Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From Times Online

February 2, 2008

Berlin slaps down US demand to send troops to fight the Taleban

German Minister of Defense, Franz Josef Jung

Michael Evans, Defence Editor

Nato’s mission in Afghanistan was rocked by another blazing row over the refusal of some coalition members to fight the Taleban in the south.

An unusually stern letter from Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, to his German counterpart about the role of Germany’s troops in Afghanistan caused anger not just in Berlin but elsewhere in the alliance.

Washington has taken the lead in putting pressure on Nato with a warning that the credibility of the alliance is at stake. But Mr Gates’s latest intervention seems likely to cause more division.

His letter to Franz Josef Jung, the German Defence Minister, went to the heart of the problem that has faced Nato since its mission expanded throughout Afghanistan, and in particular to the southern provinces where the Taleban are concentrated.

This is the question of national caveats under which countries such as Germany, whose troops are based in the north, refuse to deploy elsewhere without authorisation from their governments.

The only Nato members that have no national caveats are the ones fighting the Taleban in the southern provinces of Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan and also in eastern Afghanistan. It was one of the conditions for agreeing to serve in the south.

The countries are the US, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark, who provide the majority of the fighting troops. Other more limited troop contributors in the south include a small but effective Estonian unit and headquarters staff from Slovakia and Romania. The Americans and Poles are also engaged in combat in eastern Afghanistan.

Elsewhere in Afghanistan the role of every other Nato country is covered by caveats that range from a ban on deploying out of area — except in the most extreme circumstances — to no night flying, largely because of lack of technical capability; no flying in poor weather; no involvement in riot control and no venturing from bases without the maximum force protection or too far from the nearest hospital.

Mr Gates’s written demands for German troops to be sent to the south provoked an instant putdown from Berlin, which reminded Washington that Germany’s remit in Afghanistan was to defend the north, and that it had 3,100 troops there.

Mr Jung made it clear yesterday that Germany had no plans to deploy troops to the south, where most of the fighting has been going on since the early summer of 2006.

German diplomatic sources said the letter from Mr Gates had been harsh, although they would not divulge the contents. Mr Jung replied in similar mode with a “direct and stern” letter to Mr Gates, according to Suddeutsche Zeitung, a German newspaper.

The whole question of burden-sharing in Afghanistan — in particular sharing the burden of combat — is due to come up at Nato’s next summit in Bucharest in April. One Nato diplomat said: “I think Mr Gates’s intervention is more about domestic politics than anything else but sometimes I wonder whether the US realises the negative impact these spats have outside America.”

The Americans are sending another 3,200 troops to Afghanistan to boost numbers because of the failure of other countries to offer more soldiers, and Mr Gates has had to justify this decision before Congress. Pentagon officials have been appearing at Senate hearings in recent days.

German defence sources said that in emergencies where help was urgently needed in the south, Germany would consider sending troops from the north but only for a brief period.

“The location we have been given is in the north and that is where we are staying and, by the way, although it might seem more peaceful at the moment, there is no knowing whether that will last,” one German source said.

Mr Gates has also raised the issue of sending troops to the south with Hervé Morin, the French Defence Minister, at a meeting in Washington. France has about 1,600 troops in Afghanistan, most of them serving in Kabul.

Germany, France, Italy and Spain — the latter two countries with troops in western Afghanistan — all agreed at the Nato summit in the Latvian capital of Riga last year to send troops to the south, but only in extremis.

Since the summit, no troops from these countries have gone to help the Nato countries in the south.

Nato commanders say the operation in Afghanistan needs another 7,500 troops. There are about 41,000 serving with Nato’s International Security Assistance Force.

The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, recognized by three nations. The Taliban were allies of al Qaeda and they will be punished for that. (30 years on, America still has the Islamic Republic (nee Iran) in its gunsights for the hostages.)

To all the Bundestag fetishists: Yes, wonderful, imagine that, the BRD is its own country, with laws and all. Wow. Your Bundestag needs to approve troop action. Yes. This is the same Bundestag that signed a treaty with the US, called NATO, nein? And you aren't living up to your treaty.

