NATO in Afghanistan

[Waylander]

I really doubt that this action could cause the withdrawal of the german forces.

But it could cause the Bundeswehr to review it's current strategy.
After years in which our allies demanded that the Bundeswehr should act more agressively it finally took off the gloves and puts more pressure onto the grwoing insurgent threat in the Kunduz area.
They are engaging them be it with ground forces or by calling in allied airstrikes.
After the first such incident caused some controversy our allies jump onto us like on a wounded prey.
That could mean that agains our forces act more restricted. This would be a boost to the insurgents in the area (one they need after they lost so many fighters and commanders).

 

[kato]

If there'll be a Red-Red-Green coalition, i'll say no expansion in the next mandate renewal and withdrawal in 5 years. 6 years as elements of SPD and Greens now want, one year off to pacify the Left

Probably a shift towards more training of Afghan forces in the area, and perhaps a few less men in RC(C) to weigh a bit more importance on RC(N)...

If convervatives win... more men, but more restrictions. Perhaps an own Tornado strike group only for RC(N) to "prevent USAF involvement", or something similar. Depending on the nature of the "second source", possibly restrictions on OEF deployments in RC(N)?

 

[Waylander]

I doubt that a black-yellow coalition is going to put more restrictions onto the troops in Afghanistan.

And if they want to use a Tornado strike group they better hurry with the implemention of LJDAM.
Otherwise they are not going to have an alternative to putting a 2000lb LGB onto a possible target.

 

[Onkel]

And if they want to use a Tornado strike group they better hurry with the implemention of LJDAM.
Otherwise they are not going to have an alternative to putting a 2000lb LGB onto a possible target.

We will never see a german tornado strike group in Afghanistan (nor another strike aircraft) for those vehicles are difficult to declare as self defence weapons. You might argue, it´s the same thing with Marders or Howitzers, but in political terms these nice little cars are of another quality.


Apart from that you are right. The Luftwaffe lacks of small and unexpensive bombs and air to ground missiles. Without LJDAM they got their guns (not to underestimate) and some very big toys. As if CAS Missions were unthinkable. But thats a bit offtopic.

A SPD/Green coalition could act similiar to the current coalition, but without the Linkspartei they won´t do it as it seems now. With the Linkspartei they had to withdraw our troops, but this coalition is NOW not likely to be gone into. At the moment the black/yellow or the continuation of the big coalition are most likely to happen, as I think.

 

[Firn]

While the strike ordered by a German officer caused wordwide condemnation, the reaction to the bombings by the F-15E fighter was in Afghanistan http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090701920.html?hpid=topnews remarkably muted.

First of all:

This time, according to human rights activists and foreign diplomats, rising Afghan anger toward the Taliban in the once-tranquil north, a swift public apology by U.S. military officials and national preoccupation with a troubled presidential election have combined to deflect popular outrage over the bombing.

But then:

But this time, the tactic seemed to fall flat. In part this was because officials in Kunduz, instead of expressing outrage against the foreign forces, blamed the insurgents for provoking the bombing and even suggested that the civilians who died were Taliban sympathizers. There is no confirmed total death toll, but estimates by U.S. and Afghan officials range from 70 to more than 100.

According to one privately circulated report by international observers here, some Kunduz officials said the villagers were all "relatives" of the insurgents and were "equally guilty" because they were looting fuel from the tankers when they died. The report said no families of the victims had lodged formal complaints, suggesting possible complicity.

This view compounds well with the one expressed in the sources I qouted some posts ago.


Of course there also some additional views on the matter:

Other accounts painted a murkier, more complex picture of both the incident and the political environment in which it took place. Nadery, whose group sent investigators to the scene, said a group of about 20 Taliban fighters had roused the villagers late at night, using a combination of "threats and persuasion" to enlist their help in moving the trucks, while allowing them to siphon off the fuel. The bombs fell at 2:30 a.m. as villagers swarmed around the tankers.

This column brings up many of the complex difficulties concerning any military action.

Reaction to civilian deaths underscores difficulties in Afghanistan

By Grant Martin, Kansas City Star Midwest Voices columnist

For anyone who has been to Afghanistan, the challenges that the NATO effort presents are understood all too well. If anyone thought things would get simple with a new commander, the recent bombing involving German troops and alleged civilian deaths burst that illusion.

The irony of this situation is, of course, that of any of the forces operating in the country the Germans are probably among the least likely to take action resulting in civilian casualties. Many of the NATO countries only signed on to do reconstruction and capacity-building missions in Afghanistan- and even those are not swaying the home populations to support extending their troop deployments.

Whether Afghanistan became coupled in European perceptions to Iraq or it is just suffering the same fate as most extended military operations by democracies: impatience, Afghanistan is increasingly being seen as a "mission impossible" and one that is not tied to the security of the world. What is not clear, however, is how long NATO allies' politicians can keep their troops deployed in opposition to the will of their people.

If nothing else, however, people around the world should notice the different reactions to this incident and draw some conclusions from them such that would give a clue to just how hard it is to prosecute this effort- ignoring the strengths of the Taliban.

