Is NATO a military dinosaur?

[riksavage]

The following paragraphs are taken from the UK Times as quoted in the Australian - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21285093-31477,00.html

"AN extra battle group of up to 1500 British troops is to be sent to Afghanistan to take on the Taliban over the next few months, the British Government will announce today.

The extensive reinforcement, bringing the number of British troops in Afghanistan to about 7000, has been agreed with NATO after alliance partners failed to offer more infantry units to fight in the south.
General Bantz Craddock, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, had appealed to all NATO members to come up with additional troops during a meeting of defence ministers in Spain this month.
British officials said that apart from "a few bits and pieces", no one had offered any fighting troops. "We felt we couldn't wait any longer because it would risk unravelling all the achievements we have been making in the south, so we have offered another battle group," one said."

AGAIN the same nations are continuing to strengthen commitment to a NATO Sanctioned deployment whilst others hide behind restrictive caveats (Germany, France), or even worse are contenplating pulling their troops out all together (Italy).

How can NATO continue to function as a coordinated fighting-force if only a few countries step-up to the plate both financially and militarily? Worst case scenario countires not prepared to commit troops should be prepared to pay for others to do so.

 

[solo-007]

Hello for everybody!
I have a question? Is it possible to find a man which i have know before he was sant to Afghanistan. I have lost connection with him and have not information, is he alive or not. If anybody cane halp me, in all instance thanks for any halp!

 

[Waylander]

The problem is that our population is not ready for it.

We have been pacified for decades. We are a sovereign and united nations for 17 years.
Not using our army for pure combat missions outside of pure defense of our homeland is so deep-rooted in many of our people and even more in our politicians (From the left to the right irrelevant which party they belong to).


The situation is changing and has changed for years but I think you cannot expect it to change that fast and all out of a sudden we have the same attitude towards oversea missions like the UK or the Netherlands for example.

We now send a squadron of Recce Tornados to A-stan. I would expect that till the end of this year the idea of sending troops of us into the south is much more possible than now.

I don't agree with this behaviour but I understand it. The allies wanted us to wipe out every bit of militarism in our society. Cold war led to the need for new armies in both german countries in the '50s. But "holding us down" and preventing us from militarize further than the pure need for defense was the aim of both western and eastern WWII winners.
And we also learned of our history. We never wanted such a terrible thing like WWII happen again and so restricted us by ourself.

All of the ones crying about our behaviour should think about how surreal it is how many countries are now crying about us germans being to cowardly when it comes to the use of military forces and how they behaved before for decades.

As for payment.
We pay 18% of the NATO budget. This makes us the second largest contributer after the USA.
We also pay 8,7% for UN which makes us the third largest contributor after the USA and Japan.

I think we pay enough.

 

[Tasman]

The problem is that our population is not ready for it.

We have been pacified for decades. We are a sovereign and united nations for 17 years.
Not using our army for pure combat missions outside of pure defense of our homeland is so deep-rooted in many of our people and even more in our politicians (From the left to the right irrelevant which party they belong to).


The situation is changing and has changed for years but I think you cannot expect it to change that fast and all out of a sudden we have the same attitude towards oversea missions like the UK or the Netherlands for example.

We now send a squadron of Recce Tornados to A-stan. I would expect that till the end of this year the idea of sending troops of us into the south is much more possible than now.

I don't agree with this behaviour but I understand it. The allies wanted us to wipe out every bit of militarism in our society. Cold war led to the need for new armies in both german countries in the '50s. But "holding us down" and preventing us from militarize further than the pure need for defense was the aim of both western and eastern WWII winners.
And we also learned of our history. We never wanted such a terrible thing like WWII happen again and so restricted us by ourself.

All of the ones crying about our behaviour should think about how surreal it is how many countries are now crying about us germans being to cowardly when it comes to the use of military forces and how they behaved before for decades.

As for payment.
We pay 18% of the NATO budget. This makes us the second largest contributer after the USA.
We also pay 8,7% for UN which makes us the third largest contributor after the USA and Japan.

I think we pay enough.

I think the attitudes of the German, and also the Japanese population, towards overseas military interventions and commitments is very understandable and you've covered the German side well Waylander. I think it's inevitable that both Germany and Japan will again become substantial military powers that will, hopefully, play lead roles in western coalitions. Changing of entrenched attitudes takes time though and it’s not long ago that people in many of the countries now asking for greater commitments would have been horrified by the thought of powerful German or Japanese forces being deployed for other than purely homeland defence.

