Davids Medienkritik

Merkel's Washington Awakening

You absolutely, definitely, positively have to read this article by Diana West of the Washington Times on Angela Merkel's visit to Washington:

Merkel's fantasy land

Good morning, Madame Chancellor. Here you are, Germany's Angela Merkel, on your first trip to Washington, D.C., preparing for your meeting with President Bush. As you look out of your Blair House window over Lafayette Square toward the White House, consider the historicity of the era: the beginning of Mr. Bush's sixth year leading his country, and the beginning of your first year leading your country in the so-called war on terror. Or is that the war on Guantanamo Bay? I get them confused.
    That's because in just about every account of your American trip -- biggish news in Europe -- it is prominently mentioned that Guantanamo Bay is prominently high on your list of, well, prominent concerns. Trouble spots. Global things you lose sleep over.
    This is, with due respect, bizarre. Iran is going nuclear, Europe is going Islamic, Russia is going off the reservation, China is a fearsome thing, and your big concern is sending what is called a "clear message" to Mr. Bush about Guantanamo Bay, the tropical jail where the United States keeps jihadis on ice -- and keeps the rest of the world safer as a result. But that's not what you say. "An institution like Guantanamo can and should not exist in the longer term," you told the German news magazine Der Spiegel this week. "Different ways and means must be found for dealing with these prisoners."
    I have a suggestion: How 'bout if we ship all these guys, unflushed Korans and all, to Germany? Maybe 72 Virgin Air would cut us a deal. Then you -- Germany -- can parole them to Lebanon. (...)

Again, read it all. And here is another view of Merkel from John Vinocur via No Pasaran.

Update: Here is an interview with yet another (more optimistic) view of Merkel from Gary Schmitt, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Congratulations to SPIEGEL for finally interviewing an American conservative! Here's an excerpt:

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: Merkel has maintained a highly conciliatory tone towards Washington, but she has also expressed criticism. During Condoleezza Rice's visit to Berlin in December, Merkel claimed the Secretary of State conceded the erroneous kidnapping of an innocent German national by the CIA as part of its "extraordinary renditions" program had been a "mistake." The State Department later denied Merkel's statement. And this week Merkel indirectly called for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison. Do these developments threaten Germany's fresh start with Washington?

SCHMITT: People have taken notice, but it hasn't been a major matter. Some of those issues are far more important in Europe than they are in the US. Still, in contrast to the previous chancellor, when Merkel makes her comments about Guantanamo or any of these other issues, she's likely to get more of a hearing than Schröder, who would have been viewed as raising the issue to bolster his own political fortunes at home. When her comments were published, people here said, OK, this something people need to talk about and we will do that when she's here."

Looks like there is some ground for optimism on German-American relations. But the jury is still out on how things will develop long-term...

Victor Davis Hanson: "Warm and Cool Allies"

This past weekend, the Washington Times published an excellent piece by Victor Davis Hanson entitled "Warm and Cool Allies". In his article, Hanson points to major geopolitical shifts as a key cause of changing policies and attitudes towards the United States over the past couple of decades in nations around the world.

There is no doubt that anti-American resentments have always existed in the Federal Republic of Germany. Dampened by the realities of the Cold War and the absolute dependence on US protection before 1990, they are now allowed free reign. Hanson has incisively identified a primary long-term cause of the growing chasm in transatlantic relations. Here are some excerpts:

"Japan's prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, is busy trying to strengthen the American alliance. In recent months, members of his government have announced new joint military arrangements with the U.S. and announced to the South Koreans that, unlike Japan, they are not to be trusted with sensitive American intelligence.

    Meanwhile, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder have been doing just the opposite. They proudly talk up an all-European military force to vie with NATO and insist their stagnant economies will not resort to the American model.

    Of course, we saw these markedly different approaches to relations with the U.S. most starkly over the war in Iraq. Japan sent troops immediately, while Germany and France actively opposed American efforts to topple Saddam Hussein.

    Japan, however, hasn't always been so warm nor Europe so cool to the U.S., and current global strategic realities largely explain their quite different attitudes to America. (...)

Why, then, is Japan suddenly warm while Europe is so cool? Is the Bush administration clumsy in Berlin and adept in Tokyo?

    No. Rather, the answer is the rise of China and the collapse of the Soviet Union. For the Japanese government, China and its nuclear protege, North Korea, are not abstract threats. Indeed, they are within tactical missile range.

    If Europeans dream Chinese break-neck capitalism means only lucrative business, the Japanese fear such dynamism will more likely lead to a new bully in their own backyard.

