Makes more sense for France than Germany -- most Muslim immigrants in Germany are Turks, so it's not exactly a hellhole they're leaving.

okay, sorry, but thats absolute conspricay-europhob nonsense.

let me begin with the wrong FACTS this makes things easier, i don't think discussion makes sense here because of the amount of wrong assumptions, simplifications and shortened views.

'to really notice the rot in the unassimilated immigrant communities within their own borders.'

in germany we have a lot of muslims, most of them are turks.
but you are totally wrong when you are writing of a 'rot' in these 'unassimilared communities'.
there was never a time we faced serious problems with these immigrants. the jobless level inside of the immigratet turks is higher then the german averange, the big majority of these turks is not fully assimilatet but has agreed to live in the german nation and to live to the favour of this nation, because they LIKE to live here.
in past days there where different (but only small) problems with fugitives living in germany, because germany has affiliatet much more fugitives then any other european country. but this has nothing to do with 'muslim immigrants', because these fugitives are mainly NOT muslims.

'At the same time, our attention was decisively focused on the intersection of "irrational actors" and their support of terrorism, as well as the pursuit of several of them - Iran, Iraq and North Korea - of nuclear weapons.'

think what you want but your own intelligence services have told your government any your journalists several times that ther IS NO LINK between al-qaida and Saddam. (which in fact would be very senseless, because both hate each other perhaps even more then the US;in the first gulf war a group of mujaheddin fought against saddam to 'free' kuwait...)
and how BIG the treath of nuclear weapons really is and was can be seen in these days when NOTHING serious is found and (how ironic!) george w. bush wishes 'more time' for weapons inspectors...

'4) any terrorist organizations which had not by that time been co-opted or destroyed would then have to be destroyed'

in nearly every case, el-qaida is one ofe the exeptions, terrorism is a NATIONAL not an international problem. the terrorists that fight in aserbaidjan (i don't think you even heard of them) are no threat to any foreign country.
and it is not very easy to fight these terror groups with military means as long as they are supporter by their citizens. a fight against nation-based terrorism, like in israel in the 40's (YES the ISRAELIS also where terrorists some time ago..), like in algeria in the 40's and 50's, like the IRA in ireland or the different organizations in palestine between the mid 60's and now is not a game to win until the terrorist organization loses support from their national group. and that meand confronting this terrorism with military means is senseless, as the exemple of ALL THESE countries shows because if a war is fought against these nation based terrorists and the national group from whom the terrorists are supportet is endangered, the support of the terroirst organization growths.
if you do not divide intetnational terrorism, nation-based terrorism and spiritual/religious motivated terrorism then you are not able to win this fight.

'Now, the increasing anger of the young men among these populations begins to look like a basis for a possible civil war in Germany and France some time in the next 20 years, unless either the Muslims assimilate or demographic trends alter radically.'

absolute nonsense. as described the never was a threat to the german nation from these muslim-immigrants. although they are not fully _assimilated_ the ARE INTEGRATET, and ACCEPTED by the german citzens.
if you are searching for problems with muslim minorities you perhaps will find them in the UK, but also the problems over there seem not to be religious motivated but has other reasons, because diffenrent foreign youth groups endanger different citys.
and you can find some problems in the US. go look at the US/Canadian border: thousands of muslim immigrants who came years or centurys ago are fleeing now because they fear represals from you government.
also there are big problem with the hispanic minority, because they are NOT assimilatet _nor_ integratet (mostly they dont even speak english...), which CAN cause problems in the next centurys.

'Why not simply adopt bin Laden's/Saddam's lie that Israel and the US were objectively the same entity?'

okay, thats such a big nonsense i simply do not know what to write.
perhaps a few facts:
did you know german troops endanger their lives troughout the whole world to support our friend and ally the US? for example in afghanistan where the most of the US troops are gone the GERMANS have the central-command to guarantee peace in kabul (althouh i think this won't be sucessfull; but thats not a lack of german ability to guarantee peace but of US long-term strategic thinking. whe the US came to afghanistan the was over so fast because of the taliban RAN AWAY, and thats the problem, they only ran away and by now the are comeing back again)
the german navy is at the african east-coast to secure international sea against terrorists and pirates, this is a part of the 'enduring freedom' mission.
in kosovo german soldiers are guaranteeing peace together with US troops.
after 9-11 thousends of flowers where laid down in front of the US embassy because of the germans felt with you.
the german chancellor spoke about our 'infinite solidarity' to the US, and whole germany agreed to him.

i have to say, i am afraid when i read posts like yours, because i know about the importence of the alliance between ALL PARTS of europe and the US, and because i know about our deep friendship, but i see it endangered by stupid, wrong and europhob nonsense like those above.

sorry theres something wrong in this sentence:
'the jobless level inside of the immigratet turks is higher then the german averange' the opposite is correct, the jobless level inside of the turks is deeper then the german averange.