I think you've also made a good point about the financial contributions of Germany and Japan

Cheers

 

[riksavage]

I understand financial contributions to NATO are determined by the size of the member countries economy. Germany pays the most after the US simply because it has the second largest economy in NATO. Japan is not currently a member.

I thought the deal with NATO was an attack on one member is an attack on all, regardless of where that may take place. I accept this concept was originally aimed at stemming a potential Russian invasion, unfortunately the threat profile has now changed and the organization MUST adapt to survive. The current two-tiered system (can do's vs won't do's) cannot continue. The populations of countries like the UK, US, Canada and Holland are getting more and more frustrated waiting for others to sort out their internal politics whilst their troops are shedding blood on the ground undertaking the lions share of spear point operations! I appreciate the sensitivities associated with post WWII Germany and Japan, however that was decades ago and times have changed.

Resources wise for Afghanistan the UK will provide an additional maneuver battalion for Regional Command (South), an area which covers Helmand. The battlegroup will comprise elements of an infantry battalion, augmented with a company of Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles and additional artillery units (MLRS). In addition the UK will also provide four more Harrier GR9's, four Sea King Helo's and one more C130.*

I did note France has offered more Close Air Support, Germany has pledged six reconnaissance Tornadoes and Lithuania has pledged additional troops - back flips all round!

 

[Grand Danois]

Denmark has 360 soldiers in Afghanistan, 320 of which are under UK command in Helmand. The other 40 are PRT's, logistics, etc. The past summer the Danish troops in Helmand have taken part in the fighting with our allies.

In August the Danish contingent, pending final political decision, is likely to be reinforced with a couple of hundred of extra soldiers. This will make the Danish contribution - proportional to our size - on par with the British, Dutch and Canadian.

IIRC the Poles have sent a further 900 troops to Afghanistan this month.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Germany as waylander pointed out may take time shift from a pasifist standpoint which is understandable. However members like France have little escuse. They have the funding and the forces to really contribute. They may have 3000 in theater, and 5 aircraft but they could sure do more. And i'm pretty sure Kabul isn't were the action is. Australia has just doubled our force level in afghanistan, sending SASR and 4RAR (Commando) back in. We are deployed in Timor, OIF, Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands and Tonga (i think). We are so streached we have to send reserve units in to low threat theaters, yet we managed to double our contribution, with some real pointy bits too. I know the french have nearly 14 000 troops deployed over seas (mostly in africa on peace keeping duties) but they have 360 000 boots too play with, not to mention 32.2 billion euros PA. I'm sure they could manage an extra battalion sized commitment without too much trouble. The UK did and its got more troops overseas with half the manpower.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Germany as waylander pointed out may take time shift from a pasifist standpoint which is understandable. However members like France have little escuse. They have the funding and the forces to really contribute. They may have 3000 in theater, and 5 aircraft but they could sure do more. And i'm pretty sure Kabul isn't were the action is. Australia has just doubled our force level in afghanistan, sending SASR and 4RAR (Commando) back in. We are deployed in Timor, OIF, Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands and Tonga (i think). We are so streached we have to send reserve units in to low threat theaters, yet we managed to double our contribution, with some real pointy bits too. I know the french have nearly 14 000 troops deployed over seas (mostly in africa on peace keeping duties) but they have 360 000 boots too play with, not to mention 32.2 billion euros PA. I'm sure they could manage an extra battalion sized commitment without too much trouble. The UK did and its got more troops overseas with half the manpower.

Some reports in the news in NZ that we may 'modestly' boost numbers as well.

What that means is anyones guess.

 

[Waylander]

"This was decades ago..."

The winners of WWII gave us our full sovereignty back in 1990.

Remember what has been said about the NATO:
"It is for holding the USA in, Germany down and Russia out."

Times haven't changed that long.
And we are in a process.

We performed our first oversea mission after WWII in Somalia 16 years ago. After this there followed several others with Afghanistan being the hottest one we have been in so far.

The Kosovo air campaign saw us performing our first pure combat missions and this was hard at the limit of our constitution (And some say broke this limit).

