Germans in Afghanistan

[milnews.ca]

I suspect that part of the problem has to do with how NATO is reconstructing itself. I remember chatting with a senior German policy advisor about Germany's role in Afghanistan, and he pointed out the somewhat ironic position where for years Germany was told they were "bad" for being militaristic and were now being told they were "bad" for not being militaristic enough :wry:.

Interesting.....

Saw something earlier this year talking about the German approach (http://www.aicgs.org/analysis/c/puhl021507.aspx):

We're back to the delicate situation at the very beginning of operations in Afghanistan, when U.S.-led forces started "Operation Enduring Freedom" to rid Afghanistan of its Taliban rulers, who had hosted Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists. Their mission, with full support of the UN Security Council and all members of the Alliance, continues. But the Alliance as such has been excluded from the very beginning, although NATO had invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. At the time, many allies, including Germany, expressed disappointment over this course of action. It was only a year later that NATO was given a role, that of command of the ISAF forces, which have a mission based in peacekeeping and stabilization: to provide security, at first, in Kabul, later in the north and the west, and now, since October 5, in all of Afghanistan. So, the distinction between the two missions is the distinction between a peacekeeping and reconstruction force on the one hand, and a fighting force on the other. Germany has made clear that its aircraft will not be part of the fighting force.

...a little more (http://www.aicgs.org/analysis/c/Hanpeter021507.aspx)

On the one hand, German participation in Afghanistan may have been considered more self-evident in the United States, than was actually the case in Germany. Stated differently, Americans may have tended to underestimate the political hurdles which German national leaders had to overcome in order to develop a consensus for the German military role in ISAF. Therefore, it was perhaps inevitable that the Bundeswehr's engagement would be prescribed in a priori, legalistic terms containing operational caveats designed to reinforce a clear separation in the mission elements between ISAF and OEF. This approach was necessary within the German domestic political context both to develop, and then to sustain, sufficient political support for the German ISAF role. The downside of this approach was the impression it could create among other allies, notably the U.S. and the United Kingdom, that the Germans were not fully sharing the same risks and burdens they themselves were confronting in the more dangerous southern portion of Afghanistan.

[Jedburgh]

SIPRI, 4 Nov 07: Still on the way to Afghanistan? Germany and its forces in the Hindu Kush (http://www.sipri.org/contents/conflict/MerzProjectPaper071103.pdf)
....On 7 February 2007, the German Government decided to expand its military presence in Afghanistan at the specific request of NATO. Six Tornado aircraft were stationed in Mazar i Sharif to assist the alliance in surveillance operations, chiefly covering the troubled southern provinces. The decision came after a lengthy debate, which clearly exposed the growing discomfort of many Germans with their country’s military role in Afghanistan. Currently Germany has approximately 3000 military personnel in Afghanistan. These are divided between Kabul and the northern provinces, where there is a larger base in Mazar i Sharif as well as two provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs), in Kunduz and Feyzabad. German governments have for some time rested the justification for the military commitment on the need for peaceful and democratic reconstruction of a war-torn country. However, recent events in the Hindu Kush in the north of Afghanistan have begun to undermine this rationale. The insurgency in the south, where NATO assumed command in 2006, has emerged as a serious threat to the international forces as well as the Afghan Government.

Because Afghanistan remains volatile terrain, and because the ISAF mission has changed significantly over time, a majority of Germans are anxious about their country’s future engagement. Along with other NATO members, Germany is concerned about getting more deeply involved in Afghanistan’s troubles, especially while a successful end to the engagement is getting further out of sight. The death of three soldiers in May 2007 also raised serious doubts about the mission’s purpose and success. Although the German Government was quick to rebuff calls for a withdrawal (http://www.spiegel.de/
international/germany/0,1518,491222,00.html), it is not clear whether Germany will continue in the middle term to adopt greater military responsibility or seek an exit route. Because ISAF’s task has turned into an awkward and sensitive test for NATO, much of its success will depend on the position of its leading member states.

This paper examines the guiding principles behind the German military contribution to ISAF, both in the context of German foreign policy in general and the international state-building project in Afghanistan. In the light of this discussion some conclusions are drawn about the future direction of Germany’s Afghanistan policy.....
Complete 15 page paper at the link.

[oakfox]

It is interesting that, of all nations in Nato not largely involved in the south, the main criticism seems to hit Germany. This is peculiar indeed considering its past (and comparably intensive involvement in the north).

Some aspects of the German contribution (as well as of its limits):

1) German forces have been part of offensive operations in the context of Anaconda (special forces) and Harekate Yolo 1 + 2.

2) The Germans do have a problem to extend their mandate to the south and let things get hot with larger forces being involved (which cannot be obfuscated wrt to the media).

The WW2 aspects should not be underestimated. On the one hand, Germany gets constantly reminded of the 3rd Reich ( by countries officials including todays allies), especially when it is profitable from the other countries point of view. On the other hand, Germany was no asked to help invading a sovereign country (which they did) and join in messy warfare implying collateral damage. ... That is asking a lot.

There are two other points in this regard. Politically speaking, the allied tactics during WW2 to, by explicitly attacking civilians, bomb/shell/starve out any appetite for military campaigns out of the Germans forever seems to have worked out quite well. Today, the democrats in the States would be best compared to the German conservatives, i.e. the political climate is rather leftish-liberal and most certainly pacifistic. No chancellor would survive (politically) media reports of German forces having mistakenly dropped a bomb on a wedding ceremony... or sth. like this.

WW2 also greatly influenced the German constitution. That is, any form of offensive wars are forbidden by it. It has been controversially debated whether even peace-keeping missions are unproblematic. So, building schools in the north is much less of a legal issue than fighting Taleban in the south.

3) The opinions of German leaders as of how to bring peace to the south are quite different from the ones advertised and implemented by their American colleagues. If the Germans would enter the south then they would do so as junior partners following American instructions in a blood demanding operation the Germans do not believe to be promising. A question we all need to ask ourselves is whether it is feasible to build a stable Afghan nation with the amount of energy and investments the west is willing (and able) to spend.

