The Returns On The Cuddling of Terrorists
From the desk of George Handlery on Thu, 2011-06-09 08:17
We like to think that the facts accessible to us determine our measured judgment of the case. Therefore, they become decisive according to a rational evaluation. A praxis related correction of the conception would be to surmise that it is the interpretation of filtered facts that gives them significance. In translation, this means that not the pure event but its agreed upon meaning is what makes it consequential in the public’s mind.
Bin Laden’s removal is a fact. So are his record and his well-documented and loudly proclaimed intentions. Nevertheless, the results of the commando action that terminated his career prompted a revealing and potentially consequential discussion in Germany. It goes beyond bemoaning that there will be an “empty chair” at the bin Laden family’s dinner table. The unpleasant tendency embedded in Germany’s political culture is to take extreme positions. That even pertains when moderation and restraint are emphasized as “non-negotiable” goals.
The recent hysterical flight from nuclear energy represents a new extreme outgrowth of what is touted to be an act of cautious moderation. As of now, Germany renounces nuclear technology with a vehemence that one would reserve for the bubonic plague. The upshot will be an energy gap. The power-deficit of a highly industrialized economy is to be overcome by government-imposed savings that will cut consumption. Furthermore, the wish-induced trust of the nation is placed in the yet inadequately performing solar power and wind turbines’ hoped for future efficiency. In doing so any possibility of future gains in the efficiency and safety of the future’s nuclear plants are dismissed as being beyond the pale. In medicine self amputation might be rare. Apparently this is not so in politics.
Germany and the USA are allies. Therefore, their intelligence services share some of their data. For instance, information about German citizens that become active in Afghanistan is forwarded. These persons are clearly not there because they happen to be fans of Afghan puppies or even local poppies. At the same time, unintegrated Islamists, residing in Germany and holding German citizenship, as well as converts that serve Jihad, are abundant. Now then, the supplied information intends to keep track of terrorists. Such intelligence can support military strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Among the intended benefits is an enhanced chance to eliminate clandestine cells in which such “Germans” are active. New problems of German – American relations begin to surface around the practice.
The information, from let us say tracing contacts from Germany to Afghanistan, helps to locate Jihadists there. That, in turn, is likely to lead to the determination of targets in the field. Being targeted for an attack by drones is likely to lead to the demise of those that are caught camping in the bull’s eye. With a phantasm that deserves recognition for its inventiveness, it is now suggested that, the sharing of information implies that German intelligence is facilitating the liquidation of German citizens. Accordingly, the handing over the data to US intelligence that aids the localization of radical cells, is said to amount to a virtual death sentence.
It is this consequence that is about to be proclaimed to be unacceptable for a democracy which is still consumed by the burden to atone for the sins of the great-grandfathers. If the speculation is accepted then this death sentence is issued without a trial in which at the outset innocence would need to be presumed. Therefore, by the logic displayed, the death sentence is unlawful. Consequently, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, information should not be shared with the “executioners”.
There is another sign of ripples in German – American relations. The case also demonstrates that the attempt to buy immunity from radicals by striving for the safe middle ground between these and their enemies, does not purchase the good will of rescued terrorists.
That kindness does not work because it only causes contempt has produced proof during a recent visit of Chancellor Merkel to India. In an unprecedented action Iran, even though it has initially approved the flight through its air space, has suspended the permission in the last minute. Merkel’s flight had to circle for hours in Turkish air space before it received permission to traverse Iran. In itself, the matter is unusual. Or is the rational mind to assume that any accidental conformity of Iran with international standards is the real abnormality? The antecedents of the incident add the spice to the calculated insult that Berlin had to swallow.
To compensate Iran for oil, India needed to transfer money to Tehran. The EIH (Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank), is located in Germany and is the institution that Iran picked for the deposit of Delhi’s funds. This EIH happened to be on an American blacklist. Therefore, India was reluctant to use it for transactions involving Indian financial institutions. That is where the Germans entered the picture.
