The antihero
06-15-2007, 08:10
Here is an arcticle published by German magazine Der Spiegel, about alleged contrasts between NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
My personal feeling about the article itself is that much of the diatribe sparks, no less than in my own country (Italy), from internal German politics. I also spot the "blame America first" syndrome that has been commonplace in western Europe since 9/12/2001 (9/11 most people were still too shocked to talk) here and there.
Wretched internal politics apart, I'm also curious about the operational aspects of the story(the ISAF OEF contrasts and all that) about which, not being military and having not been in Afghanistan, I refrain from armchair strategizing.
I'd be interested in your opinions, especially because, among other things, in the article accusations are moved against U.S. Special Forces.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,485289,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Flares Anew about German Military Mission
By Ralf Beste, Konstantin von Hammerstein and Alexander Szandar
The deaths of 21 German soldiers and a confusing chain of command in Afghanistan will have consequences for the "unlimited solidarity" former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder once assured the United States. Germany may withdraw from Operation Enduring Freedom.
Berlin is mulling over its future role in Afghanistan.
The disaster fits neatly into five and a half lines: That's all the military analysts at the Bonn-based military operations headquarters need to paint a realistic picture of the daily violence in their confidential report for the German defense minister. It takes less than six lines of data, facts and figures to sum up the dilemma the West faces in Afghanistan.
During the three-day period from May 18-20, NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) documented "61 security incidents nationwide," the German military analysts wrote in last Monday's report. Two incidents occurred in the area covered by Regional Command North, which is led by the German armed forces, or Bundeswehr. Twenty-one others occurred in the east, and 38 in the south, in a region where Dutch troops are stationed. The 61 incidents, according to the report, included "exchange of fire/battles (40 times), attacks with explosives (14 times), including three suicide bombings (in Kandahar, Kunduz and Paktia provinces), and indirect fire (7 times)." Three ISAF soldiers were killed and 20 wounded in the "incidents."
It was a dramatic weekend, all things considered, and yet the report's authors coolly summarize it as follows: "The nature and number of incidents, as well as their geographic distribution, are typical of similar periods in recent weeks."
But it was atypical for the Bundeswehr, the German military. This time three men from Bonn, Kiel and the town of Crumstadt in Hesse fell victim to a suicide bomb in a market in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz. Each new wooden coffin that is unloaded to the sound of drum rolls in a Spartan aircraft hangar at a German Air Force base at Cologne-Wahn increases the level of distress in Germany, not only among the soldiers' comrades and family members, but also in the public eye. The operation in Afghanistan has already cost 21 German soldiers' lives.
Dangerous Escalation
The campaign in Afghanistan, conceived as a swift crusade against the Taliban when the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were still fresh in our minds, is turning into an ongoing conflict. Instead of the peace it was intended to bring to the country, the ISAF effort has become a bitter conflict in which Western troops face off against Islamist jihadists and the country's many warlords.
Politicians in Berlin have reacted nervously to the escalation. The German parliament, the Bundestag, will be faced with a decision on whether to extend what are currently three separate Bundeswehr mandates in Afghanistan: Germany's participation in ISAF, the NATO-led force mandated by the United Nations Security Council, the deployment of six German Tornado reconnaissance aircraft, and the involvement of up to 100 German special forces troops in the US-led effort to combat terrorism in Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
The 100 or so German Special Forces troops, part of the anti-terrorist "Operation Enduring Freedom" (OEF), may be coming home.
The 100 or so German Special Forces troops, part of the anti-terrorist "Operation Enduring Freedom" (OEF), may be coming home.
The last three German deaths in the Kunduz market have triggered a vocal debate in Germany over the sense and purpose of the country's involvement in Afghanistan.
The troops themselves have proven surprisingly resilient. When German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier paid a visit to the Bundeswehr's ISAF camp in Kunduz, he came to boost the spirits of the troops. He planned to remind them of the dark days under the Taliban, when women were stoned to death and girls were not allowed to attend school. But his planned pep talk seemed unnecessary. "We can't give up now," said one of the soldiers, "otherwise their lives will have been sacrificed for nothing."
Steinmeier met with a reconstruction team of about 20 soldiers and civilian personnel at the barracks early Tuesday morning, and after overcoming their initial shock, they all, by and large, seemed motivated to continue. But the same resoluteness wasn't in evidence on the home front. The small Left Party has called for Germany to withdraw from Afghanistan altogether; the larger Green Party and even some members of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) want to see German troops withdraw from Operation Enduring Freedom. In an interview with DER SPIEGEL, SPD party chairman Kurt Beck called for a "review" of the mission, and even Chancellor Angela Merkel, a pro-American Christian Democrat, has indicated her support of the review.
The core issue revolves around how "military" the West's military mission ought to be. Is the German approach in northern Afghanistan -- integrating security and development aid -- the right one? Or are the Americans and the British more successful with their hard-hitting, offensive strikes against insurgents in the contested south and east? Or is it possible that the US-British approach is in fact jeopardizing the Germans' small measure of success in the north?