In the final analysis, I believe it should be clear that, from a German point of view, their current contribution could already be considered being maximally supportive. I would be optimistic that those limitations may slowly erode as WW2 becomes more and more forgotten and younger (less biased by this past war) generations take over in all nations.

[Surferbeetle]

Oakfox,

Interesting post. Some references would be appreciated to back up your points.

CSPAN covered an interesting panel discussion on NATO, Afghanistan, and some of the inter-related issues on 1-10-2008 entitled: CSIS Panel Discussion on Transatlantic Partnership and Strategy

http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=5

[oakfox]

Sure. Although it turned out that it is quite hard to get appropriate articles in English.

1) I do know wikipedia is not a reliable source - but best to my knowledge the information regarding German involvement is mainly accurate.

Harekate Yolo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_combat_operations_in_Afghanistan_in_2007

Anaconda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anaconda

An interesting anecdote is that the German public was kept oblivious of the fact that German special forces participated in the battle at tora-bora. The classified information became disclosed when a former Guantanamo inmate (Turkish national) accused German special forces (KSK) of having participated in mistreatment (i.e. he claimed they rammed his head to the ground holding him heels over head or sth.). The claims could not been proven and I personally see them as an attempt to get rich by suing - leveraging the anti-military biased media. However, the incident rose a lot of discussion whether the secretive nature of the KSK was justified.

Another relevant article mentioning harekate yolo is http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,523805,00.html

(although it contains some mistakes regarding the facts)

2) An old article (1993) hinting at the constitutional issue: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D81239F935A25757C0A9659582 60

(Note, the constitution has not been adapted since the article was written - so, the problem remains unaddressed).

For those of you who speak German, the constitution can be downloaded at http://www.bundestag.de/interakt/infomat/grundlegende_informationen/downloads/ggAug2006_download.pdf

The relevant part is art. 26 (I).

If you speak German, and are interested in an impression of the German mood and foreign politics viewed through the eyes of German soldiers a good place to visit may be the following board (somewhat a German version of lightfighter - but with a seemingly stronger focus on political aspects... you know, less opportunity to talk about trigger time ... so what can you do...): http://www.sondereinheiten.de/forum/index.php

Additional remark: The supreme court would not have allowed a German participation in Iraq. Reference (German): http://dejure.org/dienste/lex/GG/26/1.html

[Surferbeetle]

Sure. Although it turned out that it is quite hard to get appropriate articles in English.


Oakfox,

Thanks for the references.

All,

For the 'German View' in English this website ( http://atlanticreview.org/ ) is an interesting place to jump into the pool from and they do have some commentary on Jan 15 with regard to Mr. Gates' comments.

Der Spiegel has an English portion of their website that is always of interest, and as Oakfox mentioned this particular article deals with Germany's concerns about the dangers in Afghanistan and the debate about reconstruction (north) and combat duties (south). ( http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,523805,00.html )

The Berliner Umschau ( http://www.berlinerumschau.com/ ) has a short article (German) today about Ukraine's written response to NATO which defines/clarifies their entry in a 'Membership Action Plan' and which was signed by their president, Viktor Juschtschenko, their prime minister Julia Timoschenko, and a parlimentary leader by the name of Arseni Jazenjuk.

Die Ziet always has thoughtful pieces and the recent one (German) on Afghanistan captures the parliamentary concern about the 'thin edge of a wedge' in the form of a Bundeswehr QRF leading to regular combat duties. This debate has been precipitated by Norway's upcoming mid-year withdrawal from ISAF. ( http://www.zeit.de/online/2008/03/bundeswehr-afghanistan-eingreiftruppe )

Sueddeutsche.de has a funny article about us gun-loving Americans in German ( http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt7m1/panorama/artikel/650/153259/ ) which definitely puts a slant on things. The author appears to have been taken in by our Hip-Hop & NRA IO Plan.

Happy reading.

Steve

[Jedburgh]

SWP Comments, 18 Feb 08: The German Army and Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan (http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/common/get_document.php?asset_id=4752)
Alongside their NATO allies German troops are facing a growing insurgency in Afghanistan. However, the alliance still lacks a joint strategy to deal with this challenge. While the US government recently called on NATO to pursue a "classical" counterinsurgency campaign, Germany insisted on the development of a more "comprehensive strategy" before the next Summit in Bucharest in April 2008. Yet, over recent months the German position has been criticized by a range of allies for lack of credibility. To gain political influence over the making of NATO’s Afghanistan strategy, the German government first needs to adjust its national position on how to deal with the Afghan insurgency.....

[Surferbeetle]

From the German Newspaper Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,551288,00.html) (Mirror)

'Bavarian vote slows Bundeswehr in Afghanistan'

Die Furcht der CSU-Führung vor einer Schlappe bei der Landtagswahl im September hat Auswirkungen auf den Afghanistan-Einsatz der Bundeswehr. Nach Informationen des SPIEGEL soll die Truppe erst im Oktober verstärkt werden. Es droht neuer Ärger mit den Verbündeten.

“The fear of the CSU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Social_Union_of_Bavaria) Leadership (Christian Social Union – a conservative German political party headquartered in Bavaria) of a slap (at their policies) in the state vote (Germany has 16 Lander or States) in September has affected the Afghanistan mission of the Bundeswehr. Spiegel has learned that the troops are to be increased in October. This has threatened to again upset the political alliance.”

More in German at the link....

[Jedburgh]

Spiegel Online, 19 May 08: German Special Forces in Afghanistan Let Taliban Commander Escape (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,554033,00.html)
German special forces had an important Taliban commander in their sights in Afghanistan. But he escaped -- because the Germans were not authorized to use lethal force. The German government's hands-tied approach to the war is causing friction with its NATO allies......