Cracking the Soviets in Afghanistan was half the effort in reunifying Germany. (You're welcome.) Now we need to slaughter the Taliban and leave Kabul with some stability.

I also agree that NATO has become completely useless. I feel bad leaving the Poles and the Danes in the lurch, but we need our troops out of Europe. Let them deal with Putin, Medvedev and United Russia. US out of NATO NOW!

Peter Buxton, Kalamazoo, MI

The Germans did not decide to go to the North part of Afghanistan because it was supposely a "better place to be" than the south. Each involvement of the Bundeswehr (the German army) needs approval from the parliament (result of WWII...) and the German parliament accepted to send troops in the northern part of this country because that's what has been decided at the beginning. It it impossible for Germany to send troops to the south without having approval from the Bundestag (parliament). The vote that took place in Berlin to send troops had a very little majority. This kind of restriction does'nt exist in GB, US Canada and the Nederlands. I fully understand the demands of the US and Canada for a bigger involvment of Germany - I even think that it is in a certain way justified - but they need to understand that even if the German government would accept the US demand and decide to send more troops, this decision would be whether accepted by the parliament nor by the population.

Carl R. Lemieux, Montreal, Canada

America went into Iraq to quell a dictator who ran his country his way. He killed abused and tortured with impunity. He laughed at civil rights. His family did what ever they wanted with no consequences and critics were killed or discredited. So The Great And powerful Bush INVADED a foreign country and murdered its population to gain control. I ask.... What really is the difference between Bush And Saddam?

John Little, Orlando, Fl

US asks them to pull their weight in the alliance and that makes the US... the bad guy... typical...

Thomas, San Francisco, Ca

German and French industry acted appropriately in the past to NEGOTIATE with the government of Iraq to secure contracts for energy development of the country after the end of outrageous sanctions. ( no weapons of mass destruction!!!)US/UK bombed Iraq for a decade...many children died as a result of their actions. The Iraqis naturally and rightly would have given preference to Germany et al. The US/UK aggressors erased these properly arrived at deals with invasion/occupation and mass death/destruction to seize control of country & government. After 9/11 US forced NATO allies to occupy Afghanistan ( really to oust Taliban for their lack of cooperation re: pipeline TAPI) ...and place troops next to oil rich iran...why would US/UK/Canada expect Germany?France et al to save them now...or assist in this geopolitical aggression.

Germany has learned its lesson about aggression/occupation/invasion...why repeat...let the US and allies misbehave...and lose in the arena of world opinion.

Michael, Vancouver, Canada

Please would you all calm down now! The USA does handle it's own affairs quite well thank you. After all God is a US citicen
and is therefore in charge, so why worry? And don't foget if things got realy tight there is allways John Wayne, or have you allready forgotten him? Just give the US enough time, say 20 to 40 years and all will be ok. So old chaps don't dispair stiffen you upper lipps and have another cup of tee! Cheers yours truly as allways Charly

Charly, Gosford, australia

John of Virginia Beach....America didn't get off the comfy couch to fight WW2. Japan pushed them off by attacking, and Germany declared war on America, not the other way round.

Sean, Barrie, Canada

Some comments say openly, that the NATO is a hypocritical coalition whose purpose is to enable the US forces to continue the occupation of Germany. Under this condition the USA doesn't have the right to ask for German help in one of their idiotic wars.

Rolf-Peter, Gammertingen, Germany

The German constitution doesn't allow such operation in Afghanistan and the Bundeswehr - German Army - is not equipped for attacks! Moreover needless what politicans promise - E A C H GERMAN SOLDIER can deny those operations!
Get it and fight your own wars US or whoever!!!

Germany is still under occuption by US only. All other's have left. Just for information!

Guenter, Holualoa, USA/HI

Germany: still under military occupation by America and britain even after the collapse of the soviet union (tune in to to BF radio).