From the beginning on the KSK stood on the frontlines of the campaign in A-stan. They fought their way through Tora Bora.
Something unthinkfull of just some years ago.

I just can say what I said before. We are in a process of changing our attitude towards the use of military power.
We are transforming our armed forces.
But this takes time.

It is not decades ago that this process started but just 16 years. It didn't start directly after WWII. It didn't start throughout the whole cold war.

You just cannot compare us to countries like the UK, Netherlands, France, Canada, etc.
We are not like them. Our politicians are not like theirs. Our society is not like theirs.
Our history is not like theirs.

After WWII our neighbours lifed in fear of a new uprising of militarism in Germany. We lived in fear of it.
And both have done their best to prevent this from happening.

During the Football World Cup this summer there was a discussion about if it is good that there are so many flags to bee seen in our streets.
The population is now at a point were it has no problem to show some nationpride.
But just the fact that there was even a discussion about flags in the streets (OUR FLAGS!!!) tells you something about the situation in our country.

 

[riksavage]

Grand Danois & Ozzy Blizzard, both Denmark's and Australia's contributions to operations in Afghanistan have been excellent and focused in areas where the fighting has been particularly intense. Considering your respective population sizes when comaped to some of the other NATO partners it's quite enlightening.

With regards to France, they never cease to amaze me, they have a potent armed forces, but appear to shy away from anything that is not directly in their interest as opposed to the that of the assembled masses (rest of NATO).

 

[Rich]

http://icasualties.org/oef/ByNationality.aspx

Nothing more to be said. Other then a prayer.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Nothing more to be said. Other then a prayer.

Well said.

 

[eckherl]

If I am wrong then please correct me.

I cannot really get too frusturated with Germany at the present time, may I say that when the wall came down it placed a major burden on the German economy due to the living standards on the former East side, this would take alot of time and money to get things up to par so that the whole of Germany could live at the same level experienced in the former West side when the wall finally came crashing down. As time goes by I see Germany making bigger contributions, they just want to make sure that they can handle what they are getting their country into, I think of it as the crawl, walk and run phase. I am also very disappointed at the current French government and feel that they could help ease the burden if they wanted to.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Some reports in the news in NZ that we may 'modestly' boost numbers as well.

What that means is anyones guess.

Five blokes and a Hilux

 

[Waylander]

The problem is that often enough our government says yes and amen to oversea missions without seeing or without wanting to see that such missions may turn into brutal engagements.
Military reality is often enoug denied by our leading politicians.

I think you would cry and laugh at the same time if you would really be aware of the picture of our armed forces our politicians try to show us.

The economical problems of the reunification tend to be the last of our problems when it comes to our oversea missions.

BTW, for the Germans being so cowardly having nearly half the dead comrades like for example Canada is not nothing in my eyes.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Some reports in the news in NZ that we may 'modestly' boost numbers as well.

What that means is anyones guess.

SAS i hope, could slot in with your ANZAC brothers easily and would be bloody usefull.

 

[riksavage]

Waylander - The issue here is not one of bravery or cowardice, it's more one of political will. Many of my colleagues still serving in the armed forces have worked with French & German units who are as equally frustrated with their leaders for not giving them the opportunity to serve in high-tempo operations (other than SF) in Afghanistan.

My gripe is that once you are a fully signed-up member of NATO, and the appropriate NATO authority has been given / sanctioned, you should contribute according to your capabilities and available resources. Building in caveats stating you will only serve in low-threat areas is simply unacceptable. The British Army of the Rhine (BOAR) didn't build in caveats stating they would only deploy behind German Divisions in safe areas during the height of the Cold War, so why should the German Government insist on such caveats in Afghanistan!

 

[Falstaff]

Waylander - The issue here is not one of bravery or cowardice, it's more one of political will. Many of my colleagues still serving in the armed forces have worked with French & German units who are as equally frustrated with their leaders for not giving them the opportunity to serve in high-tempo operations (other than SF) in Afghanistan.

My gripe is that once you are a fully signed-up member of NATO, and the appropriate NATO authority has been given / sanctioned, you should contribute according to your capabilities and available resources. Building in caveats stating you will only serve in low-threat areas is simply unacceptable. The British Army of the Rhine (BOAR) didn't build in caveats stating they would only deploy behind German Divisions in safe areas during the height of the Cold War, so why should the German Government insist on such caveats in Afghanistan!

