| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Europe | |
| Pullout rocks Germans | |
| 2003-05-03 | |
Germany reacted with dismay yesterday to America's decision not to return the 17,000-strong 1st Armoured Division to Germany, accelerating plans to relocate its troops to eastern Europe. Roland Koch, the premier of Hesse state, where 3,700 of the 70,000 US soldiers in Germany are stationed, said the American decision would lead to the loss of 250 jobs and have a huge impact on shops and other businesses. Chancellor Gerhard Schroder has repeatedly shrugged off the prospect of a withdrawal of US forces, but officials around Frankfurt and Heidelberg, where troops are stationed, are concerned at the loss of millions of dollars which the soldiers and their families bring in each year.
| |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #12 TGA - I do think the Mill quote does have some application. East Germany had the advantage of proximity to the west. They had education and they had civilization when they started. But Spain was a (nominally) fascist state, and Portugal was an authoritarian state until pretty recently. They evolved out of their authoritarianism. And some areas have to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck and civilized. Witness Afghanistan, Congo, and - sadly - Zimbabwe. A bare culture becomes a civilization when its machinery of government becomes strong enough to impose order, enforce a division of labor, and hence produce a betterment of the common good. That first level of civilization is probably most amenable to the top down, heavily structured society a despotism implies. Temples, pyramids, roads, aqueducts, irrigation systems, and all the other things necessary for the attainment of a minimal prosperity can come from that. I believe what we have in the civilized world today - not just the west, but Japan and Taiwan and increasing areas of China, probably smaller but growing areas of Russia - is a second level of civilization. Something like Maslow's heirarchy of needs, once a civilization attains the point where it doesn't have to worry about the basics of infrastructure, it can turn its attention from the common good to the individual good, to where the individual members of society persue self-actualization rather than breakfast. Government shifts naturally from being the driver to being the referee among independent parties. The reason fascism and communism didn't work was that they were concentrating on the things their societies were on the verge of being able to concentrate on themselves, with the unfocused mass mind better able to attend to the details than the focused but finite groups of planners and party men. But the world is still full of first-level civilizations, and they do need "parental" assistance. Good parents know how to say "no." In 1950 Burma had approximately the same standard of living as Thailand, and they've historically been evenly-matched rivals. One's still a first-level society, the other's now achieved the second level and it's blossoming. Burma's had dictatorships and planned economies since U Nu, and the Thais muddled along building a more-or-less democracy and a kinda-sorta free society until they took. Had the Brit "parents" remained and said "no" to Burma's succession of planned economies, the two countries might still be peers. Had the Congo had a "parent" other than Belgium, maybe they wouldn't be killing each other with such abandon today. But maybe I'm wrong. Zimbabwe by that theory shouldn't be the way it is today... |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-05-03 22:31:20 |
| #11 I see this as in great measure an economic problem. A disproportionate share of the Mideast's population consists of unemployed young men whose futures are bleak. Many see their choices as being either Mahmoud the unemployed goatherd or Mahmoud the Sword of Islam. Does the West have a third alternative to offer them (Mahmoud who runs a profitable store down on the corner) or does it not? Iraq is the test for us, and for them. I will say the biggest causes for optimism I have seen are (1) Bush is one stubborn SOB and will stay the course once he sets it and (2) as far as I can tell from the wretched journalism coming out of Iraq, ordinary Iraqis on the whole seem to be behaving pretty rationally in absolutely bizarre circumstances. They want the lights back on, but who wouldn't? We -- and they -- might just pull this off, and if we do the ones looking for jobs will be the terror chieftains. |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-05-03 21:53:56 |
| #10 TGA, for years I believed that ideas, once thought, could not be unthought. Germany, and Japan, are the full examples that ideas can be unthought and undone. Terrorism can be defeated by bombs. If there is another attack on the United States, or our allies abroad, we will just see what it takes to stamp out terrorism in its various forms. Make no mistake, it won't involve the definition of "freedom fighters" or UN resolutions. |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-05-03 20:46:12 |
