Germany rebuffs U.S. on redeployment of troops to southern Afghanistan

[Afro-European]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/01/europe/germany.php

[Ought Six]

Maybe NATO has outlived its usefulness.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Maybe the US should have finished one job before embarking on another.

[Niels]

Maybe NATO wasn't created for these "free the people and bring democracy" missions.

[muck]

They peg away at their demands. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen and Nato Secretary General De Hopp Scheffer have asked Berlin to commit more troops, too. That's perfect, haul these cowards I've unfortunately voted for over the coals. I don't suppose it will show effect, but at least it makes them stand there disgraced.

:D
And they're already giving in: Bernd Siebert, a defense legislator of the ruling CDU-party, has pointed out that the Bundeswehr could easily expand its engagement to the South to disburden allies there, with special fields of activity, for example with reconnaissance forces, if "the military wants the expansion and regard it as feasible".

Similiar was the reaction of Rainer Arnold, a defense legislator of the co-ruling SPD party.

[ting]

I think Norway got the same message from Gates, and the answer will be no if it hasn`t been replied to already. We are at max peacetime deployment more or less already.

Anyway I think the letter was a generic one to all those not in the south. This is just a political gimmick in preparation for the upcomming Nato summits. Norway is preparing a strategy argument of it`s own for the summits.

[Roy Batty]

Well NATO has told Canada it will get the troops/choppers it requested. From who is unclear but NATO says it will find them.

If not then I guess this will be my last trip to Afghanistan.

[Switek]

I'm not suprised with such "official" answer. But being more aware of the siutation I wouldn't be supriseds also if Germany would deploy some combat units to the South soon, or in some time anyway.

[LoboCanada]

The Poles were sending 1,000 over to the South. Anyone know where in the south?

[Switek]

The Poles were sending 1,000 over to the South. Anyone know where in the south?


I don't know about Poles in the South except about 120 GROM operators stationed in Kandahar. But thrre are plenty of controversy about they combat commitment due to allied commanding... The rest of Polish combat forces are more of the East in Ghazni and Paktika provinces.

[Shellshock1918]

Maybe NATO wasn't created for these "free the people and bring democracy" missions.

+1 on that

[Ought Six]

N:
"Maybe NATO wasn't created for these "free the people and bring democracy" missions."So the Afghanistan campaign was not about destroying the Taliban because they allied themselves with al Qaeda during and after 9/11? And has al Qaeda not attacked Europe as well? Are we not directly attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters and leaders in Afghanistan, and in cross-border covert strikes into Pakistan? How soon we forget.

But you are right in at least one sense. Cooperation with NATO and the UN have had America expending resources on things like interfering with the attempted genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo. That is Europe's backyard, and we should have left it entirely to them to clean up or ignore as they saw fit instead of inserting ourselves into the situation. On another thread, several Europeans made it clear that they felt there was no major military threat to the European continent, and that threat from the Soviets was the raison de etre for NATO in the first place. So NATO is really obsolete, and should be disbanded.

[signatory]

N:So the Afghanistan campaign was not about destroying the Taliban because they allied themselves with al Qaeda during and after 9/11? And has al Qaeda not attacked Europe as well? Are we not directly attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters and leaders in Afghanistan, and in cross-border covert strikes into Pakistan? How soon we forget.

Hm. Someone might be confused.

Basically what you're talking about is what the US led OEF-A was and is doing. OEF-A was launched by the US with limited support from individual allies notably Great Britain. And is still the prime force in hunting down Al-Qaeda over there.

The now NATO led ISAF of which most European countries - and others - is part of has a peace-enforcement mandate. To assist the Afghan government in the rebuilding of that country.

So what did "we" forget ?


So NATO is really obsolete, and should be disbanded.

Meh. NATO is and has always been a paper tiger. To disband or not.. really doesn't matter at all. But what exactly has NATO got to do with international terrorism ? Why did you make it a part of the subject ?

[Afro-European]

In my humble opinion,many Nato countries are starting to see the "war on terror" more as a US thing that theirs.Hence their reluctance to send more troops in A'stan.I also must add the harsh words held by Robert Gates didn't help either.
By nature NATO is a defensive organization incapable of deploying peacekeeping troops without at least several weeks of debate , much less anything aggresive or spectacular.

[Kitsune]

In my humble opinion,many Nato countries are starting to see the "war on terror" more as a US thing that theirs.
I think you have no reason to be overly humble there, since your assessment is quite right. This seems indeed to be the feeling all over the board, from Canada over the UK, Dutchland, Germany and Poland right up to Japan. Nonetheless, I find the German governments behaviour (in particular) very shameful. We are indeed proving to be an untrustworthy ally, who only feigns support but is holding back where things get dangerous.*Sigh*
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with not joining in on a mission but if one does one should be true to ones word.