Now realising that they are likely to take more casualties the americans & english ask others to shoulder the burden.

And with no end in sight this should keep the pot boiling for another 5 years IMHO.

Who says the past doesn't come back to haunt you?
Just remember that the Germans post '45 have been taught to hate anything to do with the military.

greg, exeter, uk

NATO is a waste of time, as is the European Union, they do
not serve American or British interests. It's time we in Britain
regained control of our destiny. As for America they can only
rely on the English speaking nations as allies.

Roderick, Hampshire, England

Hmmmm???? Seems things have changed. I believe Churchill once observed that the Germans were a nation of seventy million obstinate Huns, either at your feet or at your throat. Seems they have settled for at your feet.

R. C. Edwards, Bangot, USA

If some European NATO countries continue to hide behind caveats in regards to their token troop contribution in Afghanistan, then I'm for Canada withdrawing our forces from southern Afghanistan in 2009. The mission in Afghanistan is a UN sanctioned mission, but the leftists in Europe don't seem to want to recognize that even though they cry all the time about getting UN approval for everything.

Nothing like sending your forces to safe areas in Afghanistan and letting other countries like Canada, the US, the Netherlands, Denmark and the Brits do the fighting and then step forward and take some credit for any successes, eh?

Mark, Alberta, Canada

While the towering U.S. economy collapses floor by floor, it's leaders continue to spend billions building military bases all over the world. Ironically, it is this pursuit of military domination that is creating the very terrorism that the U.S. claims to be fighting.
An economy based on improving the health and education of its citizens, rather than being the worlds leading weapons provider, would be a much more worthy goal.

Gene Diefenbach, Kirkwood, MO, U.S.

I served in the us army in (W. Germany) before the wall fell!! we were looked down on as americans then so why shoud the Germans change their view of us now??
Disband nato and free up our troops and send them to Iraq and Afganistan or where-ever they are needed and let the Nato countries Hide their prespective heads in the sand lie they always do!!!
Our only true Alli U.K. has been shouldering some of the brunt so why not let the others help too!! MW missouri, usa

mark williams, Thornfield, Mo. USA

The problem with NATO or the UN is they will never take any action on anything except maby a new World Heritage Site. Toothless bunch I do say. Wait until someone crashes a few 747s into one of your citys to see how much action you might get out of NATO. I hope you are not holding your breath.

Jack, Small town, U.S.A.

It's time for the US to withdraw its military personnel, hardware, and security investment from Continental Europe. US taxpayers would benefit greatly. And Die Grunen and Die Linke would be ecstatically happy... at least until they would realize that freedom isn't free. Isn't that correct, Mr. Putin?

Joe, New York, US

I can not wait for the day Europe is on fire and begging for America to come help defeat the Islamofacists. Europeans could not even handle their own matters in Yugoslavia without American Air Force bombardment. Why should we expect Europe to assist in fighting this war on terror when it requires boots on the ground.

richard , Brooklyn, USA

Mr Gates seems to forget that National Service still exists in Germany and that in reality sending troops would depend on public attitude. If he thinks the majority of 18 year olds there would accept being drafted in order to be sent to Afghanistan he is clearly mistaken. It would also mean the virtual collapse of the Bundeswehr as protestors either burned their cards (remember Vietnam?) or opted for civilian service.

B Redfern, Krkso, Slovenia

NATO must be a defense alliance only and not an object of america. Terrorism is not a reason to send troops all arround the world. I hope that France will disengage troops in Afghanistan and work on an European defense which could be part of NATO but this is not mandatory in my mind.

Jean, Caen, France

NATO was never intended to be America's Foreign Legion. It exists to defend its member states against military actions, not other threats be they environmental, religious or criminal. Its remit is to act while the militarily endangered partner state remains under attack. We failed to draw the line, to recognize that terrorism is criminal in nature. However, having sent the Taliban packing, we compounded our failures by installing mujahadin to replace the mujahadin we'd just driven out. Is it any wonder we've created a corrupt and feeble central government in Kabul? Wheels spinning within wheels and we can't grasp the true origins of our failures which will forever deny us any hope of success.

