US-Soldaten in Afghanistan

National Review


suche-links1 2suche-rechts


"A Dissent on Pipeline Politics"

Kevin Williamson argumentiert: Die Androhung von Sanktionen durch die USA hätte die Fertigstellung der Erdgaspipeline Nord Stream 2 niemals aufhalten können. "That threat wasn't strategy or diplomacy - it was a tantrum. It was a tantrum of the kind that wouldn't work with Beijing - of the kind that didn't work with Beijing during the Trump years. And it will not work with the European Union, which has a slightly larger economy than China's and many good reasons to be reasonably confident of its own position, at least for the nearer term. If the United States expects to lead, it cannot afford to conduct its foreign affairs while drunk on nationalism and high on rage. It is going to have to sober up."

Mehr lesen


"Biden Balks on Russia"

Die Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber des National Review argumentieren: US-Präsident Joe Bidens Entscheidung, von den Sanktionen gegen das Unternehmen, das den Bau der Erdgaspipeline Nord Stream 2 beaufsichtigt, Abstand zu nehmen, sei ein großer Fehler. "(…) [I]t risks depriving Ukraine of a major source of revenue as Kyiv continues its grueling fight against Moscow-backed separatist forces in the eastern part of the country and confronts a Russian military buildup on what's left of its border. (…) Some might say that soft-pedaling U.S. opposition to Nord Stream 2 brings the U.S. closer to Berlin when German support to counter China is more important than ever. This ignores, however, the awkward reality that the Merkel government, with its eye firmly on the opportunity for German companies in China, has courted Beijing, expressing relative indifference to the Chinese Communist Party's abuses. Making matters worse, the administration appears to be aligning itself with a government that may be on the way out."

Mehr lesen


"Trump Did This"

Auch Michael Brendan Dougherty lässt in der konservativen National Review keinen Zweifel daran, wer an den "widerlichen Szenen" in Washington verantwortlich sei. "The nauseating scene in Washington, D.C., is Trump’s fault. I don’t want to hear his embarrassed defenders say 'Whatabout the riots in the summer?' We drew attention to those riots and their apologists because they were wicked and destructive, not because 'our side' needed license to do the same. Trump’s claims of material vote fraud have no merit. He repeatedly and falsely claimed that Vice President Mike Pence could simply reject the electors sent by the states Trump lost and thereby make Trump president. This was a lie, very likely a knowing lie. And a dangerous one. There are reports that the vice president had to be evacuated to safety. No wonder, when the president preemptively accused him of connivance with a putsch. Trump has moral responsibility for the violence today."

Mehr lesen


"The GOP’s Foreign-Policy Tribes Prepare for Battle"

Die US-Republikaner seien heute in drei außenpolitische Lager gespalten, schreibt Colin Dueck. Mit dem Abtritt Donald Trumps könnten diese Differenzen schärfer zutage treten. "(…) there are some very basic differences over the future of American foreign policy. If anything, the Trump era exposed those differences, and — without a Republican president to rally around — they are about to come to the fore. Conservatives and Republicans around the country are — and have long been — divided into three distinct groupings or tendencies: foreign-policy activists, foreign-policy hardliners, and foreign-policy non-interventionists. (…) Some may believe that, with Trump exiting the presidency, the past four or five years may be viewed as a sort of one-off aberration in GOP foreign-policy traditions, and that we may now return to regularly scheduled programming as if those years had never happened. I think this would be delusional. An exceptionally robust sense of American nationalism has been a central feature of the Republican Party from its beginning. This very much includes an emphasis on America’s freedom of action and sovereignty in world affairs. The specific policy implications of all this, as we look ahead, should certainly be open to debate. But the phenomenon is much bigger than Donald Trump. And for that very reason, it’s here to stay."

