The Germans are annoying me

I've previously expressed the moral ambiguity I'm feeling about the way the US killed--or should we say executed? or even murdered--Osama bin laden. Yet, I find myself becoming increasingly annoyed by some of the bleaters, especially the Germans.

When Chancellor Merkel expressed modest enthusiasm that bin Laden was dead, she started taking flak from all sides of the German political system, including her own party:

Siegfried Kauder, of the CDU, and the chairman of the legal committee of the Bundestag, told the newspaper Passauer Neue Presse: "I would not have formulated it in that way. Those are thoughts of revenge that one should not harbor. That is from the Middle Ages."

And then there's the nattering nabobs of negativity (a phrase readers of a certain age will recall with amsement) of the effete German intellegensia:

For European observers, these kinds of public gatherings [i.e., at the WTC after bin laden's death was announced] are indeed somewhat embarrassing, because they demonstrate a kind of unthinking naïveté, and also because there is something provocative about them. ...  the photos of the revelers at Ground Zero have now become the definitive symbol of the entire nation's mood. That is something that cannot be changed, unfortunately.

And then there was that insufferable Der Speigel lecture on the alleged illegality of the Osama killing, which Kenneth Anderson powerfully and persuasively critiqued. At th every least, as Anderson put it, the article had "a certain superciliousness and condescension."

As I thought about it, there are two reasons why the German reaction is annoying me more than that of most. First, few nations contributed more to human misery in the last century than did Germany. My grandfather, my father, and several uncles all fought in world wars started by Germany. The world would have been a much better and happier place if Germany had remained a disunited collection of petty states rather than the militaristic behemoth it became in the period 1870-1945. To be lectured on just war and international law by the descendants of the SS stormtroopers my uncle fought in the Battle of the Bulge and the U-boat captains my Dad fought in the North Atlantic is galling.

Yes, I know the Germans have supposedly learned their lesson and all become pacifists, but that just takes me to my second point, which is that the Germans are united, safe, and prosperous today in large part because they have been free riding on the United States on security for decades. We paid billions to defend Western Germany, leaving them free to tend to business and their generous welfare state. Don't believe me? Consider what former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer said a few years ago about German politicians who refused to send troops into the combat areas in Afghanistan:

I cannot tell you how much this mentality annoys me. This form of cheap criticism of the US by Europeans, only to later jump on the footboard and let Americans give them a ride in security-political matters. (...) We keep criticizing the US but we do little if anything to develop European power, we are not willing to take on more responsibility and accept more risks in order to do that. We criticize 'from the armchair' while we know that if things get serious the big brother on the other side of the Atlantic will help us. It really sticks in my craw. So I understand American criticism and I am impressed that it doesn't make more of them despise the Europeans.

To be lectured on military proprieties by a people who are free to do so because they've been able to hide behind our security skirts for decades takes the proverbial cake.

Comments

[Matthuggins]

Funny how Kauder asserts: "That is from the Middle Ages." Perhaps he meant the middle of the 20th Century.

[Basher20]

To paraphrase Douglas Adams (IIRC): I feel good about OBL's death, but I feel bad about feeling good about it, but then again, I feel good about feeling bad about feeling good about it. I can live with that.

[Mike Myers]

Well let's just say that the Germans are unlike Cyndy Sheehan--who supposedly had absolute moral authority to criticize George Bush. It's been a long time since most of the world looked to Germany--or to a German newspaper-- for moral advice.

At the risk of being called a cowboy, I think that Osama Bin Laden's death passed the Texas county sheriff's test in investigating a homicide. "Did he need killing?" Osama certainly did--whether at the hands of SEAL Team 6 or after a military trial. Let's just say that in the hall of shame of world killers, Osama was only a "junior varsity" sort; he was small potatoes compared to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung et al. But he did need killing.

[Mydailyfatwa.blogspot.com]

Anderson makes a good point that there is no basis for consensus for even interpreting what international law is. The EU world view is currently entirely different from that of the US, China, Russia, Brazil, and India. And it is so strange that no one points this out. (Well, perhaps not strange -- it would delegitimize the European perspective, and many Americans aren't quite sure what side they are on until they are actually in positions of responsibility.) Europeans believe in institutions. The new "great powers" (i.e., the major countries outside of Europe with real interests and an ability to act) are strong believers in Westphalian sovereignty. It's a shame that American policy over the past 50 years has downplayed sovereignty and played up these institutions because, at the end of the day, the institutions will lose out to national interest. Since the Melian Dialogues, they always have and always will.

[Rodney Feeblenuts]

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in nineteen eighteen,
And they've hardly bothered us since then.