RD, Parksville, B.C., Canada

By the way, it was GWBush who, in his haste to get stuck into Iraq, chose one mujahadin, Karzai, to replace those he'd just sent packing. Thus he planted the seed for the perpetual instability of Afghanistan and its evolution into a narco-state. It didn't have to be this way. Learn about Afghanistan before the scourge of warlordism, before the marxist era. You'll find a nation that actually had some promise, a state that was relatively progressive within its region. We've simply entrenched fundamentalist extremism and medieval feudalism as though that was the natural state of the Afghan people.

RD, Parksville, B.C., Canada

I agree with John Wojtowicz from Pennsylvania and the many others who think that NATO should be discontinued. The Salvation Army can go in and replace the Germans and the other caveat-protected "armies" and provide soup kitchens. They can go after the elusive "root causes" of 9/11 and befriend Islam if it makes them feel good. The US should do itself a favour, save itself lots of taxpayers' money and vacate Continental Europe entirely so the Germans et. al. can see what it's like to actually take responsibility in defending one's country. The morally preening Continental Europeans use Americans simply as a target for abuse. As a non-American, I'm amazed at why Americans haven't figured this out yet. How can they be so masochistic? There seems to be no sense of self-interest or self-preservation in Washington, and until they wake up they can expect continued interference from their "allies".

Edgar P, Paris,

I have served 2 tours in Iraq and 1 in afganistan. I have lost 12 of my troups, for what? As an NCO of 16 yrs, I say as a American that we should withdraw our troups from everywhere on the globe. Whenever something happens worldwide WE THE USA will not get involed at all, no matter what. We should build a wall from Calif to Fla 200 ft high and 90 ft thick. and put the troops every 20 ft, to guard it. Anyone without a greencard & there familys would be deported ASAP.
NO one would be given permission to inter theUSA for any reason. We should spend our own money on our own country and no one else. SORRY about our deat to thoes we owe, but we`ll get it to you AFTER we get our own country strate.
If you get attacked or have an act of god, on your land, we well pray for you. If you need help, just call US, and press 1 for your language, we no longer understand any other then ours.
Since the rest of the world cares less for the USA, the least we can do is return the love.
AN AMERICAN>

JR, Ypsilanti, Michigan

GB Austin Texas....Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it your articulate "President" Bush, who invaded Afghanistan, in order to find Osama Bin Ladin?
I don't recall any mention of fighting the Taliban at that time.

RF, Hannover, Germany

At least the USA doesn't have Muslim "no go" areas like in England. See recent comments from The Bishop of Rochester. Perhaps the British should take a stand for no other reason than to protect their homeland.

Jeff, Sacramento / CA, USA

Soldiers are expendable in the cause of political and commercial aspirations. This truism has not changed from Roman time. Only the reporting of the brutality is faster.
NATO was pasted its sell by date by the early nineties, Generals and some politicians wanted the gravy train to continue its called job security., So having the tool it was imperative to find work for it.
Tax payers do not see the need for vast defence budgets if there is no "perceived" enemy. The alternative to "Reds scourge" has been the greatest salesman for the defence industry in decades. In context Look at the numbers from gunshot deaths/ injuries, police related deaths versus those from the "Baddies" including 9/11.
Now look at the money going to law enforcement and that to military costs for Iraq & Afghanistan. War is profitable.
Long Live the shareholders. European Shareholders are investing in other priorities like the lives of their soldiers and votes.

Alexander, Victoria, Africa

Looking back at 6000 years of history,it becomes clear,that it is always country that invades another country first(under whatever pretext-usually fabricated),that at the end flees from that country with a tail between its legs.This truth never fails.

John, Toronto, Canada

Someone mentioned the "European Army." I suggest you wait a 1000 years and by then maybe they can work out how to agree to do any fighting.

People say I live in Europe but the continental Europeans just don't have the same outlook on life as me. That's fine but I don't want their outlook either.

