Annual Jackboot Remembrance Day & the Munich Security Conference

The annual Munich Security Conference is an important event, and there have been years in its 50 year life when it was critical in moving international policies ahead.

At the same time, here in Germany, the conference has for decades been accompanied by what I finally, in a fit of apoplectic exasperation, decided to call "Annual Jackboot Remembrance Day".

In the German media, each and every single year, a slew of articles pop up about how Germany needs to assert itself on the international stage. The New York Times used the euphemistic "robust", but several national publications here were more direct: more military intervention abroad behooves the high regard of Germany and its economic might.

This year, a thoughtful speech by the German president fueled the Germans to the front camp even more than usual.

It seems obvious but is never mentioned: when an international conference takes place, the host country always gets praise that is part well meant part plain politeness and ritual. Is the Germans to the front camp aware of this? Do they simply latch on to the "hey, you guys are great and strong" song to further their agenda?

The only cautioning voice calling "not so fast" we have seen this year comes from Robert Leicht in Die Zeit.

Let's hope that our hyper sensitivity this year stems from the bad aftertaste of the German talk show host asking the Auschwitz survivor "warum haben Sie sich nicht gewehrt" and not from real underlying policies of the German government.


Disclaimer:
Yes, I know what a uniform is. No, none of your business. Some boots on the ground are better than others:  Vom Offizier zum Missionar, 1991.

[Update 2/10/2016]
Told you so.
In today's FAZ, an article under the headline "Don't let Moscow decide" reports on efforts by the conservative Christian Democrats to change the legal framework that governs German military operations in foreign countries. Right now, the only options are "collective defense", which means when NATO is attacked or under UN mandate. The former was used to justify involvement in the Balkans and, more importantly Afghanistan. The latter has been used for a number of peacekeeping operations.
German conservatives now say, well, this means, for example, we cannot intervene in Syria or in a situation like Iraq because none of the two legal frameworks apply, so any intervention would be illegal.
Instead of refraining from an illegal intervention, what do they want? Add a broad definition of defending "national security interests", which can be all around the world....