June 5, 2007

Raffaello Pantucci, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Silver Contributor (36)

While i have nothing but admiration and respect for Dr Voight and the German effort, i wonder he believes that this line should be held in the face of the possible collapse of the effort elsewhere? Should it maybe not be the case that as we collectively realize that Afghanistan is tougher than we all expected, that therefore everyone needs to step up to plate - even though this might be beyond the initial remit?

June 6, 2007

Michael John Williams, Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, Silver Contributor (62)

First, I think it is important to note that Germany is doing a great job in Northern Afghanistan and that they have made a valuable contribution to the ISAF mission. The fact of the matter is, however, that Germany could do more and Dr. Voigt's arguments do not hold up to close scrutiny.

1. If Germany withdrew from the North it would lead to instability - yes, but most likely no. There is little reason to worry about Taliban insurgency in the North. As Dr. Voight knows, German troops are based in an area of Afghansitan that is primarily Hazara in ethnicity. The Hazara hate the Pashtun Taliban, as the Talibs treated the Hazara like dirt. They will never support a return of the Taliban, nor a Taliban insurgency in the North. Instability could result from warlords in the region. They have been quiet thus far, but that should not be taken for granted. Thus, Dr. Voigt has a point when he says that German troops create stability - they do, but we do not need a German run PRT there - a much smaller number of troops could be left in place to prevent warlords from acting up. The rest of the troops could be deployed to help in the south. German NGOs and international NGOs said that they can undertake the reconstruction and development work in the south, in conjunction with civilian government development agencies - as one Germany NGO said 'In Kunduz brauchen wir die Bundeswehr nicht'.

2. We are doing what we were asked to do - ok, but so is everyone else and missions change. It is nonsensical to let the other allies carry a heavy burden in the South of Afghanistan. If more German troops where in place, NATO could do more operations on foot, rather than using bombing, which is inaccurate and leads to civilian casualities, which ultimately undermine the NATO mission. Furthermore, if people in Canada, the US and Britain start to ask why their boys are dying and not Germans, they may well withdraw their support of the NATO campaign, endangering the mission. NATO is about collective security and collective objectives. the burden should therefore be collectively shared.

3. We have limited resources. Talk to the Brits or the Canadians about limited resources, that is a lousy excuse.

Finally, I for one think that Germany has come a long way since 1989. I don't think anyone thought during the 1990s that Germany would participate in NATO's Kosovo campaign or that the Bundeswehr would one day find itself in Afghanistan. This is real progress. But German politicans need to be more courageous in articulating to their publics why this mission is important and why Germany must participate, not just in the North, but in the South as well. Leadership is not just about getting re-elected, it is about what doing what is right. It is not right to let your allies shoulder the burden and be content to pat yourself on the back for a job well done, when you could really be doing more.

June 7, 2007

Robert Shawley, University of Iowa, Gold Contributor (99)

In a way Voigt is contradicting himself here. He says in the first part of his interview "here":http://www.atlantic-community.org/index.php/articles/view/Germany%27s_Open-Ended_Commitment_to_Afghanistan that Germany has an "open-ended commitment to Afghanistan" and that the prevention of a resurgence of the Taliban and other "terrorist-friendly" (this terminology makes me cringe) elements is the primary reason for Germany's presence there. Naturally, as the situation changes so do the requirements.

On the other hand, I think it is important to keep in mind the strongly developed culture of non-militarism prevalent in Germany - much more prevalent there than in any of the other large troop contributors. This is a psychology that was fostered and actively encouraged by the rest of Europe and the US over the past 60 years. If those same nations that now accuse Germany of not doing enough would keep this in mind, I think they might look at what Germany has done already and say "Wow, thanks", rather than "Nag nag", albeit for good reasons.

Secondly, it should also not be forgotten that even though Afghanistan is now widely considered in Germany to be the "right" kind of war - as opposed to, say, Iraq - there was still significant opposition in the country when this military undertaking began. As in any other parliamentary democracy so in Germany, too, politicians can only ask for so much from their electorate without committing political suicide. The German populace has to be weaned off their profoundly anti-militaristic psychology first. The question then is: Is that what the West really wants?

April 6, 2008

ilyas m mohsin, ppp, Platinum Contributor (253)

Dr. Voigt may be well-versed in the art of diplomacy/ international relations. However, in his above thesis he appears to give the impression of not knowing the ground realities in Afghanistan. Michael Williams has highlighted the same in his comments. Unfortunately, public opinion in the West, particularly the US, depends on greenness in such matters. Hence they can be easily misled, generally, by the politicians
The Northern Afghanistan is, generally, populated by non-Pashtuns like Tajils, Turcomans, Hazaras etc. As the Taliban rode rough-shod against these minorities, a new situation had arisen after the rise of Mullah Omar’ regime in Kabul on the debris of the civil war following the collapse/ withdrawal of the Soviet Union.
The US suborned these Northern war-lords along-with the likes of karzai to crush the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11. So these war-lords are more than pro-US as they feel safe for the time-being and they are getting large amounts from the regime in Kabul to keep them steadfast. In addition, they are freely cultivating/ manufacturing contraband drugs for safe exports to the US/ EU etc. So they are pro-status quo.
The Pashtuns of South/ East, who form a big majority, are the ones who, generally, are fighting against the ‘occupation’. Since Taliban are, generally, Pashtuns, the ethnic element again comes into play. Due to their atrocious behaviour, the Taliban regime had become pretty un-popular by 2000. As such their removal from power by foreign forces helped by a surrogate Afghan was not questioned.
The US etc held out wild promises for the development of Afghanistan in Bonn Conference which raised high expectations among the suffering Afghans. However, as the dream went awry, starvation and desolation hit the Pashtuns, particularly. As the indiscriminate use of air-power devastated vast areas, they felt betrayed by the status quo. If history is any guide, the Pashtun strongly believes in Revenge. So lacking security, they started courting the Taliban again. Taking a queue from their compatriots in the North, they are subsisting on the bounty of the contraband-drugs as the regime can’t provide food to them.
It is for NATO to apportion assignments or blame. However, the fact remains that North has, as per the Afghan perception, a ‘Vichy regime’ while the South is, generally, waging a war against ‘occupation.’ If the US/ EU had lived up to their commitments, the Afghans would have discarded Taliban. Now every civilian death, and there are many frequently by indiscriminate use of fire-power, only creates more ‘freedom-fighters’. No wonder Karzai has to stay only in Kabul and bribe all the elements who are on the regime’ bandwagon.