bad (as evidenced by, among other things, the assassination of Zoran Đinđić by Serbian organized crime).

I'm not so sure you can say that the intervention made the situation better. In fact, I think it can be argued that it made things worse.

Unless, of course, if you are an Albanian Kosovar, and in particular if you are engaged in organized crime there.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some points to further your position.

Contrary to war apologia spread by Clinton, Wesley Clark et al, Milošević was actually temporarily strenghtened during the war. This was natural, it happened so before and after elsewhere, but the advocates of air war never learn: people will pull together when bombs are falling. So Milo could actually step up his hunt for oppositionaries, some of whom had to go in hiding, and even lost popularity for doing so.

Furthermore, the West did have a role in Milošević's overthrow, but not via the war: it was the concerted effort to get the opposition to organise itself and unite (this went along two main routes, financial and material support in the form of sister city help to local governments under opposition control, and organising conferences -- the most important here in Budapest -- to get the different factions to cooperate).

And the long-term consequences for Serbia proper (they never consider the long-term consequences) were even worse than you describe. That chief propagandist of 'liberal' interventionism, Thomas "Let war give a chance!" Friedman, infamously wrote: "Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too." 'They' did 1950. Sane people realise that the country doesn't consist of Milošević, and realise that throwing a country back decades means poverty and resentment lasting for decades. Especially if once pro-Western forces get into government, and start reforms (including neoliberal "reforms"), yet the West won't send the promised financial aid, resentment will turn into hate and into support of demagogues of various dangerous kinds. This is exactly what happened. The air war killed any possibility of a genuine development towards Western-style democracy.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 03:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The bigger mess 'theory' is a rather simple rule of thumb, I'll grant. It's attractive because it can be tested, to a degree.

What you want to know, of course, is what course of action would have been best, which would require plotting various scenarios, which is a lot of work and largely untestable. But the bigger mess rule ignores the hypotheticals that a situation is on the brink of spiralling beyond control and, on the opposite, that a better solution is clearly available.

All ethnic Serbs are not yet out of Kosovo, though the majority fled.

Though an aerial bombardment has an effect of rallying the people around the leader, losing a war does not have the same effect. Kosovo was the heart of Milosevic's nationalist politics. Posing as the protector of the Serbian minority there is what brought him to power, and failing at this will have had an impact on the elections. The credit for deposing Milosevic goes to the Serb people, but the Kosovo war will have played a role in it.

The Serbian economy recovered to its pre-war level in 2002 or 2003 and has since grown by 7% in 2004 and 5.9% in 2005.

The lawlessness and banditism in Kosovo was already there before the war began. In addition there was a guerilla war, which was threatening to spill over into Macedonia.

In total, I don't think it is arguable that the overall situation now is not better now than before the NATO intervention. What parts of the overall improvement were caused by the intervention can be argued about, as well as whether the intervention was worth it and whether the situation could not still deteriorate.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 10:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
about genocide.  The Kosovo intervention was predicated on rising Greek support for the Serbs, and Turkish support for the Albanians.  The concern was that it the situation escalated it could draw Turkey and Greece into hot fighting.  At the time Turkish and Greek planes reguarly antagonized one another over the Aegean.  Clinton didnt want 2 NATO members to come to blows.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 12:19:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd argue only the credible threat of a ground invasion achieved the goal of removing Serbian troops from Kosovo, while the goal of collapsing Milo's system and to control Serbia weren't fulfilled. As Upstate NY reminds us again and again, Milo consented to this much at Rambouillet, but then the UCK/KLA representatives insisted on NATO troops in Serbia proper.

That the bombing campaign didn't reach its target should be also clear if one reads up on the original plan. It was a three-tiered escalation in hope of the regime balking or the people rebelling against it: first bomb the military in Kosovo, then bob it all across Serbia, then bomb civilian installations (bridges, refineries etc.) too. But the third ladder was reached in the first two weeks, NATO ran out of designated targets, two months before the end of war. What followed was senseless, copntinuing a failed strategy out of military bureaucracy and political inertia, with Clinton et al hoping that Milo would get enough after some time, until finally waging to make the ground invasion threat while climbing down on demands.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 03:41:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't seem to be able to dig up the source - was it Stratfor? or Foreign Policy? - but there's an opinion that the ground invasion was bound to split NATO. It gained credibility only because former prime minister of Russia went to Serbia and persuaded Milo that the threat was real.