[Roy Batty]

I This seems indeed to be the feeling all over the board, from Canada over the UK, Dutchland, Germany and Poland right up to Japan.

I have not seen any indication from the Canadians on this board that they view the WOT as an "American thing".

[klong]

Germany. What a villain for not sending troops to the south !

Think carefully. There will be serious reasons for this, which are not common knowlege at the moment.

They will not be purely domestic concerns.

My guess is that Germany is waiting for competent leadership to return to the US at the end of this year.

[boy1000]

Gents

From a Danish point of View NATO is dead and should be disbanded. As a Dane seeing allot of Danish equipment and Personnel going to AFG, where most of the personnel fighting almost on a regular basis in Southern Afghanistan it is ridiculous to see and hear countries like France and Germany reject of strengthen the fights in Southern Afghanistan.

Denmark are talking of deploying F 16 to Kandahar simply because we feel a need for more dedicated air capacity. We are talking of deploying SOF in larger scales to Support our troops.

This simply because if there is ANY justified war at this stage in the world, I would say this one. We in the west initiated this one in the 80, we MUST finish it.

I am horrified over the statements that has been said. I think we must simply be more flexible, and simply look at Afghanistan as a hole country and fight the enemy in the many shapes and forms around the country.

Am I alone here??

[boy1000]

Germany. What a villain for not sending troops to the south !

Think carefully. There will be serious reasons for this, which are not common knowlege at the moment.

They will not be purely domestic concerns.

My guess is that Germany is waiting for competent leadership to return to the US at the end of this year.

Ohhh Afghanistan is only a US problem????

[Macs.]

My guess is that Germany is waiting for competent leadership to return to the US at the end of this year.

No... I don't think that is the reason at all.

The reason is that german politicans don't have enough of a spine, and the ruling parties are currently in a (election-)battle with each other, and a extra-problem like a open combat deployment would be a extra burden for them.

IMO there is two option we should follow:

1. Take the deploment with all it's "disadvantages".

2. Leave.

But this 50% deployment isn't getting us anywhere. The ones who have to put up with the shortcomings of this political ****-up are our soldier on the ground, who have been placed in a situation where they get shot at, bombed, and have no rights to fully defend themselvs from future attacks.

[muck]

Germany. What a villain for not sending troops to the south !
Think carefully. There will be serious reasons for this, which are not common knowlege at the moment.
They will not be purely domestic concerns.
My guess is that Germany is waiting for competent leadership to return to the US at the end of this year.

Macs has pointed out the most important issue. Both currently ruling parties are keen to win the next general elections to not be reliant on each other anymore. Those who reject a more intense engagement in Afghanistan will gain more votes, it's that simple.

But there are also technical issues. Gates has demanded a batallion of mountain infantry and roughly a dozen medium transport helicopters.

The German army is interspersed with conscripts, and the mountain infantry units don't even have their targeted strength. To deploy a batallion of 1000 mountain infantry soldiers, the MoD had to go on "heroes theft", i.e. they would take the personnel from many different units which would leave the 23rd mountain infantry brigade in a seriously out-thinned state.

Concerning the helicopters, the situation is even worse. Indeed, Germany has nearly 100 CH-53 medium transport helicopters, but only twenty of them are configured as "GS", what means they are combat ready for deployment in battled areas with rough climatic conditions. Six of them are permanently stationed in Afghanistan, six are in pre-deployment exercises and examinations, six are follow-up and again in technical examinations - only two were left then for Afghanistan, but as far as I know, they are held in readiness for MEDEVAC and special operations in other crisis areas.

I doubt that we will see a greater change in Germany's Afghanistan ORBAT prior to the general elections in 2009. Period.

[MJC9678]

Are there any German servicemen on this board? I remember reading some stuff about how full Germany's military was of muslim immigrants who join just for the paycheck. Senior officers do not trust them at all in combat and it is a big problem. Any truth to this?

[Macs.]

Are there any German servicemen on this board? I remember reading some stuff about how full Germany's military was of muslim immigrants who join just for the paycheck. Senior officers do not trust them at all in combat and it is a big problem. Any truth to this?



Where did you read that ?

There are (no real data) around 1000 to 2000 Muslims in the German army, with a manpower of 250.000. And you know, rumors say there are Muslims who are not extremists... :roll:

[MJC9678]

Where did you read that ?

There are (no real data) around 1000 to 2000 Muslims in the German army, with a manpower of 250.000. And you know, rumors say there are Muslims who are not extremists... :roll:

think it came off strategypage.com some time last year...

[boy1000]

Macs has pointed out the most important issue. Both currently ruling parties are keen to win the next general elections to not be reliant on each other anymore. Those who reject a more intense engagement in Afghanistan will gain more votes, it's that simple.

