While many Americans criticize Germany and other European countries for not spending enough on defense, there seem to be more and more Americans, who criticize the huge US defense budget, which is not only much much bigger than the combined budgets of half a dozen US enemies and allies, but also huge compared to other foreign policy instruments.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for instance calls for more money and effort to "soft power" tools, including communications, because the military alone cannot defend America's interests around the world. (See Atlantic Review post "Al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America").

Today, James Carroll refers to Gates speech and writes in The Boston Globe (HT: David): "For US foreign policy, it's all power, no influence":

A MAN bit a dog last week. Not just any man, and not just any dog. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decried the vast disproportion between America's annual investment in the Pentagon - something like $700 billion - and what is spent on the State Department - about $35 billion. That's less, Gates said in a speech in Kansas, than the Defense Department spends on healthcare. The total number of foreign service officers is about 6,600 - which is less, Gates said, than the number of military personnel serving on one aircraft carrier strike group.

And a for me even more shocking comparison was quoted in FP Passport: "There are substantially more people employed as musicians in Defense bands than in the entire foreign service," says David J. Kilcullen, a senior advisor to Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq.

I know, why Germany spends comparatively little on defense: a) A long history of starting the wrong wars, b) domestic priorities (unemployment, ageing society etc), c) less fear of terrorism than in the US, and d) belief in soft power, especially in the stabilization effects of an ever expanding EU.

But why is the US spending comparatively little on regular foreign policy, including public diplomacy? Why is the Pentagon budget and staff sooo much bigger than the State Department budget and staff? Why is hard power considered soo important?

Which country's policy is more short-sighted and could prove to be more of a problem in the coming years? Germany's or America's?

The US Embassy in Berlin is a near total failure in its efforts to engage the German mass media so as to reach the largest possible German audience. The American taxpayer is being under-served by his or her representatives in Germany. Frankly - the public diplomacy officials at the US Embassy in Berlin ought to send Eric Staal half of their annual paychecks - because he just did more to engage the German people in 2 minutes than they have done in the past year.

We have our hands full with the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Why do we have to go against Iraq right now? Are you really sure that containment has failed?

In the ranking of a thousand Americans, Germany is one of the most important international partners for the U.S. – following Great Britain, Canada and Japan. Germans, like Americans but unlike the French, care a great deal about what other nations think of them. This should cheer them up: For Americans, Germany ranks ahead of all European countries except Britain, well ahead of France or Spain and, surprisingly, even farther in front of Italy, Poland, Ireland and Greece, the countries of origin of many immigrant Americans who retain links to their native lands and support active political lobbying on their behalf. (...)
Only l5 percent of survey respondents consider themselves very or well informed about the EU, even fewer today than during the last survey in September 2005. This should be a bit worrisome for a Germany which makes the EU so central to its policy-making. Also worrisome is how much the Nazi past still afflicts the German image among Americans. When asked what the top interest about Germany is, 44 percent answered “history,” by which, clearly, they mean the Third Reich. Very few Americans (13 percent) consider Germany a reliable ally of Israel and only a third say that it has taken responsibility for what it did to Jews in the past.

Those Americans who have actually been in Germany have a far better opinion about it than those who have not.

The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens. However, there were reported instances of mistreatment of prisoners and detainees by police, and there were limits on freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association aimed at groups deemed extremist. Extremists engaged in intimidation during the electoral process; there was governmental and societal discrimination against some minority religious groups; and cases of societal harassment of asylum seekers and other foreigners occurred. Violence against women, trafficking in persons, and harassment of racial minorities were problems.

Ruzicka initially came off like a blond surfer girl (she was much given to exclaiming "Dude!" and "You rock!"), but underneath the effervescent exterior was a tough-minded humanitarian advocate who had little tolerance for leftist anti-war demonstrators. Ruzicka understood that wars happen despite the demonstrations, and she wanted to do something concrete to alleviate the subsequent damage to human life.

In hotels visitors are treated as if they have left home for the first time; walk into any store and you are received like a family member; before ordering in a restaurant you are invited to be on a first name basis with the wait staff; and if you need to ask for directions at a gas station, you may find yourself exchanging life stories with the attendant. This combination of the pioneer spirit of helping your neighbor and the business practice of taking customer service seriously has developed into a type of openness which I would not hesitate to characterize as the realization of Kant's categorical imperative.