In this way, Eltsin's Russia provided its last (but priceless, if you are looking from certain quarters) service to the West (again, suitably defined). The mighty irony is, of course, that the current groundswell of patriotism in Russia started from anti-American and anti-Western sentiments born during the Kosovo campaign.

And yes, "planes over Belgrade" was a figure of speech. They were part of the military operation which, among other goals, included bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade (yes, I know, propaganda TV tower and Chinese embassy which presumably collected intelligence and passed it on to the Serbs). Still, they were providing military services. There isn't even the weakest of excuses the Czech Republic used (CR sent a field hospital plus military police to Kuwait and later to Iraqi south; as a result, local politicians claimed that CR isn't part of the "coalition of the willing". The USA included it in their coalition list anyway).

by Sargon on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't seem to be able to dig up the source - was it Stratfor? or Foreign Policy? - but there's an opinion that the ground invasion was bound to split NATO. It gained credibility only because former prime minister of Russia went to Serbia and persuaded Milo that the threat was real.

Indeed I even remember articles from the time that the ground invasion threat was a successful smoke and mirrors, with NATO leaders not really daring to risk it.

They were part of the military operation which, among other goals, included bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade

I recognised that, that's why I put that information as a final (side)note. Being party in a military operation is why Germany was a subject in that lawsuit for a specific operation done by American planes.

yes, I know, propaganda TV tower and Chinese embassy which presumably collected intelligence and passed it on to the Serbs

Personally I don't see those points as suitable excuse.

weakest of excuses the Czech Republic used (CR sent a field hospital plus military police to Kuwait and later to Iraqi south; as a result, local politicians claimed that CR isn't part of the "coalition of the willing".

Hehehe. During the Kosovo War, the then right-wing government of Hungary lent support by opening airspace, but was in denial about it. One thing the then opposition made noise about was whether AWACS planes circulate in Hungarian airspace. It was denied. Having been an astronomer student at the time, astronomers working at a mountain observatory told me about having observed AWACS planes with a binocular at sunset.

(Then for reasons I detailed here, Bush and PM Orbán got at loggerheads, and the sides switched: the right-wing became anti-Bush and anti-NATO, and the Socialists marched into Iraq, sending truck drivers, until Parliament forced them to recall.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Propaganda TV tower"?

I don't suppose you think it would be ok for the US to bomb Al Jazeera in Qatar?

BBC: Al-Jazeera seeks 'US bomb' talks (25 November 2005)

A senior al-Jazeera executive is in the UK to demand publication of a memo in which George Bush allegedly discusses bombing the TV station's HQ.

Wadah Khanfar, al-Jazeera's director general, is hoping to meet UK government officials to press its case.

A spokesman for al-Jazeera told the BBC News website that the channel only wanted the record set straight.

The Guardian: How smart was this bomb? (November 19, 2001)
Did the US mean to hit the Kabul offices of Al-Jazeera TV? Some journalists are convinced it was targeted for being on the 'wrong side'. Matt Wells reports

When World Service correspondent William Reeve dived under his desk in Kabul to avoid shrapnel from the US missile that had landed next door, some think it marked a turning point in war reporting.

The US had scored a direct hit on the offices of the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera, leading to speculation that the channel had been targeted deliberately because of its contacts with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. If true, it opens up a worrying development for news organisations covering wars and conflicts: now they could be targeted simply for reporting a side of the story that one party wants suppressed.

I don't care what the military say, a TV station is not a legitimate military target.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:58:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure you realise Sargon was only sarcastic.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is an important point, though, sarcasm or not. If TV stations can be bombed because they are propaganda outlets, what to make of "embedded journalists"?

The designers of airial bombing campaigns like to bomb anything and everything on the flimsiest excuses.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was just reminding some of the arguments made at the time or later to justify the bombing, definitely not endorsing them. I'm too opposed to this bombing campaign in general to even start distinguishing between legitimate and not targets.
by Sargon on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 07:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The wikipedia article on the war is somewhat confused, but it states that NATO troops were (also) a NATO demand, and that the Serbian counter-proposal was unacceptable even to the Russians.