But there are also technical issues. Gates has demanded a batallion of mountain infantry and roughly a dozen medium transport helicopters.

The German army is interspersed with conscripts, and the mountain infantry units don't even have their targeted strength. To deploy a batallion of 1000 mountain infantry soldiers, the MoD had to go on "heroes theft", i.e. they would take the personnel from many different units which would leave the 23rd mountain infantry brigade in a seriously out-thinned state.

Concerning the helicopters, the situation is even worse. Indeed, Germany has nearly 100 CH-53 medium transport helicopters, but only twenty of them are configured as "GS", what means they are combat ready for deployment in battled areas with rough climatic conditions. Six of them are permanently stationed in Afghanistan, six are in pre-deployment exercises and examinations, six are follow-up and again in technical examinations - only two were left then for Afghanistan, but as far as I know, they are held in readiness for MEDEVAC and special operations in other crisis areas.

I doubt that we will see a greater change in Germany's Afghanistan ORBAT prior to the general elections in 2009. Period.

Thank you both to enlighten me, we unfortunately here in DK, have our share of "Politicians".

I have GREAT respect for German MILL, and could really see the need for you there....

[boy1000]

think it came off strategypage.com some time last year...

Stratypage.com ???? Says it all....

[RSone]

Kitsune, did you just call The Netherlands Dutchland?:| :bash:
Although people say NATO is no longer usefull, please remember that it is the member countries that have made it useless.

[guest]

Eurowiesels have struck again...

Man, what happened to the Germans.. they terrified all of Europe..

Herr Bismark must be rolling in his grave....

[Navor]

Remembe the 4 big D after WW2? One of those worked just to well.

[He219]

In my humble opinion,many Nato countries are starting to see the "war on terror" more as a US thing that theirs..
I suppose Genocide in the Balkans was also more of a European thing too.
:roll:

[Kitsune]

Are there any German servicemen on this board? I remember reading some stuff about how full Germany's military was of muslim immigrants who join just for the paycheck. Senior officers do not trust them at all in combat and it is a big problem. Any truth to this?

I don't know where you have this from, but: no, that is not true. That is not the problem.







Kitsune, did you just call The Netherlands Dutchland?
Sorry about that. I'll try to get it under control.

[Celeon999]

First of all hi everyone !



There are several key factors

- The ruling parties that due to the vote outcome at the last elections have been forced to form a coalition, are opposed to each other like republicans and democrats in the USA. Maybe even a bit more. Imagine Bush and Clinton having to make a agreement before making a single decision on something.

- The german constitution says that the german military is solely a defense force nothing less but also nothing more.

- The Bush administration has effectively no real friends in neither of the both ruling german parties.

- The historical aspect that i dont have to explain as you all know it.

- The german public opinion is largely against any involvement into Afghanistan at all. Mainly because Afghanistan nor the Taliban are seen as a serious threat to german security by the public as there simply never were any terror attacks or attempts prior to Germany's participation in the Astan mission.

- There have been some scandals. The stuff with the bones you surely heard about and which is a image thingy.

But also actions that violated the mandate like german ISAF forces operating with Dutch and Norwegian forces out of their designated areas.

Germany's military counter spionage and intelligence service MAD operating against alleged IED workshops although they had no allowance for such operations and it is not covered by the mandate either. That damaged the image of the mission even more as it revived the old "once again the military gives a **** about the law and gets out of control" allegations.

The mission became only possible with the not really solid explanation that Germany's security can and has also to be defended in Afghanistan if necessary. Non solid as there was not the slightest proof that Afghanistan posed a threat to anyone but the USA.

The german constitution says nothing to this. It does not explicitly forbid such a mission but it does not explicitely allow it either. The magic word stays "Defense" that leaves almost no room for "premptive offensive". Its a legal grey room. Everything happening here can theoreticly be approved or declared illegal at any point in the future. And the constitution has more weight than any NATO commitments of course.

The opposers of the mission keep refering to this while the supporters have only little ammo they use to proof that the mission was really necessary to guarantee the safety of Germany in the first place.

They can point to terror attacks elsewhere in Europe or the attempted attacks in Germany but have no proof of a connection to Afghanistan nor the Taliban, nor Al Qaeda.

The german politicians that have to deal with that situation have created their own little security political dream world in which some NATO allies fight and the others that doesnt have it that easy to make such decisions do the reconstruction work.

Thats the easiest way for them as they dont have to deal with problems which i described above. Reconstruction work with a ISAF mandate is easy justifiable and does not conflict with anything.

Of course this is nonsense but the reality is too problematic to find a easy solution that doesnt put their necks into a sling.