Mehr lesen


"The Frustration of Emmanuel Macron"

Frankreichs Präsident Macron sei darüber erbost, wie die französische Reaktion auf die jüngsten islamistischen Terroranschläge in einigen britischen und US-Medien dargestellt worden sei, schreibt Jimmy Quinn. "In the immediate aftermath of the murder of schoolteacher Samuel Paty in Paris last month, an initial New York Times headline viewed the killing apparently through the lens of America’s debate on policing: 'French Police Shoot and Kill Man After a Fatal Knife Attack on the Street.' A later Associated Press explainer asked, 'Why does France incite anger in the Muslim world?' It answered: 'Its brutal colonial past, staunch secular policies and tough-talking president who is seen as insensitive toward the Muslim faith all play a role.' Other examples abound. Macron reportedly fumed about this sort of coverage during a cabinet meeting last week. (…) The Macron government is fighting a battle on two fronts. First, and obviously, against the 'Islamist separatism' that Macron has identified. And second, against the tendencies, which have metastasized on American college campuses, that would prevent a defense of France according to its republican values."

Mehr lesen


"Goodbye — Sort of — to Germany?"

Victor Davis Hanson wirft Deutschland vor, trotz amerikanischer Einwände Vereinbarungen mit Russland zu treffen, seine NATO-Verpflichtungen nicht zu erfüllen und generell das antiamerikanischste Land in Europa zu sein. "In recent polling, Germans were more anti-American than any other nation in Europe. And while about 75 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. still has a good relationship with Germany, only about a third of Germans feel that way about the U.S. In some polls, nearly half the German population wants American troops out. Note that Germany piles up the largest annual trade surplus with the U.S. of any nation in Europe — roughly $55 billion to $70 billion in most years. The Trump administration says the surpluses have grown in large part due to asymmetry in tariffs and duties, with Germany the far more protectionist of the two partners. With Germany now united, rich, and often angry, and with the Soviet threat largely over, it’s Germany, not the U.S., that seems to have altered its view of this once-solid relationship. Does Merkel really believe that if her nation cuts huge deals with NATO’s historically greatest threat, polls as the most anti-American country in Europe, and continues refusing to honor its promises to increase defense spending, Germany still deserves a large American commitment of 36,000 troops to anchor its defense?"

Mehr lesen


"The Problem in Portland Isn’t the Law; It’s the Lawlessness"

In der Debatte über die anhaltenden Proteste und Ausschreitungen in amerikanischen Städten wirft David Harsanyi einigen Bürgermeistern vor, mit ihrer "Kapitulation" vor linken "Anarchisten" "Gesetzlosigkeit" zu fördern. Angesichts versuchter Brandanschläge auf Bundesgebäude habe die US-Regierung das Recht, eigene Sicherheitskräfte vor Ort zu schicken. "There’s little doubt that if alt-Right activists had occupied a few city blocks in Seattle or tried to firebomb a federal courthouse in Portland, we’d be in for feverish wall-to-wall media coverage, engulfed in a national conversation about the perils of right-wing radicalism. Every elected Republican would be asked to personally denounce the extremists to make sure they take implicit ownership of the problem. (…) Who knows? Perhaps the majority of citizens and businesses in Portland, Seattle, and Denver want their elected officials to let Antifa act with impunity. Or maybe some of those citizens and businesses will begin fleeing those cities. Whatever the case, it’s a local concern. To a point. If mayors do nothing to stop anarchists from tearing down federal monuments or from defacing, vandalizing, and attempting to burn down federal buildings, the feds have every right to dispatch teams of agents to restore order."