[Uboat509]

Spiegel Online, 19 May 08: German Special Forces in Afghanistan Let Taliban Commander Escape (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,554033,00.html)

I just had a conversation today with a friend of mine who has extensive experience in Afghanistan about this very issue. He was just flabbergasted at some of the ROEs used by various NATO forces. Just as the article points out they end up being self defeating.

SFC W

[Fuchs]

It's a political failure that casts shadows on our democracies.

The German population has a firm majority that opposes the Afghanistan mission entirely. No-one believes our past SecDef that Germany is to be defended in Afghanistan.
Our government dares to keep the troops there against its people's will; but only with extreme constraints. They even dared to send some hundred more troops.

It's really about time to stop licking the shoes of the U.S..
OEF/ISAF are fucked up missions - a majority of our population knows that, but our government prefers to mis-use our troops as a kind of political money.
Only problem; they never seem to be able to buy anything with that money, especially not the permanent UN security council seat that they wanted for years.
It is interesting that, of all nations in Nato not largely involved in the south, the main criticism seems to hit Germany. This is peculiar indeed considering its past (and comparably intensive involvement in the north).

Some aspects of the German contribution (as well as of its limits):

(...)

I believe my other post here
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5483
helps to understand the situation as well.

Foreigners who ask for more (like Gates did) can impossibly be aware of the complete picture, as much "more" would break the Afghanistan mission entirely.
The German government is already doing politics against its own population's will in regards to Afghanistan, the government would lose support of its own political party bases if it got involved in Afghanistan like the British.

[Entropy]

If true, Wow (http://news.scotsman.com/world/They-came-they-saw-.4573584.jp):

GERMANY has admitted its Special Forces have spent three years in Afghanistan without doing a single mission, and are now going to be withdrawn.

More than 100 soldiers from the elite Kommando Spezialkrafte regiment, or KSK, are set to leave the war-torn country after their foreign minister revealed they had never left their bases on an operation.

The KSK troops were originally sent to Afghanistan to lead counter-terrorist operations.

But Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the foreign minister, admitted they had not been deployed "a single time" in the last three years, despite a desperate shortage of Special Forces units in the country.

[Pragmatic Thinker]

There are several partners in the NATO coalition that aren't doing much of anything in Afghanistan. There is a glaring lack of unity of effort and unity of command in OEF-A and the NATO partners.

[Uboat509]

I know some KSK guys from when I was in 1/10 in Germany. If this is true, and I suspect that it is, then there are some truly disgruntled Germans sitting on a FOB somewhere in Afghanistan right now. The KSK are just like anybody else who volunteers for an elite unit, they want to get into the fight not sit on their collective ass for three years. I doubt it was the KSK commanders that kept them out of the fight. I would be more willing to believe that that decision was made much further up the chain of command. Bummer.

SFC W

[JT Clark]

I spend a lot of time in Germany and speak German. A few years back one of the glossy magazines published some leaked photos of a KSK unit in their long-range patrol vehicle. The front bumper was covered in zip-tied on human skulls. The vehicle certainly wasn't sitting on a FOB at the time- but the public outcry may explain why they've been keeping a low profile since.

[Entropy]

I spend a lot of time in Germany and speak German. A few years back one of the glossy magazines published some leaked photos of a KSK unit in their long-range patrol vehicle. The front bumper was covered in zip-tied on human skulls. The vehicle certainly wasn't sitting on a FOB at the time- but the public outcry may explain why they've been keeping a low profile since.

Actually, the picture of the vehicle didn't have skulls, but the Afrika Corps insignia (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/german-troops-display-nazi-symbol/42881/)and was taken in Oman, not Afghanistan.

There was another incident where some German troops, but not KSK, made some obscene pictures with human skulls found near Kabul. Some of them were later court-martialed, IIRC.

The low profile may instead stem from accusations of abuse at the hands of the KSK (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2303567,00.html) of a German national captured in Pakistan and interrogated in Kandahar.

[Jedburgh]

CES, 1 Dec 08: German problems with their mission in Afghanistan (http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/epub/ecomment/2008/081201/Commentary15.htm)
he increase in the Bundeswehr's contingent in Afghanistan up to 4,500 soldiers, which the Bundestag voted for this October, has not eased the criticism of German engagement by some of their allies. In the next few months, Germany will find itself under increasing pressure to enhance their participation in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, especially from the new US administration. President-elect Barack Obama has already promised to shift the emphasis of the US engagement from Iraq to Afghanistan, expecting at the same time that European allies, mainly Germany will intensify their engagement in combat operations. Although the German contingent is the third biggest in Afghanistan, its engagement in combat operations against the Taleban is rather small. The government has limited the Bundeswehr's activity to non-military operations in the relatively quiet northern provinces of Afghanistan and prefers engagement in reconstruction and development aid (http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/Aussenpolitik/RegionaleSchwerpunkte/AfghanistanZentralasien/AFGuebersicht.html). One of the reasons for that is the German public opinion's negative perception of the Bundeswehr's military missions for historical reasons. The German policy is unlikely to change, especially considering the approaching parliamentary elections next autumn and the diminishing consensus over the engagement in Afghanistan among the political elite. Germany expects that the USA will treat its European allies' views regarding security issues with greater respect and at the same time is not ready to incur an equal share of the military costs as part of NATO. Therefore the mission in Afghanistan may become a problem in future relations between Germany and the USA.......

[Surferbeetle]

From the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zietung (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub594835B672714A1DB1A121534F010EE1/Doc~E8AD58809861C4BECBE926A2D7DD0A38C~ATpl~Ecommon ~Scontent.html)

Interministerielle Entfremdung

03. Dezember 2008 Eine Art Stellvertreterkrieg wird derzeit zwischen Innen- und Verteidigungsministerium ausgetragen. Er betrifft die deutschen Unterstützungsleistungen für den Aufbau der Polizeikräfte in Afghanistan, und ein Stellvertreter ist der Bundeswehrverband. Dessen bisheriger Vorsitzender Gertz und sein Nachfolger Kirsch hatten den Beitrag mehrfach als unzulänglich kritisiert. Am Wochenende reagierte ein Sprecher von Innenminister Schäuble (CDU) darauf in scharfer Form: Gertz sei ein „chronischer Faktenleugner“, und Kirsch trete nun in seine Fußstapfen. 24.000 Polizisten seien unmittelbar durch Deutschland geschult worden.


