An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

‘Hangover After the Obama Rush’: Financial Times Deutschland Editorial

It seems – as we saw yesterday at WORLDMEETS.US with the editorial translations of a number of regional German newspapers – that after an orgy of Obama-mania in Berlin, Germans are having some second thoughts.

Perhaps, this editorial from Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland ponders, a President John McCain would be easier to refuse when he seeks more German troops for southern Afghanistan?

The editorial says in part:

“Those who cheer Obama today may have to negotiate with him over Afghanistan tomorrow. … The United States will not accept an indefinite situation in which they wear themselves out fighting the Taliban, while the Germans offer friendly help with reconstruction.”

And when will reality hit home for German voters?:

“While the government already knows what’s coming its way, the voters for the major parties could soon experience a rude awakening – when they find that Obama’s new America has the same old objectives. Up to now, Germans could refuse a more robust mandate for Afghanistan by quietly hinting that one really mustn’t follow the lead of George W. Bush. But it will be much harder after one has just applauded him, to reject the first urgent request from a President Obama.”

EDITORIAL

Translated By Julian Jacob

July 26, 2008

Germany – Financial Times Deutschland – Original Article (German)

Those who cheer Obama today may have to negotiate with him over Afghanistan tomorrow. For the Union and the Social Democratic Party, this could become a problem during the 2009 federal election campaign.

If you want to know what the foreign policy of a possible President Barack Obama might look like, take a look at the route of his itinerary. Before the U.S. senator was cheered in Berlin, he visited Afghanistan and Iraq – the sore points for the Americans. Beyond the desired PR campaign effects, one can identify a clear sequence: First, Obama sees a problem. Then he goes where, from his point of view, the solution lies.

Obama’s speech in Berlin was an advertisement for the common battle against terrorism. For the federal government, this very clearly means that a greater commitment is expected. The United States will not accept an indefinite situation in which they wear themselves out fighting the Taliban, while the Germans offer friendly help with reconstruction.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. election.

  • Neocon
    The world is finally maybe starting to take notice that umm.......fellas we have been in Afghanistan for 6 years now and we have still not settled much.

    How much longer? Why any longer?

    Why?
  • StockBoySF
    Well... part of asking your friends help you to fight a war is how you go about asking them. Bush's attitude of "You're either with us or against us" is not a very good approach. Let's just leave it at that...
  • Neocon
    It truly amazes me StockBoy that anyone wants to be in Afghanistan.

    How much longer? Whats the goal? How do you define victory there.

    It is a question we have asked of GWB on Iraq. How much longer? How do you define victory?

    Its a losing cause. Its a lost cause. Its just draining the budget and the candidate who understands that is the candidate who has the judgment to be president.
  • StockBoySF
    Afghanistan (and the Pakistan border) is where the terrorists are and a resurgent (pro-terrorists) Taliban. They do threaten the US.

    As much as Saddam was a bad guy and killed too many of his own folks, Bush portrayed him as a threat to the US (when he wasn't) and claimed he harbored terrorists (when he didn't want anything to do with them).

    If we don't fight the terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan then we will have the same conditions we did pre-9/11 and we all know how that turned out.

    I think victory in Afghanistan would be a stable government, a dead bin Laden and a decapitated al Quaeda.

    Unlike Iraq where we went in as a conquering and occupying force and the Iraqis do not want us there, the Afghanis have been affected more than we have by the Taliban and terrorists. I think the Afghanis want to reclaim their home from their enemy (the Taliban/terrorists). Likewise with the Iraqis- they want their enemy gone too. It's just that the US is the enemy in Iraq since we invaded and ruined their country.
  • DLS
    I liked the Revival photo. "American Revival in Europe"
  • Neocon
    StockBoy.

    You sound just like the Bushies before going into Iraq and afterwards defending Iraq and why we are there.

    if we dont fight them there we will fight them here. The Taliban is evil. Hussein is evil.

    Seriously to me this you could simply replace Iraq for Afghanistan and you would be a neocon defending Iraq with your statements.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC