US-Soldaten in Afghanistan

National Review


suche-links1 2suche-rechts


"Breaking Down the Whistleblower Frenzy"

Auch Andrew C. McCarthy hält eine parlamentarische Untersuchung der Behauptungen des Geheimdienstmitarbeiters über das Telefongespräch zwischen Donald Trump und dem ukrainischen Staatschef Wolodymyr Selenskyj für angebracht. Er empfiehlt allerdings, politische Grundlagen bei der Beurteilung des Vorfalls nicht außer Acht zu lassen. "The Democrats’ media narrative of impeachment portrays President Trump and his administration as serial law-breakers who, true to form, obstruct all congressional investigations of wrongdoing. This then becomes the analytical framework for every new controversy. There are at least two fundamental problems with this. First, our constitutional system is based on friction between competing branches vested with separate but closely related powers. The Framers understood that the two political branches would periodically try to usurp each other’s authorities. Congress often does this by enactments that seek to subject executive power to congressional (or judicial) supervision. Presidential pushback on such laws is not criminal obstruction; it is the Constitution in action. Second, we’ve become so law-obsessed that we miss the forest for the trees. Often, the least important aspect of a controversy — viz., whether a law has been violated — becomes the dominant consideration. Short shrift is given to the more consequential aspects, such as whether we are being competently governed or whether power is being abused. (...) The president has the power to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit. The Congress has the power to subject that exercise to thorough examination. The clash of these powers is a constant in our form of government. It is politics. For once, let’s find out what happened before we leap to DEFCON 1."

Mehr lesen


"The Role of Values in Foreign Policy"

Die Debatte über das Pro und Contra einer "wertebasierten Außenpolitik" ist nach Ansicht von Jakub Grygiel, Politikwissenschaftler an der Catholic University of America, nur sinnvoll, wenn diese Werte konkret benannt werden. In diesem Beitrag erläutert er, welchen Grundsätzen eine konservative US-Außenpolitik seiner Ansicht nach folgen sollte. "The purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to protect first and foremost the American nation, the families and friends that compose it, and the ties of tradition and religion that bind them together. The pursuit of universal progress may be at most an ancillary goal, and even then it cannot mean the universal and uniform imposition of 'values' defined by unbridled individual preferences. Another way to put this is that a truly conservative foreign policy has to begin from a recognition of the limits of what is feasible as well as of what is desirable. (...) A conservative foreign policy has to recognize that there are limits to our domestic consensus on 'values.' We have deep internal disagreements on the substance to put into this term. For instance, we diverge on fundamental questions of life, marriage, and death. We can discuss and vote on them as citizens within an ordered republic, but we do an enormous disservice when we pursue an activist foreign policy driven by an expansive view of rights. A polity that internally does not agree on the existence and meaning of many rights should not promote only one version of these values abroad."

Mehr lesen


"Facing Extinction in Iraq, Can Christians Hope for Aid from the West?"

Edward Clancy hat sich mit Erzbischof Bashar Warda von der Chaldäisch-katholischen Kirche im irakischen Erbil über die prekäre Situation der verbleibenden Christen vor Ort unterhalten. "With ISIS defeated, 40,000 Christians have returned to their ancient homeland, repopulating nine historically Christian towns. Overall, about 250,000 remain in Iraq, down from 1.5 million in 2003, on the eve of the U.S. invasion. For the moment, they are safe, but Sunni Muslims and Iran-backed militias have designs on their land and property. (...) The horrors of ISIS have 'shocked the conscience' of the Islamic world. What remains to be seen, says Warda, is whether 'Islam will continue on its current political trajectory, in which sharia law is the basis for civil law and nearly every aspect of life is circumscribed by religion, or whether a more civil, tolerant movement will develop.' On that score, recent alarming reports have circulated that the Iraqi parliament is due to vote on a provision to appoint mullahs as judges, with the prospect that sharia law will override secular laws that are in conflict with it. (...) Will the West live up to its high calling and stand by persecuted Christians and other religious minorities? For Archbishop Warda and his flock, it is a matter of life and death. He has no illusions: 'Those of us who remain must be ready to face martyrdom,' he says."