Its always a good time for a Tom Lehrer lyric

[Positroll]

Some Americans are annoying me. Not because they critizise some stupid remarks of (mostly) left wing German pundits (personally I'm perfectly happy with what happened to OBL). What really annoys me is the arrogance coupled with ignorance of the often heard claims that "the Germans have been free riding on the United States on security for decades".

A quick fact check:
1) 1950 - ?
NATO was founded to keep the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in Europe.
The Americans stayed for very selfish reasons: avoiding a communist takeover of Europe that would later threaten the US themselves. So let's skip the first decades after the war, shall we ... ?

2) 1980-1990:
West German Army: > 300.000 + 450.000 ready reserves
East German Army: > 100.000 + 200.000 ready reserves
(+2 navies+2 air forces)

U.S. forces in Europe: 200-300.000 (+REFORGER)
(This includes lots of troops e.g. in Italy, btw.)

Back then, Germany paid lots of money for their presence; even in 2005 with hugely reduced numbers the Germany budget still included 120 mio EUR / year for the support of foreign troops on German soil; this includes e.g. paying compensation to farmers whose crops get destroyed by US tanks driving around the countryside [which happened a lot more often back in the 80s] )

Oh, and did I mention that any war in Europe would have meant that Germany, not the US, would have become ground zero for lots of American and Russian tactical nukes + chemical weapons?

3) 1990-2000
In 1994, my company was scheduled to go to Somalia to support an American batallion. Didn't happen. Why? Well, the "Black Hawk Down" thingy happened, American conservatives srceamed from the top of their lungs about "American interest", Clinton gave in, the American troops left, Nato followed, and Somalia continued to remain a haven for lunatics, terorists and pirates to this day.

4) 2000 -
The first NATO member ever for whom Art. 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked was the US in 2001 - which is why there are currently 5000 German troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan. You might critizise the way our politicians are restraining them - but free riding it ain't.

To be lectured on proprieties of critizism of military operations by a people that silently condoned torture and less silently supported the invasion of Iraq on the flimsiest of grounds takes the proverbial cake.

P.S. And regarding our generous welfare state (which in my opinion is in fact a reason why our economy is doing way better than the American one ATM): If Americans were ready to get a decent health care system based on the French or Swiss model, the could save 6 percentage points of GDP, increase the army and still pay for a social security system worth its name. But they seem to prefer to give all that money to big corporations ... everything else would be SOCIALISM and therefore BAD ...

[Mydailyfatwa.blogspot.com]

@positroll, you make interesting points, but I think part of the concern about "free riding" gets down to actual defense spending. Throughout the Cold War, West German military spending as a portion of GDP was rarely more than 3 percent. That's less than half of what the US was spending on defense, even accounting for differences in economic size. And that trend continues today. Germany is spending about 1.5%, while the US is double that. And, from an outside perspective, it's hard to believe that, without the US presence in Germany throughout the Cold War, West Germany would not have reacted in much the same way that Finland or Austria did -- "Finlandized," as it were. (And, of course, there likely would not have been any EU of any serious sort today, except for the US security umbrella that allowed for an alliance between Germany and France without French concerns about a future invasion, or Russian efforts to undermine the institution.)

[Positroll]

"Throughout the Cold War, West German military spending as a portion of GDP was rarely more than 3 percent. That's less than half of what the US was spending on defense, even accounting for differences in economic size. And that trend continues today."

There are good reasons for that.

A. Historically:

1) During the cold war, the US were fighting a 2 1/2 fronts war: Europe, Asia, and the third world. Germany had only one front to cover.

2) Basing troops at home is always cheaper than sending them abroad.

3) Germany was in ruins after WWII. Rebuilding took lots of resources, that couldn't be spent on the military.

4) Germany wasn't allowed nukes. If you take the budgets of UK / France (permanent members of the UNSC, with colonial empires) and deduct the part that went to nukes, you basically get a slighlty smaller number than the German budget (per capita).

B. Nowadays:

1) Germany is surrounded by friends. Russian tanks would have to cross through Poland to reach us and would be shot to pieces by the Leopard IIs we sold to the Poles (btw, it's 500mio Europeans [2 mio troops] vs. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WB4K8T-SnMw/TaMb0KMETOI/AAAAAAAAAFo/yTvcL4tgR8k/s1600/military_spending_big.png

[Positroll]

Grr .. have of my post was lost when I hit "post" ... Lets try again:

B. Nowadays:

1) Germany is surrounded by friends. Russian tanks would have to cross through Poland to reach us and would be shot to pieces by the Leopard IIs we sold to the Poles (btw, it's 500mio Europeans [2 mio troops] vs. 150 mio Russians [<1 mio troops)]
So, apart from Russian nukes (we can't do anything about them and they won't incinerate their best trading partner) there is currently no military threat to German territory - terrorists are a matter for the police and lots less dangerous than German traffic.