The initial target list, I believe, was the substance of much political discussion, with the French and Italians initially blocking much of the targets that the US wanted to bomb, and gradually being convinced to allow for an expansion. NATO was made up of many countries with different positions, and the development of the war has to be seen as a matter of compromise internationally and also nationally (between Clinton and a Republican Congress).

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
NATO troops were (also) a NATO demand,

Yes, because Albright took up Thaci's demand. After the Serbian side said they agree and Thaci said they don't, Albright changed the text. This wasn't a single example of Albright (wittingly or unwittingly) playing for war during the negotiations, consaider also the issue of NATO or civilian peacekeeper leadership.

and that the Serbian counter-proposal was unacceptable even to the Russians.

Which was the end of it. Then as Wiki says, the Serbian Parliament accepted the non-military part of the second version of the Rambouillet proposal, and Wiki goes into details about what Serbia [rest-Yugoslavia] objected to.

The initial target list, I believe, was the substance of much political discussion, with the French and Italians initially blocking much of the targets that the US wanted to bomb

This was more complex. On one hand, the US held some target decisions for itself, which hapened to be the most sensitive: especially those involving stealth planes. On the other hand, they held intel information regarding why they picked targets for themselves. In the end, war by committee wasn't really by committee.

Then again, the "sexed-up dossier" and the "45 minutes claim" of that war didn't came from Britain but Germany. I mean the claims about a pre-planned "Operation Horseshoe" and about torture chambers and concentration camp in Pristina's stadium. So there was cooperation and also in the dark dealings.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:55:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The NATO countries had the experience of a failed ceasefire between the parties before, which was observed by OSCE monitors. The Serb's behaviour at the negotiating table also seems to have been unreliable, first coming up with a wildly unrealistic counterproposal set to anger NATO and then ratifying only a part of the accord when NATO said that it was indivisible.

All of this happened within the space of 6 days before the campaign started, as the wiki article seems to suggest. So the narrative that the Serbs compromised almost completely but their enemy was bent on war (mimicking the WWI narrative) doesn't hold up. Once you have an agreement on a civilian peacekeeping force, you have to negotiate about its size, makeup, rules of engagement, etcetera. So just proposing that you may wish to allow a civilian peacekeeping force isn't much of a step forward to the demand that 30,000 NATO troops are allowed in.

Whether or not there was an operation horseshoe is still uncertain. The actions of the Serbs during the war suggest that something similar existed. Of course, the existence of a plan doesn't necessarily mean that it will be carried out.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 01:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Another version with focus on the German politicians.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:03:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I will sound unspecific on purpose.  Military = bad. Peace = possible progress.  That´s my ETopia, but there is logic too.

*The majority, if not all, the wars and devastation right now have been started by a greedy one, or few and their multinationals, now whining for help.

*That requires agreed (mop-up) efforts that affect all major powers, which then escalate their defenses/offenses in supposed "cooperation".  Building the barn after the horse is gone.

*That seems to escalate conflict, in an endless snowball, besides taking funds away from social priorities.

If a country just stayed within its current defense means, it would not offend, nor dare another country, but would negotiate and stop the one-upmanship.

As far as I know, a country like Switzerland doesn´t have much of an army and is not even asked to do the dirty work, because it doesn´t cause any.  And is not planning on making any messes, either.  That´s more than smart, not selfish.  The country that makes a mess should clean it up, too.

What are the Swiss doing right?

(When the new Spanish Minister of Defense was sworn in, I sent him a small post-it for his pc frame that said "Future Ministry of Peace")


Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 03:00:49 PM EST
The Swiss have a surprisingly powerful army, and every male citizen is armed and has to do reserves time on a regular basis.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 05:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On the other hand, the Swiss military could also be termed as one of the most truly defensively oriented. Giant alpine bunkers, small arms at home, not a large air force and navy and special forces.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 02:57:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It'd be tough for Switzerland to field a navy. There's only so much space on Lac Léman, hardly enough for a battle group I would suppose.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
by r------ on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Switzerland is also a land-locked mountainous country that happens to have been of little strategic value to other European countries that were fighting with each other over the past couple of centuries. It's easy to be pacifist if you live in a place where there is no reason for anybody to invade you, or if you are behind someone else's protective curtain.
by asdf on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 10:34:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So - why the Army, except as a tool to build patriotic consensus?

It might only be limited, just as the effectiveness of the Swiss Army would surely be very limited in case of a real war.

