Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gates Writes To German Government - Troops South!  
User currently offlineLHStarAlliance From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2084 times:

Robert Gates wrote to the Federal Government a 8 pages long letter claiming for German Troops to the South of Afghanistan - This some weeks before the Nato Meeting in Vilnius .

Will the Government agree at the End , will the pressure be to high ? How could the Americans put the Germans under pressure , I don't see any way ...

Why are all Countries "shouting" to Germany to send more troops ? Canada is menacing that they'll retire 2500 soldiers if , "some European Countries" meaning Germany don't sends 1000 more .


Constantin


http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,532442,00.html

[Edited 2008-01-31 11:45:35]

[Edited 2008-01-31 11:46:03]

77 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

South to where...Austria?


Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineLHStarAlliance From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2071 times:



Quoting Confuscius (Reply 1):
South to where...Austria?

yes


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2061 times:



Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 2):
yes

Thanks for the clarification...and editing.

Yeah, they need more troops in Afghanistan...that's where al-Qaeda is strongest and not in Mesopotamia.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Thread starter):
How could the Americans put the Germans under pressure , I don't see any way ...

If you mean Afghanistan, it's because the Americans, British, Canadians and Dutch are fed up with being the ones doing the dirty work and all the fighting in the likes of Helmand province, that's why.

[Edited 2008-01-31 11:54:45]


She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineLHStarAlliance From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2042 times:



Quoting Banco (Reply 4):
If you mean Afghanistan, it's because the Americans, British, Canadians and Dutch are fed of being the ones doing the dirty work and all the fighting in the likes of Helmand province, that's why.

Na what I ask is how could Americans put Germans under pressure so they send the troops .
Now the Bundesregierung would always say , we can't because it is not popular and we could lose votes ...


User currently offlineSKYSERVICE_330 From Canada, joined Sep 2000, 1415 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2042 times:



Quoting LHStarAlliance (Thread starter):
Why are all Countries "shouting" to Germany to send more troops ? Canada is menacing that they'll retire 2500 soldiers if , "some European Countries" meaning Germany don't sends 1000 more .

As part of NATO and a coalition isn't it only right that all members take their fair share of the heavy work? Canada has been taking on casualties in the south while others have been avoiding the combat aspect of the mission because of their caveats. Time to step up to the plate I say. And no, it doesn't only mean Germany, I am sure Canadians would be happy just as long as someone steps forward.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Those demands are not entirely unreasonable on the face of it, although the german forces certainly can't expand their commitments indefinitely.

My misgivings relate primarily to the problematic american mission leadership and their refusal to discuss or modify their approach.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2036 times:



Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 5):
we can't because it is not popular and we could lose votes ...

It might not be popular and it might lose votes. But Skyservice is right. It is hardly fair that the burden of the heavy work is falling on the shoulders of a very few countries. These nations are losing people out there.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2021 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
My misgivings relate primarily to the problematic american mission leadership and their refusal to discuss or modify their approach.

The tail rarely wags the dog.

At different times, this campaign has been under British and Canadian command as well. Both nations have substantial commitments there, and the Americans have has no problem serving under the command of either, just as the British and Canadians currently have no problems serving under American command.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2006 times:



Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
The tail rarely wags the dog.

If there is only a chain of command without any consideration of alternative strategies or tactics on the upper levels, it's not an alliance mission. In that case our troops could only be withdrawn.

As far as I'm aware the overall strategy and tactics for the active military operations have been devised exclusively by the american side with as little consideration of alternatives as we've seen everywhere else with the Bush administration. And the problematic consequences of that strategy in Afghanistan don't let this approach look like a winner much more than the one in Iraq devised by the same people.

That is where my misgivings originate.


User currently offlineWrenchBender From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

Klaus
From the ISAF Website.....
"Who is in charge?
The political direction and co-ordination for the mission is provided by NATO's principal decision-making body, the North Atlantic Council. Based on the political guidance from the Council, strategic command and control is exercised by NATO's top operational headquarters, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium."
link to the site http://www.nato.int/isaf/index.html
Please don't confuse the American presence(Enduring Freedom) with ISAF, which also includes Americans with a different command chain.

