Stardate 20030716.1210

(On Screen): In war and conflict, tactics flow from strategy, and strategy flows from goals. How you fight the war depends on what you're attempting to do.

Fischer is visiting the US, hoping to heal the rift between the US and Germany.

Describing the situation in Iraq as highly complicated, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said a trans-Atlantic debate was needed to develop a common strategy to deal with the postwar situation and other security issues. ...

On Monday in New York, Fischer said he has tried to heal the rift between Berlin and Washington and was looking forward to discussing a broad range of security issues with U.S. officials.

These included not just the implications of the Iraqi invasion, which Germany along with other European nations tried to prevent during heated debates at the U.N. Security Council, but also Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

But there can be no common strategy if there is no consensus about goals, and there isn't one. In the last year, it's become apparent that the primary Franco-German goal was to hobble American international power and influence as much as possible, while the Anglo-American goal was to eliminate the threat from Arab/Islamic extremism.

Fischer says that debate is needed if there is to be a common strategy. He doesn't explain why there needs to be a common strategy, however. And simply to admit that such a thing is required amounts to giving Berlin and Paris a heckler's veto over American foreign policy. Which is what Fischer is after. After all, if we can only follow a "common strategy" then it means we can't do anything without their permission.

And that's been something they've been demanding since the war began. It's taken many forms, and been stated in many ways. It was "We're all Americans now" (i.e. "Americans should act European now"). It was "consultation with allies", and it was "NATO invocation of Article V". It was "multilateralism", and it was "diplomatic partnership". Now it's "common strategy". It's been the same old whine no matter what bottle it's been delivered in, and it's no different this time. It's always been the same message: We Europeans think you Americans should never do anything without our permission, because we're smarter and more sophisticated than you are. And the message has never been accepted.

It won't be accepted this time, either. State will smile and shake Fischer's hand, pat him on the back and send him home, but there's not going to be any commitment to development of a common strategy. Nor should there be; for there is no shared goal. When goals contradict, shared strategy is nonsense.

But Fischer's own goals (heh) are contradictory. He wants rapprochement with the US and he also wants America chained. Is rapprochement an end in itself, or a means by which to bind and hobble America diplomatically? It seems to be both, but as long as it's viewed here as even somewhat a means to binding, it won't succeed at all.

Simply put, if you want to be our friend so that you can use that friendship against us, you aren't a friend and won't be treated as one.