Fascinating. I've never been called a conspiracy theorist or a Europhobe before. In fact, I was thinking about responding in German, but frankly your English is much better than my remaining German, since it's been so long since I lived in the area (Soesterburg, Netherlands) or studied German (about 15 years), so I'll have to content myself with English. In actual fact, though, I love Europe - with the exception of France, and then mainly it's French politicians and culture that annoys me, rather than the French people.

You are certainly correct that the description I was giving was more apt to France in particular, and Belgium and Holland to a lesser extent, than is true of Germany. While the Muslim immigrants to Germany are mostly Turks, and mostly economic refugees, the same conditions do not hold all across Europe.

Keep in mind that I am talking about conditions 10-20 years out. At that time, the immigrant communities will have grown vastly, while the native population will have continued shrinking. Presumably, the French and low-countries immigrants would continue to be fairly radicalized and unassimilated. At this point, if such a putative civil war were to break out in France, then Belgium and Holland would likely follow. If such a war lasted for any length of time, it is likely that the Germans would intervene to aid the French, Belgian and Dutch governments against the insurgents, at which point it is very possible that the Muslim immigrants in Germany could be radicalized, and if so they would also rise up.

Your second point, about the links between al Qaeda and Saddam, are quite incorrect. Such evidence has already been uncovered, in particular of training, financing and intelligence ties. More will doubtless be forthcoming. While it is true that nuclear weapons have not been found, lacking only their cores, I would point out that serious finds have been made: cyanide and VX dumped into the river (at Nasiriyeh, if I remember correctly), several of the biological weapons-producing vans, mustard agent, empty chemical rockets, much documentation. It will take some time to unravel all of this, of course, and to determine the fate of the anthrax, VX and other stockpiles which Iraq is known to have had for sure (heck, even the UN admits to these) in 1998. Such would never have happened under the UN inspections regime, which was being actively opposed by the Iraqis.

It is true that al Qaeda is one of the few groups which tended to be able to pull off worldwide operations. However, I disagree that terrorism is a national problem, rather than an international one. We as Western liberals, as children of the Enlightenment, must say that it is never acceptable to deliberately target civilians to achieve war aims. Never.

That said, I'm well aware of the Azerbaijan/Armenia situation over Nagorno Karabakh, and of the Asala and PKK and so forth, as well as Chechnya and in other former Soviet regions (including along the Georgian border). These are cases where some terrorism is mixed in with what I would consider legitimate guerilla warfare, and in some of these cases there is likely to be no threat beyond the immediate conflict. Of course, that could have been said of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and look where that has led. The problem is that terror is a tactic which, once it is ingrained, tends to be used by the zealous when they return from the war in order to foster their postwar aims. This is why this particular type of terrorism was listed as the last US priority in the war on terror.

I am aware of the Israeli actions in the 1940s, bombing of the King David Hotel, etc. I'm aware of the other situations you cited as well. These are in the past, though, so I don't see how they apply to the situation now (unless some of them flare up again).

At the point that international terrorism is defeated, and regimes which sponsor terrorism are defeated, I believe that the US will go after national terrorist movements, and we will use all the tools and guile we possess to do so.

I do believe that the relationship between Germany and the US can be restored, and that it is not endangered in the way our relationship with France is. However, as long as German politicians stir up anti-Americanism, and get elected anyway, Americans will be wary of the Germans. France, on the other hand, keeps acting like an active opponent, and it is certainly possible that the US will begin to view France that way as a matter of course. I think that there is certainly nonsense on both sides of the Atlantic, but you are vastly mistaken to assume that I am Europhobic. You are also vastly mistaken if you assume that most Americans are Europhobic. Our world view is, though, very different from the French, Germans and Belgians in particular (and the rest of Western Europe to some extent at least).

This is a time when the Cold War is over, and the international system which prevailed before is dead. What will replace it is now at issue. The US view of the international order will be (and always has been) based on what is the largest threat to our freedom and our ability to live in peace. Since WWI, we have realized that we cannot disengage from the world absent actual hostilities - we have to work to prevent them or to pick our fights while our enemies are weak. Right now, the issue that poses a big threat to the US is terrorism, and no matter what else happens, Americans will see the world through that lens. If France succeeds in turning the EU into a power in opposition to the US, that situation will shape the US view of threats to us rather dramatically.