Mehr lesen


"It’s Time to Declare War on White-Nationalist Terrorism"

David French spricht sich in der konservativen National Review für eine harte Bekämpfung des "weiß-nationalistischen Terrorismus" aus. Vorbild der nötigen Kampagne müsse der Kampf gegen den dschihadistischen Terrorismus sein. "Substitute 'jihadist' for 'white supremacist' or 'white nationalist' and then imagine how we’d act. Imagine how we’ve acted. It’s time to declare war on white-nationalist terrorism. It’s time to be as wide awake about the dangers of online racist radicalization as we are about online jihadist inspiration. And it’s time to reject the public language and rhetoric that excites and inspires racist radicals. Just as we demanded from our Muslim allies a legal and cultural response to the hate in their midst, we should demand a legal and cultural response to the terrorists from our own land. To say that it’s time to declare war does not mean it’s time to repeal the Constitution. Nor does it mean droning a young man in his mom’s basement in Des Moines. It means treating online white-nationalist radicals exactly the way we treat online jihadist sympathizers. (...) Law enforcement should pursue terrorists relentlessly. Policymakers should think creatively. And our nation’s leaders need to focus on reconciliation and unity, and if they are not up to that most basic and fundamental aspect of their job, then they must be replaced."

Mehr lesen


"Fareed Zakaria’s Missing Man"

Matthew Continetti wirft Fareed Zakaria in der konservativen National Review vor, in der Analyse des Niedergangs der amerikanischen Hegemonie den Beitrag Barack Obamas unterschlagen zu haben. "Zakaria criticizes George W. Bush for the Iraq War (which he supported at the time). He chides Donald Trump for a supposed 'absence' of foreign policy. Yet Barack Obama goes entirely unmentioned. If you were to read this essay with no prior knowledge of American history, you would come away thinking the Obama presidency never happened. Zakaria’s history is incomplete. It’s also terribly misleading. Obama’s policies were not ancillary to the diminution of American power. They accelerated it. (...) Barack Obama left office with Russia resurgent, China belligerent, Iran berserk, ISIS alive, and North Korea firing long-range missiles. Surely these things are worth mentioning in an article describing 'the self-destruction of American power'?"

Mehr lesen


"Who Is to Blame for America’s Disturbing Iran Policy?"

George Will macht nicht nur Präsident Trump, sondern auch dessen Amtsvorgänger Obama und den Kongress für die "verstörende" Iran-Politik der USA verantwortlich. "Difficulties with Iran will recur regularly, like the oscillations of a sine wave, and the recent crisis — if such it was, or is — illustrates persistent U.S. intellectual and institutional failures, starting with this: The Trump administration’s assumption, and that of many in Congress, is that if the president wants to wage war against a nation almost the size of Mexico (and almost four times larger than Iraq) and with 83 million people (more than double that of Iraq), there is no constitutional hindrance to him acting unilaterally. (...) Fifteen years ago, Condoleezza Rice, then George W. Bush’s national-security adviser, said that an abstraction (the 'international community') would not 'allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon.' Allow? In 2012, President Obama said: 'Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment. I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.' If — probably when — that policy fails, we shall have a policy of containment, or a major war. (...) Whatever the U.S. does to Iran militarily will be decided unilaterally by this president. But his predecessor, and today’s Congress and previous Congresses, will be implicated in the absence of restraint by laws or norms."

Mehr lesen


"Trump’s Decision to Leave a Token Force in Syria Is More Significant Than You Think"

David French hält die offenbar vom Weißen Haus beschlossene Fortsetzung der Präsenz des US-Militärs in Syrien trotz der relativ geringen Zahl der Soldaten von großer Bedeutung, "First, the presence of American soldiers will act as a profound deterrent to American enemies and to those who wish to destroy American allies. While a small American force may not have significant combat power on its own, it can call on immense firepower if in distress, and the very act of attacking American troops on the ground would trigger a much larger confrontation. Even this small presence should grant the American people at least a degree of hope that we do not intend to either squander hard-won battlefield gains or abandon allies who paid for those gains in blood. Second, even small American deployments facilitate continued involvement by our powerful European allies. (...) If Trump’s 200 can reassure American allies, incentivize allied deployments, and help keep a military boot on ISIS’s neck, then it will be one of the more cost-effective and wise decisions of his presidency. Trump’s mercurial nature is often a liability. When he changes his mind to reverse a mistake, it’s an asset. Let’s hope he doesn’t change his mind again."

