Germans in Afghanistan

[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:

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 (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:

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 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 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 (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 (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/typo3t...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

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

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 ...