Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 66

Thread: Germans in Afghanistan

  1. #21
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Most media has decided to be anti-ISAF mission apparently. They didn't wait for good info but reported and commented with a very critical stance, even in publicly financed evening news.


    The whole topic is relatively irrelevant to the upcoming elections, though. The current ruling coalition is made up by the two largest parties (one is shrinking rapidly) - and the two chancellor candidates are the current chancellor and the current foreign secretary. They're both entangled in the ISAF mission.

    The coalition talks after the next election will be more important; opposition politicians are more aligned with the population and mostly critical of the ISAF entanglement.


    By the way; the air strike overshadowed what was likely the biggest German post-WW2 ground fight, it happened just hours later.


    That whole day was a quite black day for the Taliban up north, they lost dozens of fighters and could likely not bear several more such days at all.

    I saw one report that the population isn't too angry about the dead civilians yet. Most of the Northern population doesn't bother anyway because the dead were pashtuns.

  2. #22
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    From today's FAZ Unklarheit über Zahl der Opfer - Jung in Erklärungsnot

    Der Vorfall wird voraussichtlich auch ein Nachspiel im Bundestag haben, der am Dienstag zu einer Sondersitzung zusammenkommt. Grünen-Fraktionsvize Jürgen Trittin verlangte eine Regierungserklärung von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel (CDU). „Frau Merkel muss sich ihrer Verantwortung stellen“, sagte er und fügte hinzu: „Es kann einer deutschen Bundeskanzlerin nicht gleichgültig sein, wenn die Bundesrepublik wegen des Luftangriffs in der Europäischen Union (EU) in die Isolierung gerät, wenn die Außenminister Europas offene Kritik an dieser 'Tragödie' üben.“
    Short on time so I won't be able to fully translate, but here is the gist of the passage: the Bundestag will discuss this on Tuesday and they are not happy...google has a translate function that can help get one down the road...it's not great but will usually get you pointed in the right direction.

    German elections are currently taking place in the 16 lander, the 27 September parliamentary elections will be the moment of truth for Frau Merkel.
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 09-06-2009 at 04:49 PM. Reason: Lander...
    Sapere Aude

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    156

    Default A quick hijack....

    My favourite (and under-reported) part of the WaPo article is this bit:
    ....One survivor, convalescing from abdominal wounds at a hospital in the nearby city of Kunduz, said he went to the site because he thought he could get free fuel. Another patient, a 10-year-old boy with shrapnel in his left leg, said he went to gawk, against his father's advice. In Kabul, the Afghan capital, relatives of two severely burned survivors being treated at an intensive-care unit said Taliban fighters forced dozens of villagers to assist in moving the bogged-down tankers.

    "They came to everyone's house asking for help," said Mirajuddin, a shopkeeper who lost six of his cousins in the bombing -- none of whom, he said, was an insurgent. "They started beating people and pointing guns. They said, 'Bring your tractors and help us.' What could we do?"
    ....
    I, too, would be curious to hear how this is running in Germany.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    17

    Default

    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.

  5. #25
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Difficult but not an insurmountable path...

    Quote Originally Posted by Igel View Post
    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?
    Sapere Aude

  6. #26
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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*

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Okinawa, Japan
    Posts
    33

    Default

    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?

  8. #28
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  10. #30
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    17

    Default

    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).

  11. #31
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.)

  12. #32
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igel View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Igel View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse9252 View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 09-08-2009 at 09:47 PM.
    Sapere Aude

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    156

    Default The Taliban's version of Kunduz....

    ...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....

  14. #34
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Surferbeetle View Post
    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.

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    17

    Default From Afghanistan with...

    Al-Qaida deliver pre-election threat in Germany
    International terrorist organization al-Qaida released a video on Friday in which Bekkay Harrach, an Islamist from Bonn, threatens the German electorate ahead of next week's general election.
    [...]
    "If the people choose to continue the war, they have passed judgment on themselves. The parliamentary election is the only opportunity for the people to influence its country's politics," Harrach says, "When the last German soldier is withdrawn from Afghanistan, the last mujahedeen will be withdrawn from Germany."
    So Al Quaida wants me to vote for the socialist Linkspartei, whose stance on religion is very reserved (to put it mildly)?

    Mkay....