My translation...

'Alienation between Ministries

A kind of representative’s war is taking place between the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense. It involves the German support work for the Development of the Afghanistan Police and the Armed Forces Association. The previous leader [COL Bernhard] Gertz (http://www.zeit.de/online/2008/48/gertz-bundeswehr-verband) and his replacement [LTC Ulrich] Kirsch (http://www.taz.de/1/politik/deutschland/artikel/1/ein-soldat-der-fuer-soldaten-kaempft/) have criticized the [German] contribution as repeatedly taking too long. During the weekend the Speaker for the Ministry of Interior, Schauble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Sch%C3%A4uble) (CDU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_(Germany))) reacted sharply: Gertz is a “chronic denier of the facts” and Kirsch is following in his footsteps. 24,000 Police have been directly trained by Germany.'

[Jedburgh]

IPCS, 8 Jul 09: Afghanistan: Understanding German Objectives and Strategies (http://www.humansecuritygateway.info/documents/IPCS_Afghanistan_UnderstandingGermanObjectivesStra tegies.pdf)
....The German strategy in Afghanistan has been aimed at building a reasonable balance between civil and military efforts. German troops have been widely involved in reconstruction acitivities in the northern provinces of Afghanistan, where Germany maintains two Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT (http://www.cdef.terre.defense.gouv.fr/publications/doctrine/doctrine13/version_us/etranger/art8.pdf)), in Konduz and Feyzabad. The success of German efforts in the north is respectable. The ISAF troops seem to be well connected to the local population and the Afghan people have welcomed their presence.....

[Rex Brynen]

Sole Informant Guided Decision On Afghan Strike (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502832.html?hpid=topnews)

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, September 6, 2009

HAJI SAKHI DEDBY, Afghanistan, Sept. 5 -- To the German commander, it seemed to be a fortuitous target: More than 100 Taliban insurgents were gathering around two hijacked fuel tankers that had become stuck in the mud near this small farming village.

The grainy live video transmitted from an American F-15E fighter jet circling overhead, which was projected on a screen in a German tactical operations center four miles north of here, showed numerous black dots around the trucks -- each of them a thermal image of a human but without enough detail to confirm whether they were carrying weapons. An Afghan informant was on the phone with an intelligence officer at the center, however, insisting that everybody at the site was an insurgent, according to an account that German officers here provided to NATO officials.

Based largely on that informant's assessment, the commander ordered a 500-pound, satellite-guided bomb to be dropped on each truck early Friday. The vehicles exploded in a fireball that lit up the night sky for miles, incinerating many of those standing nearby.

A NATO fact-finding team estimated Saturday that about 125 people were killed in the bombing, at least two dozen of whom -- but perhaps many more -- were not insurgents. To the team, which is trying to sort out this complicated incident, mindful that the fallout could further sap public support in Afghanistan for NATO's security mission here, the target appeared to be far less clear-cut than it had to the Germans.

Anyone know how this is playing out in Germany?

[Fuchs]

Most media has decided to be anti-ISAF mission apparently. They didn't wait for good info but reported and commented with a very critical stance, even in publicly financed evening news.


The whole topic is relatively irrelevant to the upcoming elections, though. The current ruling coalition is made up by the two largest parties (one is shrinking rapidly) - and the two chancellor candidates are the current chancellor and the current foreign secretary. They're both entangled in the ISAF mission.

The coalition talks after the next election will be more important; opposition politicians are more aligned with the population and mostly critical of the ISAF entanglement.


By the way; the air strike overshadowed what was likely the biggest German post-WW2 ground fight, it happened just hours later.


That whole day was a quite black day for the Taliban up north, they lost dozens of fighters and could likely not bear several more such days at all.

I saw one report that the population isn't too angry about the dead civilians yet. Most of the Northern population doesn't bother anyway because the dead were pashtuns.

[Surferbeetle]

From today's FAZ Unklarheit über Zahl der Opfer - Jung in Erklärungsnot (http://www.faz.net/s/RubDDBDABB9457A437BAA85A49C26FB23A0/Doc~EF4D36AFC5330416CAAE61FB32F2FF7BD~ATpl~Ecommon ~Scontent.html)

Der Vorfall wird voraussichtlich auch ein Nachspiel im Bundestag haben, der am Dienstag zu einer Sondersitzung zusammenkommt. Grünen-Fraktionsvize Jürgen Trittin verlangte eine Regierungserklärung von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel (CDU). „Frau Merkel muss sich ihrer Verantwortung stellen“, sagte er und fügte hinzu: „Es kann einer deutschen Bundeskanzlerin nicht gleichgültig sein, wenn die Bundesrepublik wegen des Luftangriffs in der Europäischen Union (EU) in die Isolierung gerät, wenn die Außenminister Europas offene Kritik an dieser 'Tragödie' üben.“

Short on time so I won't be able to fully translate, but here is the gist of the passage: the Bundestag will discuss this on Tuesday and they are not happy...google has a translate function that can help get one down the road...it's not great but will usually get you pointed in the right direction.

German elections are currently taking place in the 16 lander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany), the 27 September parliamentary elections (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/world/europe/31germany.html) will be the moment of truth for Frau Merkel.

[milnews.ca]

My favourite (and under-reported) part of the WaPo article is this bit:
....One survivor, convalescing from abdominal wounds at a hospital in the nearby city of Kunduz, said he went to the site because he thought he could get free fuel. Another patient, a 10-year-old boy with shrapnel in his left leg, said he went to gawk, against his father's advice. In Kabul, the Afghan capital, relatives of two severely burned survivors being treated at an intensive-care unit said Taliban fighters forced dozens of villagers to assist in moving the bogged-down tankers.