Conscription, which seems to be popular on the Continent, is one of the things the UK finds incomprehensible about Europe. But I'm beginning to suspect it plays a useful role in building a coherent national identity.

Of course it could easily become more overtly fascist and militaristic. But when you have a pacifist country with conscription - no one expects the Swiss to invade anyone - there have to be some social effects.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 10:41:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Conscription used to be popular in mainland Europe, but it is no longer. Spain abolished compulsory military service within the last 10 years.

It is true that conscription played a major role in providing both national cohesion and social mobility in the 200 years or so that it was used. For its role in fostering social mobility conscription was arguably a progressive force when it was introduced, and it ceased to be when exceptions started to be granted that were overwhelmingly biased to favour the children of the middle and upper class.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 11:34:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Italy, the universal military service system also at least used to be viewed by the left as decreasing the likelihood of right-wing coups/military dictatorships, the reasoning being that an army "of the people" would be "for the people" in extreme circumstances, meaning that the sons of "workers and peasants" would refuse to obey orders to shoot at other "workers and peasants" i.e. strikers, demonstrators etc. in times of civil unrest.

I may be wrong, but I have the impression Italy's switch from a "universal-service for national defence" military model to a smaller, mercenary-enlistment-based "professionalist globocop intervention force" one was largely in response to NATO (US/UK) pressure? Must admit it still makes me slightly queasy... :-(

"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami

by eternalcityblues (parvati_roma aaaat libero.it) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 12:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Spain abolished it because of popular discontent. I think it has to do with becoming a first-world country with a large middle-class.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:13:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One good thing about having everybody do a season of military duty is to expose them to how screwed up the military is. How any war manages to get fought is actually a mystery, given the mass dysfunction in every army...
by asdf on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 09:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was in Auschwitz yesterday & there was a group of Jewish teenagers (17-18 yrs old, I'd guess) in white and blue dress, many with the flag of Israel draped over their shoulders.

The incident has revealed flaws in the government's control over the army: Peretz learned of it only after it was reported by the German media last weekend, following which he asked the Israel Defense Forces for an explanation. Only then did he discover that the air force had scrambled war planes toward a German helicopter. It was later revealed that, in another incident, planes on a training flight had released flares and the Germans mistakenly thought they were being fired on.

The Germans may have weighed and gamed various scenarios and decided, rationally, that a confrontation was unlikely or could be avoided by quickly pulling out. And if they could pull off a succesful mission, it would be a big boost for the country's international standing...

But this is myopic. Think of one of these kids sitting in an F-16 three years later. Psychology is not going to play into this? Think again.

I don't think it was wise for the Germans to send troops to Lebanon. I hope I'll be proven wrong.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 04:40:40 PM EST
We are getting back to that culture of uniformity and death.

Or is it that there is always a tendency (in all of us?  Not the zen members of the human race, but are we zen?) and anyway, maybe it's a permanent fight, a process, a part of life, so you're right, but let us endlessly kill less people for less ineffectual and dangerous reasons...

Great diary!  I believe the nation state, as a concept, is dead.  But the future then lies in larger or smaller, or both, but not the nation state, and what percentage of humans primarily identify with the nation, as opposed to where they grew up, or where they live, or where they have visited, or the whole planet, or even the universe?

Yadda yadda!  The nation state has lost power and influence, and nation blocs are taking over.  Germany can't be alone...can it?  Is it possible for regional non-national groupings to thrive?  How about Scandinavia?  Is that regional area thriving?  

Could Etopia thrive?  A few square kilometres?  Is that enough land?

And can any of us thrive when jewish teenagers wear the israeli flag over their shoulders at Auschwitz?

nanne: I was in Auschwitz yesterday & there was a group of Jewish teenagers (17-18 yrs old, I'd guess) in white and blue dress, many with the flag of Israel draped over their shoulders.

Was it Sven who wrote, "Yes, human behaviour has been badly in error in the ways that you speak for at least 6,000 years.  Isn't that all the more reason to change it now?"

Maybe I misquoted ;)

Anyways, a great diary, jandsm.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 06:17:57 PM EST
And can any of us thrive when jewish teenagers wear the israeli flag over their shoulders at Auschwitz?
Well, I didn't mean to be that dramatic. The holocaust is a central part of the Israeli national identity. For these kids, I imagine, Auschwitz is almost literally the ashes upon which their country was built -- the main raison d'être for the state Israel. The personal, national, moral and historical elements are all mixed.