Accepting Civilian Casualties
Germany's involvement in OEF is especially controversial in parliament because so many see the operation as a symbol of a ruthless US military campaign that continually causes -- and accepts as collateral damage -- civilian casualties. "We cannot accept that the actions of an ally, the United States, in which many innocent lives are lost, jeopardizes the success of NATO's entire ISAF operation," says Jürgen Trittin, a Green politician.
The German contribution to ISAF, NATO's mission to Afghanistan, is less in doubt.
Critics can cite reports from soldiers stationed in the country to reinforce their cause: Many are now saying that although anti-terrorism operations were important in the past, they've become less vital than civilian reconstruction. Peaceful methods used in the north, they point out, are the most effective for generating popular support.
One German officer says the necessary relationships can only develop as a result of years of cooperation. They can also be destroyed by a single air strike. The US anti-terrorism units' uncompromising approach touches upon a sensitive issue in civilian-military reconstruction work. According to the German officer, the diplomats and NATO forces often work out compromises with former warlords or clan leaders. Although these people belong "before the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague," they play an important, temporary part in pacifying the region. If the Afghan partners were attacked, says the German officer, the difficult task of bringing stability to the region could fail.
Opponents of OEF point out the differences between the American use of brute force and ISAF's more level-headed approach. But even these units have long been embroiled in struggles against "military opposition forces," the military's euphemistic term for the unholy alliance of the Taliban, Al-Qaida, the drug mafia and the militias of various warlords. The Afghans, say OEF's critics, lost sight of the differences between the various Western military formations long ago.
The offices of ISAF and OEF are located only a few blocks apart in Kabul. Each of the two organizations has one officer assigned to the other organization's military staff to "deconflict" in sensitive situations. According to one German general, "two different operations in one country make for a sporting challenge."
The two command centers are supposed to carve out different "conflict zones," which they then reserve for themselves. But in reality the two sides -- Americans, in particular -- tend to play their cards tight to the chest. "The left hand often doesn't know what the right hand is doing," says Winfried Nachtwei, a Green Party military expert who recently visited Kabul on a fact-finding mission, along with fellow Greens Jürgen Tritten and Renate Künast. In truth, said Elke Hoff, a member of Germany's Free Democratic Party (FDP) as well as the parliamentary defense committee, after a visit to Afghanistan there is "total confusion." Even the defense minister has the "impression" that some campaigns are "not coordinated."
Continued
My personal feeling about the article itself is that much of the diatribe sparks, no less than in my own country (Italy), from internal German politics. I also spot the "blame America first" syndrome that has been commonplace in western Europe since 9/12/2001 (9/11 most people were still too shocked to talk) here and there.
Wretched internal politics apart, I'm also curious about the operational aspects of the story(the ISAF OEF contrasts and all that) about which, not being military and having not been in Afghanistan, I refrain from armchair strategizing.
I'd be interested in your opinions, especially because, among other things, in the article accusations are moved against U.S. Special Forces.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,485289,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Flares Anew about German Military Mission
By Ralf Beste, Konstantin von Hammerstein and Alexander Szandar
The deaths of 21 German soldiers and a confusing chain of command in Afghanistan will have consequences for the "unlimited solidarity" former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder once assured the United States. Germany may withdraw from Operation Enduring Freedom.
Berlin is mulling over its future role in Afghanistan.
The disaster fits neatly into five and a half lines: That's all the military analysts at the Bonn-based military operations headquarters need to paint a realistic picture of the daily violence in their confidential report for the German defense minister. It takes less than six lines of data, facts and figures to sum up the dilemma the West faces in Afghanistan.
During the three-day period from May 18-20, NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) documented "61 security incidents nationwide," the German military analysts wrote in last Monday's report. Two incidents occurred in the area covered by Regional Command North, which is led by the German armed forces, or Bundeswehr. Twenty-one others occurred in the east, and 38 in the south, in a region where Dutch troops are stationed. The 61 incidents, according to the report, included "exchange of fire/battles (40 times), attacks with explosives (14 times), including three suicide bombings (in Kandahar, Kunduz and Paktia provinces), and indirect fire (7 times)." Three ISAF soldiers were killed and 20 wounded in the "incidents."
It was a dramatic weekend, all things considered, and yet the report's authors coolly summarize it as follows: "The nature and number of incidents, as well as their geographic distribution, are typical of similar periods in recent weeks."
But it was atypical for the Bundeswehr, the German military. This time three men from Bonn, Kiel and the town of Crumstadt in Hesse fell victim to a suicide bomb in a market in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz. Each new wooden coffin that is unloaded to the sound of drum rolls in a Spartan aircraft hangar at a German Air Force base at Cologne-Wahn increases the level of distress in Germany, not only among the soldiers' comrades and family members, but also in the public eye. The operation in Afghanistan has already cost 21 German soldiers' lives.
