# Germany begs Canada to continue



## Flip (8 Sep 2007)

I swiped this from Milnews,

One line in particular caught my eye.... I've got it at the bottom 

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070907.wgermany07/front/Front/frontBN/rbc-front



> Berlin begs Ottawa to stay past 2009
> With its public increasingly unnerved about terrorism and war, Germany implores Canada to stay the course for the greater good
> 
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> ...



This bit ...........





> Christian Schmidt, the German secretary of state for defence, said in an interview that Germany would not consider sending its troops south, beyond 100 special-forces soldiers and a fleet of Tornado aircraft that are supporting the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom mission there, and suggested that Canada is damaging the solidarity of the NATO mission.



Canada is damaging the solidarity of NATO?  Ahem! ...cough ..cough


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Sep 2007)

IF canada were to leave Afghanistan, THEN we would be damaging the solidarity of NATO.  That's the inference I got reading it...


----------



## Flip (8 Sep 2007)

Of course but............

What about Germany's refusal to come south?
Isn't that damaging to NATO solidarity?

Or is it that Germans can complain and Canadians can't........


----------



## geo (8 Sep 2007)

forget Germany...
consider the NATO members who are not in Afghanistan.... THEY are damaging the NATO solidarity.

WRT Germany - I would suggest that, at the very least, we forge an agreement whereby Canada and Germany would rotate from North to South = share the risk, share the glory, share the gory.


----------



## Flip (8 Sep 2007)

> WRT Germany - I would suggest that, at the very least, we forge an agreement whereby Canada and Germany would rotate from North to South = share the risk, share the glory, share the gory.



My iteration would be that they simply send some their force south to
reinforce the others in the south. - even if it's to hold defensive positions.
Just a thought - tell me I'm wrong if you want. 

I just thought Christian Schmidts' remark was uncalled for.
Perhaps I took it too literally - It was interpreted I suppose.  ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Sep 2007)

I think that this shows that the pressure is working and that maybe they'll start to pony up a bit more.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Sep 2007)

Instead of begging Canada to stay, they should be encouraging other NATO countries to participate.

Wes


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2007)

Speaking of "solidarity" and cred, how's this tidbit?

*NATO chief says Afghanistan mission is tops, but not make or break for NATO*
Canadian Press, 8 Sept 07
Article link

VICTORIA (CP) - _*Military success in Afghanistan is the No. 1 mission for NATO, but success there is not a make or break issue for the military alliance*_, says the chief of NATO's military committee.

Gen. Ray Henault, a Canadian, says _*Afghanistan is NATO's top job, but the survival of the organization does not hinge on Afghanistan.*_

He says the chiefs of defence of NATO's 26 member nations are in Victoria to map strategy for future and current NATO plans.

Henault says the defence chiefs are aware that Canada is considering pulling out of Afghanistan in 2009.

But _*he did not say anything about replacement nations if Canada decides to withdraw its troops*_.

About 300 protesters gathered outside the fenced-in hotel where the NATO chiefs were meeting, chanting anti-NATO slogans and calling for Canada to get out of Afghanistan.


----------



## geo (8 Sep 2007)

With the advent of our NATO allies having cold feet AND the comming into it's own of the EUROCORP and the EUROFORCE, it is quite possible that NATO, like the WARSAW PACT are anachronisms of days gone bye-bye (like SEATO).

I contend that, if countries aren't prepared to belly up to the bar, then the solidarity of days gone bye has gone the way of the dodo - and all the kids should pick up their toys and go home.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> With the advent of our NATO allies having cold feet AND the comming into it's own of the EUROCORP and the EUROFORCE, it is quite possible that NATO, like the WARSAW PACT are anachronisms of days gone bye-bye (like SEATO).
> 
> I contend that, if countries aren't prepared to belly up to the bar, then the solidarity of days gone bye has gone the way of the dodo - and all the kids should pick up their toys and go home.



ISAF seems to represent a prototype of the follow on or successor to NATO, or more accurately a cross section of the various new organizations which will fill the various niches:

The US led "Coalition of the Willing" is perhaps the overarching model of how to put together large missions

The "Anglosphere" (US, Australia, Canada, UK, possible addition of India as a follow on partner in the future) for the really heavy lifting. The Dutch seem to have moved in as honourary members as well.

The "Partnership for Peace" nations of Eastern Europe have been showing their stuff in Afghanistan. While they do not have the sophisticated logistics, C&C infrastructure and hardware the Anglosphere nations bring to the table, they are willing and able.

Sophisticated partners like Japan and perhaps Korea, Tiawan and other Asian nations might join coalitions as their national interests are engaged.

One thing that you can be certain of is there will always be alliances (either formal or informal) and that they may take surprising shapes based on the perceived interests of the partners at the times and places they are formed.