Mehr lesen


"The Frustrating Necessity of Staying in Syria and Afghanistan, Explained"

David French erläutert, warum er den von Präsident Trump angekündigten Abzug der US-Einheiten aus Syrien und die Halbierung des US-Truppenkontingents in Afghanistan für falsch hält. "If we depart and leave behind the conditions for re-creating the hostility or brokenness that created the threat in the first instance, we’re not ending a war, we’re just rescheduling it for a later date. That was the fundamental flaw of the Obama withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. He rendered a fragile ally vulnerable to exactly the catastrophe that occurred three years later, and I’d argue that the Obama withdrawal was more defensible than Trump’s Syria withdrawal. Jihadists in Iraq were weaker in 2011 than jihadists in Syria today. (...) And by abandoning allies in the field, we raise the risk that next time we’ll need to use more troops and lose more men and women to deal with renewed threats. After all, which local allies will be willing to spill blood by our side if they know we’ll leave them to die? (...) While there are thoughtful arguments for and against the American military presence in Syria, don’t think for a moment that the present American withdrawal is the product of a thoughtful, intentional, and informed decision by a thoughtful and informed commander in chief. It’s an impulsive act by an ignorant man, and while military professionals will do their best to mitigate the damage of his impulsiveness and ignorance, Trump’s decision-making process is no way to run a war or defend a nation."

Mehr lesen


"Really, This Is Why Trump Won"

Kevin D. Williamson meint in seinem Kommentar für die konservative National Review, dass das Thema der illegalen Einwanderung zu den wichtigsten Gründen für den politischen Aufstieg Donald Trumps zähle. "With all that is going on, from economic concerns to fights over judicial appointments, it’s worth keeping in mind that that is almost certainly literally why Trump won — and why he ended up with the Republican nomination in the first place. There is a profound gulf — and it is not only a political gulf — between those Americans who think illegal immigration is no big deal and those who think it is a very big deal indeed. Those who believe that illegal immigration is no big deal owe their more skeptical fellow countrymen a reasonable explanation of why it is that we should allow our laws to go unenforced and our borders uncontrolled even as we burden would-be legal immigrants with ever more officiously enforced regulation. (...) As it stands, we have law-abiding professionals working in the United States on temporary visas who can be confident that they would be deported swiftly if they were to, say, earn some extra money in a side job for an employer who reports that income, or if they were convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. At the same time, we have millions and millions of illegals flouting the law entirely — and, sometimes, committing serious crimes — and we are told that we simply must come to an accommodation for them, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me or to many others."

Mehr lesen


"How Immigration Changes Britain"

Douglas Murray macht darauf aufmerksam, dass die britische Regierung der pakistanischen Christin Asia Bibi "aus Sicherheitsgründen" kein Asyl anbieten will. Hintergrund sei offenbar die durchaus berechtigte Sorge, dass ein solcher Schritt Proteste in der pakistanischen Gemeinde in Großbritannien auslösen würde. "The government is right to expect a backlash. There have been cases before of this 'community' expressing its views. From the book-burnings and protests over The Satanic Verses affair in 1989 to the mass protest against cartoonists, which was the 'community’s' response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015, the Pakistani Muslim community in the U.K. has never been shy of expressing its views. (...) if it is true that the British government has declined to offer Asia Bibi asylum for this reason, then it should lead to a huge national and international outcry."

Mehr lesen


"Not All Radicals Are the Same"

David French kritisiert, dass viele Gegner Donald Trumps den US-Präsidenten sowohl für die Tat des Paketbombers Cesar S. als auch für den Massenmord des Attentäters von Pittsburgh, Robert Bowers, verantwortlich machen. Trump müsse sich aufgrund seiner Rhetorik durchaus Fragen zur Entstehung einer radikalisierten Gemeinde von "Trump-Superfans" wie Cesar S. gefallen lassen. Beim Täter von Pittsburgh sei dies allerdings anders. "(...) not all radicals are the same. Based on the available evidence, it’s beyond a stretch to apply this same analysis to the Pittsburgh shooter. He wasn’t radicalized into the Trump-troll community but into the older, even darker world of anti-Semitism that predates Trump and will sadly endure long after Trump is gone. The Pittsburgh shooter believed the Jews controlled Trump. On Gab, his online platform of choice, he mocked Trump, said he didn’t vote for Trump, and claimed he’d never 'owned, worn, or even touched a MAGA hat.' (...) I believe that Trump has a role to play in tempering his community of radical supporters. I do not believe that Trump can touch the hatred in the heart of anti-Semites like the Pittsburgh killer."

