After Action Report-General Barry R McCaffrey USA (Ret) Afgahanistan

[Eden]

I acknowledge that the north is farther away from the supposed Taleban safe havens in Pakistan. It's still a bit puzzling that more fo the behaviour that was used in the now enflamed provinces was used should become the norm while the behaviour that apparently kept the North quiet by comparison should go away.
In fact, it looks just perfect as it is; soft approach is likely not promising in the South (anymore), the hard tour is not promising in the North.

The Germans were one of the first non-US NATO nations to deploy significant forces to Afghanistan. At the time, the north region was the only area allocated to NATO outside of Kabul proper, and the situation there was more turbulent and unsettled than it is now. I think the Germans deserve credit for there early contribution.

Their live-and-let-live approach has indeed kept the north region relatively quiet, and they have had some success in reining in illicit trafficking, developing the transportation infrastructure, and promoting better governance. However, they have also made little effort to extend the writ of the Afghan central government into the troubled north and eastern parts of their region.

More importantly, from the point of view of their allies, they have steadfastly refused to take much part in the actual fighting in other regions, and by 'they' I mean their political leadership. The fact that Germany is the only first-rate military in NATO to refuse even marginal support in these areas is what annoys people - and their touch of smugness when pointing out their success in the north doesn't help. NATO is short of everything in the south - infantry, MPs, helicopters, recon, SF, etc. Germany could do more.

Working in ISAF, I also noted that many of the German officers I served with were personally and professionally embarrassed by their country's policies - though they acknowledged that there simply is not the political will in the country to expand Germany's role.

[DaveDoyle]

Working in ISAF, I also noted that many of the German officers I served with were personally and professionally embarrassed by their country's policies - though they acknowledged that there simply is not the political will in the country to expand Germany's role.

Eden's point about the German policy makers is especially poignant in light of GEN McCaffery’s comments about NATO efficiencies. I had the same experience with several German officers. There is a sense among folks who make it back to bases at Bagram and Kandahar only periodically that the heavy lifting in Afghanistan is being done by fewer and fewer nations rather than more each year.

I can’t account for every national contribution, as most of my work with other militaries was with Polish, Canadian, British and Australians. I will tell you that you can see almost every type of national uniform under the sun in the Kandahar dining facilities. Not as many uniforms make it off the base. Don’t get me wrong, I know there are people from many countries hanging it out there on a regular basis, and many of the contributions that take place on the “safe” bases are absolutely essential. However, there is clearly more of a burden that can be shared by capable military elements.

I do wonder whether some nations' policy makers are still in the wait and see mode. They can still claim to be contributing without risking casualties by keeping small numbers in relatively safe missions. Some of our politicians here in the US are in the same stance.

[Fuchs]

The Germans ...

More importantly, from the point of view of their allies, they have steadfastly refused to take much part in the actual fighting in other regions, and by 'they' I mean their political leadership. ...

And that's where you err.

I discussed it at some length in another thread in this forum.

A stable and significant majority of the Germans (about 55-65%) wants to end the whole German military mission in Afghanistan.

The only reason why this didn't happen yet is likely because the two largest of our five parties are governing Germany together and since they usually compete for the same few per cent Germans to decide which one has the next Chancellor, there's no punishment by vote possible for this policy as long as both do the same.
(Actually, there is - the SPD is losing terribly to "Die Linke", one of the three opposition parties. But that's related to domestic economic & social issues.)

In short:
The present military mission is the maximum possible.
It's already straining our democracy.
Try for more and the support for the mission breaks altogether, reducing the German troop count in Afghanistan to zero.
That's likely to happen in about two to three years (after next elections) anyway.

I didn't see any polls about it, but I would guess that Afghanistan civil war is probably barely in top 30 of the hottest German political topics for the citizens. We simply don't feel threatened by whatever some guys with AKs do at the end of the world.

[reed11b]

been a bit mystified by our support of Pakistan over India prior to 9/11. Why do we chose to support a very unstable fundamentalist nation and see this as being in our best interest? I know India is hardy our twin politically and culturally, but they seem to be far more compatible than Pakististan has ever been. I do realize that current world situation requires us to try and work well with Pakistan.
Reed

[jkm_101_fso]

I would hardly say that we favor Pakistan. They are more critical to our interest (terror), compared to the Indians. We just hooked them up with a sweet nuclear deal, for a Non-NNPT country:

NEW DELHI — India’s prime minister went to the Group of 8 summit meeting in Japan on Monday with his government intact and enough political strength to complete a landmark nuclear agreement with the United States, ending months of speculation that either his government or the agreement, on which he has staked his reputation, would collapse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/wo...a/08india.html

[Entropy]

been a bit mystified by our support of Pakistan over India prior to 9/11. Why do we chose to support a very unstable fundamentalist nation and see this as being in our best interest? I know India is hardy our twin politically and culturally, but they seem to be far more compatible than Pakististan has ever been. I do realize that current world situation requires us to try and work well with Pakistan.
Reed

We do because we don't have a choice. We didn't much like Pakistan's government in the late 1970's because of their nuclear program, but after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan they became an ally of necessity. Then aid was suspended again in 1990 after the war. It's been an on again-off again relationship all along. It's no wonder they consider us an unreliable ally.