WrenchBender



Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids.......
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

Am I the only one who initially thought "That Microsoft founder really has to get involved in EVERYTHING!" ?  biggrin 


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1957 times:



Quoting WrenchBender (Reply 11):
From the ISAF Website.....
"Who is in charge?
The political direction and co-ordination for the mission is provided by NATO's principal decision-making body, the North Atlantic Council. Based on the political guidance from the Council, strategic command and control is exercised by NATO's top operational headquarters, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium."
link to the site http://www.nato.int/isaf/index.html
Please don't confuse the American presence(Enduring Freedom) with ISAF, which also includes Americans with a different command chain.

I don't. My problem is that my last information was that the operative forces are effectively under US command with a strict refusal to consider requests for strategic or tactical changes.

I'd love to hear that things have changed since then (I haven't watched that aspect too closely), but simply providing german cannon fodder to compensate for a lack of american one due to Iraq would not be acceptable.

If there is actual allied cooperation going on, those requests for german troops are okay with me at least in principle. But not if they're just intended as voiceless vassal contingents.

Quoting A342 (Reply 12):
Am I the only one who initially thought "That Microsoft founder really has to get involved in EVERYTHING!" ?

Just for a few clock cycles...!  cool 

Actually, I hope that the current US SecDef is more competent than the other one...


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1896 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
I don't. My problem is that my last information was that the operative forces are effectively under US command with a strict refusal to consider requests for strategic or tactical changes.

ISAF switches command between the countries that are operationally engaged. As stated before, at different times the NATO forces have been under British and Canadian command including American troops.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
but simply providing german cannon fodder to compensate for a lack of american one due to Iraq would not be acceptable.

The implication there is somewhat distasteful. Given that Afghanistan is a NATO operation, of which Germany is a member, you are supposed to be part of the operation. It is simply not fair to leave it to the usual suspects to do all the fighting and take the casualties. It's not just the US that wants the likes of Germany and France to do more, the other three combatant nations do as well. If the Dutch can do it (and they have) the French and Germans certainly can. Your alpine troops would be of immense value, and sitting in nice, safe Kabul whilst the others are fighting and dying is going to cause resentment.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 1848 times:



Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
ISAF switches command between the countries that are operationally engaged. As stated before, at different times the NATO forces have been under British and Canadian command including American troops.

The issue is not formal command, the issue is actual cooperation on the strategic and tactical level. If the current strategy (sucking up to the warlords / drug barons and air-bombing villages with little discrimination) is kept in place, it simply doesn't matter who is sitting on the big chair.

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
The implication there is somewhat distasteful.

Most certainly. And I don't want our soldiers in that situation as long as that is the case.

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Given that Afghanistan is a NATO operation, of which Germany is a member, you are supposed to be part of the operation. It is simply not fair to leave it to the usual suspects to do all the fighting and take the casualties.

German troops working up there in the north had to do not least with the total refusal of the US side to even consider talking about strategy and tactics with anyone else - the strategy and tactics were devised by the US side and whoever participated had to fit in and obey.

The schism about Iraq only deepened the reservations on our side.

And the harsh letter from Gates is transparently a demand to replace troops which have been extracted from Afghanistan in 2003 to start the disastrous Iraq invasion, at the very least american and british ones.

The limp handling of the drug problem and the resulting resurgence of opposing forces including the Taliban was one of the consequences. The entire strategy has largely failed, and that failure was in large part owed to fundamental misconceptions about the nature of the operation, quite like in Iraq.

At this time sending our troops into battles chosen, prepared and commanded by people with such a record of proven ineptitude and lack of foresight would be extremely difficult (if possible at all) to justify in the Bundestag, let alone in the general population. (It would of course be at least premature to dump all the blame on the military commanders - we all know that the political level had a lot to do with the way things have been done.)

The tone of the letter has probably also played a part in the official rebuttal it has received by now.


A major change of strategy which could actually turn Afghanistan around could make such a deployment debatable if the resources were available, at least for me; Even if increased risks were involved, the chances might still be worth it.

But at this point we're apparently looking at an attempt to procure just another chunk of cannon fodder, without the existing mistakes being corrected first as far as I can see.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 1835 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 15):
But at this point we're apparently looking at an attempt to procure just another chunk of cannon fodder,

Utter rot. Firstly you're implying that the British, Canadians and Dutch are cannon fodder. An outrageous implication.

