US presses Germany over troops for Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Feb 1, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080201/wl_afp/germanyusafghanistannato_080201114535;_ylt=AnOtfPQ0v0lbfzFzgHRQjDWQOrgF

    Likely our German friends would try to postpone the decision. Then they would wait for the outcome of American election and later who knows, maybe an agreement with Taliban would be reached.
     
  2. YesItsMe

    YesItsMe LE Good Egg (charities)

    since they start the training on 11th febr in augustdorf

    there's nothing left to be asked i guess
     
  3. Am I not correct in saying that the 3200 German troops currently in the 'stan are not allowed to partake in combat operations?

    Jockster
     
  4. YesItsMe

    YesItsMe LE Good Egg (charities)

    i'm pretty sure by then they will be allowed to
     
  5. always thought the german army is rather like a recovering alcoholic who knows just one drink is never enough. Let them have one real op and next thing you know it will be a deeply unpleasant time for the french all over again.
    If they do go on real shooting ops with extensive time in the field, will be interesting to see how their kit performs given its relative gucci-ness reputation.
     
  6. Seems to be the German public perception of what their Army should or should not be doing. Frightened that history will repeat itself IMHO.

    Jockster
     
  7. YesItsMe

    YesItsMe LE Good Egg (charities)


    no i don't think so ... they're acting nothing but on nato guidelines

    and it's best this way
     
  8. absolutely agree jockster ... and similar to the japanese defense force that will barely leave its territorial waters.
     
  9. Do they actually go out to a specific area, ala Musa Qala, in their Dingos and look for a fight, no. But, in the past, have they gone to areas where they could get into a contact, yes.
     
  10. Why dont the Germans invade France and worthier parts of Europe, force all persons into labour, ship then out to the Middle East (to avoid a high gasbill seeing as energy bills are being hiked up) and call them German military?
     
  11. Galling as it might be that our blokes have to shoulder such a large burden, the original mission didn't include all out war against the Taliban. The Boche certainly didn't sign up to that. In all honesty I can't say I blame them for refusing to buy a pig in a poke.

    If they do decide to join the fray, I reckon Terry will be in for a nasty shock after their previous ROE, but I don't see why they should join in for any reason other than they think they should - not because some of their NATO allies have crept the mission and certainly not to get the Chimp out of a bind.
     
  12. If they don't, and listening to their foreign minister on the World at One, even the rapid reaction force will only use lethal force in self defence it will weaken NATO. It seems to me that if you have an alliance you cannot just expect a few to do all the heavy lifting. If the Brits or Americans don't reinforce then the Canadians will leave and this will have the potential to unwind the whole mission. If Afghanistan is really important to the security of Europe then all NATO countries should share the heavy lifting.

    It is up to German politicians to persuade the electorate of the importance of the mission. Or is it that German soldiers lives are seen as more valuable than that of other members of the alliance who are doing the heavy lifting. In my opinion the alliance persuades its electorates of the importance of the mission and shares the burden or if they are unable to do this get out and take the consequences good or bad.
     
  13. But some did deploy to Iraq in 2004.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3400277.stm
     
  14. I admit to having missed a lot, but I've not heard anything about a vote in NATO about shifting the mission from nation-building to war-fighting. If you have an alliance, you should at least discuss what you intend to commit your allies to. For one thing it's polite, for the other it'll save you being embarrassed when they laugh in your face on the world stage.

    I agree about the consequences for NATO and the mission in AFG, but being in an alliance doesn't make them a vassal state.