Did i mention that it was the USA who participated in writing the german consitution after ww2 ? Ironically, you could say that Mr.Gates politically fathers wrote the "Nuts !" on the answer to his letter. :)

In an interview, german defense minister Jung said that Gates gave the opposers of the german mission even more ammo through his letter. He would surely like to do more but he cant as his neck is in the political sling as anyone elses is.

The QRF is something different. Its a "REACTION" force not a action force. They go to help NATO partner or afghan forces who need them. In defense of course.

In reality there is no difference to the combat in south but in political terms this is enough to shove it down the opposers throats.

Im sure NATO will put more pressure on Germany Thursday next week. But one thing is sure Gates and NATO can get nothing more but a few smaller concessions to what they actually want no matter how much pressure. ;)



Long first post , i know sorry ;)

[Kitsune]

Germany's military counter spionage and intelligence service MAD operating against alleged IED workshops although they had no allowance for such operations and it is not covered by the mandate either. That damaged the image of the mission even more as it revived the old "once again the military gives a **** about the law and gets out of control" allegations.
One should perhaps mention here that no foreign military intelligence service has to operate under even similiar ridiculous restriction as the German MAD. As a matter of fact, its operatives are not even allowed to leave a foreign military base themselves - they have to rely solely on asking returning soldiers what they have seen outside. It is simply hillarious. I wonder what an American DIA member would say if he had to operate within such limits.

As far as these 'German military "giving a sh1t" about the law and getting out of control again' allegations are concerned, that one hears in Germany from some politcians time after time, I always wondered what they are referring to exactly. When did something like this even happen? If I remember that correctly, it was politics that was far more out of control during the 3rd Reich than the military - Hitler was a politician, not a general, after all. The only one time in German history when the military truly gave a sh1t about the law and were mounting a coup d'etat was during the incident when Stauffenberg tried to kill Hitler and its aftermarth.
Sorry, but these are all rather empty excuses. The real reasons for what Germany is doing in Afghanistan (or better: not doing), are political ones.

[Vandervahn]

...If I remember that correctly, it was politics that was far more out of control during the 3rd Reich than the military - Hitler was a politician, not a general, after all. The only one time in German history when the military truly gave a sh1t about the law and were mounting a coup d'etat was during the incident when Stauffenberg tried to kill Hitler and its aftermarth. ...

Hitler was the Commander in chief and therefor "part" of the military as well. And in both World wars the military was so isolated and self-centered on their causes that they did not do anything vital to stop the madness that was happening all around them ("Betriebsblindheit" would be a fitting description p-)). A majority of all the revolts and insubordinations were actually only to correct failures within the military, and most of all those great leaders that have a boatload of books written about their great chivalrous character just closed their eyes in front of the atrocities they dutifully carried out.

Now, what is the bottom line? The military has proven that it is uncapable of acting reasonable for prolonged periods of time without independent oversight and guidance, in Germanys case the parliament, because the civil reality is a lot more complicated. And this civil reality says that a large majority of Germans do not want to get into a full-fledged war situation - and any responsible government can only act against the public will to a certain degree regardless of how reasonable that public will is.

The governments of present and past HAVE already leaned out of the window quite far with their military commitments, and if politicians REALLY would only follow the popular vote you wouldn´t see half as many foreign Bundeswehr operations as there are now. I think its a bit unfair to blame it all on the politicians, which is oh so fashionable on this board, while they are actually doing what they were elected to: to represent the will of the people, and weighing it against the raison d'Etat.

And as a last point, one shouldn´t forget that many of those nations openly or in back rooms pointing fingers at the unreliable Jerrys were VERY worried about the German comeback to influence, unity and economic power only a few years ago.

If you train your dog to be friendly to all visitors, then don´t expect him to bark at the burglar.

[ren0312]

Hitler was the Commander in chief and therefor "part" of the military as well. And in both World wars the military was so isolated and self-centered on their causes that they did not do anything vital to stop the madness that was happening all around them ("Betriebsblindheit" would be a fitting description p-)). A majority of all the revolts and insubordinations were actually only to correct failures within the military, and most of all those great leaders that have a boatload of books written about their great chivalrous character just closed their eyes in front of the atrocities they dutifully carried out.

Now, what is the bottom line? The military has proven that it is uncapable of acting reasonable for prolonged periods of time without independent oversight and guidance, in Germanys case the parliament, because the civil reality is a lot more complicated. And this civil reality says that a large majority of Germans do not want to get into a full-fledged war situation - and any responsible government can only act against the public will to a certain degree regardless of how reasonable that public will is.

The governments of present and past HAVE already leaned out of the window quite far with their military commitments, and if politicians REALLY would only follow the popular vote you wouldn´t see half as many foreign Bundeswehr operations as there are now. I think its a bit unfair to blame it all on the politicians, which is oh so fashionable on this board, while they are actually doing what they were elected to: to represent the will of the people, and weighing it against the raison d'Etat.

