Germany rejects US troops appeal

[Nafees]

Germany has rejected a US appeal to send more troops to Afghanistan, amid signs of strain in the Nato mission.
The US defence secretary had used a strongly worded letter to urge larger German deployment to south Afghanistan.

But his German counterpart, Franz Josef Jung, bluntly ruled out deploying any German soldiers to the area, which is at the heart of the Taleban insurgency.

In his letter, Mr Gates warned that without reinforcements the Nato effort could lose credibility in Afghanistan.


Map of main troop deployments
He urged Germany to consider a new mandate which could allow thousands more troops to be deployed.

Blunt response

But the German response was equally blunt.
Not only did Mr Jung reject the call for more combat troops to be sent to dangerous parts of southern Afghanistan, he also said Germany had no plans to change its force's deployment in the less violent north.

"We have agreed on a clear division of labour," said Mr Jung on Friday. "I think that we really must keep our focus on the north."

Germany currently has 3,200 troops stationed in northern Afghanistan and around the capital, Kabul.

According to the current parliamentary mandate, 3,500 troops can be sent to northern Afghanistan as part of Nato's 40,000-strong International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).

'Not up for discussion'

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also made clear that the mandate was "not up for discussion", her spokesman said.

German politicians are wary of making a greater commitment as opinion polls show public scepticism about the mission.

And Ernst Uhrlau, the head of Germany's foreign intelligence service (BND), has warned that the security situation in Afghanistan is expected to worsen in the coming months.

Correspondents say the German-US exchange comes amid growing signs of strain in the Isaf mission and in Nato as a whole.

The US has already promised to send an extra 3,000 marines - but is urging other Nato countries to do more amid rising Taleban attacks.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to fly to the UK next week for talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Nato's role in Afghanistan is expected to be high on the agenda.

So far, most Nato members have refused to send significant numbers to southern Afghanistan.

Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has issued both the US and the UK with an ultimatum - that Canada will end its military mission in the dangerous south of Afghanistan unless other Nato countries send more reinforcements.

The US has already promised to send an extra 3,000 marines - but is urging other Nato countries to do more amid rising Taleban attacks.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to fly to the UK next week for talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Nato's role in Afghanistan is expected to be high on the agenda.

So far, most Nato members have refused to send significant numbers to southern Afghanistan.

Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has issued both the US and the UK with an ultimatum - that Canada will end its military mission in the dangerous south of Afghanistan unless other Nato countries send more reinforcements.

Source: BBC News

 

[S-2]

My post elsewhere expresses my thoughts-

"'Germany has made it clear it is doing all it can in northern Afghanistan.' BBC News

No. Germany has made clear that it's doing all that it's willing to do. No more.

Germany (fully reunited) is unable w/ it's population and vast wealth to muster the necessary resources? This same nation sent 8,000,000 men to the eastern front to fight for a cause that's indefensible.

You can give me a lot of reasons but that doesn't wash one bit.

Sec'y Gates has talked around the central issue. All you really need to know is that the British Army's CIC [Combat Infantry Course] course length has been cut in half to understand what's REALLY the issue. It's an enduring and increasingly endemic malaise in our allies and calls to question the nature of the alliance."

 

[Keysersoze]

My post elsewhere expresses my thoughts-

"'Germany has made it clear it is doing all it can in northern Afghanistan.' BBC News

No. Germany has made clear that it's doing all that it's willing to do. No more.

Germany (fully reunited) is unable w/ it's population and vast wealth to muster the necessary resources? This same nation sent 8,000,000 men to the eastern front to fight for a cause that's indefensible.

You can give me a lot of reasons but that doesn't wash one bit.

Sec'y Gates has talked around the central issue. All you really need to know is that the British Army's CIC [Combat Infantry Course] course length has been cut in half to understand what's REALLY the issue. It's an enduring and increasingly endemic malaise in our allies and calls to question the nature of the alliance."

Sorry dude but you know what? It's called democracy. The people of Germany don't want to do then they shouldn't be made to do so.
The simple fact is that both the U.S. and the U.K. took their eyes off the real target, for a little adventure in Iraq. Germany didn't get attacked on 9/11 the U.S. did.

I am sure you are goin to bring up the whole NATO thing so let me pre-empt that. NATO was all about the threat of the USSR it is now a organisation without purpose.

