Germany (catch all, incl. terrorism)

[Fuchs]

Incendiary devices, not explosive devices.

Some people (allegedly young left-wing radicals, but more likely just terribly bored people) have been playing arsonists on upper class cars in Berlin and elsewhere for years (highly publicised and thus fuelled by public attention only in Berlin).

These dozens of incendiary devices were probably just a variation of that vandalism.

[davidbfpo]

A BBC report which explains:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15429744

Which cites:

"He wasn't motivated by politics but rather social envy," said senior police official Oliver Stepien. "He said in essence: 'I've got debts, my life stinks and others with fancy cars are better off and they deserve this'."

Earlier this month, the Berlin railway system was hit by arson attacks. Explosive devices were placed in a number of locations, including at least one on a high-speed rail track. A previously unknown left-wing group, calling itself the Hekla Reception Committee, said it had planted the devices.

[AdamG]

Haven't seen this in any other threads, might as well drop it here :

FRANKFURT, Germany — Both prosecutors and defense attorneys discounted testimony Thursday by a journalist who said he had gathered evidence showing that the man charged with killing two U.S. airmen at Frankfurt Airport last March had been in Bosnia-Herzegovina the previous summer and was likely associated with radical Islamists.

Arid Uka, charged with two counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder in the March 2 shooting of U.S. airmen as they boarded a bus at Frankfurt Airport, was to have been sentenced last month. But the publication of an article in a Stuttgart newspaper alleging that Uka had been seen in the central Bosnian town of Zenica in the summer of 2010 led the court to call the journalist to testify.

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/g...trial-1.167515

[Fuchs]

An interesting consequence of the NSU pseudo terror affair is that the Verfassungsschutz ('constitution security'; 17 interior intelligence services; 1 per state + a federal one) has come under scrutiny.

It has spent more attention on the left wing (PDS, later "Die Linke", a leftist party in many German parliaments) than on the right wing (mostly NPD). It was first accused of being blind on the right eye (and a certain blindness cannot be contested given its failure) and now the discussion turns to the ridiculous list of "Die LINKE" members of parliament who are under observation by the Verfassungsschutz (don't remember if this discussion is about state or federal level, I cannot distinguish their characters anyway).
The agency observes 27 of them, apparently all of them are rather reformers and moderates in their party.

It's not in the news as interpretation, but my interpretation and probably the implication in most reports is that the observation was more aimed at discovering something that could hurt politically successful leftists rather than about observing leftist radicals who are actually dangerous.
The former is obviously not the job of the Verfassungsschutz, but of journalists.

[Fuchs]

In einer Befragung des Meinungsforschungsinstituts YouGov sprachen sich 65,3 Prozent der Befragten fr eine Beendigung des Kampfeinsatzes vor dem vereinbarten Termin Ende 2014 aus. Nur 20,5 Prozent waren dafr, an dem innerhalb der NATO abgestimmten Zeitplan festzuhalten.

http://www.sat1.de/news/politik/deut...n-abzug-102469

In a poll of [...] YouGov expressed 65.3 per cent of the polled for an end of the combat mission prior to the agreed date of end of 2014. Only 20.5 per cent favoured to stick to the [...] timetable.


The German government is still ruling against its own people in regard to Afghanistan, and the mass media is a passive supporter of this behaviour.

[davidbfpo]

An ICSR comment on recent German law enforcement action, although described as a:

massive crackdown

There is as yet little detail on whether charges followed and what the scale of the action was:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18439914

(Added) More details on:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Germany.html

It does raise the question whether such megaphone users are just vocal or the activity is part of the "conveyor belt" to violence:

This emerging network is often dismissed as harmless because of its megaphone tactics. However, every new case makes it more obvious that many of its members are linked to Al Qaeda or go on to become involved in terrorism.

Link:http://icsr.info/publications/newsle...eJihadists.pdf

[Bob's World]

The problem isn't Germany, the real problem is NATO. This was a great organization for waging the Cold War. Now that the Cold War is 20 years into the rearview mirror it has taken on a disturbing new role. If the U.S. pulled out of NATO, I suspect the EU would stand it down shortly thereafter as being either redundant to the EU or simply irrelevant.

The U.S., however clings to this organization as it gives us tremendous leverage to coerce our allies to do things in support of US national interests that are not necessarily in support of their own. The old Cold Warrior crowd are also using NATO to push Russia back into a corner for reasons that escape me.

I for one believe it is time to seriously reconsider our role in NATO and to be careful on how our current approach is wearing thin with our allies and competitors alike.

[Surferbeetle]

The problem isn't Germany, the real problem is NATO. This was a great organization for waging the Cold War. Now that the Cold War is 20 years into the rearview mirror it has taken on a disturbing new role. If the U.S. pulled out of NATO, I suspect the EU would stand it down shortly thereafter as being either redundant to the EU or simply irrelevant.

