Looks like the author, a former German four star General is angling for a consultant's job with the Americans - in the McCain/Palin shoot from the hip Administration. Klaus seems to have disowned his own country.

It was America that brought down the worst terrorist atrocity on itself because of its combative style and lax, insensitive security empire.

Take France as a contrast. Tight security and sensitive, if stern, community relations hence no significant terrorist outrages for years.

Meanwhile America visits a campaign of revenge on Muslims in the Middle East and Australia willingly supplies its me-to flag. America also seeks energy security by the sword in the Middle East - and wonders why European countries are not prepared to be sucked into these American led wars.

(Nuclear) armed independence for Australia I say.

Pete

Pete,

You say >> “It was America that brought down the worst terrorist atrocity on itself because of its combative style and lax, insensitive security empire.”

Is that right? You’re suggesting that the creation of AlQaeda is purely a result of US foreign policy? I wonder what events in particular you refer to?

Secondly, the islamo-facists have shown that they can attack pretty much anyone. The British in particular, have had extensive security arrangements for a long time. That didn’t stop the 7/7 attacks.

You say >> “Take France as a contrast. Tight security and sensitive, if stern, community relations hence no significant terrorist outrages for years.”

Oh I wonder how you explain their “youth” problems? The recent riots for example. And then there is the fact that the French avoided involvement in Iraq partly because Chirac was an ally of Saddams and partly because he knew it would help his re-election chances. This certainly meant muslim anger was focused elsewhere.

You say >> “Meanwhile America visits a campaign of revenge on Muslims in the Middle East and Australia willingly supplies its me-to flag.”

This is just absolute rubbish Pete. I haven’t read anything of yours lately but what I remember was a lot more measured than this simplistic nonsense. The coalition is drawing down its forces in Iraq. The success of the surge has seen a massive change in the cities of Iraq and a complete handover in the near future is now eminently possible.

So how is the US visiting revenge on the people of the Middle East?

You say >> “America also seeks energy security by the sword in the Middle East - and wonders why European countries are not prepared to be sucked into these American led wars.”

You mean European countries other than Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Norway, Hungary, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Latvia or Lithuania?

I wonder how it is you can suggest that Klaus has abandoned his country? There is no evidence in the article to support this assertion.

Thanks Paul

How about you write an article proving that your interpretation of American foreign policy is right.

I'll be happy then to discuss it at length.

Perhaps explain in it why you believe America can do no wrong.

I've known many Americans, at the sharp end of American "foreign policy" - part of the Machine - who lost their faith in the American Way - once they realised how it worked.

Regards

Pete

Mr Naumann writes:

"Europe’s risk awareness is very different from that in the US. While most in the US believe in the global war on terror, Europe does not see itself as being at war.
The US begins to understand the new dimension of trans-national threats - terrorism, organised crime and cyber war in conjunction with proliferation and failing states. In Europe the experts agree with their American colleagues, but not the general public."

I doubt very much if European experts agree that the best way to deal with such threats is through war. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/1 for a very interesting and rather depressing analysis of just why that approach is dangerous and foolhardy.

Paul.L

‘And then there is the fact that the French avoided involvement in Iraq partly because Chirac was an ally of Saddams and partly because he knew it would help his re-election chances. This certainly meant muslim anger was focused elsewhere.'

Ah … yes, that’s right, Paul! Emphasis on: ‘muslim anger was focused elsewhere’.

Now, if that micro victory in France were applied to the macro issue of worldwide muslim terrorism – muslim anger would not only go elsewhere, it would dissipate altogether.

Unfortunately, this kind of live and let live principle would put the $1.3 trillion worldwide annual military arms industry out of a job. To keep its koffers flowing, it needs to maintain eternal vigilance against countries who might up and attack us all in our beds if we take our eyes – and our missiles – off them for 5 minutes.

... And worse. These countries might even start demanding to use their resources for the benefit of their own people!

And of course, what if these countries are not interested in attacking us all in our beds … because they have mouths to feed, children to educate, services like hospitals to run and cultures to enjoy, rather than spending billions of dollars they don’t have by rushing off to attack other countries with 1,000 times their military power?

No problem. Just keep provoking them, destabilizing their economies, financing their terr… ah, freedom fighters (and if they don’t have any, create some), demonizing their leaders and entering into provocative military pacts with their long-time enemies.

Have I left anything out. Oh, yes, that’s right …. Naiveté. That is, according to hawks such as yourself and the looney, undoubtedly well-paid and well-connected author of this thoroughly dangerous essay.