  16. #36
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    In the Germans' AO:

    Insurgents taking charge in Kunduz

    The vehicle is marked Kunduz provincial police headquarters, but the occupants are not necessarily servants of the state.

    The Taleban in Kunduz recently captured eight police Ford Ranger pickups in Chahr Dara district, and they use them to move around.

    It is not hard to tell the difference, however. When the Taleban are behind the wheel, they blare Islamic and national songs from the loudspeakers mounted on the car’s roof; throw their arms around each other’s shoulders and laugh.

    Sometimes, the Taleban take motorcycles, when the roads are too narrow or too difficult for the Rangers. They cover their heads and faces with chequered scarves.

    A line of Taleban on motorcycles has just roared past on their way to Chahr Dara, soon disappearing in a cloud of dust.

    The Taleban have complete control over the district. They have established their own brand of Islamic rule, and they can move around the villages and bazaars openly, with no fear. There is no government authority here.

    “We have control only over the governor’s office,” said the district governor of Chahr Dara, Abdul Wahid. “Outside those walls we have no jurisdiction at all. People do not come to the governor’s office to solve their problems – they go to the Taleban.”

    Four other districts are in approximately the same situation. Kunduz city, the capital of the province, is surrounded by areas from which government control has all but disappeared ...

  17. #37
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    17

    Default

    The political Aftermath of that Bombing: Yesterday the Chief of Staff & one Deputy Defense Minister resigned. Today the former defense minister resigned from his current position of labor minister. He changed to that position one month ago after formation of the new CDU-FDP coalition.
    However I'd say his resignation was caused at least as much by his weak political position within his party as by his mishandling of the bombing.

    Germany's army chief of staff resigns over NATO airstrike in Kunduz

    Germany's military chief of staff, Wolfgang Schneiderhan, has stepped down in the wake of revelations about his handling of a deadly bombing raid in Afghanistan.

    Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg announced the resignation in parliament on Thursday as a debate began on Germany's military deployment in Afghanistan. Schneiderhan had "released himself from his duties at his own request," said Guttenberg, adding that Deputy Defense Minister Peter Wichert was also resigning.

    Guttenberg said that Schneiderhan had failed to provide proper information about the incident, in which a NATO report says that 142 people, including civilians were killed. The positions of Schneiderhan and Wichert became untenable after a revelation that the military received images the same day as the airstrike showing some of the dead were civilians, yet did not make this public.

    [...]

    Schneiderhan's resignation follows a report in Thursday's edition of German daily Bild, alleging that former Defense Minister Jung failed to pass on information from a military report and kept secret a video taken in one of the planes involved in the attack.

    The newspaper report says that shortly after the attack, Jung was informed that children had been injured. Jung, who now serves as labor minister, contended that only insurgents had been killed in the days following the strike. Opposition leaders are putting pressure on Jung to make a statement before the end of the day.

    Jung has denied the allegations and said that he had not ruled out the possibility of civilian victims. But he maintained that initial reports from investigations on the scene showed that only the Taliban and their allies had been hit.
    German minister resigns over Afghanistan airstrike
    Speaking to reporters in Berlin on Friday, Franz Josef Jung resigned, saying he would assume full responsibility for any mistakes concerning his former ministry's information policy.

    [...]

    The spate of resignations will likely further fuel public opposition to Germany's military mission in Afghanistan. Opinion polls have shown in the past that a majority of Germans are critical of Berlin's involvement, especially since a date for a complete withdrawal remains elusive.

  18. #38
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Let's face it; Jung was and is incompetent and was being called cabinet-inadequate by the press.

  19. #39
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Taliban in Kunduz

    Following tequila's headsup from last month, the NY Times has this:

    Taliban Open Northern Front in Afghanistan
    By CARLOTTA GALL
    Published: November 26, 2009

    KUNDUZ, Afghanistan — Far from the heartland of the Taliban insurgency in the south, this once peaceful northern province was one place American and Afghan officials thought they did not have to worry about.

    Afghan officials cut the police force here by a third two years ago and again earlier this year. Security was left to a few thousand German peacekeepers. Only one Afghan logistics battalion was stationed here. ....
    It appears that you guys have a war (armed conflict) on your hands, want it or not. I'll leave the domestic political and military aspects to the two of you.

