Continuation of German participation in A-Stan "very unsure"

[muck]

http://www.welt.de/welt.de/images/navigation/welt_logo_big.gif

13th June, 2007, 13:31

ARMED FORCES ABROAD DEPLOYMENTS

Continuation of abroad deployment in Afghanistan very unsure

Reinhold Robbe is instructed with the parliamentary control of the armed forces. After a troop visit to the Hindukush he does not assume any more that the Bundestag will extend the mandate for the deployment in autumn. The situation is too unclear.

The Defence Commissioner of the parliament, Reinhold Robbe (SPD), has expressed doubts concerning the future of the engagement of the German Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

"The appraisal of the situation is exceptionally difficult", Robbe said to ARD news. The situation would remain very unclear,"and the Afghan security forces are headless ", Robbe added in a statement after he visited the troops on the site. He is not sure whether in regard to this factors the abroad deployment of the armed forces will be extended in autumn by the parliament.

According to Robbe, the German soldiers in the North-Afghan city of Kundus mainly stay in their camp to minimise the danger. In late May, three armed forces soldiers had been killed in an attack. AFP/ BECK

If this becomes true, I'd say that we definitely do not deserve to be the third-largest industry nation and the largest nation within the borders of the European Union if we don't want to bear responsibility for something. Simply because 55% of all Germans think it's too risky to continue the deployment, the politicians smarm over their voters and are too lazy to persuade this part of the people with the many good arguments to stay in Afghanistan, so they just want to get the votes in the next elections by those who are against the deployment.
It's a pity.

:roll:

[signatory]

Wait.. what was he trying to say? That the security situation is too bad for the soldiers or that there's no point being deployed since there's no progress being made or something.. ?

[muck]

Both guesses are correct. Maybe the sense is lost in translation in this article but that's what he states: It's too unclear how the situation will develop in his opinion, and additionally it would use nothing to stay since the Afghani security forces weren't able to handle the situation anyway...what is quite a paradoxon but don't forget, he's a politician

[tluassa]

Wait.. what was he trying to say? That the security situation is too bad for the soldiers or that there's no point being deployed since there's no progress being made or something.. ?

You have to know something about the German interior politics to understand this : The SPD is falling apart at the moment, once a great force it is now down to 28 % approval rating. They are trying to regain some voters from the recently formed Linke ( a new formation, party old DDR Communists and leftists from West Germany). Robbe is a fag, and if you listen to what Merkel says, ( CDU, the strongest party imho, aiming at a coaliation with the liberals for the next time rather than a continuing grand coalition) you wont have doubt that the mission will continue, or it will be the end of the coalition. Schröder once had to threaten his SPD with and end of his chancellery if they didnt back this Afghanistan - mission.

[muck]

It's not the job of Merkel to decide about the deployment...and the SPD has enough parliamentarians who are irresolute or actively express their dislike concerning a continuation in it's faction's rows, some say up to 20% and more of their MPs. While the black faction does not have enough seats to have a majority on their own, I think due to this fact a positive vote is quite endangered. Not yet lost, but endangered.

[afreu]

This is one MP, I can't really see a majority against the deployement in Afghanistan.

[lastdingo]

If this becomes true, I'd say that we definitely do not deserve to be the third-largest industry nation and the largest nation within the borders of the European Union if we don't want to bear responsibility for something. Simply because 55% of all Germans think it's too risky to continue the deployment, the politicians smarm over their voters and are too lazy to persuade this part of the people with the many good arguments to stay in Afghanistan, so they just want to get the votes in the next elections by those who are against the deployment.
It's a pity.

:roll:

Do us other Germans a favour, please. Move to a dictatorship. That's where you belong to.



The Afghanistan missions are in question because since months more and more politicians come to the conclusion that it produces no lasting positive results. The situation seems to deteriorate and after all the goernment tehre had enought ime to gain control over the country with so much foreign aid.
Normal civil war parties would have been able to take over the whole country within months with that support.