According to a saving suggestion, India was to make the deposit to the Bundesbank. Once received, the funds were to be transferred to the institution picked by Iran. The subsequent abstention in the Security Council on resolution 1973 regarding Libya must have added more oil to the fire of the Americans. However, typically for her inconsistency, finally and presumably reluctantly, Berlin has now consented to sanctions against the EIH Bank once the EU’s foreign ministers imposes them.
It is understood that Washington must have a dim view of the emerging ambivalent priorities of German foreign policy. Perhaps because there is momentarily no direct threat from which the protecting American umbrella would be needed, the ship’s nose is dierected at points that suggest future differences.
Meanwhile, guesses that explain German policies are warranted. These should go beyond the basic instinct for yet another attempt at appeasement. Is Berlin attempting to prevent Tehran from burning its bridges by binding it to sanity through a policy of her good offices? In the same vein, is this all part of an attempt of jelly-boned diplomats to prevent close Iranian ties from developing to Peking and Moscow? Could the goal be to buy immunity from the terrorism that Iran controls? Whatever the case might be, the quality of downgraded transatlantic relations have put at risk on the pursuit of other goals.
The implied new priorities and the abandonment of old ones make one wonder regarding the public opinion behind them. At the same time, the erratic twists registered on the rudder can be taken as a warning. The caveat speaks for caution in dealing with the crew of the erratic vessel. Pinning a “Presidential Medal of Freedom” on visiting Chancellor Merkel’s chest might do a lot of good. What it does not do is to dissipate the suggested need for the suspicious observance of coming developments.
Abbottabad - what really happened
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2011-06-14 08:20.
No matter how the US government handled Bin Laden, once he was within reach, it was bound to face criticism. Fortunately, the Obama administration did not put him on trial. That would have only prolonged the hue and cry, as was the case with Milosevic and Hussein.
However, the “version of events” provided to the media is patently false. There was no cross-border raid from Afghanistan. Obama never would have risked the special forces operators being shot down over Pakistan or being mistaken for an Indian incursion. Remember Able Archer 83? Remember KAL 007? The Pakistanis have even worse radar as and command-and-control systems. Yet a strike force comprised of over 2 helicopters (recall the reserves mentioned later by USG sources) and fixed-wing support aircraft (also mentioned by the USG) was able to penetrate straight to a military town near the capital? And who told residents to stay indoors and turn off their lights? If the Pakistanis knew of the impending operation, why bother with the secret raid in the first place?
The fact is that some horse-trading went on until the “more extreme” elements of the ISI agreed to give Bin Laden up. A team of trusted Pakistani operators entered the compound and neutralized the resistance. Then one or more CIA operatives attached to the group (per “trust, but verify”) located Bin Laden, confirmed his identity and then executed him on the spot (per the ending of The Little Drummer Girl). Or…Bin Laden had already killed himself and was identified post-mortem…
Senators who did see the true before and after photos publicly stated that Bin Laden had been shot in the side of the head above the ear, and that his brain matter had exploded through an eye socket. In fact, this matter was removed from Osama’s face before his burial at sea. It is incredulous to believe that the SEALs prowled about the compound looking for data for approx. 30-40 minutes before locating Bin Laden on the third floor. Those choppers were quiet! Quiet enough to fly over Pakistani farms, villages and towns; even quiet enough to crash-land without disturbing anyone.
No – this fictitious US Navy SEAL raid was constructed to save face for both Washington and Islamabad. Curiously, the different versions of the “raid” from both official and unofficial sources in the US and Pakistan have gone relatively unnoticed by the fifth estate. Instead, they are concerned about whether or not the spray-painted hubcap found at Bin Laden’s compound is a secret noise suppressor for helicopters that might fall into the hands of the Chinese…
Islamabad already has an established pattern of allowing USAF/CIA airstrikes/targeted killings on its territory, and then screaming bloody murder for domestic purposes. There was never any intent to capture him, especially as the treacherous ISI might change its mind about giving him up. Note that the primary object of the ISI’s activities is India, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan and Iran, due to the presence of cross-border ethnic groups i.e. the the Balochs and Pashtuns. The ISI cares as much about Al-Qaeda ideologically-speaking as it does the United States. As this week's latest targeted killing tells us, the ISI is hanging Al-Qaeda out to dry.