Mehr lesen


"NATO’s Challenge Is Germany, Not America"

Victor Davis Hanson macht nicht die USA, sondern vor allem Deutschland für die Probleme der NATO in Europa verantwortlich. "The alliance’s most affluent and dominant European member sets a pernicious example by failing to meet its alliance obligations. Germany demands that the United States continue to be the largest funder of NATO and yet has an unfavorable view of America — and an increasingly favorable view of NATO’s supposed common threat, Russia. Other fearful European NATO nations are used to being dominated by Germany and either keep quiet or follow its lead. This is the NATO that Trump inherited and that he tried to shake up with his customary art-of-the-deal antics. Trump may be loud and uncouth, but his argument that NATO countries need to pay more money for their shared alliance’s self-defense is sound. If successful, it will lead to a stronger NATO. In contrast, German chancellor Angela Merkel sounds customarily professional and diplomatic as she continues to weaken the alliance and pursue German commercial and financial interests at the expense of fellow NATO members."

Mehr lesen


"Yes, We Should Fight for Montenegro"

David French widerspricht US-Präsident Trump in der konservativen National Review und erläutert, warum die USA weiterhin bereit sein müssten, kleinere NATO-Länder wie Montenegro zu verteidigen. Die "militärische Hegemonie" der NATO bleibe wichtig, um Kriege in Europa zu verhindern. "Those who say that American military entanglements somehow resemble the military alliances that helped trigger the horror of World War I get their facts exactly wrong. Prior to the First World War there was no military hegemon. There was instead a delicate balance of power — no clear dominant force, but enough military confidence on all sides to mislead national thinkers into believing that they had the capacity to deliver decisive military victory. If NATO remains strong, Vladimir Putin would have to be deranged to believe that he could win a conflict with the western alliance. And Vladimir Putin, whatever his many other contemptible qualities, is not deranged. Moreover, because NATO is a defensive alliance, its military hegemony is not inherently destabilizing. (...) To be clear, this is not an argument for reckless expansion of NATO, or any expansion of NATO for that matter. Right now, the existing alliance needs to be stabilized and fortified, and that can’t be accomplished if we compromise even one inch on our existing defense commitments. If the alliance cracks, then Europe takes a giant step back to the great-power politics of the past, which led Americans to fight in unimaginably brutal European wars. If it endures, peace prevails."

Mehr lesen


"Media Dishonesty on Immigration Contributes to Gridlock"

Ben Shapiro wirft vielen US-Medien dagegen eine manipulative Berichterstattung über die aktuelle Situation an der Grenze zu Mexiko vor. Die Trump-Regierung setze mit ihrer umstrittenen Trennung inhaftierter illegaler Einwanderer von ihren Kindern bestehende US-Gesetze um, die vom Kongress sehr leicht geändert werden könnten. Die Demokraten hätten daran kein Interesse, da sie gegenwärtig einen "PR-Krieg" gegen Trump führten. "The longer the Democrats prevent a solution from arising, the more they gain in the public-opinion polls. So they have little incentive to come to the table around an immigration solution — their better political option remains to wait Trump out and let the press inflict damage on him. There’s a reason every Republican attempt at immigration reform has stalled out over the past two decades — and there’s a reason Democrats have celebrated every time they have. There’s also a reason that Democrats with unified control of the presidency and Congress attempted no serious immigration reform. Better to let the problem fester for political gain than to attempt to solve it."