They might not take too kindly to the Bundeswehr, though, especially when it is near their border. I don't think that the personal feelings of Israeli soldiers were considered by the German government, because the topic might be taboo. In some ways it presupposes a lack of professionalism on part of the IDF. But it's dangerous to just assume that Israeli pilots won't be more trigger happy when it comes to the German army in particular.

Israel is of concern to our well-being because it is a state with nuclear weapons that has volatile relations with its neighbours, some of whom are the main sources for the oil that drives our economy. That is a real threat. Otherwise Israel matters little to our own well-being.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:01:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Writing from Italy, which together with France spearheaded the drive for European troops under UN mandate (and NOT under NATO i.e. US command!) to provide a peacekeeping buffer force in Lebanon, I'd like to note that around here there was enormous support for this operation even/especially from the normally pacifist leftwing parties, as the reason for sending in these troops was seen NOT as "securitizing Israel" but as the only way of defending Lebanese sovereignty -  to STOP Israel's murderous bombing and invasion of "our Mediterranean neighbour" Lebanon, which was pleading desperately for European and Muslim forces to save it from further bombings and yet another Israeli invasion!

"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami
by eternalcityblues (parvati_roma aaaat libero.it) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 09:54:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The force was to be entirely stationed in Lebanon, so unless the Israelis were already planning on invading Lebanon again there would be no reason for them to even meet German troops.
Slightly off topic why did the buffer zone not extend into the territory of the aggressor? That is a question that has never even been addressed, and which may be a slight indicator why the US and its allies are so intensley disliked on the Arab street.
by observer393 on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 12:13:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Slightly off topic why did the buffer zone not extend into the territory of the aggressor?

Because politics is the "art of the possible": extending the buffer zone 50-50 on both sides of the frontier would have been too much for Bolton to stomach as Israel's negotiation proxy in the UNSC, he'd have vetoed like a shot = no life-saving resolution to stop Israel bombing the Lebanese and get Israeli forces to vacate Southern Lebanon so its bombed and terrorized population could return safely to their homes and start rebuilding.

...why the US and its allies are so intensley disliked on the Arab street..

Re "unpopularity" of so-called "US allies" - it's not "who you are" (Europe) it's "what you do": in ME opinion-polls, France's popularity in the ME peaked sharply following its UNSC opposition to America's attack-plans against Iraq, and Italy is well-known for maintaining cordial relations with ME govts. and political forces (including Iran, Syria..) that the US won't even speak to.  When preparing the political ground for the UNIFIL mission our FM D'Alema exchanged very cordially visits with all Lebanese political leaders including Hizbollah spokesman Nabih Berri, with whom he was photographed cozily arm-in-arm - much to Israel's fury.

And since Israel's somewhat UN-pushed withdrawal from the areas it had invaded and occupied in Lebanon between the Israeli border and the Litani river, the Likud-zone of the Israeli media world has been fiercely and systematically attacking the French and Italian contingents for being "anti-Israeli" and "pro-Hizbollah"... even repeatedly accusing them - with no proof whatsoever! - of deliberately keeping both eyes tightly shut to let in arms shipments for Hizb. from Syria and Iran. And there have been reports of several armed standoffs between Israeli and French forces, plus Israeli mutterings about French jets patrolling Beirut's skies to protect Nasrallah's postwar maxi-rally... all of which is of course not lost on neighbouring Arab media.


"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami

by eternalcityblues (parvati_roma aaaat libero.it) on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 08:21:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
unless the Israelis were already planning on invading Lebanon again there would be no reason for them to even meet German troops.  

Well, that just goes to the heart of the matter, now doesn't it?  

Yes, they probably WILL meet German troops.  


The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 09:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can very well relate to what you are writing. The deeply embedded doubts about nationalism and widespread anti-militaristic attitudes in Germany are one of my most favourite German traits. While this needs to be qualified in many ways, it is a bit like someone has learned at least a bit from history.

I had very ambiguous feelings about this much lauded "revival of nationalism" during the World Cup this year, not about Germans enjoying themselves even if that meant waving their flag, but about publications like "Der Spiegel" interpreting it as some kind of much-needed reassessment of German national pride and nationalism.