| #9 Ed, the great German poet Hoelderlin once said: "Wo aber Gefahr ist waechst das Rettende auch" (Where there is danger, the things that save us grow as well). Each century has its challenges. The 20th century could have very well been our last. It could have all ended in 1963 (Cuba crisis) or 1983 (Operation Ryan). Can you imagine what it felt like to walk through the ruins of German cities? And look at the country today. Did despotism achieve this? No, people found out that democracy and freedom worked for them. At least in West Germany. In East Germany a despotic power kept the country in its grip for 40 years. So look at the state of West Germany and East Germany in 1989. What do you think worked better? The United States will not eradicate terrorism with bombs. It will eradicate it by showing people that fanatism will not benefit them, but democracy and tolerance will. In Iraq the US has the chance to demonstrate this... in the center of the Muslim world. But in order to get there, bombs were needed. Yet the hard work is only starting now. It took decades in Germany, it will take decades in Iraq, too. If it works, a positive revolution in the Arab world is a real possibility. But if the US is happy with a pro-American government and pulls out, not much will be achieved. Is America ready for this? Or will it go for the "quick fix" and move on? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-05-03 19:13:52 |
| #8 TGA, Matt... I'm reminded of a quote I recently saw on Jerry Purnelle's website, a quote that - coming from HIM - shocked me right down to my shoes. "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one." -- John Stuart Mill. This from one of the great political philosophers of the 19th century. Frightening that we may be reduced to accepting this as an unavoidable consequence of having both irrational "All or NOTHING!" religions and low-cost high-tech weapons of mass destruction on the same planet at the same time. Ed Becerra |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-05-03 18:40:48 |
| #7 Matt, younger Germans are very "americanized" (you'll find that advertising, music, movies etc is very American here), but why should they be that "grateful"? For them even the Cold War is "history", let alone WW2. East Germans tend to be more sceptical: They don't see Ronald Reagan as the reason the wall came down. They think Perestroika and their own brave peaceful resistance did the trick and they are not entirely wrong, right? We probably underestimated what reunification after 40 years apart really meant and many Germans are still not sure what the "Berliner Republik" should be about. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-05-03 18:35:25 |
| #6 TGA: Merkel seems the obvious choice for us Merkins, but I haven't a clue about her domestic policies. By the way, you mentioned in another post that young Germans did not have the same grateful attitude toward the US that older Germans do. I'm sure that's true, but the young Germans I've worked with have all been quite impressive and energetic. (One Ossi I know has some rather strange politics, but I'm willing to make allowances.) |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-05-03 18:19:43 |
| #5 Germany is a lost cause. We should get ready to fight them again, when --not if-- they decide to screw up the rest of Europe again. The latest Balkan wars are entirely the fault of "reunified" Germany. They should have been split into 20 indpendent states and kept down forever. US troops should be replaced with Polish troops there. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2003-05-03 17:39:52 |
| #4 Matt for the moment, yes. Actually I prefer her in 2003! I would have voted for Schaeuble had he run for office in 1998. Kohl's mistake not to give up earlier. Koch is one of those bland politicians who just go with the flow. Angela had the guts to side with America when it was NOT the easy thing to do. And she is a lot smarter than some people think. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-05-03 17:15:14 |
| #3 I'm sorry to see the folks in Wiesbaden leave, not because I don't think it's right, but because it will make it much more difficult for a bunch of my German friends in that beautiful city. I spent ten years of my life there, and truthfully, I miss it. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-05-03 17:03:56 |
| #2 TGA: OK, I'll bite. Who do you like in 2006? Angela? |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-05-03 16:18:22 |
| #1 Mr Koch is one of the staunchest opponents of Gerhard Schroeder (he criticised him harshly over Iraq) and may be his challenger in the elections of 2006. (I don't like him much but for other reasons.) |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-05-03 15:34:58 |