By the way - there's very little reason why our troops are there at all. The longer the critstian foreigners stay in that place, the more do the Afghans rally under the banner of whoever fights them.
So far, this is almost only the Taleban.
As long as the Western troops are there, the Taleban become stronger. Once the're gone, the taleban are just one of many civil war parties.

[Noble713]

The Afghanistan missions are in question because since months more and more politicians come to the conclusion that it produces no lasting positive results.

Of course it's not going to produce results if the German troops spend all their time in their base.
:bash:

Does anyone have stats on the level of violence in the northern parts of Afghanistan where the Germans are? I've generally gotten the impression that the upsurge in violence has been almost entirely in the south, which makes sense considering that the Taliban essentially operates out of Pakistan. If there hasn't been a significant increase of attacks in the German areas your argument about the Taliban's resurgence being based on the duration of NATO's stay is invalid.

[phoebus]

If that's what the german public wants, then surely their government should start planning their exit.

Killing some random Taliban in the south, alone, would not produce any results that would justify the entire operational costs. So it doesn't make a difference, sadly the south of the country* (in 2007 terms) is a waste of time and resources. These are much more needed for EU purposes as well.

Also since nobody has ever put on the table the deployment of NATO forces in Pakistan, I'd think that operating only in southern Afghanistan won't achieve any long-term success (catching OBL and eliminating Al Quaida in the region).

In addition, even if there is any ground deployment in Pakistan right now, that might as well be too late. The crucial years for Afghanistan were between 2002 - 2005 (sadly that was the timeframe USA & UK switched priorities). Nothing significant was achieved, the Taliban although destroyed in 2001, they got back on track (operating from Pakistan). Hence, it would make sense to start thinking of an exit strategy, yet support the Government (which already received enough funds) on the north in securing the southern regions.

*the north is also giving mixed messages

[muck]

Do us other Germans a favour, please. Move to a dictatorship. That's where you belong to.

Stay cool, mate. I did not mean to force my opinion upon others and for sure I would accept the decision of a majority since this is democracy.
It is blatant nonsense nonetheless that our politicians simply refuse to do any persuasion work. Regarding many other issues, they just decide against the will of an enormous majority (-> health system reform to name only one example) and ignore any demands to revise their agendas, but in more sensitive questions they show a lack of courage to stand to their former decisions...additionally, parliamentarians are instructed with decisions like this and they should pay attention to the will of the people, but do not necessarily have to in any case, especially if the debate is about topics that require too much background knowledge. If you're not happy with their work you have the possibility to vote against them in four years.
Ask the average German what his opinion is about the Afghanistan deployment and the first reply of him will be, where the heck Afghanistan is actually located in the world.
This policy is just a result of a fact that really pisses me off, namely that we are very keen on the deletion of our self-confidence while other countries have a much better image of us than we indeed have it!

edit


This is one MP, I can't really see a majority against the deployement in Afghanistan.

He is not a parliamentarian. Of course his role as the Defence Commissioner is more of administrative kind, he as a "hot link" to all high echelons and all the decision-makers though.

The black faction is supposed to have 5-10% MPs who could vote against the continuation, the social democrats have up to 20 % opposing parliamentarians as well as the greens and the liberals, and all of these are joined by the entire socialist faction...

[Laworkerbee]

The situation seems to deteriorate and after all the goernment tehre had enought ime to gain control over the country with so much foreign aid.

Tell us oh great one exactly how long it should take for a government to take control of a whole country that has been torn by 30 years of war and strife, most of the time without a functioning government?

[Weasel]

Tell us oh great one exactly how long it should take for a government to take control of a whole country that has been torn by 30 years of war and strife, most of the time without a functioning government?

You mean by doing it "our" way or by using 120.000 Russians? :) (didn´t work neither)

[Laworkerbee]

I think it is better to let the Afghan's do it their way, even if it is not the best or most efficient way. But for that to happen I believe patience is needed more than anything else.

