Germans in Afghanistan

[Jesse9252]

Joushua Foust comes out swinging on this issue with an article titled Germany is ISAF's 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:

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.