The U.S., however clings to this organization as it gives us tremendous leverage to coerce our allies to do things in support of US national interests that are not necessarily in support of their own. The old Cold Warrior crowd are also using NATO to push Russia back into a corner for reasons that escape me.

I for one believe it is time to seriously reconsider our role in NATO and to be careful on how our current approach is wearing thin with our allies and competitors alike.

Bob, I appreciate your contributions to FID/SOF/SF analysis, however I disagree with your analysis of NATO. The US is not an Island; globalization impacts us even more than it has in the past.

Regards,

Steve

A critic’s analysis of the cost of WW II

…the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion...

2000 Forbes Analysis of the cost of NATO

Were it not for keeping the peace in the Balkan states of Bosnia and Kosovo, a reasonable mission that is more suited to the United Nations, NATO would have nothing else to do. NATO is a military alliance--and having added three members in 1998, a growing military alliance--that has no adversary. Barring the unlikely event that Russia suddenly goes back to being a militaristic power with expansionist leanings, NATO will have little to do other than prepare for a war that will never come, and endlessly contemplate its role in the world.

With an estimated annual budget of $1.56 billion, the U.S. shouldered about 29% of NATO's operating budget in 1999, or about $452 million. Each of the member nations pays into NATO based on its gross domestic product, making the U.S. the biggest single contributor. That fund pays for NATO's basic day-to-day operations like staffing and communications, and will presumably pay for NATO's new headquarters, a 557,000-square-foot complex in Brussels

2005 IHT NATO Analysis of the cost of NATO

NATO has a civilian budget of around €130 million, or $167 million, and a military budget of around € 780 million. The United States, Britain, Germany and France are the largest contributors to both segments, with payments ranging from 15 percent to over 23 percent into those budgets while Belgium, Turkey, Denmark, Poland and the Netherlands pay under 2.75 percent.

[Bob's World]

Last thing I want is the US to be an island. I am, however, far from alone in being concerned with how the U.S. is using its NATO membership since the Cold War.

Personally, I believe that all of the institutions, (UN, World Bank, NATO, etc) born of the Cold War, and US foreign policy in general, and our governmental organization for implementing it are long overdue for a major refreshing. Don't throw out the baby, but after 60 years its time to change the water.

All are based on a understanding of the world as it existed in 1947, and were used to good effect through a very different Cold War world '47-89. Then even as globalization grew and the Soviet threat faded as new post cold war threats emerged, we continued to ride that same tired horse. I am very optimistic that the incoming administration is going to take this on, and just last week a major proposal along these lines was published.

I try to imagine how Americans would feel if the Cold War had gone the other way, and if the Soviet Union was expanding the Warsaw Pact into former NATO nations, and if they had just positioned missile defense systems in Canada to protect them from Iranian missiles... Or if they were using this treaty organization to lead regime change efforts in the name of promoting communism. I think we'd see it much the way the Russians see it today. They dont like it.

[Entropy]

The problem with NATO is the most Europeans don't want their forces in Afghanistan. I think we need realize what is and is not politically possible for fo the governments of European allies. We can and should try to convince them to do more, but unless and until the people's view changes we should not expect much more.

[davidbfpo]

This week a UK opinion poll reported 73% opposed our role in Afghanistan. I am reasonably sure NATO gets a high level of public support.

I recall an earlier thread reported on how European NATO members public opinion regarded Afghanistan; with large majorities opposed.

davidbfpo

[Surferbeetle]

Bob,

We all hope for world peace and prosperity and all of us hope we will navigate our way towards these goals in a wiser and more effective way than we have in the past. I myself have devoted one or two hours towards the study and application of indirect methods to accomplish this. But….as I suspect we both know firsthand, it’s a dangerous world out there and the stakes are very high.

Mr. Gates is someone who exhibits an intuitive understanding of these ideas and I find his latest thoughts to be of intense interest:

The defining principle of the Pentagon's new National Defense Strategy is balance. The United States cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything. The Department of Defense must set priorities and consider inescapable tradeoffs and opportunity costs.

The strategy strives for balance in three areas: between trying to prevail in current conflicts and preparing for other contingencies, between institutionalizing capabilities such as counterinsurgency and foreign military assistance and maintaining the United States' existing conventional and strategic technological edge against other military forces, and between retaining those cultural traits that have made the U.S. armed forces successful and shedding those that hamper their ability to do what needs to be done.

I would be interested in a link to the proposal of which you speak and wonder if it is the one posted above.

With respect to Russia, I find it to be a fascinating country and agree that we could have approached some things in a more productive way than we have. The Economist has a timely 14 page analysis in its November 29th Edition that may be of interest. Having served on the other end of Russian intentions however, I am a big fan of the saying ‘trust but verify’.

Regards,

Steve

[Bob's World]

I agree that we underestimate Russian nationalism at our peril. I just wish we didn't let the old Cold War gang keep poking the Russian bear in his nads. As to NATO, I believe it is high time for the US to quit burdening our own economy with the EU's defense bill. They'll let us do it for as long as we are willing to pay it, and pay us back with token forces to support our efforts, that they then, like the German example in this string, they restrict from full participation. Just seems like a sucker's bet to me.