Mehr lesen


"Putin’s Empire Strikes Back"

Mit der Bestätigung der umstrittenen Verfassungsreform habe sich die russische Bevölkerung von der modernen Weltordnung abgewandt, schreibt Mathis Bitton. Auf internationaler Ebene sei dies keineswegs ein isolierter Vorgang, was dem Westen nach Ansicht Bittons zu denken geben sollte. "For almost three centuries, Western observers have operated under the mistaken assumption that people are naturally drawn to liberal values, that rationality and progress are bound to triumph over tyranny and tradition. But the best way to preserve a liberal world order would be to begin by acknowledging its current shortcomings. First, if liberal norms are to endure, they need to be defended with as much fervor as they are attacked. Second, and most important, post-Westphalian liberalism needs to recognize the crucial role played by religion, traditions, and national identity in the construction of true nation-states; if we abandon all of these values to anti-liberal extremists, we will leave people with an unnecessary dichotomy between culture and fundamental rights — and their choice might well displease us. We are not witnessing the end of history and the glorious realization of Kant’s wildest dreams. To paraphrase Churchill, we are not even witnessing the beginning of the end of history. Instead, we may be experiencing the end of its beginning, the overdue collapse of the conflict between international cooperation and national identity."

Mehr lesen


"Intel Official: Allegations of Russian Bounties to Taliban 'Uncorroborated'"

Mairead McArdle hat sich mit den Hintergründen des Vorwurfs beschäftigt, dass Russland in Afghanistan Kopfgelder auf US-Soldaten ausgesetzt habe. "A U.S. intelligence official claims that intelligence reports alleging Russia offered bounty payments to Taliban militants to target American forces in Afghanistan were 'uncorroborated' and hence not presented to President Trump as part of his briefings on national security matters. The unidentified intelligence official told CBS News’ Catherine Herridge that the National Security Agency assessed that the intelligence collection report 'does not match well-established and verifiable Taliban and Haqqani practices' and lacks 'sufficient reporting to corroborate any links.' The report reached 'low levels' of the National Security Council but did not travel further up the chain of command — and was not included in briefings with the president or vice president — because it was deemed 'uncorroborated' and there was dissent in the intelligence community about the veracity of the allegations."

Mehr lesen


"Protesting Works. Rioting Doesn’t."

Die historische Erfahrung zeige, dass gewaltsame Proteste und Plünderungen Bürgerrechtsbewegungen in den USA immer geschadet hätten, schreibt Zaid Jilani. Die linke "Romantisierung" der Gewalt auf den Straßen schade der eigenen Sache. "A new paper by Princeton University political scientist Omar Wasow, a long-time researcher on civil rights and politics, sheds some light on why nonviolent protest tends to provoke sympathy while violent protests tend to polarize and even empower the protesters’ political opponents. (…) When some on the left conflate the protests with the riots, this bundling creates a situation in which the rest of the country — which is generally repelled by rioting and unjustified violence, both by the police and ordinary people — is forced to choose between supporting rioting or supporting a movement for police accountability. But if the left can stop conflating rioting with protesting, and stop pretending that a minority of people committing violence and theft represent the majority of people who want accountability and reform, there is a chance of depolarizing the issue once again."

Mehr lesen


"Do Autocracies Really Have an Advantage over Democracies?"

Michael M. Rosen rezensiert das Buch "The Return of Great Power Rivalry: Democracy Versus Autocracy from the Ancient World to the U.S. and China" von Matthew Kroenig, dem zufolge Demokratien autoritären Regierungssystemen nach wie vor weit überlegen sind. "A professor of government at Georgetown University, Kroenig contends that democracies consistently outperform autocracies on a wide variety of metrics ranging from long-term economic growth to dominance in international financial markets to alliance-building to forging and observing international treaties to military prowess. He marshals case studies from ancient history through the Cold War in support of what he calls a 'hard power case for democracy': 'The argument is not that democracy is a superior system because it protects human rights and civil liberties, although it does that too. Rather, this book argues that democratic countries are better able to amass power, wealth, and influence on the world stage than their autocratic competitors. Democracy is a force multiplier that helps states punch above their weight in international geopolitics.' (…) if Russia and China remain unable to attain global supremacy, the United States is poised to retain its crown for decades to come."