No medal
Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2011-06-11 00:07.
@ Kappert
1) Bin Laden was NOT the only one killed in that house. While I do not know the exact number killed, I am aware of at least 4 deaths in the raid, and perhaps there were several more.
2) No, there was no other practical option available to Obama. One cannot fight a war over a big part of the globe with lawyers and courts. We are not dealing here with common crime in Hamburg or Berlin, nor Chicago for that matter. Ever since the Obama/Holder team has tried to criminalise what properly belongs in the military domain (including military courts), the American political system has thrown obstacles in their way, and properly so. A more sensible and less ideological president could have transferred Bin Laden to Guantanamo and have him tried there by a military tribunal. That option was not politically available to Obama, given his past ridiculous campaign promises none of which have stood the test of time under the pressure of real world conditons/events. Obama cannot afford the spectacle of civil trials of Al Qaeda leaders. His policy has thus shifted to....drones shooting missiles from the air and... liquidations. Such is war under an originally-naive president.
3) Could it be that you are confusing "philosophers" with Kindergarten teachers? I think so. It is true that in Kindergartens, morality is usually reduced to a set of simple rules, which can be ticked off from a list and which do not require independent thinking and judgment by the 'little ones'. Presumably Kappert is not a Kindergartner. It is also true that some primitive 'religions' confuse morality with 'physical things', i.e. they naively think that some things and/or actions are good and other things/actions are bad . Western civilisation, at one time, had progressed way beyond that primitive stage, and recognised that the morality of an action is determined by (a) circumstances and by (b) underlying true/genuine intentions. A moral human being is not one who ticks off from a list, but is one who takes responsibility for his/her moral conscientious judgment.
4) We apparently agree on the true state/nature of the US-German relationship. May God help Germany, if recent history is any guide to judge by!
5) Sorry to disappoint you. I have no medals, and deservedly so.
@marcfrans
Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2011-06-11 11:30.
Your answer reveals that the task for the seals was 'to kill'. That confirms the critics.
If a country 'fight a war over a big part of the globe' it indeed can not count on civilized, human or democratic procedures. No global warrior in history could that. Hopefully, the years in which the USA claim that role, will be gone soon.
Your advocacy for military courts reminds me of the military tribunals in Nazi-Germany, swift, brutal, arbitrary, 'honourably'. So, for how long you like to maintain Guantánamo? How many military trails have been there since 2001? Besides, your answer enters slightly into contradiction.
I won't underestimate kindergarten teachings, mostly more advanced in motivation and judgement questions than later schools (at least in Germany). Not at all the good/bad dichotomy you seem to assume for this stage of human formation. Your arguments – circumstance, underlying intentions – reflected by the behaviourist school, neglect that the conflict analysis goes far beyond the moral conscientious judgement as it is not a one man show. Thinking about the bin Laden killing, I would assume that a thorough conflict analysis would have come up with another solution that assaulting the Abbottabad house, killing the target.
Germany is in the middle of Europe. Therefore, friendly bonds (remember Bismarck) have to be laced into all 4 directions, West, South, East and Far East (as North isn't worth to be mentioned ;). The superpower USA is somewhat hampering this effort.
Yet on merit for medals: a german story: two times world champion, nine times athlete of the year, yet no entrance into the 'Hall of Fame' in sports of Germany. Why, the athlete Gustav-Adolf Schur was a communist!
to marcfrans
Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2011-06-10 18:51.
Thanks for your comments.
On bin Laden killing: As I recall, bin Laden was the only one killed in that house. I wonder if it would not have been possible to knock him out and transfer him to a legal court.
On morality of killing: I suppose there are some religions that declare the killing of a human being as a sin. Most philosophers share this view, even when they are not religious. It is the game of criminal minds to find holes in laws and morality to discover a 'righteous killing' without feeling ridiculous.