General Jones was the original lead on the commission, but I noticed his name was not on the final; but as he is the new NSA, I suspect much of it will get implemented. Don't have the link. It hit my in box late this week, and I only had time to read the exec summary and scan it quickly so far. Someone else might have it handy.

[Pete]

From today's Guardian, UK:

The German government has announced plans to abolish compulsory military service by next summer, marking the most radical overhaul of the armed forces since its postwar founding and a major change to German society.

Under the reforms, which will transform the Bundeswehr into a fully professional defence force by July 2011, the size of the existing military and its inefficient bureaucratic apparatus will be considerably reduced as part of a cost-cutting exercise aimed at shaving about €8bn (£6.8bn) from the defence spending budget.

The entire story can be read at this link .

[Fuchs]

That's inaccurate. July 2011 is the date when conscription call-ups will end. Conscripts will stay in the forces for four to six more months.

Conscripts are a small minority in today's Bundeswehr anyway, employed in the least important jobs only.

[Fuchs]

Full steam back, the last conscripts will be called upon on 1 January, will leave in late July. Only conscripts who volunteered for a few more months will stay beyond that date, but then they're volunteers, obviously.

Some early reports were misleading and I assumed that the English source was a more likely candidate for a misunderstanding.

Details are here http://augengeradeaus.net/2010/11/zahlen-auf-dem-tisch/

[Leopard 2A4]

Hello @ all...

I´d like to read some statements of US-, UK-, canadian- (what ever)guys who serve/served in Afghanistan about the germans in AFG.
What do you think, how we are doing our job there?

In my opinion we had to develop from a peace-army to a fighting-army during our engagement in AFG. We were not being prepared for that rising hostility there. We were sent there with the mission to build shools or fountains, but not for fighting. In the last four years these things changed. We had more and more troops in contact. We lost men and habe lots of wounded. PTSD became a big problem for us.

In the first contacts, our troops withdrew. But by the time our CO´s, our platoon-leaders and our team-leaders got sick of getting away. They decided to engeage the INS who attacked us, not the officers of staff in the HQ.

I remember a situation in Kunduz in 2009. A german patrol was under fire by an overwhelming enemy formation. A company of our Quick-Reaction-Force was in the near and decided to get there for support. I think the INS did not belived their eyes when the first APC apeared an fired some rounds of HE-ammo on them. And then the infantry went out and started to roll them off. This was the tourning point for our role in AFG. Now every leader has the opportunity to decide what to do in situations of contact. He can decide to engage or to withdrawl. And I do not remember one leader in the field who wants to get away without trying to kick some INS-asses.

How do you see us?

Greetz

[uwew]

I posted a similar question some time ago and -like you - did not get an answer.

I think that it is out of politeness, that nobody on this forum wants to give his opinion about the German army. But what might this opinion be?

Let me give you some examples. Dr. Tony Korn, who works for U. S. state department, wrote in his recent article "From Mars to Minerva":
"Germany‘s subsequent performance in Afghanistan has shown that, for better and for worse, the German Way of War these days involves much beer drinking
(278 liters a year per soldier, to be exact) and very little fighting."
Pretty flattering.

ISAF command used KSK as prison guards, not as a fighting force.

McChrystal choose to publicly humiliate Oberst Klein after the Kundus bombing, as if a German officer was rather answering to the U. S media than to BMVG.

These facts allow a pretty good guess on what US diplomats and soldiers might think about Germany's contribution in Afghanistan, don't you think so?

[Bob's World]

I would not blame this on the German Army. This is a reflection of Germany's government and a pretty clear metric that they do not perceive any great German interest's to be at stake.

Reportedly however, a significant portion of the foreign fighters who have traveled to Pakistan to support AQ are German. One must look at both of these circumstances together to understand either one, I suspect.

The US calls for our NATO allies to act against their interests in Afghanistan, and we then agonize over the results.

The US calls for Pakistan to act against her interests at home and in Afghanistan, and we agonize over the results.

The US most recently calls for Israel to act against her interests at home, and we agonize over the results.

I'll go out on a limb here, but perhaps, just maybe, US interests are not shared by every other state on the planet? I'll risk an other assumption, that perhaps even some of these allies have a clearer perspective on what our interests are and how they are best addressed than we do ourselves??

(How many times have you had to wake a friend up who could not see his own destructive behavior on some girl, job, etc issue that he had grown too close too? Or had the same done for you??)

We bully our friends and foes alike. We really should become a bit more self-aware and reassess that situation before it is too late.

[Fuchs]

The beer story has long been debunked. Import in a period is not the same as consumption in a period, foreign soldiers and policemen and civilians consumed some of that beer as well and besides that, the average German soldier hardly gets drunk even by one liter in a day. So what's the problem? Beer is healthier than Cola.