[Switek]

Well, I see that German deployment to Afghanistan is used in political debate inside Germany. Some politicians need to score some points inside their own nation. Anyway simulntaneously they send bad message abroad..., very bad. The taliban will draw conclusions soon. You should expect new bomb attacks in the north of Afghanistan soon.

[Weasel]

Well, I see that German deployment to Afghanistan is used in political debate inside Germany. Some politicians need to score some points inside their own nation. Anyway simulntaneously they send bad message abroad..., very bad. The taliban will draw conclusions soon. You should expect new bomb attacks in the north of Afghanistan soon.

But please consider that the majority of Germans are against the deployment.

[muck]

The taliban will draw conclusions soon. You should expect new bomb attacks in the north of Afghanistan soon.

That's the point which was even ignored by our great omnipotent allround-expert Peter Scholl-Latour. If the Taliban realize the roots of a withdrawal debate, they will increase their pressure on the decision-makers in Germany with new attacks on German troops...

[Switek]

But please consider that the majority of Germans are against the deployment.

Most Poles are against as well, including myself. But I do undrestand that it's our obligation to be there. Besides our mandate is full combat with no limits.

[tsuri]

Well that is what we get for having a Parlamentsarmee. It is idiotic, we cannot just invade the place and leave when some people die. It is sad but it is what happens. If we leave Afghanistan now, someone will have to go in again in 20 years and fix it.. again.

[Weasel]

That's the point which was even ignored by our great omnipotent allround-expert Peter Scholl-Latour. If the Taliban realize the roots of a withdrawal debate, they will increase their pressure on the decision-makers in Germany with new attacks on German troops...

Scholl-Latour has a lot of experience and knows about this region 1.000 times more than we both do together. He just said that A-stan is not controllable. Not by 120.000 Russians using brutal force, not by less western troops trying to win hearts and minds.

[Weasel]

Most Poles are against as well, including myself. But I do undrestand that it's our obligation to be there. Besides our mandate is full combat with no limits.

And what´s wrong with politicians representing public opinion? I always thought politicians are representants of the public.

[Macs.]

The whole Afghanistan deployment has been a major ****-up on the side of the goverment. The situation of the german forces on the ground is... Horrible. Just horrible.

The whole mission is poisened by politics and burocracy. It's a shame, really.

[Switek]

Scholl-Latour has a lot of experience and knows about this region 1.000 times more than we both do together. He just said that A-stan is not controllable. Not by 120.000 Russians using brutal force, not by less western troops trying to win hearts and minds.

This war is possible to win. But it requires at least 2 times more NATO soldiers and 10 times more money to create infastructure of this country wthin more than 15 years. Whose democracy is going to increase their contribution for that? None ! Politics and money this is all about it... :-(

[Weasel]

This war is possible to win. But it requires at least 2 times more NATO soldiers and 10 times more money to create infastructure of this country wthin more than 15 years. Whose democracy is going to increase their contribution for that? None ! Politics and money this is all about it... :-(

I don´t know if a forced democracy could ever be successful.

[muck]

Scholl-Latour has a lot of experience and knows about this region 1.000 times more than we both do together. He just said that A-stan is not controllable. Not by 120.000 Russians using brutal force, not by less western troops trying to win hearts and minds.

His biggest failure in my opinion is to simply assume history would necessarily repeat itself. Switek said rightly, the war could still be won.

And don't see my statement in the first place rebutted by this..

[quinsen]

More money for the bundeswehr, a real permission to shoot back in case of an attack and finally some politicians and officers with balls. but that's utopia... so we'll stay armed development worker...

[Switek]

I don´t know if a forced democracy could ever be successful.

I don't know if any democratic club is able to create forced tyranny much more applicable there... :|

We are hostages of our own principles.... sad, brutal truth... :-(

[muck]

More money for the bundeswehr, a real permission to shoot back in case of an attack and finally some politicians and officers with balls. but that's utopia... so we'll stay armed development worker...