First, GEN McChrystal told the Afghan people that there was nothing more important than the safety and protection of the Afghan people- this matching his recent guidance to ISAF troops- and promised to share the investigation results.

Next, President Karzai said that the targeting of civilians was not acceptable. The Provincial governor was quoted as saying that the civilians were responsible because they had sheltered the Taliban. A spokesperson for the governor said most casualties were militants. The province's health minister said that most casualties were civilians. The District governor then said that the area was owned by the Taliban.

An injured boy said that he was just told that there was free fuel. A senior NATO official said that the German troops had every reason to believe that everyone in the strike zone were militants. An ISAF spokesperson said that the German commander might not have followed proper procedures. German officials have defended their troops by noting they perceived a danger if the trucks were not bombed.

Lost in all of the political pronouncements is the fact that at the heart of this situation lies a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario for both sides.

Allegedly an informant told the German commander that there were no civilians on the target. An assessment, regardless of where it came from, was made that the German troops ran a high risk of being on the receiving end of one gruesome suicide bomb if they allowed the trucks to proceed. What could the commander have done? In hindsight, he could have waited for more information. But, at the time that probably wasn't so apparent. Maybe he violated the new protocols or maybe he didn't- regardless, he was risking his men's lives if he did nothing- or at least he must have perceived that. In war- sometimes when you hesitate you die.

From another perspective, locals also faced a tough decision. If the Taliban did indeed control that area, then the option of not helping them out was not really an option. Those who do not help out the Taliban in Taliban-controlled areas do not live long, fruitful lives. Then there were some who probably were just told they could have free fuel. Those who ignored that chance risked perhaps missing a meal or two- in some areas of the world you live for these rare instances of opportunity. It's like the 3rd World version of the lottery.

....

 

[Waylander]

I have just seen the pols in TV about wether we should stay in Afghanistan or not.
And it took me by surprise.
"We shouldn't leave fast" gained ten points while the "We should leave as fast as possible" lost twelve points.
Amazing. Who would have thought that.

So we have most Afghans approving the incident.
And we have more Germans approving a long committment to ISAF.

And we have our allies crying for the head of our Colonel...

Strange world indeed! :unknown

If somebody would have told me some weeks ago that this would be the reaction to the biggest airstrike the Bundeswehr ever called in I would have laughed about that.

 

[kato]

"We shouldn't leave fast" gained ten points while the "We should leave as fast as possible" lost twelve points.

Last results for that question were from July.

"We should leave as fast as possible" : from 69 down to 57 %
"We shouldn't leave fast": from 27 up to 37 %

40% : Afghanistan "decisive" or "important" topic for election
58% : Afghanistan "not important" for election

Has to be said though that the ARD-DeutschlandTrend survey is a telephone survey of only 1000 people done within only 2 days (Tuesday to Wednesday). And (TNS) Infratest Dimap is traditionally a bit more... conservative-minded in its results (it's sorta funny that the other company owned by TNS, Emnid, usually arrives at quite different survey results).

Always gotta compare results. FG Wahlen / Politbarometer is next, to be published in about 17 hours.

 

[Firn]

The account of the kidnapped and freed reporter of the NYT.

Pretty interesting report, with a partly tragic end.

 

[Waylander]

Last results for that question were from July.

"We should leave as fast as possible" : from 69 down to 57 %
"We shouldn't leave fast": from 27 up to 37 %

40% : Afghanistan "decisive" or "important" topic for election
58% : Afghanistan "not important" for election

Has to be said though that the ARD-DeutschlandTrend survey is a telephone survey of only 1000 people done within only 2 days (Tuesday to Wednesday). And (TNS) Infratest Dimap is traditionally a bit more... conservative-minded in its results (it's sorta funny that the other company owned by TNS, Emnid, usually arrives at quite different survey results).

Always gotta compare results. FG Wahlen / Politbarometer is next, to be published in about 17 hours.

I know that it is only one survey in many.
Nevertheless that doesn't contradicts my point.
I wouldn't have imagined ANY survey going that way.

 

[uzodinma]

It was always about political failure, there was never any chance of the US being beaten militarily. Can you imagine any scenario when a minority within a minority (ie the sunni insurgents) would defeat the occupation forces and reassert their historical dominance over the Shia and Kurds.
What the US is seeking is a democratic, non sectarian unified state where western oil companies have as close to unfettered access as possible, and where Iranian influence is reduced to a minimum, and kurdish aspirations for a independent state fade away.
Now how lightly is that.

The reason why the US has not won is because we are not solving some social problems:sectarianism has been a problem in Iraq since 670 A.H. (After Hijrah Islamic calendar).We allow them to run political parties based on these cleavages,then we looking for trouble.Sectarianism according to Prophet Muhammad's interview with Satan involves ringing bells of Shaytan to destroy the iman (faith) of Muslims.So sectarianism is not Islamic.This can be used to check Iran,Sunnis and Kurds

 

[Palnatoke]

The reason why NATO/US is not winning, but losing, is that we fight the wrong war in the wrong manner with the wrong methods.

