Difficult but not an insurmountable path...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Igel
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.
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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?
The Taliban's version of Kunduz....
...according to a report (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....