While not entirely incorrect, the notion that President Bush has wasted international post-9/11 sympathy is not entirely accurate either. As I say, at the time of the attacks, influential Europeans, and influential Britons, were already disinclined for their own reasons to sympathise with any American tragedy. Instead of pointing fingers, the fifth anniversary of 9/11 might be a good time to reverse course. If "war on terrorism" has become an unpopular term, then call it something else. Call it a "war on fanaticism". Or – as we used to say in the Cold War – call it a "struggle for hearts and minds" in the Islamic communities of Europe and the Middle East. For whatever it's called, it won't succeed without both American and European support, without American and European mutual sympathy.

In a series of recent speeches to mark the anniversary of the attacks, Bush has declared: "America is winning the war on terror" and cited a list of achievements: "We've removed terrorist sanctuaries, disrupted their finances, killed and captured key operatives, broken up terrorist cells in America and other nations, and stopped new attacks before they're carried out." But terrorism experts worry that those successes have been mostly tactical, short-term gains -- the equivalent of winning the first few battles in a long war. On longer-term strategic issues, they warn, the U.S. may have lost ground since 2001:

Asked if he can point to any major benefits from the improved relationship, Timken is quick to respond. “Boom, look at – Iran,” he replies. Noting a united European front against the development of nuclear weapons by Iran, Timken said the United States and Germany are “working hand in glove trying to develop the strategies to convince the Iranians that this is a bad way to go.” “And I would say two years ago that would probably have been impossible,” he said.

Any Anti-Americanism?

His biggest surprise in his German travels has been the hospitable welcome he’s received, leading him to doubt a recent survey showing just 37 percent of Germans with a favorable view of the United States. Despite such polls and the continuing criticism of Bush in the German press, Timken has heard no criticism, he said. I can’t find one person – and I have to admit I haven’t been talking to the communists or the far left – but I can't find one person that says that there is an anti-American feeling in this country,” he said.
While there are disagreements, Timken said the “actual feeling about America and the American people is very strong.” He said the two nations’ common strategic and economic interests, as well as the U.S. role in defeating the communism that for so long divided this country, and the friendships established by millions of American military families who have lived in Germany since the end of World War II, have created a “unique commonness– that leads us to be very close.”

Gary Smith, executive director of the prestigious American Academy in Berlin, calls Timken “the right person in Germany at the right time.” Smith, who is a Democrat, credits Timken with projecting a positive image of the United States and reaching out to nongovernmental organizations that seek to improve German-American relations. He said Timken and his wife, Sue, who is actively involved at the embassy, are thoughtful and highly motivated.
“I think he is doing an excellent job,” said Karsten Voigt, coordinator for German American Cooperation in the German Foreign Office. “He is emphasizing more the economic side.” Voigt has been impressed with Timken’s ability to keep his cool even when challenged by hostile audiences at universities. “There is an element of calmness,” he said. “Don’t mix up calm with boring.”
HE’S NO DAN COATS: Timken is inevitably compared with his predecessor, former Ambassador Dan Coats, the onetime Indiana senator who served in Germany when relations had plummeted after the U.S. overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The outspoken Coats angered Germans when he criticized the nation’s foreign policy under then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. “Timken is much more Mr. Nice Guy,” said Volker Perthes, director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, a federally funded research organization that advises the German government.

I wouldn't say I was "angry". Disappointed is a better word and mainly with regard to relations with the German media. I think that if Timken really took a look at German media it would not be very difficult for him to find the anti-Americanism he claims never to have encountered. Just look at some recent pieces by Florian Guessgen (who is currently in the USA attempting to prove the US media is gleichgeschaltet and in league with the Bush administration and unable to fulfil its democratic function). What bothers me is the "never rock the boat" approach that the Ambassador and his public diplomacy team seem to be taking. On the other hand, I cannot know all that has happened behind the scenes with the media and so do not want to pass a damning judgement. Additionally, I don't think Gedmin would make the best Ambassador and frankly I am sure Timken and his staff have started many useful outreach programs. It would obviously be helpful if the Ambassador could speak the local language and represent his nation to millions on television to counter the ugly stereotypes and make US policy more clear to the German people. The US sorely needs this sort of representation and maybe the Ambassador could appoint such a person. Maybe the US embassy ought to consider starting a blog as well?