Mehr lesen


"The Post-War Order Is Over"

Die nach 1945 geschaffene Nachkriegsordnung steht nach Überzeugung von Victor Davis Hanson vor ihrem Ende. Die Präsidentschaft Donald Trumps sei dabei nicht der Katalysator, sondern eine Reflektion des Niedergangs des Status Quo. Die meisten einflussreichen Länder operierten heute in einem Umfeld, das nur noch wenig mit den Institutionen und Traditionen dieser Ära gemein habe. Dies gelte auch für Deutschland: "As for Germany, it is no longer the 'new' model West Germany of the post-war order, but a familiar old Germany that now pushes around its neighbors on matters of illegal immigration, financial bailouts, Brexit, Russian energy, and NATO contributions, much as it used to seek to expand Prussia and the Sudetenland. (...) As far as the U.S., Germany has redefined its post-war relationship with the America on something like the following three assumptions: 1) Germany’ right to renege on its promise to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense in order to meet its NATO promises is not negotiable; 2) its annual $65 billion surplus with the U.S. is not negotiable; 3) its world-record-busting account surplus of $280 billion is not negotiable. Corollaries to the above assumptions are Germany’s insistence that NATO in its traditional form is immutable and that the present 'free' trade system is inviolable. Soon, some naïf is going to reexamine German–American relations and exclaim 'there is no there.'"

Mehr lesen


"The U.S. Needs to Rethink What Winning in Afghanistan Looks Like"

Nicholas Grossman gesteht, dass ein militärischer Sieg der USA über die Taliban in Afghanistan nicht sehr wahrscheinlich ist. Trotzdem spricht er sich für eine Fortführung des Krieges mit amerikanischer Beteiligung aus und erläutert, dass es nun vor allem darum gehen müsse, einen Sieg der Taliban und den Kollaps des pakistanischen Staates zu verhindern. "Pakistan’s stability is in America’s interest. If the government collapses, terrorists could steal a nuclear weapon or radioactive material that could be used in a dirty bomb. Because Afghan and Pakistani insurgent networks overlap, the war in Afghanistan is partially about denying sanctuary to militants that attack Pakistan. (...) Pakistan is thus a reason the United States cannot win in Afghanistan and simultaneously a reason the United States cannot leave. (...) The United States is not going to win in Afghanistan, but that’s the wrong way to think about the problem. Maintaining a relatively small military commitment to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control — which would likely pull the U.S. back in, anyway — is a worthwhile goal at reasonable cost. Hold the line."

Mehr lesen


"Welcome Home, ISIS Fighters, All Is Forgiven"

Michael Brendan Dougherty kritisiert in der konservativen National Review europäische Behörden, die auf die Rückkehr tausender IS-Kämpfer aus Syrien und Irak in ihre europäischen Heimatländer "beunruhigend gleichgültig" reagierten. "Let’s speak plainly: ISIS was a genocidal outfit. Many of its fighters participated in and witnessed unimaginable horrors. Seven decades later, Germany still prosecutes guards who participated in the Holocaust when they can find them. What kind of justice do the victims of ISIS deserve? There really is something in the liberal democratic mind that finds it impossible to believe that ISIS fighters are fully conscious of their motives and desires, that they are really guilty. Instead, they’re said to be merely naive. They need not repent. They just need a good-will gesture of reintegration on our part, our leaders think."

Mehr lesen


"German Voters Shake Up the Elites"

John Fund interpretiert das Wahlergebnis in Deutschland in der konservativen National Review als Folge der Flüchtlingspolitik von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel. Das Erstarken der AfD könne wie der Brexit und der Wahlsieg Donald Trumps als Denkzettel für die politische Elite verstanden werden. "Everyone who voted for the Alternative knew they wouldn’t enter government, but many wanted them to have a voice. Groups that have felt behind by economic and cultural change were especially attracted by its promise to upset the cozy political culture of the capital in Berlin. Consider that the Alternative party won support across the political spectrum. While 1,070,000 voters left Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union to vote for them, almost as many voters (970,000) abandoned the Social Democrats, the Greens, and the Left party (which has it roots in the old Communist regime of East Germany) to vote for a nationalist party that combines hostility to radical Islam with opposition to bigger government. After the votes were in, Left-party leader Katja Kipping mourned that 'the progressive Left has fallen below 40 percent of the vote' for the first time in any modern German election."

Mehr lesen


"Is There Still a Conservative Foreign Policy?"

