Display:
German General on the War: NATO's Naivete in Afghanistan - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

A number of military men have voiced concern recently about the progress of the war in Afghanistan. German Major General Hans-Lothar Domröse has joined the chorus. The NATO third in command in Afghanistan says the West was "perhaps a bit naïve."

 German troops have been in Afghanistan since the beginning. On Thursday, Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, is set to extend the country's mandate in Afghanistan by an additional 14 months and up its troop contingent by 1,000 to 4,500. Given that Chancellor Angela Merkel's government is a coalition of Germany's two largest parties -- the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats -- the vote is seen as a sure thing.

Increasingly, though, the mission in Afghanistan is not. The voices of doubt about the mission have been multiplying as the death toll of NATO troops and Afghan civilians continues to rise and the Taliban shows no sign of disappearing. Earlier this month, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan, added gravitas to the pessimism, saying "we're not going to win this war."

On Wednesday, the highest ranking German commander in Afghanistan, Major General Hans-Lothar Domröse, voiced his concerns in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Domröse is the chief of staff of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and thus third in command of the 50,000 soldiers under NATO command in Afghanistan. He said in the interview that the West has gotten more than it bargained for in Afghanistan.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 02:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The NATO third in command in Afghanistan says the West was "perhaps a bit naïve."

The understatement of the day...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 03:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's what happens when european leaders cede control of their foreign policy to a mad militarist aquisitive empire.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 03:57:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...a mad militarist aquisitive empire.

                               Is that supposed to be a snide comment about Malta?

I knew then, and I suppose you knew then, that everything out of Bush's mouth was a lie and every adventure tied to his corporate cronies.

But I don't remember if that was common knowledge yet.

Was the decision to get a war on based upon the coat tails of 11 September? not wanting to appear wimpish? hope for money into EADS? Why did everyone get involved in Bush's killing machine?

Don't they teach the History of Hubris in these prep schools for leaders? Especially the history of Afghanistan. Jeesh. Everyone, eventually, gets greeted with poppies.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 08:03:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a good question and I'm not sure I've ever seen it framed like that.

I think in the immedaite aftermath of 9/11 when there was a genuine sentiment of wanting to help, there was a bit of an all-hands-to-the-pump "build an alliance like we had for Gulf War 1" feeling around the world.

My initial sentiment at the time that some sort of attack on the Afghan Taliban was understandable and was gratified when the first discussions I heard were of avoiding using the Northern alliance who were just as bad in their own way as the Taliban.

However, I rapidly began to suspect what was going on because the US were so wary of losing their own troops that they wouldn't commit to ground attacks initially. Just bombing from 40,000 feet which anyone knows is indiscriminate and likely to cause far more damage to civilians than it is to Talibs. then the Northern Allaiance were brought on board and I knew then nothing good would come of it.

However, I think the whole world should have smelt a rat once the US started beating a drum about Iraq. That's when NATO should have said "we finish Afghanistan first, all the way to nation building (despite Rumsfeldt saying US don't build nations) before you go off on something else entirely. And if you don't, we're out of here. We're not cleaning up after you while you piss off elsewhere".

Even if they didn't admit it to the public, the politicians knew the yanks were lying about Iraq and 9/11 and the whole axis of weevils thing. That's when they could/should have called halt. That was the moment they should have known the B-C regime had gone over the edge. Trouble is, Blair had gone over with them/before them and he gave them the international credibility to at least let them do what htey wanted.

Blair is the most guilty, cos he was more gung-ho for Sadddam than anyone.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 09:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Especially the history of Afghanistan.

At least the Germans learn it. The Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt has published a book (PDF here) with basic information about Afghanistan. It includes the full text of Fontane's Trauerspiel von Afghanistan

»Die hören sollen, sie hören nicht mehr,
Vernichtet ist das ganze Heer,
Mit dreizehntausend der Zug begann,
Einer kam heim aus Afghanistan.«

English translation from some blog
Those who should hear, they'll hear nevermore,
Destroyed, dispersed is the proud host of yore;
With thirteen thousand their trail they began.
Only one man returned from Afghanistan.

Not that knowing this made any difference.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 04:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series