2) Since we are already paying US$9 / gallon for gas, we feel less need to control the MENA.

3) France, the UK, Germany and Itally combined already spend more than three times as much money on defense than the Russians and (combined with Spain and Poland) twice as much as the Chinese (see link above). Nobody ever calls the Russians or Chinese military slackers - so why do Americans feel the need to pick on the Europeans?

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmgmJx9xu05hDmf61QbB56PXgjZ4At5FgQ]

I will note that Germany in 1941 attacked its best trading partner, the former Soviet Union. Of course Germany at that time made a practice of attacking neutrals (Austria, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Norway, Denmark) and allies (Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary).

[Mydailyfatwa.blogspot.com]

Positroll, you make a good point that Germany and Europe are not global powers and, therefore, do not need to devote as large a portion of GDP to defense as does the United States. But doesn't that itself underscore the point? Yes, the United States was covering 2 1/2 fronts during the Cold War, but that was 2 1/2 fronts involving the Soviet Union. Had Germany devoted more to defense during that period, the US would not have had to devote as much to the European front against a common adversary. (That's the perception.) And now, of course, Germany/Europe is surrounded by friends, but only insofar as Europe sees itself as a "local player." To the degree that Europe has "national" interests regarding trade with Asia or Latin America or the Middle East, there is still a potential for free riding (particularly vis-a-vis China). And, as we all know, militaries don't just exist to prevent invasions. If that were the primary concern, the US would have left Europe to its own devices with the Russians in 1945 (or Europe to its own devices with the Nazis in 1941), since no one has threatened an invasion of the United States since 1815. But it's clear that even the Europeans don't accept that view, since they have deployed forces to the Balkans and now to Libya without a direct threat of invasion.

And you misunderstand how nuclear weapons work. Spending on nuclear weapons is cheap -- you do that to save money, because otherwise you would have to spend considerably more on conventional weapons to maintain a deterrent. So the comparison with the UK and France isn't quite accurate.

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk4XbSyAvMq3yvoreRIZD60JSOJD40zAwQ]

In partial defense of the "effete German intelligentsia" article you linked to, I found the celebration at the WH and Times Square more than a little off-putting, more appropriate for a Gold in Olympic Hockey than the death of a wanted terrorist.

Don't get me wrong, he needed killing and had ducked us for a long time, but spontaneous celebration of completing something we said we were going to do almost a decade ago, by people who had nothing to do with it and were between 8 and 12 years old when the monster under their bed got a name is, well, beneath us. Yes, it was a spectacularly slick op by some highly-trained and very brave men, but they fly in helicopters at night and take down compounds all the time. Compared to the moon landings, it's small potatoes. OBL was not a peer competitor, he and his crew are sucker-punch artists and celebrating his death makes it seem as if the event was unexpected or somehow miraculous. It is neither, it was always just a matter of time. We are America, this is the kind of stuff we do. Maybe those kids had forgotten, but I for one had not.

I'll suspend my derision for the military and people who lost someone on 9/11. They have skin in the game. I will note that other than the folks at the service academies, there was not a lot of spontaneous celebration from those quarters, at least not reported.

[LarryD]

Recall OBLs fatwas around 2001. He declared war on the US. And a genocidal war at that. Leaving anyone alive at his compound was restraint on our part.

And if you don't like the celebration at the WH, complain to Obama, it's pretty obvious it was organized by his campaign staff. The presence of professionally prepared signs was a blatant tell, the celebration was not so spontaneous as that.

All of New York City had skin in the game, ever since the two towers went down.

[Geoff Newbury]

I am reminded of this:
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many
obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow

And Herr Darnstadt is a sitzpinkler.

[Baba Ganoush]

Not that I disagree with you, Prof. B, but your Reason #2 sounds a lot like what Col. Nathan Jessep said in "A Few Good Men" as he was being questioned on the stand during the dramatic court martial scene. Obama declared a Code Red on Osama bin Laden. Who am I to disagree with that decision?

[Steve Bainbridge]

Positroll: Take it up with Joschka Fischer.

[Steve Bainbridge]

Meanwhile, the German insanity over this issue grows apace. Der Spiegel reports that: "A Hamburg judge has filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for "endorsing a crime" after she stated she was "glad" that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces." http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-761077.html

[Mike Myers]

Professor Bainbridge you beat me to the punch on posting that bit of German judicial nonsense.

Times change, but I doubt that the Hamburg Judge's grandfather would have filed a criminal complaint against Messrs. Hitler, Heydrich and Eichman.

