Germans in Afghanistan

[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*

[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).