Angesichts der Konflikte zwischen US-Präsident Trump und vielen Kongress-Republikanern in außenpolitischen Fragen fragt Victor Davis Hanson, ob es heute überhaupt noch eine einheitliche republikanische Außenpolitik gebe. Trump habe bereits seit längerem bestehende Spannungen zwischen den verschiedenen Lagern in der Partei aufgedeckt. "An irony of the Trump wedge is that globalists of the Left, both those in the Obama camp and adherents of Hillary Clinton’s, were able to win over many neocons in 2016 election. (...) They deemed themselves optimists about human nature, seeing no tribal impediment to democracy, for example, in the Islamist culture of so much of the Middle East. Trump’s achievement, if it can be so termed, may have been to return neoconservatives to their natural neo-liberal affinities and alignments with liberal allies."

Mehr lesen


"America’s War against ISIS Is Evolving into an Invasion of Syria"

Mit dem Abschuss des syrischen Kampfflugzeuges und dem Niedergang des "Islamischen Staates" sei das Risiko einer offenen Konfrontation zwischen den USA und Syrien deutlich angestiegen, stellt David French fest. Die erneute Invasion eines Landes im Nahen Osten dürfe nicht ohne Zustimmung des Kongresses stattfinden, so seine Forderung. "(...) rather than staring peace in the face, we’re not only raising the risk of direct and sustained confrontation with Syria (and its chief ally, Russia), we’re inching toward an outright invasion and extended occupation of northern Syria. All without congressional approval. All without meaningful public debate. (...) Let’s put this in plain English. American forces and American allies are not only taking territory from ISIS, they’re holding that territory against regime forces. There’s a word for what happens when a foreign power takes and holds territory without the consent of the sovereign state — that word is 'invasion.'"

Mehr lesen


"America Still Is — and Should Remain — the 'Indispensable Nation'"

David French vom konservativen Magazin National Review erläutert in seiner Replik auf Jeet Heer dagegen, warum die USA international weiterhin als "unverzichtbare Nation" auftreten sollten. Der durch Präsident Trump eingeleitete Wandel in der US-Außenpolitik werde von vielen überschätzt. "First, it’s simply wrong that Trump has fundamentally changed anything about America’s strategic approach abroad. (...) Second, Heer glosses over the Obama administration’s beta test for American withdrawal. Remember 'leading from behind'? Remember the Iraq retreat? (...) in every strategically important arena where America stepped back, our nation’s rivals stepped forward. (...) In reality, Heer and others are engaging little more than a fantasy-land intellectual exercise without bothering to realistically explore the alternatives to American engagement. What happens to international trade and stability if America yanked the U.S. Navy off the high seas — leaving Western democracies with minimal ability to respond to regional instability and ceding the balance of power to those countries with the largest land armies? No nation can project power like the United States".

Mehr lesen


"For Love of Country"

US-Präsident Trump hat mit seiner "America First"-Strategie eine Debatte über die heutige Bedeutung des Nationalismus ausgelöst. Das konservative US-Magazin National Review widerspricht in diesem Essay der Ansicht, dass Nationalismus nur schädlich und gefährlich sein könne. "The outlines of a benign nationalism are not hard to discern. It includes loyalty to one’s country: a sense of belonging, allegiance, and gratitude to it. And this sense attaches to the country’s people and culture, not just to its political institutions and laws. Such nationalism includes solidarity with one’s countrymen, whose welfare comes before, albeit not to the complete exclusion of, that of foreigners. (...) The nation also makes democracy possible. Without the nation, and people bound together by a common home, language, and sense of shared identity and interests, there is no real polity. There is a reason that the European Union, a collection of disparate nations with disparate interests and traditions, has a democracy deficit and always will."

Mehr lesen


"Will the Next Arab Revolt Be in Algeria?"

In Algerien sei aufgrund religiöser, wirtschaftlicher und demographischer Faktoren eine "explosive" Situation entstanden, die leicht zu einer politischen Revolte führen könnte, schreibt Benjamin Weinthal. "A remarkable series of barely noticed counterterrorism operations, labor strikes, and social protests in Algeria in January showed that the North African country may be facing a year of upheaval. Six years after leaders in the fellow North African states of Tunisia and Egypt were ousted, simmering instability in Algeria could lead to the ouster of its longtime president as well. (...) Despite all its troubles, Algeria remains a key oil supplier to Europe and could help save energy-starved European countries from dependency on Putin’s Russia, not to mention the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Hence the U.S. has an important interest in maintaining a stable Algeria."