    If Japan once had bouts of anti-Americanism when its neighbor China was asleep, Europe was relatively friendly to us when we kept 300 Soviet divisions from its borders.

The moral? Trashing the United States can be a sport for some when one nearby communist enemy disappears but not so for others when another such enemy ascends close by."

Read the entire article. Realpolitik and shifting defensive interests are certainly two major long-term factors affecting transatlantic relations. I can't wait to see the comments on this one...

(Non-Hanson passages by Ray D.) 

Green Party Sides With Davids Medienkritik

Who would have thought this? The chairman of Germany's green party sides with our blog in the critique of the tv movie "Scheherazade", aired by PBS channel ARD.

Washington Times: (BTW, my suspicion is that the Washington Times actually based this article on our posting. Seriously.)

TV show depicts 9/11 as Bush plot (emphasis added)

A fictional crime drama based on the premise that the Bush administration ordered the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington aired this week on German state television, prompting the Green Party chairman to call for an investigation.

    "I think absolutely nothing of the conspiracy theory that has been hawked in this series. I hope this particular TV movie will be discussed very critically at the next supervisory board meeting of ARD [state television]," said Green Party Chairman Reinhard Buetikofer, who acknowledged that he had not seen the show.

According to the plot, which was seen by approximately 7 million Germans, the dead man had been trained to be one of the September 11 pilots but was left behind, only to be tracked down and killed by CIA or FBI assassins.
    The woman, who says in the program that the September 11 attacks were instigated by the Bush family for oil and power, then is targeted, presumably to silence her. The drama concludes with the German detectives accepting the truth of her story as she eludes the U.S. government hit men and escapes to safety in an unnamed Arab country.
    As ludicrous as it may sound to most Americans, the tale has resonance in Germany, where fantastic conspiracy theories often are taken as fact.
    Many Germans think, for example, that the 1969 moon landing was faked, and a poll published in the weekly Die Zeit showed that 31 percent of Germans younger than 30 "think that there is a certain possibility that the U.S. government ordered the attacks of 9/11."
    In fact, three of the hijackers who seized control of commercial airlines on September 11, 2001, including

An End to Nonsense

Interesting article in the Washington Times: An End to Nonsense.

The German (!) author Heinrich Maetzke describes the dangerous illusions Germany harbors.

It will not be long before German socialists and pacifists start calling nuclear-armed Iranian mullahs their "partners in security" — the affectionate label they once stuck on Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev. For those who shiver at the prospect of having to live under the shadow of Iranian nukes Mr. Bush's White House is the only place to look to. (...)

For 20 years Saddam Hussein had done his utmost to acquire nuclear weapons. For 12 long years he had mocked the United Nations. When challenged to come clean in March 2003, he refused to. However, when it comes to global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the burden of proof must lie with the suspect, not with the prosecutor. We now know that Saddam intended to pick up his nuclear threads where he had been forced to drop them, once sanctions were lifted and U.S. forces withdrawn. We also know that he had all the reason in the world to feel safe: He had the United Nations in his deep oil-for-food pockets, plus a couple of veto-yielding members of the Security Council, who had never liked the sanctions anyway.

If it had not been for one factor, Saddam's infamous gamble almost certainly would have paid off. This factor had a face and a name: President George Bush.

Read it all.

(Hat tip: Maxim)

+++BREAKING NEWS+++ SPIEGEL ONLINE has a new poll up. Don't miss your chance to VOTE!

SPIEGEL ONLINE's Witness Critical of the Media

In an earlier posting I reported on a SPIEGEL ONLINE article by Marc "Mother-of-all-Bush-haters" Pitzke, who had visited the home town of Nick Berg. Pitzke, in his relentless efforts to criticise US President Bush, quoted a neighbor of the Berg's, Bruce Hauser:

Around midnight Hauser was still on the street outside, acting as the unofficial press spokesman of the family. He reported that the parents, in their grief, held the US government partly responsible for the death of their son. If Nick had not be held without reason for so long by coalition troops he would possibly have been able to leave Iraq before the violence started escalating.

Turns out Bruce Hauser had some other things to say too, as reported elsewhere:

Press accused of ignoring beheading

WEST CHESTER, Pa. — Friends and neighbors of hometown businessman Nicholas Berg said yesterday his beheading by Islamists in Iraq has been underplayed by journalists, who are devoting more attention to the Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal.
"This is typical of journalism," said Bruce Hauser, a next-door neighbor and longtime friend of the Berg family. "Bad news is hot when it's hot. Now it seems like 72 hours after we learn about [Mr. Berg's] death, we've gone from the front page to page 3 or page 7." (...)