Therein lies the problem.

MGD, Stratford, England

Afghanistan has always been ungovernable - diifferent warlords or faction being dominant at different times. I am very much opposed to the Taliban, being very much in favour of the rights of women everywhere INCLUDING SAUDI ARABIA. But the western presence is really nor helping anyone. Go hod Yanks and everyone else. Each country has to solve its own problems.

Pete Moss, Shekou, China

Yes, let the US handle the mess, as usual, while others stand off at a convenient distance to criticize.

Just as a reminder, we are in Afghanistan fighting the Taleban. Surely you remember them? They're the ones who'd like to chop all your bloody heads off.

gb, Austin, USA

Can we all agree that NATO is dead? It should be disbanded; all American bases should be turned over to the Europeans, and all American soldiers should leave.

This will make the America haters (see some comments above) happy; and it is in the best interests of us here in the US. The Germans have made it clear they will never fight for anyone except themselves. The US can then conclude seperate treaties with real allies (the British, for instance).

John Wojtowicz, West Chester, PA USA

This will be the end of NATO. We have some 119,000 troops in Europe no readily apparent reason. They are needed elsewhere.

Don, Cold Spring, USA, Texas

@ Graeme

The military forces of the former GDR, the "Nationale Volksarmee" (NVA) never took part in full-scale combat. Although NVA officers worked as combat advisers in a couple of conflicts.

Peter, Glasgow,

The Germans appear to have more sense than "poodle" UK in blindly supporting the Karzai regime in Kabul.

george, london, uk

Arrogant Americans. Don't you just love us????????

Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA

As an American I find these comments dishearteningly. If Europeans are unwilling or incapable of understanding the culture War that is in progress, I vote to dismantle NATO and let Europe be responsible for it's own security. It appears to me that's what Europeans desire. The faster America leaves the safer Europeans believe they will be.

Pat, Chicago, IL

Why should anyone help the U.S.? Why should other countries help the U.S. assert it hegemony? Does anyone seriously think the war in Afghanistan is about building a better society for its inhabitants? If you do just take a look at modern history - Cambodia, Chile, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Iraq, to name but a few, and then ask yourself the same question again.

Jonathan, Auckland, New Zealand

Some people in Britain do not understand that a "war by choice" is unconstitutional in Germany. Even the preparation of such a war might lead to a trial of the politicians involved (Article 26 of the constitution). It is a pity that such a law does not exist in the US or Britain. Iraq still might be free of terrorists.

Hep, Dortmund, Germany

Osama Bin Laden has had an arrest warrant issued by a Court 5 in Madrid Spain, thatâ€™s Europeâ€¦ He also has arrest warrants issued in America and Libya.

D. Beatty, Yeovil, Somerset

It all makes me wonder how the proposed European Army would be run.

paul, Charlottesville, USA

At least when starving German's needed help, President Truman didn't play it safe and risked the lives of US airmen in the Berlin airlift. Franz Josef Jung must have a short memory.

William H. Smith, Palm Desert, USA California

The correct name of the German defence minister is Franz-Josef 'Chicken' Jung, not Franz Josef, these are just his given names. The 'Chicken' was acquired from his actions.

Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth, UK

I worked with the German Bundeswehr during my time in the British Army and found them to be unprofesssional and tactically inept. I doubt very much that they would be of much use, especially given their total lack of experience in counter insurgency scenarios.

Tim, London,

Let's get out of Afghanistan and see what happens.

Marek, London,

1. Cautiously expressed I would say that the German army is currently not in a good condition.
2. Islamist extremists are widely not seen as a big danger and Afghanistan is "far" away.
3. Especially since "reunification" populist parties and the mass media gain support if they speak out against the West and particular against the USA. The political elite has obviously no intention to change this.

Juergen T., Stuttgart, Germany

And so the last nail in NATO's coffin was hammered in...