It never seems to occur to you that German sentiment is ignored because the Germans don't pull their weight.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 1832 times:



Quoting Banco (Reply 4):
If you mean Afghanistan, it's because the Americans, British, Canadians and Dutch are fed up with being the ones doing the dirty work and all the fighting in the likes of Helmand province, that's why.

Even though I understand that this is a NATO operation lets not forget that it was the USA that pulled everybody into that conflict, only to shift strategy and go and invade Iraq. My biggest beef with Gates is his statement that the US military is stretched "too thin". Well, if that's the case, why the hell go and invade Iraq when you are not done re-building Afghanistan or capturing OBL? As an American military officer I find it insulting that my leadership is now placing the blame on other nations to cover their own short-sightedness. I agree with the Germans on this one...


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 22 hours ago) and read 1808 times:

Just imagine if during previous conflicts, one of the Allies refused quite reasonable demands in a serious situation, because another had done something a few years before that they did not approve entirely of.

Gates is no Donald Rumsfeld, he is asking very pertinent questions about just what all those forces in some larger NATO nations are for.
It's just no good to say 'we only do the more benign peacekeeping', when situations on the ground can change rapidly.
Did we all learn nothing from the break up of the former Yugoslavia?
That thug in Belgrade, now happily no longer on this Earth, could and should have been stopped in the early 1990's.
And what was the result of that?

In this period, the UK government at the time, with that dreadful old Foreign Office Mandarin, Douglas Hurd, in the Cabinet as Foreign Secretary, was as culpable.
But the uncomfortable facts are that certain nations were very quick to ask for US help, for a problem in their own backyard, that they, given the will, had the military resources to do themselves.

All of a sudden, the cry from many in the US of 'ungrateful Europeans' is not just the usual WW2 referenced knee-jerk, from the usual suspects.
It seemed perverse that the US turned down so many offers of NATO help for Afghanistan in 2001, which may have helped Bin Laden to get away, by instead using unreliable, bribe-able, Afghan fighters. Which would leave a void later filled by a resurgent Taliban.
But now, if the caveats were demanded then by some, as now, you can see why they were turned down.

Picture if you will, a collapse of the aid and military effort in Afghanistan, the Taliban again in charge, again a base for terrorism, terrorism that HAS plotted against the very nations refusing to pull their weight, even before Sept 11th 2001.
A massive victory to them, which would also greatly embolden the terrorists, not to mention the appalling effects on millions of ordinary Afghans, who we in the West promised would not be abandoned, again.
That would be a tragic case of some nations, cutting off their nose to spite their face.

And the rift across the Atlantic would likely be permanent, to the pleasure of not just Islamists, but Iranian despots and even Putin and his successors.
Try then asking for help from the US, Canada, or UK, if another serious situation erupts in the Balkans again, or Russia gets more and more bullying.

[Edited 2008-02-02 10:30:17]

[Edited 2008-02-02 10:32:26]

User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7952 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 21 hours ago) and read 1800 times:



Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
It's not just the US that wants the likes of Germany and France to do more, the other three combatant nations do as well. If the Dutch can do it (and they have) the French and Germans certainly can. Your alpine troops would be of immense value, and sitting in nice, safe Kabul whilst the others are fighting and dying is going to cause resentment.

I understand, I really do. But to get this straight: The fact that Mr. Gates demands German troops to be deployed to Afghanistan's south is as laughable as it would be, would Minister Jung demand that Mr Gates deploys American troops to someplace else.
If this is a NATO mission, NATO can demand troops, not Mr. Gates.

Then I have some questions:

- Whom are the soldiers supposed to fight against? Al Qaida? The Taliban? Peasant farmers with opium fields? All of them? Are our troops supposed to help establishing a democracy?
The war has started in 2001 as a battle against Al Qaida and their camps in Afghanistan. Now NATO even attacks those Taliban members who didn't pick up their guns against NATO soldiers and is burning down opium fields. Not necessarely a bad thing, but who's the enemy, and what's the strategy?