"They came to everyone's house asking for help," said Mirajuddin, a shopkeeper who lost six of his cousins in the bombing -- none of whom, he said, was an insurgent. "They started beating people and pointing guns. They said, 'Bring your tractors and help us.' What could we do?"....

I, too, would be curious to hear how this is running in Germany.

[Igel]

I've been a longtime lurker, who is interested in current affairs but has no military background and suspects that he can't contribute much worthwhile to most conversations. But as this is about Germany I decided to chip in.

This is playing out very badly. I think McCrystal made a grave mistake. He made a big show of calling the german actions wrong. Then he went to the bombing scene although the german command deemed it too dangerous.
Not only is this very embarrassing the german troops. It helps the strictly anti-war far left Die Linke in the upcoming elections. The wrongful bombardments of american troops were greatly reported in Germany. So when an american General makes a big show about the possibly wrongful bombardment now (when we don't really know what happened) he looks as a "typical arrogant american".
I suppose McCrystal also doesn't ralize how hard it is for the german goverment to continue the german engagment against the will of the german people. Note that Chancellor Schroeder had to connect the question of sending troops to Afghanistan to the question of him continuing his chancellorship. Had he lost, he would have been gone in 2001. He risked his chancellorship to even get german troops to Afghanistan.
The american reaction to this incident will only deepen the resentment in the political class. They think Washington doesn't understand the risks they take to even let german troops stay there. You also might compare this to the reaction of the american political class as the war in Iraq became unpopular. Don't have exact numbers right now, but I think the Popularity of Afghanistan in Germany had the same level circa 2002/03 which the Popularity of the Iraq engagement had in America circa 2007/2008. And America is quickly leaving Iraq, while Germany sends more and more troops.

About the pacifism of the german people: My Observation is that most people aren't pacifist. There is a difference between being against the War in Afghanistan and being against all wars. Most germans agreed with the disposing of the Taliban in 2001. However the taliban were disposed for granting comfort to terrorist who attack the west. This aim changed suddenly in 2002 and now it is about building democracy in Afghanistan. Germans don't agree with staying indefinitely in a far away country to achieve such vague terms like "democracy" or "freedom".
This is especially true, when american observers say, that they achieved in bringing democracy to Germany in 1945 so they can achieve the same in Afghanistan. Thereby they discard the special circumstances of Germany in 1945, mainly that Germany had democratic traditions and a long tradtion of rule of law. Comparing Germany 1945 to Afghanistan 2009 not only shows an ignorance about german history but more importantly an ignorance of why Democracy in 1945 succeeded and that the these circumstances don't exist in Afghanistan. At least from Germany it looks as if the democratic traditions of Afghanistan are way fewer than that of Germany. Note that I use the term democracy as it is now applied to the western style parliamentarian, separation of powers democracy, which is the official aim of the german engagement in Afghanistan.

Furthermore Germany has no tradition in sending Armed Forces halfway around the globe. So the concept of defending Germany at the Hindukush is understandably alien to Germans. All of Germany's important wars have been fought in its immediate vicinity. The only major german engagement outside of Europe I know of was the East African Campaign in 1914 - 1918 (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Campaign_%28World_War_I%29), which is now largely forgotten. Compare that to the US, whose marines already fought in the First Barbary War in Africa and then the subsequent actions in South America, Europe and the Pacific.
Consequently there is also no COIN tradition. There was the suppression of theHerero People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_South-West_Africa#Rebellion_against_German_rule) in 1904. Also described as "Herero Genocide", certainly not an example for current COIN operations and also largely forgotten. The same applies to the suppression of Partisans during WW2.

Despite the frequent criticism of german politicians I suspect they understand Clausewitz only to well. A war has to be fought according to its aim. Now, if the aim of the german engagement in Afghanistan really is nation building and the defeat of the Taliban, than Germany doesn't fight according to its aim. But what if the aim is to symbolize a commitment to the transatlantic alliance, a try to gain political points in the USA while avoiding to upset the german public? If it is the later, the mere presence of german troops serves this aim. Fighting against the Taliban not only is not necessary but also harmful to the political aim of the politicans themselves - the reelection.

[Surferbeetle]

Despite the frequent criticism of german politicians I suspect they understand Clausewitz only to well. A war has to be fought according to its aim. Now, if the aim of the german engagement in Afghanistan really is nation building and the defeat of the Taliban, than Germany doesn't fight according to its aim. But what if the aim is to symbolize a commitment to the transatlantic alliance, a try to gain political points in the USA while avoiding to upset the german public? If it is the later, the mere presence of german troops serves this aim. Fighting against the Taliban not only is not necessary but also harmful to the political aim of the politicans themselves - the reelection.

Igel, thanks for posting. When you get a chance please introduce yourself here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441&page=54).

This event is something that I am following closely as well. This link appears to speak to German fears...

From this mornings Spiegel Von Gregor Peter Schmitz Bundeswehr-Bashing erstaunt US-Experten (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,647565,00.html)

Stephen Szabo glaubt, dass das Pentagon und das Militär durch die Kritik den Druck auf Merkel erhöhen wollen - und indirekt auch auf Obama. "McChrystal und das Pentagon versuchen, die Debatte um die Bombardements zu pushen, um das Weiße Haus auf ihre Linie zu bringen", sagt Szabo. "Vor allem die Briten erhöhen den Druck auf die Amerikaner, die Deutschen zu mehr Kampfeinsätzen im gefährlichen Süden Afghanistans zu verpflichten. Obama muss entscheiden, ob er mehr Truppen sendet und wieviel mehr Druck er auf Verbündete wie Deutschland ausübt. Das Pentagon versucht, ihn unter Druck zu setzen."