Other residents of this well-maintained Philadelphia suburb shared Mr. Hauser's opinion, just two days after an Islamist Web site posted a video of the beheading. (...)

"Everything is back to the way the Iraq prisoners were treated," Mr Hauser said. "I think the real story is Nick Berg. He wasn't just killed; he was beheaded."
Justin Fowler, the general manager of Kildare's Irish Pub, called the dearth of reporting about Mr. Berg's killing a "travesty."
"They've been covering the prison story for how long now?" asked Mr. Fowler, 35.

Folks, you don't get it.

It's not about killing or beheading or torture. It's not about the Geneva Convention or the rights of prisoners or international law.

It's about Bush and the election in November. This cartoon says it all...

Some Arabs like Israel / Einige Araber mögen Israel

(Deutsche Version siehe unten)

It doesn't sell well with our media here in Germany, but apparently some Arabs would rather have the Israelis govern them then Mr. Arafat:

"We have a saying here," said Shoaa Saad, 22, "that the 'evil' of Israel is better than the 'heaven' of the West Bank."

"Here you can say whatever you like and do whatever you want — so long as you don't touch the security of Israel. Over there, if you talk about [Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser] Arafat, they can arrest you and beat you up."

"Mr. Sharon seems to want us to join an unknown state that doesn't have a parliament, or a democracy, or even decent universities," said Mr. Allo, who studied law and social anthropology at predominantly Jewish colleges in Haifa and Netanya.

"We have close family ties in the West Bank, but we prefer to demand our full rights inside Israel."

(Hat tip: Niko.)

Deutsche Version

Das kommt zwar bei unseren Medien hier in Deutschland nicht gut an, aber einige Araber möchten lieber unter israelischer Regierung als unter Herrn Arafat leben:

"Wir haben hier einen Spruch," sagt Shoaa Saad, 22, "daß das 'Übel' Israel besser ist als der 'Himmel' der West Bank."

"Hier kann man sagen, was man will und tun was man möchte - so lange es nicht die Sicherheit der Israelis berührt. Drüben, wenn man über Arafat spricht, können Sie Dich verhaften und verprügeln."

"Sharon scheint uns einem unbekannten Staat einverleiben zu wollen, der kein Parlament oder eine Demokratie hat, und noch nicht einmal gute Universitäten," sagt Allo, der Jura und Sozialanthropologie an überwiegend jüdischen Universitäten in Haifa und Netanya studierte.

"Wir haben enge Familienbande in die West Bank, aber wir ziehen es vor, unsere vollen Rechte innerhalb Israels zu fordern."

(Dank an Niko)

FAZ als Staatsanwalt: Bushs Irak-Krieg planlos, hektisch, fehlerhaft

Mi Sep 03, 02:38:51 PM
Die FAZ berichtet von einem von der Washington Times bekannt gemachten Geheim-Gutachten des Pentagon, das erhebliche Kritik an der Kriegsführung der US-Regierung enthalte.

Überschrift des FAZ-Artikels: Kritik an der Heimatfront: Hektisch und voller Fehler
Zitate aus dem Text: "Die Planungen der Bush-Administration für den Wiederaufbau Iraks sowie für die Suche nach Massenvernichtungswaffen sind nach einem geheimen Bericht aus amerikanischen Militärkreisen fehlerhaft und überstürzt ausgearbeitet worden. ... Zuvor waren bereits Berechnungen des amerikanischen Kongresses bekannt geworden, wonach die Vereinigten Staaten bei einer Beibehaltung ihrer jetzigen Militärstruktur den Irak-Einsatz deutlich zurückfahren müssen. ... Der demokratische Senator Robert Byrd, der die CBO-Studie angefordert hatte, kritisierte, die Regierung strapaziere die eigenen Soldaten im Irak bis zur Grenze ihrer Belastbarkeit. " Unterschrift zu einem Foto von Bush: Bush: "Ohne Plan in den Krieg?"

Der FAZ-Artikel liest sich wie die Beweisführung eines Staatsanwaltes, der von der Schuld des Angeklagten überzeugt ist. Alles, was gegen den Angeklagten spricht, wird aufgelistet. Entlastendes wird nicht genannt. Die - für Bush negativen - Schlussfolgerungen ("Ohne Plan in den Krieg?") ergeben sich logisch aus der einseitigen Zusammenstellung der Zitate des Pentagon- und des Kongress-Berichtes.