- In 2005, the UK had 461 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, while the USA had the vast amount of 89 soldiers over there. Germany on the other hand provided 1,816 - by far more than any other country. The north, formerly the place of clashes between Taliban and the so called Northern Alliance is now comparatively calm. Why isn't Britain and the U.S. saying something along the line like "ok, could be our fault ..." rather than shifting the blame?

- What is going to happen to those being captured? Will they be shipped to Guantanamo or will there be even more "rendition flights" then those we have seen in the past? What is their legal status going to be?

- If those fightings continue to push Taliban or Al Qaida members (pick one) over the border to Pakistan: Will the U.S. urge NATO to invade Pakistan one day?



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 21 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

The mistakes made in the past are irrelevant now, what matters is the situation on the ground. Gates did not 'demand' anything, he has been asking reasonable requests for months, he'd be less than human if he did not get fed up at being fobbed off.
If overstretched British forces can nearly increase by some 50% their numbers on the ground, in less than two years, due to what is actually happening out there, others can step up too.
It's called give and take, or has all those decades of living and prospering under NATO strategic protection, made those decision makers blind to the reality of military operations, or any kind?

British forces will likely, somehow, at great stress to all involved, find more resources for this mission, but even some all out effort with massive extra funding and withdrawal from other important operations, would still not provide enough.
Others owe NATO this, on the subject of NATO, if there is a perception that threatening it's very existence, or even in some quarters outright hostility to it, be careful, because if it goes, it will be missed and likely very quickly.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7952 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
The mistakes made in the past are irrelevant now,

Had you read my questions carefully, you would have noticed that they are not exactly aiming at the past. Quite to the contrary.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Gates did not 'demand' anything, he has been asking reasonable requests for months,

How about calling NATO then instead of his German colleague? He can neither demand nor ask for troops without sounding stupid - provided this is really a NATO mission.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
If overstretched British forces can nearly increase by some 50% their numbers on the ground, in less than two years,

So the number of British troops were increased by some 230 from 2005 to 2007? That's interesting, because Germany increased troops committed to Afghanistan from 1,816 in 2005 to 2,850 in 2006. That's roughly 4 times as many in half of the time, while Germany, to my knowledge, is still the bigger contributor to UN peace keeping missons around the globe than Britain.
Why in the world Mr. Gates has a right to feel "fobbed off" is, against the background of those numbers, a little beyond me. Same goes for your sentiment on "other important operations", because Germany has in doubt more "other important missions" than Britain.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Others owe NATO this, on the subject of NATO, if there is a perception that threatening it's very existence,

Then call NATO member countries who have contributed a couple of dozens soldiers so far.

But first and foremost I want my questions answered before I support Mr. Gates' ... er .. request.

[Edited 2008-02-02 11:20:16]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 1767 times:



Quoting NoUFO (Reply 21):
So the number of British troops were increased by some 230 from 2005 to 2007? That's interesting, because Germany increased their troops from 1,816 in 2005 to 2,850 in 2006.

Totally wrong. There are now 8,000 British troops deployed in Afghanistan, which dwarfs the German contingent. And those British troops are on the front line.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7952 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

Banco,
According to NATO, Britain had exactly 461 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan (2005). An increase by some 50% over two years, as mentioned by GDB, would roughly sum up to an additional contingent of 230 in 2007. Is that correct?



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 1758 times:



Quoting NoUFO (Reply 23):
According to NATO, Britain had exactly 461 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan (2005). An increase by some 50% over two years, as mentioned by GDB, would roughly sum up to an additional contingent of 230 in 2007. Is that correct?

Ah, I see why you think that.

No, as I understand it, the ISAF part only referred to the operations around Kabul, and the campaigns in the south of the country were not counted in those numbers because it wasn't then under NATO command. So even though Britain had then something like 3,500 troops fighting in Afghanistan, the ISAF figures only showed around 500 as part of the ISAF grouping. Since then, the whole operation has come under NATO command, and so British forces now appear in the overall total as a much, much higher figure.