And this link appears to capture much of the American understanding of the German effort in Afghanistan...

From last night's Washington Post by Craig Whitlock, In Germany, Political Turmoil Over Ordering Of Airstrike (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702224.html)

Regardless of whether most of those killed in the bombing were civilians or Taliban fighters, there was genuine shock among many Germans that one of their military commanders could have been responsible for an attack that killed so many people.

About 4,200 German troops are stationed in Afghanistan, the third-largest foreign contingent, after the those of the United States and Britain. But the German troops are generally restricted from engaging in combat operations and concentrate instead on civilian reconstruction programs.

The government approved sending troops to Afghanistan as part of a peacekeeping operation but officially says it is not involved in a war. The German constitution, adopted after the defeat of the Nazis, prohibits the country from going to war unless it or one of its allies is directly attacked by another state.

I suspect that this event is a pivotal one which will serve to shape Germany's approach and to a lesser extent NATO's. The Tuesday Sondersitzung (special meeting) in the Bundestag will be interesting however, in my opinion, this event is something that the alliance will work through.

Rightly or wrongly a prevalent American view of NATO is that we have been doing the heavy lifting for quite some time and are nonetheless roundly criticized for doing so. What is your take on the German view of NATO?

[Fuchs]

The defeat of the Taliban is no official goal for the German ISAF troops at all. They just keep watch till the Afghan government takes over.
That's the official mission according to every German official source.

The German ISAF troops would accomplish the mission if they merely keep the Taliban in the underground and get relieved Basra-style sometime in the future.

That's also exactly what I expect - the ANA will take over the least challenging areas first, and that's the North (and they'll take over Kabul).

*guess* We'll probably withdraw from Kunduz in about 2011 and Kabul maybe 2012. */guess*

[Jesse9252]

Joushua Foust comes out swinging on this issue with an article titled Germany is ISAF's Weakest Link. (http://atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/Germany_is_ISAF%27s_Weakest_Link)

The Bundeswehr has evolved from refusing to kill known militants to calling in air strikes based on flimsy evidence. The German deployment has been a complete failure. The Bundeswehr is consistently undermining the allied tasks in Afghanistan and should either reevaluate or withdraw.

Some of these incidents boggle the mind. In 2005, for example, a local German unit refused for hours to assist an Alternative Livelihoods crew that had been struck by an IED in Badakhstan Province. Even though some of the men were bleeding out onto the road, it was dusk and therefore deemed too dangerous to mount a rescue operation. After much hectoring from the UN and the U.S. they eventually reached the stricken men.

Since 2006, news from Germany’s provinces—mostly Kunduz and Baghlan—is a seemingly unending series of insurgent attacks, killing off civilians and government officials alike. Even the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which had languished in obscurity in Waziristan for years after the 2001 invasion, began to make a comeback in Kunduz earlier this year.

And the final kicker:
Germany’s stewardship of the North has been a disaster. They have mismanaged the area, overseen a shocking deterioration in security, and managed to kill dozens of civilians when they chose to become proactive. For too many years, Germany has been failing the people of Afghanistan. If the military won’t start to act like a real Army, it should scale back its commitment in Afghanistan and allow other nations to take responsibility.
Beyond Foust's evident personal frustration and tendency towards ad hominem attacks, this article seemed fairly persuasive to me (someone with no background or personal experience in this whatsoever!). Foust argues that not only have the Germans not made progress, in many ways they have actually undermined the other allies. For those that know: is this a fair assertion? And if it is, might it actually be better for ISAF if the left prevails domestically in Germany and the Bundeswehr pulls out altogether?

[Fuchs]

The complaints are disproportionate.

There's no reason to complain about the security situation at Kabul.
Kunduz otherwise is not a decisive and therefore quite irrelevant region. The troubles are all about a few pockets of Pashtuns - the vast majority of the population is not Pashtun and there's no doubt that a halfway effective Afghan government could eventually take over full control up there.
That's what ISAF is all about, after all.*

The level of violence is irritating and rising, but very low in comparison to Helmand. There may be a relatively low effectiveness of the German garrisons, but the outcome -heavily influenced by the demographic situation- is nevertheless quite acceptable in light of the mission.

Germany is not on a crusade, and the Northern theater is just an unimportant periphery. There's no way how the cautious approach up there could risk the whole ISAF/OEF-A effort.

I find this lack of focus and lack of understanding of priorities quite disconcerting. Did the (imo nonsensical) 'people as CoG' talk obliterate the understanding of real priorities?

Besides; according to reports** the non-Pashtuns (including the government troops) up north celebrate the air strike (and the foreign troops for doing it) while the Pashtuns stfu because the killed ones were apparently a mix of murderers, Taliban and petty thiefs.
There's little chance of an accidental guerrilla multiplicator effect this time. There's a difference between bombing a wedding party and a bunch of greedy fuel thiefs.

Last but not least: I'd be happy if we withdrew asap. There's nothing to win in this stupid conflict. It ceased to be an article 5 affair in 2002 when the Taliban had lost power in my opinion.


Disclaimer:
Everything about the recent events is preliminary. There's no certainty yet, and will probably never be.

----------------------

*:
NATO’s main role in Afghanistan is to assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. It does this predominately through its UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force.

ISAF is a key component of the international community’s engagement in Afghanistan, assisting the Afghan authorities in providing security and stability and creating the conditions for reconstruction and development.
Security

In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF’s main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping.
Conducting security and stability operations
ISAF is conducting security and stability operations across Afghanistan, in conjunction with the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). A large and increasing proportion of these operations are ANSF-led.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm

Many Americans misunderstand foreign ISAF forces as an auxiliary troops pool for their war, but their mission is defined and looks differently.
ISAF is not tasked with conducting a counter-insurgency. It's just a stop-gap force till the Afghan government forces do their job.

**: Better than WaPo quality.

[Rex Brynen]

There's little chance of an accidental guerrilla multiplicator effect this time. There's a difference between bombing a wedding party and a bunch of greedy fuel thiefs.