I am quite worried that the lessons of WWII will be forgotten once that generation (and the generaiton of WWII's aftermath) finally disappears.

by Almanax on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 12:00:09 AM EST
The deeply embedded doubts about nationalism and widespread anti-militaristic attitudes in Germany are one of my most favourite German traits.

Mine too. This is why I found the talk by some conservatives and centrists about "lack of healthy patriotism like in France or the USA" over the past decade, and as you, the broad talk about a neues Nationalgefühl alarming.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 02:54:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Personally, I totally agree with you, but being "infected" by Germany due to onetime residence there and a continuing cultural tie, my opinion doesn't really count as one from the outside (from a formerly German-occcupied country).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 02:51:16 AM EST
the prospect of a strongly armed Germany ready to pursue its interest along the other powers

If we first set aside the prospect of a strongly armed <any nation>, which is scary... Then the prospect of a strongly-armed Germany would only be (specifically) worrisome if that state of affairs spoke to some national need, a sense of pride, identification with military force, etc. But we have no reason to believe  in stereotypical militaristic Germans, or in inherited militaristic traits. German militarism was the product of Prussian tradition and the rise of nationalism, to put it broadly. Only those who live in Germany can tell us if there is any risk of a revival. From the outside, it doesn't look like it.

However, we have every reason to want to hold on to what has been achieved by the EU, in terms of linking European economies together to avoid any future possibility of friction and war. When we have (mostly British) commentators airily telling us the EU is a meaningless shell we could throw aside as useless tomorrow, we need to remember the essential point of unity through economic alliance that was at the origin of the EU. If we hold on to that, then a German military force would be integrated in one way or another into a more or less tightly-organised EU force. The opportunities for high-risk behaviour would be lessened.

It often seems to me that the paroxysms of the first half of the twentieth century put an end to the sense of the sacred in our view of our nations in Europe, and that this is now an unchanging acquis. But nothing is unchanging. nanne speaks above of new generations in Germany who may not share the preoccupations of their elders. I was surprised some years ago by a young woman (in fact Belgian, but she had spent all her school years in Oldenburg) telling me with vehemence that German kids were sick and tired of having "all that old stuff about the Nazis and the Jews" stuffed down their throats. The kids she was talking about, her school friends, would now be rising thirty. Of course, (1) this is just an anecdote, (2) schoolkids may well resist pious lessons they feel are forced on them, and (3) there is no necessarily nationalistic or militaristic element there. But rather than run risks, I think we'd be wiser to pursue the "ever-closer union".

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:21:18 PM EST
When we have (mostly British) commentators airily telling us the EU is a meaningless shell we could throw aside as useless tomorrow, we need to remember the essential point of unity through economic alliance that was at the origin of the EU.

My feeling is that the approach/process Europeans have had to follow in our common quest for peaceful, mutually beneficial economic and regulatory unity is in itself as important as the unity achieved. Decades of long long, slow, patient, time-consuming  and often extremely tiresome discussion and negotiation founded on the need to seek consensus while taking different priorities and points of view into account, the habit of seeking common ground and gradually building on it - it is this painstaking process that has enabled the nations of Europe to overcome the deadly rivalries, rancours and mistrusts of centuries.  If we as Europeans can really claim to have something to offer the world, a "lesson learned" that others can learn from if they wish, I think this is it.

"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami

by eternalcityblues (parvati_roma aaaat libero.it) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
great comment, afew.

i think our greater problem as europeans, and i'm very glad to see it addressed so assiduously here at ET, is the backdoor agreements with america that our secret police forces in many (all?) euro- countries have made.

this feeds into the tinfoil world domination fears we share in our collective unconscious, i believe.

in this respect, england, germany and italy have erred greatly, and the WOT is just not convincing enough to justify it, i think most agree, at least here.

renditions, anyone?

german forces in iraq prewar?

england's shady lurches towards tossing habeus corpus also?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:17:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
i think our greater problem as europeans, and i'm very glad to see it addressed so assiduously here at ET, is the backdoor agreements with america that our secret police forces in many (all?) euro- countries have made.

It's all for our own good, and it is done to defend European values and protect us from common threads.

Or something like that. Someone who actually agrees with that should write a diary on the benefits of Atlanticism.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Common threads" are a bigger problem than you'd think? Can you imagine what would happen if we all had to share our bell-bottoms?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean threats...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's been a long day...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]