On energy costs: Nuclear energy will cost us for thousands of years as we have to treat the waste. At least.
On US-German relationship: I agree.
On medals: I bet you have one in your cupboard.
Kappert will never disappoint
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2011-06-10 17:06.
Kappert will never disappoint those studying social pathologies and in need of 'study material'.
1) He calls the killing of Bin Laden a "disputable way to achieve a military goal". One wonders if he knows of a better way to achieve that particular goal? What would be his preferred 'German' way? An all-out invasion of Pakistan? Indiscriminate bombardment of Abbottabad? What exactly? We will never know, because Kappert - let's be frank about - does not think that far ahead and cannot conceive of worthwhile "military goals". One suspects that his "way" would be to do nothing - a common affliction of contemporary German policy when faced with evil in the world - and one would be right in that suspicion.
2) As to morality, following Chomsky and other pathological perverse Western selfhaters, Kappert cannot fathom the difference between "killing" and "murder". It does indeed require some serious thinking about context and about true intentions.
3) As to economics, he sounds a bit more reasonable. Energy policy is a complex subject, with many facets. The relevant issue is not so much about a "power deficit" but about relative costs of different energy sources. Nevertheless, the recent German decision seems 'extreme', and will have negative consequences in terms of national security (foreign dependence) and of lower future income growth.
4) One must hope that Germany and the US do not "share (much) intelligence". Anybody who thinks that these countries are true allies today is living on a fantasy planet, and is not aware of dominant trends in contemporary German culture, of which Kappert himself is quite an example.
5) In typical extreme thoughtless fashion, Kappert ends by declaring all medals "worth nothing". It would indeed require some intellectual and moral discrimination to do otherwise. Yet, there are worthy medals and worthy recipients, besides the many unworthy ones.
Swiss German-basher
Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2011-06-09 12:32.
„Extreme German positions“, as the author stated, emphasize that the attack on Abbottabad and the killing by a Special Forces Team without encountering resistance, is a disputable way to achieve military goals. But Mummy Merkel was quite happy about the murder of bin Laden, in the best American way.
During six months, most nuclear power facilities in Germany were shut down, without provoking any lack of energy. The erratic idea that shutting down nuclear facilities will result in a power deficit is merely an argument of the atomic lobby. Instead of billion dollar investments in marode nuclear power stations to keep them going for more 20 or 30 years, it is better to shut them down for good and invest in alternative energies, be sure that Germany will be a leader on this field. If other countries like USA, China, Russia, Iran and France want to keep up their nuclear toys, we can only guess where the next accident will happen. That it will happen, is guaranteed, if we learn the lesson from Fukushima.
The Germany-bashing author claims that Germany and USA share intelligence – allow me to doubt that. While the US-Government seems to engage in a dialogue with the Taliban, the author, in his Swiss crest, wishes to support military strikes. Better he check his intelligence.
Merkel's voyage over Iran and the permission delay were simple communication mishaps. The fly-over interval the two German planes was greater than previously announced, the callsign of Merkel's plane was new, though the same callsign as the old plane. Tehran control was puzzled to see a A340 instead of a A310. In 20 minutes the case was solved, though communication needed over 2 hours to resolve the misunderstanding. The first excitement was calmed down by mutual apologies.
A business between India and Iran via a bank located in Germany is nothing what an „American blacklist“ might be interested in. By the way, the Bundesbank took over the business. Even if the US do not speak with Iran, there are sufficient countries that do.
The war against Gaddafi and bombarding Tripoli corresponds hardly to the tenor of Resolution 1973. The insane NATO intervention is ridiculous and utterly inefficient. Germany was right not to align in this stupidity.
German foreign policies are very rational, as always Kant still prevails. Good relations to Moscow and a neutral position in the Middle East is something what the US cannot afford. Washington will need Berlin for that.
About the 'Freedom Medal'. Well, didn't Obama even received a Nobel Peace Prize. Medals are worth nothing.