 

[S-2]

message deleted by S-2

 

[S-2]

"Sorry dude but you know what? It's called democracy... it is now a organisation without purpose."

Well, dude, tell me something new-

"...and calls to question the nature of the alliance."

Maybe you don't like the phrasing...I don't know. I do know that there's little functional difference between our final comments.

This from the Telegraph on Sept. 27, 2001-

U.S. Asks NATO's Help-London Telegraph

"The Bush administration also chose not to invoke Nato's mutual defence clause, Article 5, which deems that an attack on one member is an attack on all 19, triggering a collective response.

Mr Wolfowitz said the decision of the alliance two weeks ago to extend the definition of Article 5 beyond conventional military attacks to include terrorist atrocities already gave the United States a 'a very powerful basis for a variety of individual requests to individual countries'".

NATO has a long, miserable death in front of it. You're correct about the USSR. Somehow the Red Army had a more crystallizing effect upon our allies. However, even then, America's interest in keeping NATO on it's feet often exceeded the tone of the population.

The expression "better red than dead" comes to mind of those days so perhaps nothing HAS actually changed.

 

[Keysersoze]

"Sorry dude but you know what? It's called democracy... it is now a organisation without purpose."

Well, dude, tell me something new-

"...and calls to question the nature of the alliance."

Maybe you don't like the phrasing...I don't know. I do know that there's little functional difference between our final comments.

This from the Telegraph on Sept. 27, 2001-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/weu17.xml

"The Bush administration also chose not to invoke Nato's mutual defence clause, Article 5, which deems that an attack on one member is an attack on all 19, triggering a collective response.

Mr Wolfowitz said the decision of the alliance two weeks ago to extend the definition of Article 5 beyond conventional military attacks to include terrorist atrocities already gave the United States a 'a very powerful basis for a variety of individual requests to individual countries'".

It would be interesting to see if the U.S. were to invoke the clause, if it would casue the disintegration of NATO as a organisation.

 

[S-2]

NATO INVOKES ARTICLE 5

"Less than 24 hours after the attacks, NATO invoked for the first time Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - its collective defence clause - declaring the attacks to be an attack against all NATO members. The Alliance subsequently deployed aircraft and ships in support of the United States."

We never asked. They did so of their own volition before a request could formally be made. We moved slow on the implementation.

We fought the campaign. Our request subsequently was for ISAF and a U.N. mandated transitional gov't with supervised elections when possible. Needless to say, our requests for NATO forces in no way would have equaled their request for OUR forces had the Soviet Union crossed the inter-German border back in the good ol' days.

"Old Europe" and "new Europe". Rumsfeld caught Euro-hell for that comment. NATO's salvation, however, may lie in the clear recognition by it's newest members that Russia remains a very real threat. It's the raison d'etat behind nations like Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and others desiring NATO entry.

Without question Europe presumes, treaty or no, that they'll ALWAYS retain a virtual free-ride at America's expense. The same attitude is all-too-obvious elsewhere also. The Iraqi parliament and administration feels assured that Americans wish their unification and reconciliation more so than themselves.

Read Simon Jenkins column in the London Times today. It's a surrender manifesto. He gives up. Moral decay is evident all over western Europe. So too Russia with it's emerging neo-authoritarian Potemkin facade of democracy.

I mentioned the CIC program cut in half. 11700 troops- a small division- is all that GREAT BRITAIN, CANADA, and the NETHERLANDS can muster in Helmand, Kandahar, and Urozgan? Yet their tenuous contribution and commitment (see ROFs) exceeds others from NATO.

Europe's a joke. France has learned the limits of its influence in Lebanon recently with it's failed mediation on behalf of Siniora. The British have learned that the Iraqi and Iranian shia take GREAT pleasure at poking them and seizing their crews (twice).

I'll give European gov'ts SOME credit. They routinely and rapidly commit to action very large and noble words. Not much else. Not Bosnia. Not Kosovo. Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan.

 

[mujahideen]

Afghanistan is a no win country. You can do what you want their but nothing will change.

 

[Quwa]

Pakistan wouldn't mind, that's one less NATO power to deal with for Pakistan and one plus Western country in its trading booklets. Guess the U214 deal might go through afterall.

 

[zhongchao]

I first come pk adress,I hope you happy,please allow me say good in chinese:祝大家身体健康。

 

[S-2]

...but the Polish mujahideen foreign minister doesn't.

Foreign Minister Sikorski Commits Helicopters