I'm willing for that to be corrected elsewhere, but I believe that's the position.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
25 Post contains links MD11Engineer : First the German military need to get their act together. A report published about two weeks ago by an official committee under the leadership of a fo
26 NoUFO : Could be. This, however, would turn the request/urge to deploy German troops to the south as it was mentioned as early as in 2005, irrelevant. Outsid
27 Banco : I wouldn't begin to play armchair general on that one. I haven't a clue. But if there is lots of frustration from Canada, Britain and the US (and pre
28 GDB : I was referring to the initial deployment in 2006, to date, the one where British troops found themselves in the heaviest combat since Korea or even,
29 NoUFO : Armchair general? I'm merely asking some question I want answered before I, a citizen in whose name soldiers will be deployed to the south (and some
30 Post contains images Banco : You miss the point. I was saying I wasn't qualified to answer the question, not that you weren't qualified to ask it. No need to go on a rant about m
31 Post contains images Racko : IMO the real question is: WHY would they want us there? We suck at war. If you eventually want to win that conflict there's no better strategy than to
32 Post contains links and images WrenchBender : According to ISAF over 7700 UK troops are in Afghanistan not including their NSE http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat.pdf All anyone
33 EXTspotter : Here is a fun fact: Proportion of armed Forces currently stationed in Afganistan (i.e. not including Iraq and elsewhere) USA: About 1 in 50 Canada: Ab
34 NoUFO : As Banco already mentioned it seems that I first came across the ISAF numbers alone. Sorry for the confusion. How so? According to WrenchBender's cha
35 NoUFO : France is not part of the military arm of NATO anyway, and you'll be hard pressed to find a halfway sane person who wants Germany out.
36 GDB : My understanding is that around 80 UK personnel have been killed in Afghanistan, since 2001, not 200 thank god. Germany is getting a bad rap here, (an
37 MD11Engineer : This is what I understand the 250 (appr. 2 companies plus support troops) German combart soldiers will be used for, mainly to replace the Norwegian s
38 ME AVN FAN : " target=_blank>http://www.nato.int/isaf/index.html So that there might be a nice compromise solution. The Germans send more troops to Afghanistan bu
39 WrenchBender : You want to change the mission from NATO to EU ??? 1. There is no EU Military alliance 2. SHAPE is the NATO HQ 3. If the Germans took on more reaspon
40 Klaus : As I said above: The primary issue I have with that demand is the current strategy. If that strategy is not sound now, it would be reckless to put our
41 Charles79 : That's a very wise statement, Klaus. The Bush administration is at odds about what to do with Afghanistan, largely ignoring the country while Al-Qaed
42 ME AVN FAN : True, but there is a kind of German-French "army" of some kind, so that the forces in Afghanistan might get linked to that one. The Brits of course c
43 NoUFO : It's a NATO mission by now, so NATO is in charge, not President Bush, and quite frankly, Bush naturally won't achieve much until November. Not to men
44 GDB : British forces are usually the more reluctant to use fast jet air support, as seen in Iraq, further back in the mid 60's, in a serious confrontation
45 Post contains images Klaus : Of course there are different opinions here as well, but that aspect is among the reasons why the demand was refused the way it was made right now. A
46 GDB : For what it's worth, in 2001, the US should have had sufficient force in place (with plenty of allies, but some of them dropping all those caveats too
47 Klaus : The problem is that they are a guerilla force, not a consolidated national army. Recipies from WWII simply do not apply there - the USA have made tha
48 NoUFO : Off topic, but as far as I understand, he is not standing above the law. He wasn't prosecuted, because he committed a civil offense which let to his
49 Klaus : There was also the severely fishy takeover of the Minol network of gas stations in eastern Germany by the french ELF corporation which was apparently
50 Pelican : When I read this thread or the demands of Gates and other NATO secretaries of defence I can only wonder what do they expect? For two generations no Ge
51 LH423 : I understand what you're saying and I completely agree. But, speaking from a Canadian perspective, we have about a 1,000 fewer troops on the ground i
52 Klaus : So you're saying you agree that the strategy is wrong but we should just shut up and send our troops in to get killed by that same strategy anyway? W
53 Dougloid : Have you figured out who has how many boots on the ground yet? because I believe you started out by reading about ISAF.
