Germany in rethink on Iraq force deployment By Hugh Williamson and Gerrit Wiesmann in Berlin Published: October 12 2004 22:07 | Last updated: October 12 2004 22:07 Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change, Peter Struck, the German defence minister, indicated on Tuesday in a gesture that appears to provide backing for John Kerry, the US Democratic presidential challenger. In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Struck departed from his government’s resolve not to send troops to Iraq under any circumstances, saying: “At present I rule out the deployment of German troops in Iraq. In general, however, there is no one who can predict developments in Iraq in such a way that he could make a such a binding statement [about the future].” Mr Struck also welcomed Mr Kerry’s proposal that he would convene an international conference on Iraq including countries that opposed the war if he were to win next month's election. Germany would certainly attend, Mr Struck said. “This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference.” Berlin has refused to comment on the outcome of the US election, but Mr Struck's comments are significant as Mr Kerry has argued that he would be able to draw in countries to work in Iraq that opposed the war. Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, was a leading opponent of the US-led Iraq war and his re-election in 2002 was secured in part on support for this stance. Mr Struck and other German officials said developments in Iraq meant the position over troops was under constant review, noting that Berlin was already providing financial assistance to Iraq and training Iraqi troops and police officers in the United Arab Emirates. A senior official said: “When the situation in Iraq changes, when elections have been held, or there are other developments, then we will make decisions on this basis.” If a democratically-elected Iraqi government were to ask the UN for support, the international community, including Germany, must be in a position to respond, the official added. Mr Struck said Germany's attendance at the conference proposed by Mr Kerry did not mean Berlin would immediately deploy troops. Analysts in Berlin argue that a Kerry victory would increase pressure on Germany to step up its involvement in Iraq, even though public opinion is still firmly against the US role in Iraq and against any heightened German engagement. Mr Struck said he could envisage Germany making a larger “political contribution to stability in the [Middle East] region”, building on mediation efforts in recent years by Joschka Fischer, foreign minister, regarding Israel and the Palestinians. Germany announced last month a shipment of 20 armoured vehicles to the Iraqi military, as part of Berlin's increased involvement in Nato-led reconstruction efforts there. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0b76459e-1c80-11d9-8d72-00000e2511c8.html
I can concur with that. I was over in Germany visting my family this summer and the atmosphere there is focusing on two things: 1) The economy is in REALLY bad shape. and 2) The US invasion of Iraq was unwise. (I am paraphrasing in a "nice" way)
I wonder who they think would be best for their economy... Bush or Kerry? What interested me was the clear nod, by the German defense minister, that Germany would welcome a Kerry presidency. Just high enough in government to have attention and credibility, and low enough to be blamed for any "misunderstanding" if Bush gets re-elected... and on the eve of the last debate. Yes, folks, if you ever want to see a nation "tilt" politically in one direction (like the famous tilt by the US towards Pakistan, in 1971, at India's expense), this is a great example. It's not in the '71 Pakistan/India class, of course, but we're seeing a tilt, folks. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Germans, and Europeans in general, think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq by Bush was unwise. It would be fun to travel in Europe right now, because they love their politics. I remember traveling for several months there during the Vietnam War. The conversation was great! Keep D&D Civil!!
This is correct. Bush would probably get less than 10 % of the vote in most European countries. He is seen as the worst president the United States ever had. It is not relevant, however, since we over here do not elect the American President.
dont need a pair of binoculars are a magnifying glass to understand why. take a a commerical airplane with german citizens lifting off from frankfurt and fly into a Berlin plaza and I know they would think different. and hell who knows that may be the hard knock that gets our own \high idealistic elegant talkers around here to lay down their golden bound books and pull down their wooly sweaters and put down their playstation controllers and taste a bit of reality.
Considering German officials' direct implication in the Food for Oil scandal, I would be wary of jumping into bed with these guys.
With regard to economics, I think they can expect the same from either candidate. That however, is not their focus with regard to the American presidency. They tend to be really concerned with the aggressive policies of the current administration. Maybe I'll talk more about this later - especially with regard to Texas Stroke's comment/insult. Oh man, I had a great time over there. Conversation is very politics oriented. The comparison is interesting, to say the least. When I am over there I get the impression that this was what America was like in the early 1900s; when over 90% of the population voted and everybody was involved in the political scene. Nowadays, talking about politics is like talking about abortion. You just don't do it unless you like arguing.
See findings in the Duelfer Report. The Germans, Russians, French (in spades) and ranking U.N. officials all were too busy swooning over Saddam Hussein's cash and therefore had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo vis a vis the "sanctions," despite the human rights outrages. Since the President's standing in Europe is low, he should take off the gloves and reveal all. Of course, diplomacy prevents that. However, I also think Mr. Bush should disclose all the nefarious business dealings he and Vice President Chaney have supported, but, then agein, I tend to be an idealist. May there be a pox on all their houses, particularly the chateaux.
You said it, Batman... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/14/international/europe/14germany.html?oref=login&oref=login "German officials on Wednesday reaffirmed their policy of not contributing troops to the American-led force in Iraq and rejected speculation, prompted by a published interview with the country's defense minister, that the policy might change."
i don't care, frankly. i suppose it could be argued that as host country to a significant number of islamic terrorists, and as a sometime target, germany has a compelling interest in fighting the WOT, but i doubt they'd send enough to be anything more than symbolic, in which case, how would their contribution be any more valuable that what's already there?
As SJC pointed out, they are taking part in the WOT. And they are doing so in the home of Al-Qaeda. They aren't taking part in the unjust war in Iraq.
As opposed to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. ? Calling out Germany for harboring terrorists is a little disingenuous.
I don't think your first sentence really deserves comment, not from me, anyway, but if you are so quick to dismiss "anything more than symbolic" from Germany, then why have I read reams of posts here singing the praises of the "Coalition of the Willing," the overwhelming majority of whom have done exactly that? Sending "symbolic" forces that amount to as much as you claim Germany would send, if it chose to send any? I see a major disconnect here. I guess if you are Germany, or France, for that matter, whatever you send, short of brave Poland (and I'm not being sarcastic), will be merely a symbol... nothing more. Sorry, basso, but I think your statement highlights the same thing the Administration has been doing for a very long time, regarding Iraq. Slamming longtime allies who disagreed with Bush's Iraqi invasion, and his reasons for doing it, while praising those countries who send a company or two to Iraq as being significant, even if it is a country that most Americans (sadly, due to the lack of interest shown by so many in geography and world politics) have never heard of, and couldn't place on a map. I still believe the German defense minister's statement was vetted by those above him, and represents a signal that they would welcome a change of administration in the United States. Keep D&D Civil!!