/aside

I wouldn't be so quick to imply a moral judgment about impoverished populations who, apparently seeing free-fuel-for-the-taking, avail themselves of the opportunity.

/aside

Now back the the regularly-scheduled discussion.

[Igel]

Surferbeetle,

Rightly or wrongly a prevalent American view of NATO is that we have been doing the heavy lifting for quite some time and are nonetheless roundly criticized for doing so. What is your take on the German view of NATO?

You are doing the heavy lifting but I doubt that it is NATOs heavy lifting you are doing. NATO was designed as a collective defence organization. In my opinion, and I suspect the opinion of most Germans, many NATO operations don't have anything to do with defence of its membership countries. It may be argued that the war in Afghanistan eliminates terrorists who could attack NATO countries, but that view isn't shared in Germany.

Nevertheless few people (mainly on the far left/right) want to abolish NATO as a collective defence organization in the original sense. Also look at what Merkel said today: (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub0CCA23BC3D3C4C78914F85BED3B53F3C/Doc~E6371637CD68843049577BE19EDF11ADE~ATpl~Ecommon ~Scontent.html)

Der Einsatz sei „in dringendem Interesse der Sicherheit unserer Landes“, sagte Merkel und fügte hinzu: „Deutsche Sonderwege sind grundsätzlich keine Alternative deutscher Außenpolitik.“

Translation:
The [Afghanistan] mission "is an imperative interest for the security of our country. A special path for Germany is no alternative for german foreign policy."

Note the connection. Not: It is an imperative interest for the security of Germany to defeat terrorist etc. in Afghanistan. But: It is an imperative interest for the security of Germany to follow the same path as our (NATO) allies.
I'd say that underlines the importance of NATO for german foreign policy.

Of interest to you may also be this article (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub475F682E3FC24868A8A5276D4FB916D7/Doc~E8266817624BD4A68A36B91D0325555DB~ATpl~Ecommon ~Scontent.html) (in german) in the FAZ. Considering its conservative and generally levelheaded stance, it is quite critical of America. Maybe sign for a deeper discontent with US policy even in generally US friendly circles?


Fuchs,

With "official" I didn't mean the exact mission description of the german government. I meant how the Mission was sold in the media by politicians. Especially under Schroeder at least I always had the impression that the main purpose of the Afghanistan mission was democracy, freedom and women rights (the last one mainly by members of the green party).

[Fuchs]

The political and military sides of the German ISAF mission are like two different realities. One ties down the other, but I prefer to discuss them separately. A mix-up guarantees a lack of clarity.
The current excitement is about the military side.


(I would also prefer to keep the non-leading Merkel out of any discussion, for I could lose all remains of my politeness otherwise.)

[Surferbeetle]

You are doing the heavy lifting but I doubt that it is NATOs heavy lifting you are doing. NATO was designed as a collective defence organization. In my opinion, and I suspect the opinion of most Germans, many NATO operations don't have anything to do with defence of its membership countries. It may be argued that the war in Afghanistan eliminates terrorists who could attack NATO countries, but that view isn't shared in Germany.

Nevertheless few people (mainly on the far left/right) want to abolish NATO as a collective defence organization in the original sense. Also look at what Merkel said today: (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub0CCA23BC3D3C4C78914F85BED3B53F3C/Doc~E6371637CD68843049577BE19EDF11ADE~ATpl~Ecommon ~Scontent.html)

Translation:
The [Afghanistan] mission "is an imperative interest for the security of our country. A special path for Germany is no alternative for german foreign policy."

Note the connection. Not: It is an imperative interest for the security of Germany to defeat terrorist etc. in Afghanistan. But: It is an imperative interest for the security of Germany to follow the same path as our (NATO) allies.
I'd say that underlines the importance of NATO for german foreign policy.

Igel,

I appreciate the candor and insights concerning NATO. It is my opinion that structures such as NATO are important and cost effective methods of mitigating some of the harshness we experience during the course of our lives. Professor Walt (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/) at the website Foreign Policy recently recommended a book entitled The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J. Mearsheimer which I am currently working through…it is interesting to compare it with my experiences in Europe and Iraq...for what its worth I recommend it to you.

With respect to the Afghanistan mission the view from my vantage point is that the American public is looking for either obvious progress or resolution, and a very short time frame will drive the decision. Iraq has been a formative experience and has resulted in the democratic election of a US administration interested in partnerships. Germany’s actions and efforts are being compared to those of the UK and Canada as well as our other NATO allies and partners. This analysis is complicated by the fact that many Americans are unaware of the depth of the German populace's majority view regarding war, nor are they aware that democratically elected Frau Dr. Merkel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel)may have a very challenging coalition composition to work with in the Bundestag after the September election. Those in the know appear to be working under a very constrained set of options as previously stated.

Of interest to you may also be this article (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub475F682E3FC24868A8A5276D4FB916D7/Doc~E8266817624BD4A68A36B91D0325555DB~ATpl~Ecommon ~Scontent.html) (in german) in the FAZ. Considering its conservative and generally levelheaded stance, it is quite critical of America. Maybe sign for a deeper discontent with US policy even in generally US friendly circles?

Point taken; I appreciate the link and the article. FAZ does indeed make more of an effort to reason through things and correctly identify core issues than does Der Spiegel. It can indeed be tough and frustrating when one’s allies are not as supportive as one would have hoped. Fortunately this incident is not the only venue in which our nations interact nor, in my opinion at least, is it indicative of the health of the overall relationship.

The defeat of the Taliban is no official goal for the German ISAF troops at all. They just keep watch till the Afghan government takes over.
That's the official mission according to every German official source.

The German ISAF troops would accomplish the mission if they merely keep the Taliban in the underground and get relieved Basra-style sometime in the future.

That's also exactly what I expect - the ANA will take over the least challenging areas first, and that's the North (and they'll take over Kabul).