Was fehlt, sind die in dem von der Washington Times beschriebenen Pentagon-Bericht eben auch enthaltenen neutralen oder positiven Wertungen der Irak-Strategie der US-Regierung: "The next grade was "capabilities that demonstrated effectiveness, but need enhancement." Public affairs, special-operations forces, finding bombing targets and tracking the whereabouts of friendly troops received the grade. ... The highest marks came under the category of "capabilities that reached new levels of performance and need to be sustained and improved." Joint service warfare, a key war-fighting requirement of Mr. Rumsfeld, got this high grade, as did global war-gaming. ... The report also gave high marks to bombing "time-sensitive" targets. In the 2001 Afghanistan war, the report says, Gen. Franks and Mr. Rumsfeld had to approve the target list. But in Iraq, the command improved guidance and procedures so that commanders could launch strikes when targets emerged."

Die Irak-Strategie der US-Regierung wurde also in der Pentagon-Studie nicht generell als "hektisch und voller Fehler" bezeichnet. Hektik und Fehler gab es, aber nur in einigen Bereichen: ein für militärische Unternehmungen bekanntes Szenario. In anderen Bereichen wurden laut Gutachten durchaus positive Leistungen erbracht. Natürlich findet sich in der Pentagon-Studie auch nichts, was das FAZ-Urteil "Ohne Plan in den Krieg?" rechtfertigen würde. Es ist in der US-Politik durchaus üblich, zeitnah zu einer Aktion selbstkritische Analysen vorzunehmen und dann schnell Konsequenzen zu ziehen. Deutsche Medien - an diesen Politik-Ansatz nicht gewöhnt - brauen aus solchen Analysen ein übles Gemisch aus Verdächtigungen und Vorurteilen. Typisch die in eine Prognose versteckte Hoffnung der FAZ: "Der Pressebericht dürfte die Kritik an der Bush-Regierung wegen der immensen Kosten des Wiederaufbaus und der hohen Opferzahl unter den amerikanischen Soldaten nach dem von Bush Anfang Mai verkündeten offiziellen Ende der Kampfhandlungen weiter schüren." Wer hier schürt, ist die FAZ.

Nebenbei: ausgerechnet den demokratischen Senator Robert Byrd als Zeugen für die Kritik an der Bush-Regierung heranzuziehen, ist wirklich ein kleiner Edelstein des Kampagnenjournalismus. Byrd hat es sich zur Hauptaufgabe der Spätphase seiner Karriere gemacht, jeden Schritt der Bush-Regierung im Irak-Krieg ätzend zu kritisieren. Das wäre etwa so, als ob man im Ausland als glaubhaften Zeugen für den schlechten Zustand der CDU den SPD-Fraktionschef Müntefering zitierte. Aber soweit würden es ausländische Medien aus Sorge um ihre journalistische Ehre kaum treiben...

Die von der FAZ zitierte Untersuchung des "Congressional Budget Office" (CBO) (s.o.) weist übrigens auf Seite 28 aus, daß die aktuellen Kosten-Schätzungen der Irak-Besetzung im Vergleich zu einer CBO-Schätzung von vor einem Jahr NIEDRIGER liegen, sowohl in der Gesamtsumme, also auch auf einer Pro-Soldat-Basis. Im September 2002 schätzte die CBO die Kosten der Besatzung - je nach Truppenstärke - auf monatlich 1,4 - 3,9 Milliarden US-Dollar insgesamt bzw. auf 18,700 - 19,500 US-Dollar pro Soldat. Die Werte der aktuellen Schätzung vom September 2003: monatlich 1,2 - 1,6 Milliarden US Dollar insgesamt bzw. 14,900 - 17,200 US-Dollar pro Soldat. Die Unterschiede erklären sich zum wesentlichen aus präziseren Schätzmethoden: "That revised methodology yields estimates that are about 10 percent to 25 percent lower on a per-person basis than the estimates published in September 2002" (S. 28 des Berichts). Das CBO bezeichnet seine aktuelle Schätzung sogar als niedriger als die bisherigen Schätzungen des DOD (US-Verteidigungsministerium) (S. 30 des Berichts).

Noch einmal: die Besatzung wird BILLIGER als angenommen - aber die FAZ kommentiert die neuen Zahlen im Sinne einer unerfreulichen Überraschung bei den Kosten. Oh heilige deutsche Medien-Einfalt!