    These specifics, from the political struggle side of the ledger, interested me:

    At just that time, under pressure from the American military in charge of training the Afghan security forces [JMM: don't know if that's true; but that it says], the government of President Hamid Karzai reduced the number of police officers in Kunduz to just 1,000 from 1,500, officials said. Then, earlier this year, the Interior Ministry ordered 200 police officers from every northern province to help secure the capital, Kabul, which was suffering increasingly serious attacks from insurgents.

    A district like Khanabad, with a population of 350,000, has just 80 police officers now, the governor of Kunduz, Muhammad Omar, said in an interview. In the district of Chahardara, where hundreds of insurgents are at large, there are only 56 police officers, enough only to guard the district center and the main road.
    Given the deplorable condition of the ANP, a reduction in force may have been a good thing.

    That having been smirked and snarked, the minimal ANP presence (most likely confined to the district centers) points up how far behind the political effort is - even compared to the military effort (in principle, "peacekeeping"). And, Kunduz was thought to be a secure province.

    Near-FUBAR, "hopeless mess" ?

    Best to all

    Mike

  20. #40
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    17

    Default

    And the legal aftermath: The Investigation by the Federal Prosceuter has been dropped. In regards to the charges under the German Penal Code, propably manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter, Col. Kleins Actions were justified by International Law.
    In regards to the charges under the German Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (see also this post by jmm99) Col. Klein didn't expect civilians and acted without intent.

    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.

    Section 11 of the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch: War crimes consisting in the use of prohibited methods of warfare
    (1) Whoever in connection with an international armed conflict or with an armed conflict not of an international character
    [...]
    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,
    The Decision of the Federal Prosecutor (in german).

    News Article: German prosecutors drop case against Kunduz airstrike colone
    The prosecution of the colonel who ordered the controversial Kunduz airstrike has been closed. The attack killed up to 142 people, many of whom were civilians.

    German state prosecutors on Monday said they had closed the case against Colonel Klein, the officer who ordered the controversial airstrike near Kunduz in September 2009.

    According to the prosecution, neither Klein nor any of the other officers present before the attack were in a position to know that there were still civilians at the site at the time of the airstrikes.

    "On the contrary, after a thorough assessment of the situation, they could assume that there were only insurgents present," the Karlsruhe-based prosecution said in a statement on Monday.

    Colonel Klein had, therefore, not acted in violation of either the international or German criminal code, the prosecution said. Ordering the airstrike on two fuel trucks that had been hijacked by Taliban insurgents did not qualify as an illegal method of warfare.

    On September 4, 2009, Klein had requested a NATO airstrike against the two trucks fearing they would be used to attack a German troop base nearby.

    NATO mission remains unpopular

    Coffin with German flagBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: The recent death of seven soldiers has reignited the debate about the mission

    The attack, and the subsequent revelations that many civilians were among the 142 dead, triggered a wide debate in Germany. The participation by the Bundeswehr in the NATO mission in Afghanistan is widely unpopular in the country.

    The Kunduz airstrike is also currently the subject of a parliamentary board of inquiry which, in the course of the week, is to question Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.

    The inquiry is focusing on whether the government has been transparent about the events in Kunduz or whether there have been attempts to cover up possible wrongdoing by German officers.

    A surge of attacks on German troops in Afghanistan, and the death of seven soldiers over the last two weeks, have also reignited the controversy over whether the Germany military should be part of the NATO mission.

    A memorial service for four German soldiers killed last week is scheduled for Thursday and a government spokesman has announced that Chancellor Angela Merkel will take part. She is expected to reconfirm the government's commitment to and support of the troops in Afghanistan.

    The announcement of the suspension of the investigation into Colonel Klein was welcomed by Defense Minister Guttenberg. He said it provided "the greatest possible legal security" for German soldiers in Afghanistan.

    In April seven more German soldiers have been killed.
    Four German soldiers killed in Afghanistan
    Four German soldiers have been killed and several others wounded in a clash in Afghanistan as they came under fire near the northern city of Baghlan, near Kunduz.

    [...]

    In recent weeks, Taliban insurgents have stepped up pressure on the German troops based in the northern province of Kunduz. On April 2, three German soldiers were killed during a mine-clearing expedition.
    Last edited by Igel; 04-21-2010 at 12:17 PM. Reason: added own opinion about investigation

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •