You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa North
Germans pull forces out of NATO
2011-03-23
Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign. A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.
So either the US leads or Germany quits? NATO is dead.
Wow, US leadership is preferable to NATO??? Knock me over with a feather!

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination. U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.

It's legal to go after a head of state in any war.

But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.
Gates is uncharacteristically muddled here, and I wonder if it is because he's trying to serve both Bambi and reality...
President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi's forces within days, handing the reins over to NATO.
But NATO still means US involvement. Read the Charter. And we're the largest single force in NATO by far. How does 'handing the reins over to NATO' improve the situation?
But Germany and European allies remain unwilling to have NATO take on a military operation that theoretically has nothing to do with the defence of Europe.
Technically neither did Afghanistan.
Today the German defence ministry announced Berlin had pulled out of any military operations in the Mediterranean. A ministry spokesman said two frigates and two other ships with a crew of 550 would be reverted to German command. Some 60 to 70 German troops participating in NATO-operated AWACS surveillance operations in the Mediterranean would also be withdrawn, according to the ministry.

Berlin isn't participating in the operation to impose a no-fly zone in Libya and abstained on the U.N. resolution authorising it.
Posted by:Steve White

#16  Obama is showing that America is a paper tiger again.

Well, if you were a President looking to wreck NATO, damage your former European allies, and ruin the US' standing as a superpower....
Posted by: Pappy   2011-03-23 21:05  

#15  Wehell, as per OWG-NWO + GMD-TMD between GERMANY + JAPAN dev indigenous Nuclear Arensals-Weapons, methinks its safe to say the Internat Community will argue to allow Japan before Germany, regardless of the merits???

Espec as per RUSSIA.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-03-23 21:01  

#14  One way to look at it is if they don't participate in the war, they won't have to take in all the muslim refugees that will be displaced by it.
Posted by: Penguin   2011-03-23 20:46  

#13  Wait -- the Germans surrendered before the French? The Krauts must be in phase-2 of their "either at your throat or at your feet" posture.

Oh, and while never say "I told you so," and dislike people who do... I told you so.
Posted by: regular joe   2011-03-23 15:34  

#12  "What advantage is there for the Germans to get involved in Libya?"

Gaddafi called for 'jihad' against Europe even before the rebellion. Removing him would be a matter of fundamental physical security for Germany.

The official political objective in Afghanistan however doesn't make sense for Germany (or anyone else IMHO.)

Based on a rational assessment German forces should quit Afghanistan and participate in the 'Anti-Gaddafi Alliance.'

Making a red diaper baby Chancelorette of Germany has consequences. The apple does not fall far from the tree.
Posted by: Herman Shusons7918   2011-03-23 15:03  

#11  I don't think it should surprise that this whole Libya deal is showing both Barry and the Euro's to be basically wimps.
Posted by: Jefferson   2011-03-23 15:00  

#10  What advantage is there for the Germans to get involved in Libya? At least in Afghanistan it forestalled US abandoning NATO and pulling forces out of Germany and Europe.
Posted by: Oscar Spineck3066   2011-03-23 14:38  

#9  Germans = Pussies. In Afghanistan first, now in the Med.
Posted by: No I am The Other Beldar   2011-03-23 14:12  

#8  He has publicly stated he will leave the SecDef role shortly.
Posted by: lotp   2011-03-23 14:07  

#7  Re: Gates. Has anyone else noticed that Gates hasn't been reading from the playbook lately. First he said a no-fly zone operation was a bad idea, then "regime change isn't the mission" and then the "no we won't kill G'Daffy" business.

Seems to me he's getting into the public policy/decision making arena in a way that no other SoD has done to my knowledge. If true, is it because lack of leadership from the Whie House or because he's rebelling against that leadership? Don't know Gates or his beliefs well enough to decide.
Posted by: Mercutio   2011-03-23 13:46  

#6  What's that wise bit of advice? When you strike at a king, you must kill him. Leave Kadaffy in power I think we will look fondly on the days of Pan Am 103.
Posted by: Oscar Spineck3066   2011-03-23 13:46  

#5  Obama is showing that America is a paper tiger again.
Posted by: DarthVader   2011-03-23 13:27  

#4  But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.

The President of the United States publicly demanded Gaddafi's ouster. He even talked about stringing him up ('the noose is tightening').

Then he ordered substantial military action against Gaddafi.

Now, however, it is 'wise' to leave a wounded, embittered Gaddafi unmolested. A dictator who has nonetheless just survived an onslaught by the world's lone superpower, making him utterly fearless. A dictator who has still access to money, weapons and who is backed by major international players. A dictator with a history of sponsoring 'revenge' terror attacks.

Wisdom!
Posted by: Herman Shusons7918   2011-03-23 13:12  

#3  C'mon Germany...get on board. Haven't you heard...it's called 'Progressive Realism'. It was all the rage in Davos last year. NATO...schmato...you only have to remember one word here..."legitimacy". Besides, this whole military command clusterfuck ain't such a bad thing. In fact, it's the proof we wanted to re-order all those old institutions anyway. Oh, and by the way, the Portugese econonomy just shit the bed...expect to pony up very soon.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2011-03-23 13:10  

#2  This was an awful headline. No, Germany has not left NATO, like France did under De Gaulle.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-03-23 11:58  

#1  This must be more of that "smart diplomacy" we've been hearing about.
Posted by: Mike   2011-03-23 11:58  

00:00