Germans in Afghanistan

[Surferbeetle]

From the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zietung

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 and his replacement [LTC Ulrich] Kirsch have criticized the [German] contribution as repeatedly taking too long. During the weekend the Speaker for the Ministry of Interior, Schauble (CDU) 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

....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), 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

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

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, the 27 September parliamentary elections 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, 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 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.

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

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

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*