DC, Washington DC, USA

Maybe the next time Mr Gates climbes out of the trenches screaming CHARGE he should look back first to see if he has an army.

patrick , Aum., france

Good question, Andrew . To paraphrase your question, "perhaps someone could explain to me in simple terms" -- what are US troops doing in the former Yugoslavia , as this seems to be an European problem, not ours? And what is the objective "of this absurd and costly m,ilitary campaign"?

Richard, Seattle, USA

If the US is so concerned, why don't they send in more troops? I am glad the Germans are standing up to this bully boy tactics. I think the US should manage their own mess.

Abdul, London,

A substantial number of former GDR troops were deployed in Afghanistan in the latter part of the last century and suffered substantial losses in another no win conflict strikingly similar to the current fiasco. Therefore it is completely understandable that our German friends are reluctant both politically and in terms of the human cost to deploy any more of their sons to a legally dubious and unwinable conflict.

Graeme, Chester, U.K.

Perhaps someone could explain me in simple terms - what are NATO troops doing in Afghanistan and what is the objective of this absurd and costly military campaign?

Andrew, London,

Julia Iskandar's inane comment that "neither Bin Laden or the Taleban have ever even been tried, let alone convicted, of anything in a court of law (by which I mean a court of law in the European sense)." She ignors the fact that bin Laden bragged about killing over 3000 that included some Brits 9/11.

William H. Smith, Palm Desert, USA California

after the us american 'peace' concept has failed in any means they now want other nato members to help them out. I think Germany shouldn't climb on the bandwagon which have already been crashed. By the way, the german Bundestag have to decide whether or not german troops should going into combat in the south, not some american politican.

ronald, berlin, Germany

Bully and berate others and eventually they will begin to ignore you. Especially when you are militarily pinned in a corner and economically toothless.

Charles, Seattle,

What is required in the south of the country is another British regiment like the Royal Anglian Regiment which during a recent tour of duty killed more than a 1000 Tailban. Well done lads from another Brit from East Anglia. You can walk through Cambridge, Ipswich or Norwich with pride.

Charles Morgan , Madrid , Spain.

I don't think that any country in the world, not even the US that sees itself as a somewhot higher force (probably like Jesus Christ or something like that) has the right to force other nations to sign deth sentences for their soldiers.

Mathis, VettelschoÃŸ, Germany

The correct name of the German defence minister is Franz-Josef Jung, not Franz Josef, that are just his first names.

John, Hamburg, Germany

John from Hamburg:

My 'correct name' is Joshua Bruce Allen, but people call me Josh in most situations. So is 'Josh' not my name, because it is just my first name? Is it incorrect to call Gordon Brown 'Mr. Brown' because this excludes his first name? No it isn't.

Josh, Norwich, England

I think every Country has the right to determine what they are going to do. Just like the US did in WWII, some step up to the plate others faulter!

John, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Too bad the Germans were not this afraid of combat in the 1st half of the 1900s.

Bill, Toronto, Canada

The Americans didn't learn much in Vietnam, did they.

K. Woodhouse, Lincoln, England

It is the German parliament which decides on whether and where German troops are deployed. The US should be glad that there is anybody left of the "coalition of the willing", given the permanent "mission creep", the Don-Quichote-like character of the war in Afghanistan, and its dubious legality, given that Afghanistan as a country has not attacked the US or anybody in Europe or Australia or anywhere. Afghanistan as a country has not given shelter or succour to Bin Laden either. The Taleban did that, Islamic fundamentalists who ARE the locals in both Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan. Neither Bin Laden or the Taleban have ever even been tried, let alone convicted, of anything in a court of law (by which I mean a court of law in the European sense). We have no right to be in Afghanistan in the first place. Not even Alexander the Great, with his Afghan princess from Balkh, succeeded there. The US/Pentagon/Bush want to extend their war to both Pakistan and Iran as a "last " gamble.

Julia Iskandar, London, England

I am quite sure if the fighting in Afghanistan shifted to the north the US and UK would not ignore the German and French pleas for help.

A J Wallis, Cambridge, UK