And as a last point, one shouldn´t forget that many of those nations openly or in back rooms pointing fingers at the unreliable Jerrys were VERY worried about the German comeback to influence, unity and economic power only a few years ago.

If you train your dog to be friendly to all visitors, then don´t expect him to bark at the burglar.

Well wasn't von Manstein and the German top brass doing their job at that time, fighting for their country I am sure that some of them, like von Runstedt(sp?),Rommel, von Tresckow, Halder and even Guderian did not like the Nazi's, if there are Nazi fanatics within the Heer, it mostly with the younger generation within the Whermacht and some divisions within the Waffen SS, most of the old guard within the Whermacht were fighting more for their country than to keep the Nazi's in power, although for the typical Soviet soldier fighting in the Ost front, for for the average Western allied POW it may all look the same, and that every German soldier is a devoted and fanatic Nazi and vice versa, the reason why the Whermacht did not revolt sooner was that a singnificant part of the Whermacht was led by Prussians, and as von Manstein said, Prussian generals just don't revolt.

[Kitsune]

Hitler was the Commander in chief and therefor "part" of the military as well.
Just like many other politicians who becomes head of state.





And in both World wars the military was so isolated and self-centered on their causes that they did not do anything vital to stop the madness that was happening all around them ("Betriebsblindheit" would be a fitting description ).
In both worldwars? I think I remember something like that from the late 90ties...Hell, could it be that this is happening right now, too?





A majority of all the revolts and insubordinations were actually only to correct failures within the military, and most of all those great leaders that have a boatload of books written about their great chivalrous character just closed their eyes in front of the atrocities they dutifully carried out.
I doubt that they acted much differently than leaders of any other military would have when their country is in a struggle for its mere survivial.






Now, what is the bottom line? The military has proven that it is uncapable of acting reasonable for prolonged periods of time without independent oversight and guidance...[...]
Haven't you just complained that the military acted too complacently and should have acted more independently than it did?






And this civil reality says that a large majority of Germans do not want to get into a full-fledged war situation - and any responsible government can only act against the public will to a certain degree regardless of how reasonable that public will is.
Governments everywhere are doing this all the time.






The governments of present and past HAVE already leaned out of the window quite far with their military commitments, and if politicians REALLY would only follow the popular vote you wouldn´t see half as many foreign Bundeswehr operations as there are now.
The governments of past and present have reduced our defense budget to a minimal level. They have signed treaties that forbid Germany to have nuclear weapons, in other words, they have chosen a policy that renders our armed forces incapable of effectively defending our country although the possibility to be able to do so exists - all it would need are a military budget of around 2.5% of our GDP (instead of only 1,3%) and around 100 to 150 nuclear warheads. But as it is, Germany is completely depending on our NATO allies for its defense. Should this nation ever be threatened by an foreign enemy again, the governments of the past and present you mentioned and also those of the future as well as the population they allegedly represent will be screaming and whining for Bundeswehr to defend this country, and they will plead to our allies that they send over troops and help - in other words that American, British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers will sacrifice their lives for Germany. I imagine that could be quite hard to explain to those soldiers why they should do so after the way we behaved in Afghanistan.

No Vandervahn. You are justifying a policy that simply can't be justified. Our politicians have said that we are helping to stabilize Afghanistan, they still do actually. We have committed ourselves to partake in this and that means going against the Taliban as well, that simply is a neccessity. Now we let others fight the fight, hell we are even giving the Canadians our best tanks so that they can fight with them for us. Which way you turn it, from which angle you look at it, this behaviour is mendacious. Hell, its not even really pacifist.

[Ought Six]

s:
"Meh. NATO is and has always been a paper tiger. To disband or not.. really doesn't matter at all. But what exactly has NATO got to do with international terrorism ? Why did you make it a part of the subject ?"I did not "make it part of the subject". It *is* the subject. The German troops are there on a NATO mission that they agreed to. They are fighting al Qaeda terrorists and their Talban allies. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

[Celeon999]

s:I did not "make it part of the subject". It *is* the subject. The German troops are there on a NATO mission that they agreed to. They are fighting al Qaeda terrorists and their Talban allies. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.


It is difficult as NATO was never created for something like this.

As it lost its necessity with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 (The soviet union was the only reason NATO was created), the members thought it would be a good idea to use it for action instead of reaction. They simply didnt want to give NATO up.

The NATO paragraphs cover a military attack by a country on NATO members not terror acts carried out by organisations or interest group cells.