The first problem is "The war". The war is fought by our second problem "The army". In a war the army, made up by officers and soldiers, fights another army with objectives such as "Defeat", "Destroy" etc.

We don't have "a war", we don't have an opposing army that we can "defeat" or "destroy". Rather we have a population, or parts thereof, who uses violent methods to reach their political objectives.
In it's heart this is more like a policing assignment, than a war. We need to figure out who the bad guys are and "lock them up". Much like the fight against organised crime.

Though this "policing an insurection" is different, in two main ways, from a democratic or civilized way of thinking "policing" First of all becuse our objective is to supress a certain political oppinion secondly because the size and scope of the insurection can easely overwhelm any normally organised, equiped and mandated polic force.
"The suppression" makes this operation different from a normal action against organised crime, in such an action the accused are (perhaps) quilty of actions that "we" accept as "normal crimes" (be that trafficing, prostitution etc), the accused in an supression effort are (perhaps) quilty in a "thought crime": They are disloyal in words or actions against the state. We have to accept this nature of the effort; We have to accept that our aim is to make people think and act in accordiance with "the state". The people has to behave like they are told: We have to submit the, or parts thereof, population to the will of the state: That is our objective.

Since we have little use for the traditional army or traditional police, we need a new tool of suppression. Let's label these "Security forces". This organisation has to have many of the properties of both police and millitary. And it has to be mandated in a way that facilitates effective action against an opposition that stops at nothing.

We don't have to re-invent the light bulb, I point to f.ex. the USSR or east european communistic dictatorships to see how such "security forces" can be organised. It seems that a winning combination was para-millitary forces under firm political control (typically the ministry of interior) coupled with a policing/intelligense organisation that operated with little or no oversight - except from the very highest level of goverment.

Yes, it's not pretty or morally appealing, neither is long war followed by defeat and chaos.

 

[Palnatoke]

I agree with uzodinma.

A state authorised islamic ideology, could be effective. The population can then be "schooled" in the proper faith and "dissidents" can be identified, isolated and throughly prosecuted.

 

[Feanor]

I agree with uzodinma.

A state authorised islamic ideology, could be effective. The population can then be "schooled" in the proper faith and "dissidents" can be identified, isolated and throughly prosecuted.

The problem is that this model of state-building looks more like Saudi Arabia, and less like a liberal democracy.

 

[uzodinma]

I agree with uzodinma.

A state authorized Islamic ideology, could be effective. The population can then be "schooled" in the proper faith and "dissidents" can be identified, isolated and thoroughly prosecuted.

We must separate Islam from terrorism completely.There is nothing wrong with Saudi Arabia's Islam:the Hypocrites (impostors who have existed since Prophet Muhammad's time) have hijacked the popular view of Islam.Now is the time to help the moderates and silence the fake reformers,Al Qaeda.Dissidents should be informed that they are partaking in the Anti Christ (dajjal) and are not defenders of Islam

 

[uzodinma]

The problem is that this model of state-building looks more like Saudi Arabia, and less like a liberal democracy.

You can not use Western liberal democracy in Afghanistan,they have to develop their own version based on historical experiences and peculiar needs.If you are liberal with your enemy,he kills you

 

[Palnatoke]

Feanor

The problem is that this model of state-building looks more like Saudi Arabia, and less like a liberal democracy.

I think that we have to accept that the reality of Afghanistan is that, the afghan socity has a few steps to move through before you can have a liberal democracy.

Ultimately the afghan people has to decide on how to furbish their own house. We can try to influence that house in a manner such that f.ex. minimum human rights are part of and protected, that the state abides to fundamental rules of good governance etc. - at least - after the war.

I think that to believe that one can ignore islam in a tribal afghanistan, is unrealistic. These people are islamic and their state should naturally reflect that - that is, if we want the afghan people to identify themselves with the afghan state.


The key, here, is that it is the state that inlists the religion - not vice versa.

 

[justone]

The UK has had 3 previous Afghan wars and has learned well.don`t be fooled by western propaganda these troop losses are well in acceptable levels for the massed planned build up.
Iran be careful ......lol[/QUOTE]

If UK been in 3 previous Afghan wars what have they learn? The Afghan have been in lots of long war against foreigners. The fighting will be going on for long time so they must have a plan to hit Iran from both sides. Which is smart and dumb at same time. NATO know this war not going be over in short time. Need to get some of the enemy to fight against each other divide and conquer real simple Why having anyone try putting muslims soldiers in Afghanistan? Maybe Turkey or Egypt offer some kind benefit to these countries they need something I know that than offer it to them. NATO need to try something new .

 

[Waylander]

The Bundeswehr is going to send an additional company worth of combat troops into the Kunduz area. An additional platoon of Marder IFVs (I suspect A5 models) isgoing to complement them bringing their number up to 8.

With these additional troops our troop numer is going to scratch at the limit approved by parliament.
Hopefully they are going to raise the allowed numbers as expected after new year.

 

[Grand Danois]

Danish army is going to send 10 CV9035 mkIII to A-stan February 2010.

 

[Waylander]

Are the M113s going to stay in country or are will they get replaced by the CV9035?