Mehr lesen


"Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees — Separating Fact from Hysteria"

David French würde es für "Wahnsinn" halten, wenn das von US-Präsident Trump verhängte Einreiseverbot für Bürger aus sieben muslimischen Ländern auch Greencard-Inhaber betreffen sollte. Davon abgesehen kritisiert er in der konservativen National Review allerdings die seiner Ansicht nach "hysterischen" Reaktionen auf die Entscheidung. Der US-Präsident sei erheblich von seinen Wahlversprechen abgerückt und habe lediglich temporäre und moderate Einschränkungen verkündet, um die Einreise aus "dschihadistischen Konfliktzonen" zu limitieren. "(...) you can read the entire executive order from start to finish, reread it, then read it again, and you will not find a Muslim ban. It’s not there. Nowhere. At its most draconian, it temporarily halts entry from jihadist regions. In other words, Trump’s executive order is a dramatic climb-down from his worst campaign rhetoric. To be sure, however, the ban is deeply problematic as applied to legal residents of the U.S. and to interpreters and other allies seeking refuge in the United States after demonstrated (and courageous) service to the United States."

Mehr lesen


"Germany, Japan, and their militaries — after 70 years, time to get going?"

Jay Nordlinger hat sich in einem zweiteiligen Artikel mit der Neuorientierung der Sicherheits- und Militärpolitik in Deutschland und Japan beschäftigt. In diesem Teil widmet er sich der Entwicklung in Deutschland. "Germany is embarked on a tremendous military expansion: billions more euros, thousands more soldiers. Giving a speech in October, Chancellor Merkel explained, 'In the 21st century, we won’t be getting as much help as we got in the 20th.' She went on to say, 'We have to spend more for our external security. The conflicts of this world are currently on Europe’s doorstep, massively so.' In saying this, she was surely thinking of Middle Eastern and African migration, as well as Russia. Constanze Stelzenmüller is an expert on Germany and Europe at the Brookings Institution. And she notes a dog not barking: a lack of protest within Germany over the government’s new direction."

Mehr lesen


"How President Trump should strengthen America’s ICBM-deterrence posture."

Donald Trump hat in einer seiner vielen Twittermeldungen angekündigt, sich als US-Präsident für eine Stärkung des amerikanischen Atomwaffenarsenals einzusetzen. Tom Rogan würde eine Erhöhung des nuklearen Abschreckungspotentials aufgrund der angeblichen Bedrohung durch die iranischen und nordkoreanischen Atomwaffenpläne begrüßen. "Trump should clarify his willingness, where facing imminent nuclear attack, to use nuclear weapons in a 'first strike' role. That demand is urgent because President Obama has equivocated on this fundamental precept of U.S. nuclear-deterrent posture. Namely, the understanding that U.S. nuclear weapons serve both deterrence (preventing an attack) and capability (destroying an enemy)."

Mehr lesen


"German Lesson: Islamist Enclaves Breed Jihadism"

Nach dem Terroranschlag in Berlin meint Andrew C. McCarthy in diesem Beitrag für die konservative National Review, dass die größte Bedrohung der Sicherheit in Europa nicht von eingewanderten IS-Anhängern aus dem Nahen Osten, sondern von islamistischen Enklaven in europäischen Städten ausgehe. "To be sure, the infiltration of trained terrorists is a huge problem; even a small percentage would compute to thousands of jihadists within the swarms of migrants. Alas, that is a secondary concern. The bigger threat is the enclaves. These are not merely parallel societies in which the law and mores of the host countries are supplanted by Islamic law and Islamist mores. Even residents who are not jihadists tend to be jihadist sympathizers — or, at least, to be intimidated into keeping any objections to themselves. That turns these neighborhoods into safe havens for jihadist recruitment, training, fund-raising, and harboring. They enable the jihadists to plan attacks against the host country and then elude the authorities after the attacks."