There was a lot of "paragraph bending" and "reading between the lines" required to sell the public the story that the "NATO defense act" has been triggered by 9/11.
Remember that Afghanistan had no legal government and Al Qaeda carried out the attacks while the Taliban just aided them without participating in the attack themselves. And Afghanistan is made up of dozens of tribes and interest groups which have nothing to do with each other.
The NATO contracts are not nearly complex enough to get applied to this without a lot of "will" to do it anyway no matter if its backed by the paperwork.

Germany agreed to reconstruction and keeping security in their area of operations, in the north. Nothing more. Thats all that is written in the german mandate. And that was the only thing that made the public half-heartly approve of it.
The mandate also limits the number of troops to a maximum of 3500. Not a single one more.
That leaves very little room for flexibility. According to german law, the mandate cannot be changed once it has been approved or before it runs out in 1 year.

Gates letter came a few weeks too late. Thats his fault, as he knows that very well. Another mistake was to drag this through the media instead of waiting until the NATO summit with his requests.

Thats the ammunition the opposers need to tell the public that "now the sinking Bush administration tries to drag us into their failed middle east adventures"

But even if it would had come in time , there would had been no public support to change it accordingly.

In fact, saying yes to Gates proposals would have killed the fragile agreement between the opposing parties that made the mission possible at all and the approval majority within the parliament would had been gone.

Simply said, without support by the german public, there is no chance of any real participation of german forces in the fighting.

And where shall this support come from ? The public has simply no reason to support it.

Its a thing started by the Bush administration and they hate them like the plague. Do they want to have something to do with what he and his ilk do ? Hell no.

Maybe with a different government but definitly not with Bush or anyone connected to him. That train left the station when he invaded Iraq for invisible WMD's of which the german secret service said right from the beginning that they strongly doubt they exist.

Afghanistan does not affect them. Not a tiny terror attack here.

None of the attempted attacks had anything to do with Al Qaeda or Afghanistan. It were home grown wanna-be jihadists with rediculous motivations. (Mohammed Cartoons etc.) Simply not serious enough. Loose connections to single persons in Pakistan and Syria. How can killing Taliban in Afghanistan solve this problem ? They have no reason to believe there is any sense in that.

The USA's attitude of considering "keeping the world in order and free the unfree" as being a part of their military's duties does not exist in Germany.

The german army is there to ensure the well being of the german people. Not the well being of some other country. Thats at least what the constitution says and what is tought in schools since decades and therefore formed the opinion of people here.

A handful of politicians wont change that from today to tomorrow. At least you shouldnt expect it to happen next week or next year.

Without a german Pearl Harbor with Al Qaeda and the Taliban saying " Hey ho ! We've done this you stupid Krauts" you can forget the idea of german combat troops in Afghanistan.

Just like it was impossible for the USA without 9/11 as justification.

[oldsoak]

Perhpas the US could use the line that if Afghanistan is to Germany, then Kosovo is to the US - ie, the support that Europe wil lget in event of a war breaking out again in the Balkans is in direct proportion to their help in Afghanistan.
- this is of course without wishing to slight those such as the Danes and the Dutch.

[RSone]

Perhpas the US could use the line that if Afghanistan is to Germany, then Kosovo is to the US - ie, the support that Europe wil lget in event of a war breaking out again in the Balkans is in direct proportion to their help in Afghanistan.
- this is of course without wishing to slight those such as the Danes and the Dutch.

That probably won't work. If the USA pulls a stunt like that, the Dutch,Danes etc. would most likely tell the American to piss off when they're asked to go in again. It is the unfortunate consequence of dealing with europe, targetting one member nation,like germany, means you indirectly hurt the other member states as well.
(provided such a balkan operation would be conducted under a unified EU command, instead of NATO, or single nations doing their thing). IF such a thing happened BTW, the Dutch most likely wouldn't rely on their EU "allies"(just as we didn't take any chances with the deployment to Uruzghan) considering what happened last time we went in.

[sp2c]

s:I did not "make it part of the subject". It *is* the subject. The German troops are there on a NATO mission that they agreed to. They are fighting al Qaeda terrorists and their Talban allies. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

to an extend but it's not that simple.

ISAF was not created to fight al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban allies but "Helping to bring security, stability and foster development in Afghanistan" Rumsfeld and co wanted the fighting to be done allmost exclusively by (American) special forces and fast aircraft with high tech gizmo's and they would sweep areas as part of operation Enduring Freedom before ISAF expands into them.

some feel that the conditions for expansion to the south simply have not yet been met and all the fighting ISAF has to do has proven them right too!
and yes I do agree that that is a somewhat preUNPROFOR way of looking at such matters but that's what was agreed on

on the other hand these nations did all vote in favor of expanding so wether or not NATO still has any use is besides the point, they voted for it so they need to pitch in IMO ... you can't play war with somebody else's troopers

[oldsoak]

That probably won't work. If the USA pulls a stunt like that, the Dutch,Danes etc. would most likely tell the American to piss off when they're asked to go in again. It is the unfortunate consequence of dealing with europe, targetting one member nation,like germany, means you indirectly hurt the other member states as well.
(provided such a balkan operation would be conducted under a unified EU command, instead of NATO, or single nations doing their thing). IF such a thing happened BTW, the Dutch most likely wouldn't rely on their EU "allies"(just as we didn't take any chances with the deployment to Uruzghan) considering what happened last time we went in.