As for Positroll and Germany's contributions to the defense of Western Europe? Thank you for your contribution. One might say that every little bit helps.

[Gary Rosen]

"To be lectured on proprieties of critizism of military operations by a people that silently condoned torture and less silently supported the invasion of Iraq on the flimsiest of grounds takes the proverbial cake."

To be lectured on *anything* by a people that slaughtered millions of innocent civilians takes every cake ever baked. As I posted on Michael Totten's blog I fully expected Europeans to be more outraged by the phenonmenally welcome and well-deserved whacking of bin Laden than they ever were about the Holocaust.

[Gary Rosen]

Phenomenally. I think everyone gets the point.

[No Id]

Prof, I suggest that you're irked by a cultural difference between the US and Europe. I believe that most Europeans, like me, who saw those celebrations of OBL's death felt uncomfortable. We do not approve of revenge and we do not approve of extra-judicial killing. Those celebrations, and patently absurd comments by senior officials to the effect that justice had been done, bring home just how Other the US is to us. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

[Positroll]

@Mydailyf
"Had Germany devoted more to defense during that period, the US would not have had to devote as much to the European front against a common adversary. (That's the perception.)"
The German perception of the time (with which I personally agree) was that bringing to the table a bigger army than the whole US forces in Europe (cf. above; population West Germany: 60 mio, US: 250 mio +) and being made the potential battleground for WW III was good enough, considering the huge difference in wealth between the US and Western Europe at the time. Simply put: the US were rich and prefered to spend lots of money in order to contain the Soviets on foreign soil, so that the US don't become a future battleground. A perfectly reasonable choice - but no argument for any moral superiority.

"And now, of course, Germany/Europe is surrounded by friends, but only insofar as Europe sees itself as a "local player."
Europe sees itself as a global player, but it doesn't think that Iraq style foreign interventions are a cure all. Which is why Europe spends a lot more on foreign aid than the US does.

"there is still a potential for free riding (particularly vis-a-vis China)."
Sorry? Are you arguing we should spend more in order to defend Japan from China? Can't follow you here ...

"And, as we all know, militaries don't just exist to prevent invasions."
Well, that's basically what the Americans put into our constitution in 1949 (there is a small exception for UN-backed missions). Complaining now about the mindset produced by the Allies back then is somewhat incongruent, don't you think?

"If that were the primary concern, the US would have left Europe to its own devices with the Russians in 1945 (or Europe to its own devices with the Nazis in 1941), since no one has threatened an invasion of the United States since 1815."
I guess that's why the US made all citizens of Japanese decent leave the westcoast and interned lots of them, just to be save? BTW, Germany tried to get Mexico to invade the US in 1917, didn't work, though ...

"And you misunderstand how nuclear weapons work. "
I agree with your theory - but that's not how it works in practice (re: national politics) ...

@S. Bainbridge
"Positroll: Take it up with Joschka Fischer."
I fully agree with Fischer on that point. The difference between me and Fischer on the one hand, and your post on the other hand, is that we critizise specific persons for specific actions, instead of cheaply insulting a whole country.

"Meanwhile, the German insanity over this issue grows apace."
Yeah, if the insanity continues this way it will one day reach American levels where a leading Republican contender for the presidency (aka the Donald) considers pestering the elected President (busy with deciding the fate of Bin Laden) with requests for his birth certificate a great victory; where global warming is considered a hoax by basically the whole republican party; where a good junk of the left (and the extreme right?) think that 9/11 was an "inside job"; where the Supreme Court thinks legal persons have a godgiven right to corrupt the political process; where rail travel is considered by some Governors a boondoggle from communist hell (just like healthcare for all) and where big parts of the legal establishment still defend waterboarding as legal ... Otoh, we could just agree that there are some crazies everywhere, including in the ranks of the judiciary, and get on with normal life ...

[Steffen Binder]

As annoying as the line by Der Spiegel and a bunch of other left-leaning magazines & moronic politicians is, the majority of Germans is not sharing this point of view. Have a look at BILD (best selling tabloid) and you will get a much better picture. The vast majority of ordinary Germans is relieved that OBL was killed and hope that this will be a step to dismantle and destroy El Kaida.

[Gary Rosen]

" we critizise specific persons for specific actions, instead of cheaply insulting a whole country"

... after you posted

" a *people* [my emphasis - GR] that silently condoned torture and less silently supported the invasion of Iraq on the flimsiest of grounds"

It's hard to say what is richer - the smarm, the arrogance, the pomposity or the hypocrisy.

[Positroll]

Rosen, ever heard the word "sarcasm"?
Re-read the last 2 lines of the original post - maybe you'll see what I mean ...