Mehr lesen


"Republicans — Not Just Trump — Are Wrong to Blame ISIS’s Rise on Obama’s Iraq Policy"

Andrew C. McCarthy nimmt US-Präsident Obama in der konservativen National Review gegen den Vorwurf, den "Islamischen Staat" durch eine verfehlte Irak-Politik geschaffen zu haben, in Schutz. Fehler der US-Regierung hätten zweifellos zur Verschärfung der Bedrohungsszenarien in der Region beigetragen, das eigentliche Problem sei allerdings der aggressive politische Islam, der von wichtigen Akteuren vor Ort vertreten werde. "What we have is a bubbling cauldron of aggressive political Islam with its always attendant jihadist legions. The question is always: How to contain the innate aggression? The fantasy answers are: (a) let’s convert them to Western democracy, and (b) let’s support the secular democrats. In reality, the region does not want Western democracy — it wants sharia (Islamic law), even if there is disagreement about how much sharia and how quickly it should be imposed. And while there are some secular democrats, there are far, far too few of them to compete with either the sharia-supremacist factions or the dictatorial regimes — they can only fight the latter by aligning with the former. At best, the secularists provide hope for an eventual evolution away from totalitarian sharia culture; for now, however, it is absurd for Beltway Republicans to contend that ISIS emerged because Obama failed to back these 'moderates' in Iraq and Syria."

Mehr lesen


"Populist Parties Are Rising Because Mainstream Conservatives Have Failed"

John O’Sullivan macht in diesem Beitrag für die konservative National Review vor allem die konservativen Mainstream-Parteien für den Aufstieg rechtspopulistischer Bewegungen in Europa verantwortlich. "The short answer is that these fringe parties occupied the large empty spaces on the political Right that the mainstream conservative parties had abandoned. British Tories, French Gaullists, Swedish Moderates, and other parties elsewhere increasingly narrowed their appeal to that of superior economic management in a capitalist economy than their countries’ respective Leftist parties. (...) mainstream conservative parties were tailoring their policies to please a small national constituency while seeming oblivious to the fact that they were alienating or even dissing the moral traditionalists, the patriots, the national-defense conservatives, and the 'social fabric' conservatives who together make up the great bulk of their national constituency."

Mehr lesen


"The New Islamic State: Boko Haram"

Die militärischen Erfolge der Terrororganisation Boko Haram in Nigeria ließen mittlerweile Vergleiche mit dem Islamischen Staat zu, meint Tom Rogan. Boko Haram kontrolliere heute etwa 20.000 km² und unternehme regelmäßige Raubzüge in die benachbarten Länder Kamerun und Niger. "As Boko Haram expands its territory and ambition, it’s likely to follow in AQIM’s footsteps and attack Western interests. Indeed, the group has already threatened Western missionaries in northern Nigeria and energy interests in the country’s south. Moreover, led by the psychopath Abubakr Shekau, Boko Haram is inherently irrational. But this emerging threat to the West isn’t just about power-crazed ideology; it’s about hard cash: Transnational attacks are a proven way to attract jihadist fundraisers in Qatar and elsewhere. As Boko Haram presents an ever-greater threat to the stability of multiple governments, and as it slaughters more and more innocents, our strategic and moral impetus for action is clear. Given the undercurrent of sectarianism in regional politics, the crisis is becoming more urgent by the day. Unless contained, Boko Haram could spark a new genocide."

Mehr lesen

suche-links1 2suche-rechts

Hier finden Sie die Redaktion der Sicherheitspolitischen Presseschau.

Mehr lesen



Europa, Asien, Afrika, Amerika und weltweite Phänomene und Institutionen. Die bpb bietet ein breites Angebot zu internationalen Themen.

Mehr lesen


Informationsportal Krieg und Frieden

Wo gibt es Kriege und Gewaltkonflikte? Und wo herrscht am längsten Frieden? Welches Land gibt am meisten für Rüstung aus? liefert wichtige Daten und Fakten zu Krieg und Frieden.

Mehr lesen auf


Innerstaatliche Konflikte

Vom Kosovo nach Kolumbien, von Somalia nach Süd-Thailand: Weltweit schwelen über 280 politische Konflikte. Und immer wieder droht die Lage gewaltsam zu eskalieren.

Mehr lesen

Zahlen und Fakten


Kaum ein Thema wird so intensiv und kontrovers diskutiert wie die Globalisierung. "Zahlen und Fakten" liefert Grafiken, Texte und Tabellen zu einem der wichtigsten und vielschichtigsten Prozesse der Gegenwart.

Mehr lesen

Publikationen zum Thema

Coverbild Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Die internationale Sicherheit ist fragil und bedroht. Wie können und müssen demokratische Systeme ...

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik Cover

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik

Seit Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts hat sich die internationale Sicherheitspolitik deutlich verändert....

Zum Shop