- perhaps thats the solution then. The US pulls out on Europe and does the whole Afghanistan thing with whoever elects to be its ally in the area. Once the fighting breaks out in the Balkans, the EU will have to get involved or be proved a paper tiger. In fact, the US would probably gain in its relationship with the Serbs over Europe. The worlds changed, its entirely possible for the US to reach an agreement with the new Russia at the expense of the Europeans - it might well be in their interests to try.

[RSone]

Of course this could backfire in a spectacular fashion on the USA, if the EU decides to step up to the plate.

[oldsoak]

We have to at sometime - better now when the fightings not too close to home.

[Celeon999]

Funny development : The first german politician has demanded that german troops are send to the south. And guess what, he's a leftist. *lol*

Some ex-generals support him but their word has no weight.

[Kletterbuxe]

That leaves very little room for flexibility. According to german law, the mandate cannot be changed once it has been approved or before it runs out in 1 year.

Gates letter came a few weeks too late. Thats his fault, as he knows that very well. Another mistake was to drag this through the media instead of waiting until the NATO summit with his requests.

What law are you talking about ? The Bundestag is absolutly free to change the mandate or approve a new one. The only thing missing is the political will to do so.

[Saubaatzi]

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
OUR CHIEF WEAPON IS....
:D

but seriously: I'm really surprised. this whole thing is getting more and more interesting...

[Celeon999]

What law are you talking about ? The Bundestag is absolutly free to change the mandate or approve a new one. The only thing missing is the political will to do so.


Thats what Jung said in an interview as he was asked about the possibility of changing the mandate.

He said a change to the mandate is not longer possible once the parliament approved its extension. This means you would first need to agree to end the current one prematurely and replace it with a completely new one if you want major changes to the mission. That alone would take weeks or even months of negotiations with people who dont want that at all.

[muck]

Thats what Jung said in an interview as he was asked about the possibility of changing the mandate.

He said a change to the mandate is not longer possible once the parliament approved its extension. This means you would first need to agree to end the current one prematurely and replace it with a completely new one if you want major changes to the mission. That alone would take weeks or even months of negotiations with people who dont want that at all.

I'd be really surprised if Jung actually had said that, because it is simply not true. At any given time and concerning any given subject, the "Regierungsbank" - all members of the Federal Cabinet or their deputies - has the right to submit a revised version of a time-limited mandate or bill to the Bundestag which subsequently has to determine whether it will be adopted or not. If the revised version includes a passage which clearly points out that it will seamlessly replace a predecessor, and receives a positive vote, then it can become effective overnight. The disputed Aerial Security Act had been changed on this way after a negative ruling of the Federal Supreme Court.
Concerning abroad deployments, a mandate of the Bundestag is nothing more than a simple authorization for the Minister of Defence to deploy troops. The exact content of the mandate, all tasks, rights, objectives and caveats have never ever been created by the Bundestag, but solely by three men: The Minister himself, and his two Secretaries-of-State.

[muck]

Some ex-generals support him but their word has no weight.

That's a matter of opinion. A row of former Chiefs of Defense and a Chief of Army Staff as well as the current Chief of Army Staff have more or less directly expressed their displeasure about the categorical "No" from Berlin, and their word has weight. Many of them have contracts as consultants of the MoD or regularly hold guest lectures at the universities of the Armed Forces, and General (ret.) Klaus Naumann is the most decorated German soldier since WW2.

[Kletterbuxe]

Thats what Jung said in an interview as he was asked about the possibility of changing the mandate.

He said a change to the mandate is not longer possible once the parliament approved its extension. This means you would first need to agree to end the current one prematurely and replace it with a completely new one if you want major changes to the mission. That alone would take weeks or even months of negotiations with people who dont want that at all.

According to my knowledge of constitutional law, that crap and just an excuse.

[Celeon999]

According to my knowledge of constitutional law, that crap and just an excuse.


Well, at least thats how i understood him. Cant check that as it was only a short TV interview while he was on the way somewhere.