That cannot be meant serious...Even our medics are allowed to shoot back if becoming the target of an enemy attack. And A-Stan troops did it quite often according to the MoD-Website...There are several reports about patrols who got into ambushes and returned fire. One firefight is even said to have taken over an hour...

[Sharp]

maybe a real military european system could help to prevent such things? i mean, not only for germany, but also for france, etc.

[afreu]

How would a "real military european system" help prevent such things? It'd still be German troops and would still be up to the parlament to authorise the deployment.

You need armed developpment workers in Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan is much more complex and harder to solve than a war. Probably the one most important thing necessary for a succes is time. As mentioned before this country is in a state of war for nearly 40 years now. It'll not take a couple of years but generations of Afghans to change the course of this country. There's no fast Afghan solution.

[Macs.]

You need armed developpment workers in Afghanistan.

... which are capable to wage combat if needed.

[krl]

The problem with Afghanistan is, we are not fighting Al Qaida over there the way we did in 2001. Al Qaida is safely watching from behind the Pakistani border, and the U.S. is very reluctant to fight them over there.

As such, Afghanistan gradually becomes a 1965-vintage Vietnam replay. Don't bomb Hanoi, for that might provoke the Chinese; don't bomb the Ho Chi Minh trail, for that might provoke Moscow. Just stay with attempting at shooting North Vietnamese trucks once they've safely reached South Vietnam. As in: Don't attack Al Qaida in Waziristan, as that might provoke Pakistani islamists into action. Just try to repel the Taliban proxies.

Waging the War on Terror that way comes down to fighting for keeping Hamid Karzai in power. To protect a particular president, though - that is not what Nato invoked Article V for.

To deal with the Pakistan Al Qaida stronghold, that is what Nato invoked it for.

It is of no consequence to the European Nato allies whether the Afghan president is named Karzai or anything else once Al Qaida has been driven out of Afghanistan's neighborhood.

What we witness instead is a Nato alliance waging an unofficial war of attrition against Pakistan's unofficial ally, the Taliban, without so much of a clear goal except the mystifying "We have to prevail"-slogan Robert McNamara was so apt to utter in 1965. Today, the West appears bent on reenacting it.

I have supported the Iraq War to topple Saddam, and I still support it. But the Afghanistan sequel to 2001 is on a dangerous course, based on political indecisiveness and politically induced ambiguous war goals.

Under these circumstances, better get out there in time. The Pakistani Al Qaida friends are on the march anyway, regardless of what we do in Afghanistan. They perceive the Taliban and Al Qaida to be their allies against Indian predominance. Nato is but a pawn in that struggle, conveniently stoking Anti-Western sentiments by our helpless ways to deal with the Taliban.

Nato Article V - it is either going after Al Qaida proper, or leave.

[muck]

How would a "real military european system" help prevent such things? It'd still be German troops and would still be up to the parlament to authorise the deployment.

You need armed developpment workers in Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan is much more complex and harder to solve than a war. Probably the one most important thing necessary for a succes is time. As mentioned before this country is in a state of war for nearly 40 years now. It'll not take a couple of years but generations of Afghans to change the course of this country. There's no fast Afghan solution.

Exactly. And I doubt there will be a success soon if we do not quickly increase our development aid for Afghanistan, a second Marshall-Plan so to say. That was the basis for the quick rise of Germany after WW2 - not because we were so happy to finally have a democracy here. Demoncracy only had been the concomitant of the new wealth and was therefore accepted as something good.

[Sharp]

How would a "real military european system" help prevent such things?

someone said in a previous post that this decision was mainly politic from a german party wich wanted to keep some german voters.

so if the biggest military deployments are made on an european/another level (than the political one), then the military wouldnt have to "care" about the political problems and games of each party for each country, this is what i were saying, for the big lines :).

[muck]

As the very first result of the introduction of such a system, many people would demand to resign from the EU...