*guess* We'll probably withdraw from Kunduz in about 2011 and Kabul maybe 2012. */guess*

Fuchs,

You regularly bring up some interesting points to consider which had not occurred to me.

Beyond Foust's evident personal frustration and tendency towards ad hominem attacks, this article seemed fairly persuasive to me (someone with no background or personal experience in this whatsoever!). Foust argues that not only have the Germans not made progress, in many ways they have actually undermined the other allies. For those that know: is this a fair assertion? And if it is, might it actually be better for ISAF if the left prevails domestically in Germany and the Bundeswehr pulls out altogether?

Jesse,

To me the question would be how much area do they currently hold…if force ratios are indeed an issue…and in their absence how often and many more rotations will you and I and others have the opportunity to participate in as a result? Will we see Joshua out there with us?

[milnews.ca]

...according to a report (http://www.scribd.com/doc/19541927/Statement-of-Special-Commission-of-Islami-Emirate-Afghanistan-on-incident-investigation-in-Kunduz-7909) (PDF at non-terrorist site, in Google English & Arabic) from a "fact-finding committee" - the Readers Digest version from the Taliban:

We attack fuel trucks, and NATO runs away, leaving one truck stuck in the river.
The area residents (who were up late during Ramadan) asked if they could have fuel from the truck.
We said OK, but told them to run away when they realized a plane was in the area.
Big boom.
No bomb crater, and NATO allegations that people were incinerated are lies. Therefore, some sort of weapon against the Geneva conventions/laws of war (chemical perhaps?) must have been used.
Therefore, we have a war crime.
By the way, here’s a list of 79 names of the “martyred” we got from area residents.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

[Fuchs]

Fuchs,

You regularly bring up some interesting points to consider which had not occurred to me.

I assume I would have been disinvited for being a straining annoyance long ago if I didn't occasionally add at least some value*. ;)


I've got a strong preference for non-mainstream ideas because I would consider my contributions as worthless if they weren't original.

In this case I'm no fan of the mission at all, so there's a personal bias against mission creep. Political reasons (as German polling results) also weigh in against an escalation, so I'm seeking for arguments that oppose escalation and mission creep.
The search for such arguments would be a less interesting activity for those who would like to see mission to evolve, of course.

----

@milnews.ca:
Such propaganda is utterly incompetent, and it doesn't seem to have much influence in the 'West'. It's more the numbers that cause troubles because of lazy journalists** who act as multipliers.

The political opposition (to the ISAF mandate) in Germany is either flat-out ideological (and thus uninterested in specifics, but interested in photos for political posters) or rather rational.
Taliban propaganda is in part being distributed through people who don't seem to have good education or good command of German. I 'think' the original Taliban propaganda is quite ineffective in Germany. Maybe it influences a few disgruntled lower class Muslims, but their consumption of such feeds alone likely already triggers attention at the internal security institution.

We've got a solid majority against the ISAF mandate, and that doesn't seem to be rooted in propaganda at all for it is really old and well-established.

http://www.infratest-dimap.de/typo3temp/pics/ARD-DeutschlandTREND_Juli_2009_14_28d65c3334.png
http://www.infratest-dimap.de/typo3temp/pics/ARD-DeutschlandTREND_Juli_2009_14_28d65c3334.png
(primary source link)
question ("Should the Bundeswehr according to your opinion continue to be stationed in Afghanistan or should it withdraw from Afghanistan asap?"

red: "Withdraw asap"

blue: "Continue to be stationed."

Now guess how this would look if the question wasn't about staying there, but about waging a COIN campaign or even "war".


Article 5 was fulfilled by 2002 when the Taliban lost power. Our involvement there is on feet of clay for a reason. It's not our war.


*: I rarely add value to the pro-COIN line, of course.

**: Generalists a.k.a. "universal dilettantes" who lack the knowledge about specifics like proximity and PD fuzes and didn't see the actual photos with bomb craters or even ever read the GCI-IV.

[Igel]

Al-Qaida deliver pre-election threat in Germany (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4706206,00.html)
International terrorist organization al-Qaida released a video on Friday in which Bekkay Harrach, an Islamist from Bonn, threatens the German electorate ahead of next week's general election.
[...]
"If the people choose to continue the war, they have passed judgment on themselves. The parliamentary election is the only opportunity for the people to influence its country's politics," Harrach says, "When the last German soldier is withdrawn from Afghanistan, the last mujahedeen will be withdrawn from Germany."


So Al Quaida wants me to vote for the socialist Linkspartei, whose stance on religion is very reserved (to put it mildly)?

Mkay....

[tequila]

In the Germans' AO:

Insurgents taking charge in Kunduz (http://iwpr.net/?p=arr&s=f&o=356469&apc_state=henh)

The vehicle is marked Kunduz provincial police headquarters, but the occupants are not necessarily servants of the state.

The Taleban in Kunduz recently captured eight police Ford Ranger pickups in Chahr Dara district, and they use them to move around.

It is not hard to tell the difference, however. When the Taleban are behind the wheel, they blare Islamic and national songs from the loudspeakers mounted on the car’s roof; throw their arms around each other’s shoulders and laugh.

Sometimes, the Taleban take motorcycles, when the roads are too narrow or too difficult for the Rangers. They cover their heads and faces with chequered scarves.

A line of Taleban on motorcycles has just roared past on their way to Chahr Dara, soon disappearing in a cloud of dust.

The Taleban have complete control over the district. They have established their own brand of Islamic rule, and they can move around the villages and bazaars openly, with no fear. There is no government authority here.

“We have control only over the governor’s office,” said the district governor of Chahr Dara, Abdul Wahid. “Outside those walls we have no jurisdiction at all. People do not come to the governor’s office to solve their problems – they go to the Taleban.”

Four other districts are in approximately the same situation. Kunduz city, the capital of the province, is surrounded by areas from which government control has all but disappeared ...