That's a matter of opinion. A row of former Chiefs of Defense and a Chief of Army Staff as well as the current Chief of Army Staff have more or less directly expressed their displeasure about the categorical "No" from Berlin, and their word has weight. Many of them have contracts as consultants of the MoD or regularly hold guest lectures at the universities of the Armed Forces, and General (ret.) Klaus Naumann is the most decorated German soldier since WW2.

Not sure if the people in Berlin care about that. Putting out their "no" directly over the media and in such a short time after recieving the letter seems to show that they did not considered taking the military opinion into their decision for a single minute.

They've already said "No" a dozen times to all kind of media and that hints that they dont consider ruddering back from that opinion no matter what comes. At least they would loose all their credibility if they turn around 180 degrees after Thursday.

[muck]

According to my knowledge of constitutional law, that crap and just an excuse.
It is and excuse, and it is a shame that he can get away with that. Most Germans don't even know about the exact content of their laws.

[Ought Six]

sp2c:
"ISAF was not created to fight al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban allies but "Helping to bring security, stability and foster development in Afghanistan".A distinction without difference. We know who the threat is to the stablity, security and development of Afghanistan. Regardless of the political rhetoric, nobody had any illusions about who the ISAF was going to Afghanistan to fight.


=============================================================================

c999:
"Without a german Pearl Harbor with Al Qaeda and the Taliban saying " Hey ho ! We've done this you stupid Krauts" you can forget the idea of german combat troops in Afghanistan."Quite a sad commentary, but likely true. It is much like America sitting back in 1941, watching the Axis overrun much of the rest of the world while we did nothing. It took Pearl Harbor to bring us into the war. We were willing to turn our backs on other democracies and watch them go it alone. So I guess I cannot be too critical of Germany in that light, as we have done the same before. Hopefully all free nations will come to realize that we are fighting an infant world war here, and if we can nip Jihadism in the bud now and disempower it, we may save millions if not billions of lives down the road.

[sp2c]

sp2c:A distinction without difference. We know who the threat is to the stablity, security and development of Afghanistan. Regardless of the political rhetoric, nobody had any illusions about who the ISAF was going to Afghanistan to fight.


that doesn't really have anything to do with the points I made (or tried to make)

[Celeon999]

We will see what happens tomorrow. At least the takeover of the QRF is to 99 % certain.

Even the german army website published two articles on what the QRF is and how important it is and so on. Everything over the last week.

Surely more than just a coincidence.

[Celeon999]

As i expected.

Defence Minister Jung just officialy confirmed that Germany will take over the duty of the Quick Reaction Force this summer. The german army website also confirms this.

The soldiers will come from the 1st Panzerdivision in Hannover.

Equipment list :

Infantryman of the Future gear
Dingo 2
Wolf MMS
Marder 1A5 IFV (if requiered ! that means it will propably not be there right from the start)
CH53 GS
Mortars etc.


Hmmmmm.... no Fennek ?

[muck]

Latest press reports do indicate that four to five additional marders will be deployed to Afghanistan. And I'm sure that the Fennek will be also used - the current Norwegian QRF has received support by the Mixed Recce Coy's of PRTs Kunduz and Feyzabad, too, the latter being equipped with a whole bunch of Fenneks.

The first QRF contingent will come from 212th Armoured Batallion, Division Intervention Forces/ 1st Armoured, the successive contingents will be made up with troops from mechanized infantry batallions of 10th Armoured Division and then of 13th Mechanized Infantry Division. No airborne troops, contrary to first considerations.
Too bad, it would have been really cool to see the new 1st Light Infantry Regiment (Airborne) in action.

[Big Lebowski]

Hmmmmm.... no Fennek ?
Isent the Fennek only issued to Recce elements in the German army? thats probably why it's not listed in the panzerdevisions.

[Celeon999]

Isent the Fennek only issued to Recce elements in the German army? thats probably why it's not listed in the panzerdevisions.


Yes but its also suited for patrol missions which i understand are also part of the QRF. They feature more armour than the Wolf and have a remote controlled weapon station for mg3 or 40mm auto grenade launcher.

Isnt the QRF about adequate firepower ?

[muck]

1st Armoured Division disposes of an entire Recce Bn.
The Fenneks have been issued to all the Armoured Recce Bn's and Artillery Recce Bn's. Each German PRT has a recce platoon or a recce company in its protection elements. They have went into combat with the Norwegians before, and they will probably accompany the QRF again, just as some medical and logistics outfits will do.

Panzeraufklärer FTW!

[Celeon999]

Well they propably just forgot to mention it.

Does anyone know what the setup of norwegian QRF is at the moment ? Vehicles , weapons etc ?

[muck]

Well they propably just forgot to mention it.

Does anyone know what the setup of norwegian QRF is at the moment ? Vehicles , weapons etc ?
You better adress Marsuitor with that question, he was on tour with them last year.