The Forgotten Obvious
Ok, people, I think we all can admit that the cruel shock that many of us have been experiencing at the loss of Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” has been duly sharpened by the strident, abrasive effects of watching his temporary successor Tom Brokaw feel blindly his way through the pitfalls of an hour-long news show which requires improvisation and REAL preparation. I am sorry to get the feathers of you Brokaw fans ruffled, but the man just rubs me the wrong way. I don’t know what disease he has, and I am bound to be putting my foot in mouth for saying this, but must he, seriously, rasp so as he inhales, clenching his jaw, forcing air through the corners of his mouth? And the phrase “who the heck does this guy think he is?” certainly comes to mind as he asks his questions so condescendingly from his ivory tower? (You know that there is nothing that an arrogant prick hates worse than being condescended to.) Greatest generation my ass. Even that as a title rubs me the wrong way.
I think it’s time for an open letter to NBC: replace Brokaw ASAP or lose me as a fan!
Watching Brokaw grill Obama for 50 minutes on the “Meet the Press” webcast reminded me that I meant to mention a point about Germany and the Germans’ seeming reluctance to participate in Afghanistan to the extent that the world community thinks that they “should”. It was interesting to see Brokaw mention the countries, who, again according to some unknown consensus, seem to be shouldering their portion of the burden there. Holland, Britain, Canada, and France seem all to be doing their part, unafraid to assume positions in provinces wrought with havoc and violence. The Germans, though, are unwilling to be redeployed away from the North, where they enjoy, or so it seems by both Brokaw’s and Obama’s descriptions, drinking Afghani equivalents of Pina Coladas whilst sitting under Afghani equivalent palm trees. They actually have palm tress there, I believe, but whatever.
I am a bit annoyed at the lack of pointing out the obvious on this point. These aforementioned countries all have professional armies just like our own in the US, where people volunteer to serve, knowing full well that they will be putting themselves, potentially, in harm’s way. Germany, however, is made up primarily of conscripted service. Every young man 18 years of age must make the difficult choice: either serve 9 months in the army, or do civil service. The vast majority of young German males opt for the civil service, which includes wiping elderly people’s asses, teaching bratty kindergarteners inane songs and the like.
Has anyone thought about the implications of making an army, made up by and large of youngsters who are there because the law says they must be, go into a suicidal war zone and lose their lives? Would America be comfortable letting THEIR young be drafted and sent into potentially hazardous situations, perhaps never to return? Well, if the world were truly at war and the public opinion were behind it, as in the Second World War, yes, I could see that America would be courageously willing, as it has been in the past, to heroically send its young into battle for the betterment of us all. But, can you honestly tell me that the draft would be accepted in an environment such as the one in America right now? I don’t think so, a point so well illustrated in the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” as Michael Moore basically chases senators around the capitol, unable to get any of them to volunteer the service of their own children into the military.
War is unpopular enough in Germany as it is. NATO should be happy that the Germans are serving there at all. Angela Merkel has just promised additions to the troop presence in Afghanistan from Germany. But, if the troops are repositioned, and the death toll begins to rise, you can bet that the public will begin protesting on the streets against sending their young, almost all of whom are there against their will, to their likely deaths.
posted by He sings @ 6:34 PM
5 Comments:
I cannot blame the Germans. They could not send effective forces to defend their own country, even if attacked. That is just not what they do well.
Americans are so inherently proud of their military might. I'm just not sure whether it is something to be so proud of...
And the largesse of the American military costs taxpayers a lot (4.06% of the GDP as opposed to Germany's 1.5%) so that, according to the pentagon, two wars can be fought and won simultaneously. Something tells me that the military would not cost nearly so much if the powers that be were only concerned with "defending their own country" as opposed to 'defending their own interests' in the world.
It makes you wonder who is smarter, as the likelihood of attack (as in an invading army) on either Germany or America seems so slim as if to be laughable at this time in history. Then why all the spending for a hefty military arm? It certainly begs many an ultra-liberal's claim of an American Imperialism.
Balance is the key, and currently, the American military might is unrivaled. The problem lies not with possessing the might...it lies with those who possess it, as the arrogant, self-righteous opinions of their (the current administration's) own role in the global economy is antiquated. Germany does not need to be strong because the U.S is. If the U.S was not so strong, do you think that Germany and others could seriously defend themselves? Probably not. The strength of the U.S. gives liberty, in many ways, to other countries. Perhaps that is because Germans are "smarter". Perhaps not. I do know that the caretakers of the American machine have dropped the ball, in many regards, but to be so quick to judge may not be so wise.
I hope by "to be so quick to judge may not be so wise" does not mean that I should be frightened of criticizing the US military? Just checking.
Can you give me some examples of threats from which the Germans could not defend themselves? I honestly cannot think of any threats to the German homeland for which the military is not prepared, aside from, as mentioned before, an invasion force, which seems terribly unlikely. I am sincerely interested to know...
No need to be frightened by the comment. To my knowledge, the Sec of Defense is not plotting an attack on you. You have every right to state your opinions. You have answered your own queston, in an indirect way. We can both agree, I am sure, that the military strength of the U.S. does have far-reaching effects, most of which are NOT limited to military power. These include economic, financial, social, political, even technological, ramifications. The U.S. and Germany have close ties in many ways (you could say that the two countries share similar bloodlines, given the number of immigrants from the Mutterland). Because of the economic ties, in particular, between the two countries, the stability of Germany is vital to the U.S., and vice versa. You are correct: a country (note, not a terrorist group) will be less likely to invade Germany, not because of its fear of the German army, but because of its fear of the fallout that would occur after the U.S. had its vital interests molested. Please note that there is nothing wrong with Germany's military, but it is not a power (it was designed that way after WWII). The comment was not meant to blast them...it was only meant to serve as a reminder that the world in which we live is deeply interconnected by a web of military, economical, social, and developmental similarites and differences.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home