Germans in Afghanistan

[Firn]

While an Investigation and the threat of a prosecution wasn't a nice experince for Col. Klein, I think it was a legal necessity. Finally there is at least some legal certainty. Hopefully this will encourage the german Army to act resolute in battle and disperse the notion that german soldiers are under the threat of prosecution for every warlike action. Still, the bombing itself shouldn't be taken as an example on how to conduct operations.

So at least the legal aspect has become far clearer - this will be very welcome news indeed for the German soldiers in Afghanistan. The question of the political will remains, but this should not take away from this very important ruling.


Firn

[jmm99]

from Igel
".... it was a legal necessity. Finally there is at least some legal certainty."

Hat tip to Igel for this update.

Every difference of opinion on how to conduct warfare should NOT result in a "war crimes" invesigation.

The German statute (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch) looks to the actual perception of the soldier at the time:

3. carries out an attack by military means and definitely anticipates that the attack will cause death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects on a scale out of proportion to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated,

Thus, the legal question becomes one of whether the soldier believed at the time that he (or she) was attacking combatants (even though some civilians might also be believed to be there - when "proportionality" has to be considered).

Regards
Mike

[Tukhachevskii]

......I found this interesting given the Tigre/Tiger attack helicopter programme looked pretty solid a fews ago (i.e., before the recession). IMO it's a pretty capable platform. Back when the UK needed an Attack helo Euromil offered Britain 90 odd Tigers for the price of the 67 AH-64D's we eventually got (I remember arguing for the Tiger at the time at Uni!). Anyway, according to the English language German newspaper The Local German troops to recieve US "combat" helicopters. The article provides no indication of which helicopters Germany is aquiring/borrowing; "combat" helicopters doesn't necessarily mean "Attack" (although it is implied in the headline) and could also mean "assault" (i.e., UH-60), "medium transport" (i.e., Ch-47). I know the French and German governments are looking to/or are already co-operating with Russia on the Mi-38 programme (as part of the Euromil consortium) for a medium assault transport/lift helo (IMO much more cost effective than Britain's EH-101 for a similar capability). Defence Minister Guttenberg also ...

...promised to provide soldiers with two new PzH 2000 armed [sic]vehicles "as soon as possible" during a surprise visit with troops stationed at headquarters in Northern Afghanistan

[Fuchs]

The PzH2000 thin is old news. They'll probably arrive by November.

I wait for confirmation before I believe the helicopter story (the Tiger is expected to be operational by late 2012, and German Apache crews wouldn't be available much sooner anyway - and there's no need for 50.
The most likely explanation for the claim is that the U.S. moves simply some helos up to the North.
The source (Bild) is a crappy wannabe-newspaper. Big letters, primitive stories, strong conservative bias, #### on page 1.

[Fuchs]

Yep, another newspaper (in German, the kinda serious brother of the Bild) confirmed that the U.S. will move 50 helicopters to the North, not give them to the Bundeswehr.

[Surferbeetle]

Firn, Igel, Fuchs, and Mike,

Many projects have at least three parts, a political part, a economic part, and a technical one (security in this case). In theory at least, all portions of a project need to be at least somewhat synchronized or harmonized in order to achieve success (defining success, however, can be tough)...

Recent German elections in the Land (or State) of North Rhine Westphalia, the most populous state with ~ 18 million out of ~82 million people, point towards a democratic dissatisfaction with the direction of Germany's course under the current political coalition. Does this particular Land represent the national consensus across all 16 of Germany's Lander?

The majority of the reporting seems to focus upon economic (Euro) issues at this point, but as we have discussed previously over 60% of German voters seem to be against the Afghanistan expedition.

From the May 13th edition of the Economist, Now what?

MAY 9th is not a day Angela Merkel will soon forget. First voters in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany’s most populous state, booted the chancellor’s allies out of office, meting out her worst political drubbing in more than five years in office. That evening European finance ministers meeting in Brussels armed a financial bomb to deter speculators threatening the stability of the euro (see article). It seemed to work, but may also demolish Germans’ long-term trust in the single currency. Both events will transform Mrs Merkel’s chancellorship.

The setbacks are at least partly of her own making. In NRW voters unseated a coalition between her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) akin to the one she leads nationally. That was in part a slap at Mrs Merkel’s seven-month-old government. Jürgen Rüttgers, the defeated CDU premier, had struggled against a “headwind” from Berlin, she acknowledged.

From the 9 May edition of the German Newspaper/Magazine Stern, Warum NRW Berlin erzittern lässt

Dort leben knapp 18 Millionen Menschen, deutlich mehr als in den Niederlanden, Belgien oder der Schweiz, von Dänemark ganz zu schweigen. Von diesen 18 Millionen Menschen sind 13,5 Millionen wahlberechtigt. Allein deswegen werden die Landtagswahlen in NRW völlig zu Recht als "kleine Bundestagswahl" bezeichnet. Darüber hinaus ist NRW eine Art politischer Seismograph: Die Ergebnisse spiegeln auch die (Un-)Zufriedenheit mit der Bundesregierung.

[Fuchs]

Does this particular Land represent the national consensus across all 16 of Germany's Lander?

Our equivalent of a senate is manend with representatives of the state governments - they do always vote according to the state government's line and are exchanged with a change of power in that state.

The recent election destroyed Merkel's majority in the Bundesrat (~senate).
This means that the German federal government cannot push federal bills into law* if those laws incurr additional responsibilities on the states (that would give the Bundestag the right to be included in the process).

This is not going to be relevant for defence or foreign policy.

*: (The Bundestag ~congress is usually loyal to the government because the government is almost always a coalition project that the parliamentarians agreed to as well)



Besides; Germans are always unsatisfied with a government that's not reforming or active in times of crisis. This means that conservatives are always unpopular in such times because they're the embodiment of "no real reform". <- my political opinion
The greater problem is at this time the junior coalition partner, the FDP (liberals, most pro-business party in Germany). The did some horrendous things and their chairman is an opposition politician (has led the FDP in opposition for about a decade) who's apparently useless as minister (he's foreign minister).