I presume, though, that Germany will get more sensible once Shroeder is gone. I have little hope for France or Belgium. I think that NATO is a dead issue (though it will still officially continue to exist), after the initial failures to defend Turkey, and Turkey's failure to allow US troops basing rights. This doesn't mean we will not be friends with NATO nations, but I certainly don't think we will base our security strategy on NATO any more. The UN is now pretty irrelevant to the US people in general, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the US start to ignore the UN, particularly if the situation with ending the sanctions doesn't get straightened out pretty quickly. These factors will all weigh heavily in how Americans view the world. "Europhobia" will not.

'We as Western liberals, as children of the Enlightenment, must say that it is never acceptable to deliberately target civilians to achieve war aims. Never.'

i agree if you say that terrorism is not a acceptable way of warfare - but this won't help us in dealing with it.
yes, i dislike nation-based terrorism as well, but is it our job to stop terroists in Azerbaijan? is it our job to stop them in tibet, or everywhere terrorist groups fight for the souvereighnity of their nation/ethnic-group?
are we capable to wage such an endless, and in fact not productive war?
i don't think so - international terrorism is a threat to us that must be defended - in an international way - but to fight nation/ethnic based terrorism throughout the world is not our job, because it is not a threat to us. and for that reason we have to differ sorts of terrorism and how to fight them.
we CAN do something against even nation-based terrorism, but we are not capable or even willing to wage a worldwide war against it [and also you americans are not willing to do this - go out and ask those high-schoolers if they would like to die in Nagorno Karabakh]

'These are in the past, though, so I don't see how they apply to the situation now'

they apply to the situation now as much as every piece of history applys to the situation now.
history is not repeating, but you can learn from developments in history what is likely to happen in the present ['who controls the past, controls the future', huh].
it is unlikely there will be terrorist organizations in cyprus in forseeable future - but it is VERY LIKELY there will be terrorist organizations LIKE those in cyprus in the forseeable future.

'At the point that international terrorism is defeated,'

in MY EYES, perhaps you think different here but i have good reasons to assume this, international terrorism NEVER can be defeated in any kind of war.
you can dry it out, you can make the world in a place where a big majority is addictet to a stable and peaceful status quo, but fighting fire with fire won't be a realistic way.
i agree totally, that SOMETIMES force and even war is needed to face problems, but MUCH MORE is needed to face the problem of int. terrorism, INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS are needed.

'I do believe that the relationship between Germany and the US can be restored, and that it is not endangered in the way our relationship with France is.'

you should stop to see the european nations so unlinked - it is not a possible option that france becomes americas enemy while germans are their best friends (see this story both ways round..)

so i think your fear of a france that becomes your enemy is not a realistic - the NEED the EU and the EU NEEDS them - so they have to calm down to a normal relationship to america, because EVERY EU country is a deep friend of america spaind, italy, germany, UK, and also the new members poland, chzech etc.

'I presume, though, that Germany will get more sensible once Shroeder is gone.'

even WITH schroeder they are sensible.
you should be awar that we ARE your allys and your friends, but we are NOT your vassals. the cold war is over and the world is restored, and europe dreams of an international multilateral world, and inside this world we have the dominating power of the US and the semi-dominating ones of the EU, perhaps russia and in near future china.
as long as the US tries to dominate this world as a unilateral power, which i think they are not capable of, they will think the EU opposes them - but they do not, they just try to get the influence on international affairs that is in accordance with it's economic power.

i agree when you analyze that NATO is not alive anymore, they will be replaced by other forces and alliances.
nemly this will be on the european continent a EU-army and out in the world a alliance between this EU-army and the US.
but if you think the UN is dead and if you make policy as if the UN was dead, then you will have the feeling the EU opposes you. they won't, because they have no intrest in an opposition to the US, but they will try everything they can to let the UN become a new vital constant in international affairs because of they belive that's the only way we can solve the problems of the present and the future.
and EVERYBODY in europe thinks like this, you should have recogniced that the UK really wantet an UNSC resolution, and that they are together will all the europeans in their new iraq agenda which menas a vital UN plays a big role.

and these diametral developments bring great danger to the western world - if we are divided and if we loose our strong instrument of international affairs (the UN!, who is a western based organization. nobody would be luckier of their failure than china or india etc.) and if we loose our common dreams on what should happen to this world (i think you think of the same like me: stability, security, liberal democracys troughout the world and wealth throughout the world) then we are doomed to loose our position in the world to upcoming powers like china, india and, perhaps even a united muslim world.

Without going into the rest of your arguments at the moment, I'm curious what international efforts, short of the use of force, you think we need to undertake which we are not undertaking now.