54 Baroque : But the mistakes of the past are showing up now in problems on that damned ground. That approach is effectively a glorification of an ability to igno
55 LH423 : No. But I'm saying we're all in this together. So a German soldier's life is more valuable than a Canadian or British soldier? Why should the securit
56 ME AVN FAN : - NATO defacto is under the command of US-American generals, and so, the US government in reality IS in charge - they were not "Communists" really bu
57 Post contains images Baroque : Now you have done it MAF. As Basil Fawlty said, DONT MENTION THE WAR!
58 Klaus : No. But while your interest in changing the strategy that killed yours seems to be minimal or nonexistent, my interest in changing the strategy befor
59 GDB : Let's stop with this 'orders from Gates', not true and Germany knows it. Y'know, maybe, just maybe, had all those 'caveats' (translation - others do t
60 Pelican : True. But unfortunately politics don't work like this. I just wanted to show how difficult it is for German politicians to sent troops into combat -
61 NoUFO : Not true, the government under Schroeder did so. They sent the KSK to Afghanistan (and offered a lot more) and ECR Tornados to Bosnia. Well, you are
62 Pelican : I don't count the Balkans because it is a whole different dimension to send ECR Tornados which are supposed to fight air defence than to send soldier
63 NoUFO : Those pilots were shot at, and you can assume that people on the ground got killed. A pilot once wrote that the general public had no idea how danger
64 Klaus : We could certainly discuss Kohl's and Genscher's handling of the situation back then and we might not be all that far apart in some of the assessment
65 UH60FtRucker : Can you clarify this? You don't approve of Germany sending additional forces... because they would be fighting a "Bush Strategy"?? -UH60
66 Klaus : As I've said above, I would in fact support an increased integration with the southern forces (within the realistic capabilties of our forces, of cou
67 SKYSERVICE_330 : Poland has stepped forward to meet some of the Canadian requests on helicopters, so that is good news. However, the troops are still needed. A Canadia
68 UH60FtRucker : I have the distinct feeling you have already made up your mind, regarding whether or not the strategy is a "winning one." What would you rather we do
69 ME AVN FAN : - Just ONE example : Help General Rashid Dostum into the Afghan presidency, hand over all the weaponry (including instructors) to his troops, and the
70 Pelican : That's the whole point. It's also true for the KSK - the public has no idea what their mission looked like. It's not so much a problem for a politici
71 Klaus : As far as I know about it, which I maintain to be incomplete and possibly outdated. Hence my thus far unanswered request for updated information. a)
72 Baroque : I was beginning to think that the whole core of the best argument for the German reluctance was going to be passed out of touch. Well, MAF has one pr
73 UH60FtRucker : Wow. How very Rumsfeld-eque of you. How are you going to deny the population one of their few - and certainly most successful - methods of raising mo
74 Post contains links Baroque : Historically, the answer has been the US administered policy on suppression of drugs around the world. Nobody in Aus at the time will forget the fuss
75 GDB : Agreed on the Luftwaffe SEAD missions, flying against systems designed to shoot down aircraft. Not safe, or easy. Add in the KSK, then Germany has, so
76 MD11Engineer : I read about that the developing programmes, especiallly infrastructure programmes, like road building, face major resistance from the drug lords. As
77 Pelican : In a way you and NoUfo are right. But there is no Rubicon there is no line to cross. It's more like doing one step after another. The next step will
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
White House Plans To Cut Iraq Troops By Half In 08 posted Sat May 26 2007 04:02:14 by Jimyvr
English To German Translation Requested posted Wed Jan 17 2007 20:01:43 by Mika
Question To German Users/natives On Nationalism posted Fri Oct 20 2006 17:50:03 by Soku39
Bill Gates Plot To Capture Macs Uncovered posted Wed Apr 12 2006 15:42:17 by Dougloid
German Government Forming. Real Life Satire? posted Tue Nov 1 2005 14:32:45 by Thorben
Nice Way To Treat Our Troops..... posted Thu Jul 14 2005 05:14:06 by Rsmith6621a
Up To 4.000 Chinese Troops In Sudan posted Sun Jun 12 2005 14:23:18 by MD11Engineer
New Orleans To Become "Hollywood South" posted Thu Jan 6 2005 00:08:49 by ConcordeBoy
Why Justifies T. Kennedy To Call US Troops Nazis? posted Tue Jun 1 2004 02:22:20 by TriJetFan1
US Hires Civilian Company To Feed Starving Troops posted Wed Apr 2 2003 04:13:46 by Radarbeam