Ok, as a German I feel I'll have to explain something: It may seem a bit strange from the outside, but the german society is still in a major struggle with its past. Those who fought WW2 (our grand fathers) came back and had in mind that something like that should never ever happen again. That's the principle our post war society was built on. And then there is the feeling that it was our country that brought all that devastation and killing over the world.
Even the foundation of the Bundeswehr in the wake of the cold war was a big deal here and opposed to by many people.
So the german society still is very sceptic about military action and everytime we are sending troops to any part of the world people just don't feel comfortable with it. Not so much because we are cowards but mainly because we don't want our troops to shoot at other people again.
Times are changing and very slowly we realise we can't keep our heads down forever. The Bundeswehr and its leaders were very skillful building a new image for the armed forces to be civilians in uniform and friendly helpers all over the world.
But still, a rise in defence spending (which is ridiculously low for a country with our wealth and economical power) will immidiately cause a turmoil. Pure reflex.
Every defense acquisition program, every new mission... name it. Reflex.
When I chose to serve in the Bundeswehr I had to justify my decisision to each and every friend I have. That's how it is here. You're talking about a country in which during the soccer world cup last year it was generally accepted for the first time ever since WW2 to show the flag in public without being suspected of being a nazi.
So please understand that we are still searching for our place in the world and that it will take a while for our society that a medium power like Germany has obligations.
And I'll tell you something: None other than a social democratic government would have been able to send troops to another country.
Please don't misunderstand: We will never forget how many of your people lost their lives to prevent me and my parents from growing up in a nazi-country but in a stable and wealthy democracy and we will never forget that we'd be a tiny province hailing Stalin in the soviet empire without our NATO allies and I may say friends.

It's this background before which you will have to judge our country. I know that doesn't bring back the guys that have lost their lives in afghanistan and elsewhere.

 

[Tasman]

I was really surprised by the comments made by Waylander and Falstaff about showing the flag in public. I hadn't realised how far the German people’s thinking had moved against nationalism. I'm probably as guilty as anyone of having a stereotyped image of Germans as being an extremely nationalistic people. Obviously my perception is wrong and is based on images of WW2 along with pre WW2 Nazi rallies. Growing up in Australia in the early post war years these were the images of Germany and Germans that we were fed, and they were further reinforced through indoctrination in the school cadet corps. Also I haven't travelled much in Germany (2 whole days on a bus tour!) compared with much broader travel experiences in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. I'll have to rectify that!

It does seem though from what has been posted that change is slowly happening. Certainly the attitude of other countries has changed. In this forum we have seen a lot of members calling for greater German military involvement in Afghanistan, etc. As I said earlier, it was not that long ago that people in other countries would have been very suspicious and uneasy about any military build-up and overseas deployment of German forces. Now it seems most would welcome it. It looks as though a change in the attitudes of the German people towards the military is going to take longer.

What has happened in Germany seems to be reflected in what has happened in Japan.

Cheers

 

[Waylander]

@riksavage

I totally agree with you that it is not the fault of our army. I also know many soldiers who don't feel comfortable with the feeling of others doing the dirty jobs for them.
None of them wants to do combat missions (Who wants this?) but they would have no problem with doing so if needed.
The majority of the armed forces gets more and more frustrated by our politicians.
The backup for soldiers is lousy.

As said before it is a purely political and social problem.
But I think that our society is much more ready than many of our politicians might think.
I strongly believe that if our politicians would decide to send combat troops into the south AND support this with a good public information it would not cuase that many problems like many politicians seem to think.

One of the problems is the lousy information strategy of our MoD. If you compare what you get to read and see about the operations of canadian, dutch, danish,... forces in A-stan and compare it to the information given by our MoD it is ridicilous.
In the american media you see that a US special forces member has been awarded with the "Ehrenkreuz in Silver" for rescuing a wounded KSK trooper while operating in the south. You don't even get to know here that there were such a operation.

Also they are trying very hard to show how good the situation is in the north. That IED attacks, RPG volleys, firefights, etc. reached levels not seen before does not really makes it into the media.


Falstaff also added many aspects which you have to consider.

BTW. It was not the British Army of the Rhine which stood besides us but the Sovjet 3rd Shock Army. (Wrong side of the border ).