Mehr lesen


"The Comprehensive Timeline of China’s COVID-19 Lies"

Jim Geraghty hat in der konservativen National Review eine Zeitleiste chinesischer Maßnahmen zur Vertuschung der Corona-Epidemie zusammengestellt. "The story of the coronavirus pandemic is still being written. But at this early date, we can see all kinds of moments where different decisions could have lessened the severity of the outbreak we are currently enduring. You have probably heard variations of: 'Chinese authorities denied that the virus could be transferred from human to human until it was too late.' What you have probably not heard is how emphatically, loudly, and repeatedly the Chinese government insisted human transmission was impossible, long after doctors in Wuhan had concluded human transmission was ongoing — and how the World Health Organization assented to that conclusion, despite the suspicions of other outside health experts. Clearly, the U.S. government’s response to this threat was not nearly robust enough, and not enacted anywhere near quickly enough. Most European governments weren’t prepared either. Few governments around the world were or are prepared for the scale of the danger. We can only wonder whether accurate and timely information from China would have altered the way the U.S. government, the American people, and the world prepared for the oncoming danger of infection."

Mehr lesen


"What Trump’s Acquittal Means for the Rule of Law"

In der konservativen National Review erläutert der Anwalt Dan McLaughlin politische und verfassungsrechtliche Hintergründe und Konsequenzen des beendeten Amtsenthebungsverfahrens. Sein nüchternes Fazit lautet: "The rule of law in America will not be significantly worse off for the acquittal of Trump. The decision to acquit him was a natural and expected outcome of a process that charged him only with political offenses and failed to move a clear majority of the public against him. The result was exactly what anyone would have predicted simply from a reading of the history of the impeachment proceedings against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. If our standards for impeaching presidents are too high, all this vote did was reiterate what we already knew. Future Congresses should not fear to impeach presidents — even this one, again — if they really have the goods and can get the public behind them. In the meantime, both parties in Congress ought to get back to the less glamorous but important work of reviving the other tools given by Article I to Congress to rein in the executive branch."

Mehr lesen


"The End of the Soft-Power Delusion"

Taylor Dinerman stellt fest, dass die Vorstellung, kulturelle "Soft power" könne wirtschaftliche und militärische Macht ersetzen, in den letzten Jahren zunehmend als "Wunschdenken" entlarvt worden sei. "In the mid 1990s, the idea that somehow soft power, by itself, would shape the post-Cold War world began to take hold. It emerged, naturally enough, from American universities, where an academic elite was all too happy to imagine that its influence on the intellectual and cultural landscape would correct the ugly and vulgar reality of military and economic strength that had, up to now, shaped human history. Some European leaders insisted that Brussels would become the capital city of a new 'Soft Power Superpower,' the EU. They honestly believed that their continent’s culture, lifestyle, and environmental activism would eventually eclipse American hard power. The fact that the Balkan wars of the 1990s could only be resolved with the help of the U.S. armed forces did little to change their attitude. (…) hard power is making a comeback. Neither China nor the U.S. believes that cultural influence can substitute for economic or military strength. Soft power in various forms will never really go away, but has been proven not to be a decisive force in world politics."

Mehr lesen


"The Price Our Government Has Paid for Lying about Afghanistan"

Nach Ansicht von Michael Brendan Dougherty kann dagegen nicht ignoriert werden, dass mehrere Präsidenten und Generäle die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit über die Entwicklung in Afghanistan jahrelang belogen hätten. Dass bei dem Einsatz nahezu utopische Ziele verfolgt worden seien, könne nicht als Entschuldigung gelten. "Classical statements of just-war theory put the prospects of success at the heart of the moral calculation. Wars are occasions for so much evil that there must be reasons to believe their aims are achievable if they are to be pursued in a just way. But the U.S. has pursued practically utopian aims in Afghanistan, including the establishment of a strong central government. Under the Obama administration, we tried to use our military to prop up the institutions of a stable country for the Afghans, believing that if they built enough schools and canals, a civil society would just appear around it all. And in a sickening replay of late Vietnam-era follies, officials continued to lie to the public about the level of corruption in the allied Afghan government, and about the effectiveness of its own armed forces against the Taliban."

Mehr lesen


"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

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