It reads:
That I read as the military mission. I would like to see the political Grand strategy... if they have one.Mission
In support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ISAF conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population.
Sure. They want to wait till the mission is accomplished.
A Grand Strategy doesn't need to be good or at least sane to exist.
The German government clung to this paper mission of ISAF for years. Their strategy is indeed to sit it out and let 4k troops rot in AFG.
But with the presence of german troops being so incredibly unpopular with German public (or for the vast majority of contributing nations) can the German government afford to play that game? Are the constrains on the mission only there to help politicians sleep at night as opposed to a comprehensive strategy they see working to a greater effect than the cliché "gunho" US approach (by which I mean, conducting large scale combat operations). Two questions really. As for the grand strategy, I was refering to the ISAF mandate and how McChrystal and Patraeus (sp, on my phone so can't google while I type) have set out to conduct COIN.
The German politicians want a low intensity mission in AFG, not a glorious victory. A low intensity and thus low profile keeps the domestic resistance low and allows to play the ####ty foreign policy game of maintaining a "reputation of reliability" or whatever they're playing.
It begun with the quest for a permanent UNSC seat, and then it was set on autopilot.
Well, there's not much in the news, so some morons crawl out of their holes and open their mouths. It can't be helped.
Bookmarks