Dangerous Escalation
The campaign in Afghanistan, conceived as a swift crusade against the Taliban when the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were still fresh in our minds, is turning into an ongoing conflict. Instead of the peace it was intended to bring to the country, the ISAF effort has become a bitter conflict in which Western troops face off against Islamist jihadists and the country's many warlords.
Politicians in Berlin have reacted nervously to the escalation. The German parliament, the Bundestag, will be faced with a decision on whether to extend what are currently three separate Bundeswehr mandates in Afghanistan: Germany's participation in ISAF, the NATO-led force mandated by the United Nations Security Council, the deployment of six German Tornado reconnaissance aircraft, and the involvement of up to 100 German special forces troops in the US-led effort to combat terrorism in Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
The 100 or so German Special Forces troops, part of the anti-terrorist "Operation Enduring Freedom" (OEF), may be coming home.
The 100 or so German Special Forces troops, part of the anti-terrorist "Operation Enduring Freedom" (OEF), may be coming home.
The last three German deaths in the Kunduz market have triggered a vocal debate in Germany over the sense and purpose of the country's involvement in Afghanistan.
The troops themselves have proven surprisingly resilient. When German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier paid a visit to the Bundeswehr's ISAF camp in Kunduz, he came to boost the spirits of the troops. He planned to remind them of the dark days under the Taliban, when women were stoned to death and girls were not allowed to attend school. But his planned pep talk seemed unnecessary. "We can't give up now," said one of the soldiers, "otherwise their lives will have been sacrificed for nothing."
Steinmeier met with a reconstruction team of about 20 soldiers and civilian personnel at the barracks early Tuesday morning, and after overcoming their initial shock, they all, by and large, seemed motivated to continue. But the same resoluteness wasn't in evidence on the home front. The small Left Party has called for Germany to withdraw from Afghanistan altogether; the larger Green Party and even some members of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) want to see German troops withdraw from Operation Enduring Freedom. In an interview with DER SPIEGEL, SPD party chairman Kurt Beck called for a "review" of the mission, and even Chancellor Angela Merkel, a pro-American Christian Democrat, has indicated her support of the review.
The core issue revolves around how "military" the West's military mission ought to be. Is the German approach in northern Afghanistan -- integrating security and development aid -- the right one? Or are the Americans and the British more successful with their hard-hitting, offensive strikes against insurgents in the contested south and east? Or is it possible that the US-British approach is in fact jeopardizing the Germans' small measure of success in the north?
Accepting Civilian Casualties
Germany's involvement in OEF is especially controversial in parliament because so many see the operation as a symbol of a ruthless US military campaign that continually causes -- and accepts as collateral damage -- civilian casualties. "We cannot accept that the actions of an ally, the United States, in which many innocent lives are lost, jeopardizes the success of NATO's entire ISAF operation," says Jürgen Trittin, a Green politician.
The German contribution to ISAF, NATO's mission to Afghanistan, is less in doubt.
Critics can cite reports from soldiers stationed in the country to reinforce their cause: Many are now saying that although anti-terrorism operations were important in the past, they've become less vital than civilian reconstruction. Peaceful methods used in the north, they point out, are the most effective for generating popular support.
One German officer says the necessary relationships can only develop as a result of years of cooperation. They can also be destroyed by a single air strike. The US anti-terrorism units' uncompromising approach touches upon a sensitive issue in civilian-military reconstruction work. According to the German officer, the diplomats and NATO forces often work out compromises with former warlords or clan leaders. Although these people belong "before the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague," they play an important, temporary part in pacifying the region. If the Afghan partners were attacked, says the German officer, the difficult task of bringing stability to the region could fail.
Opponents of OEF point out the differences between the American use of brute force and ISAF's more level-headed approach. But even these units have long been embroiled in struggles against "military opposition forces," the military's euphemistic term for the unholy alliance of the Taliban, Al-Qaida, the drug mafia and the militias of various warlords. The Afghans, say OEF's critics, lost sight of the differences between the various Western military formations long ago.
The offices of ISAF and OEF are located only a few blocks apart in Kabul. Each of the two organizations has one officer assigned to the other organization's military staff to "deconflict" in sensitive situations. According to one German general, "two different operations in one country make for a sporting challenge."
The two command centers are supposed to carve out different "conflict zones," which they then reserve for themselves. But in reality the two sides -- Americans, in particular -- tend to play their cards tight to the chest. "The left hand often doesn't know what the right hand is doing," says Winfried Nachtwei, a Green Party military expert who recently visited Kabul on a fact-finding mission, along with fellow Greens Jürgen Tritten and Renate Künast. In truth, said Elke Hoff, a member of Germany's Free Democratic Party (FDP) as well as the parliamentary defense committee, after a visit to Afghanistan there is "total confusion." Even the defense minister has the "impression" that some campaigns are "not coordinated."
Continued