I think it is rather obvious that Germany cannot participate in a preemptive war nowadays. Within hundred years time a civilised country cannot lead two wars of aggression. This time we Germans have to show our virtuous side. Our barbaric face is still not forgotten in too many countries.

Additionally Schröder who is known as an opportunist in Germany has to show to his electors and especially to himself that he is consequent. He won the elections with the peace stance and now he has to assume it. Schröder's home policy has been a disaster. His last chance is the field of foreign policy. That is the reason why he is so undiplomatic and stubborn. The Patriot rockets are defensive weapons. It really wasn't necessary to refuse them to Turkey.

Bush's home policy hasn't been too successful neither I think. A short and successful war in Iraq would divert from the not so bright domestic situation.

Bush and Hitler have got at least two things in common.

1. They are/were both full of complexes. Bush is an alcoholic and has been the black sheep of the family before his presidency; Hitler was a failed painter. Therefore they have/had a lot to compensate.
2. Both of them strive/strove for world domination. The reasons are/were probably different but the idea of the US as the world's sheriff isn't too far from the German "Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen" (the German nature shall cure the world).

Bush's stance nevertheless has a big psychological advantage over Hitler's. Bush can always argue that he is only reacting. The terrorists of 9/11 started the war and the US is only defending against them. But the problem with the war against terror is that the enemy is invisible. The enemy can be everywhere. Maybe even in Iraq. And in case he is in Iraq why not bomb Iraq as nobody cares anyway. That's what Bush and his administration thought in the beginning. They didn't foresee the strong opposition in parts of Europe.

Finally I suppose it is not too bold to predict that in one year's time either Schröder or Bush will probably be gone. It's a little bit a fight between David and Goliath and you know what happened in the bible. The odds are not too bad for Schröder actually. If Bush does not attack Iraq now Saddam will laugh about him. That would be Bush's end. He would need a very good reason not to attack. For example an exiled or a dead Saddam. That would definitely be the best way out of the current crisis. Bush would have won by points and Schröder could stay. If Bush attacked with the approval of the UN security council it would be Schröder's knock-out. He would have isolated Germany totally. In the case of an attack without the approval of the security council there would be quite some turmoil in the world. New alliances would form and the future world peace would be more in peril after the Iraq war than it was before. Probably Bush would not survive such a proceeding politically as an interior opposition in the US should gain momentum.

P.S.

1. I hope this was my last post on politics for a while.
2. Don't ask me about the title. Ask David Byrne.