----------



## TCBF (9 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> With the advent of our NATO allies having cold feet AND the comming into it's own of the EUROCORP and the EUROFORCE, it is quite possible that NATO, like the WARSAW PACT are anachronisms of days gone bye-bye (like SEATO).
> 
> I contend that, if countries aren't prepared to belly up to the bar, then the solidarity of days gone bye has gone the way of the dodo - and all the kids should pick up their toys and go home.



- Let us not forget that Canada had LOADS of time to "belly up to the bar" and pick a softer province to place our PRT in, but our government of the day DITHERED (Which is what they always did under pressure).  By the time they HAD to pick a province, the others had been picked by the rest of NATO.  So who were the laggards?  To sit on our asses until the last possible moment and be left with the sh_tty end of the stick, then WHINE that we need relief is so bloody typically Canadian that I want to spew.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (9 Sep 2007)

The more important question to consider here is. What kind of message is this sending to the taliban? All they have to do now is wait until March 2009, once Canada leaves, they just walk back in and start up were they left off. Everything we have done over six years is erased, schools, infrastructure, everything.

Also if we decide to leave some PRT teams in place, how are they going to operate without the security of the task force? Short answer is they can't. If the government thinks otherwise, they are a bunch of fools.

It would be nice if the world worked according to how Jack Layton and and his peace polotin pansies thinks it should,  but as long as there are people like the taliban in this world, we are going to have to continue on fighting them to the bitter end. Because if we give them as little as one foot, tomorrow they will not hesitate to try and take a mile and as many of us as they can. 

What an absolute waste.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Let us not forget that Canada had LOADS of time to "belly up to the bar" and pick a softer province to place our PRT in, but our government of the day DITHERED (Which is what they always did under pressure).  By the time they HAD to pick a province, the others had been picked by the rest of NATO.  So who were the laggards?  To sit on our asses until the last possible moment and be left with the sh_tty end of the stick, then WHINE that we need relief is so bloody typically Canadian that I want to spew.



Same people did the same thing with the submarine acquisition with predictable results. Same people whining now over the shortened length of time for procurements. It was business as usual for them and now they are poed cause someone else is in and geting the job done.


----------



## TCBF (9 Sep 2007)

Precisely.


----------



## kratz (9 Sep 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Same people did the same thing with the submarine acquisition with predictable results. Same people whining now over the shortened length of time for procurements. It was business as usual for them and now they are poed cause someone else is in and getting the job done.



The sad difference is if Canadian Taxpayers spend extra on government dithering over a sub purchase....we can afford the indecision.

The normal political Canadian dithering over supporting Afghanistan will cost more lives, no just our soldiers. Will the Canadian social conscious bear the weight of leaving Afghanistan before the time is right?  IMO 2009 is a politcal red herring.


----------



## TN2IC (10 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> WRT Germany - I would suggest that, at the very least, we forge an agreement whereby Canada and Germany would rotate from North to South = share the risk, share the glory, share the gory.



+2

I like your thinking. It's about time for someone else.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Sep 2007)

We need to continue the mission for our own reasons and our own interests, regardless of what Germany or anyone else thinks.

http://crux-of-the-matter.com/?p=341



> *Why Canada has to finish the job in Afghanistan*
> Posted on September 10th, 2007 in Canadian Politics, Afghanistan, Armed Forces by Sandy
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper is right. We need to finish the job in Afghanistan. But, to be able to do that, the Canadian people need to be told the truth – that we gave our “word” to finish the job — not just to February 2009 when our current military commitment ends, but to the end of 2011 when our diplomatic and advisory commitment ends.
> ...


----------



## Flip (10 Sep 2007)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> +2
> I like your thinking. It's about time for someone else.



There is an intrinsic assumption that someone else would do the
QUALITY of work done by the Canadians.

Frankly I doubt it. - Germany was supposed to train a police force.
Now someone has to do it over.

I agree some one should step up and help in the south
but I strongly feel it would be best if they worked with
Canada rather than instead of Canada.
Germans under Canadian command, maybe?

As usual - just my little opinion......


----------



## TN2IC (10 Sep 2007)

(My Opinion...) 

I am pretty sure the Germans can handle the load. Now would the German people approve of it? Guessing not due to former conflicts. So there goes that idea.

What other armies can handle such a load? Dutch? Polish?  Playing with some ideas here. Not like NATO is going to listen to me anyways. *sigh*

 ;D

Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## ironduke57 (10 Sep 2007)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> (My Opinion...)
> 
> ... Now would the German people approve of it? ...
> 
> ...



As it stand´s ATM no chance. Any plans to do much more then we do now would be an political suicide for our government.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> ... Germany was supposed to train a police force...



- Right.  Pashtuns in fedoras and full-length leather greatcoats asking goatherders for their papers...

 ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Right.  Pashtuns in fedoras and full-length leather greatcoats asking goatherders for their papers...
> 
> ;D


Actually, I was thinking of the green-leather clad _Bullen_ simply wielding truncheons on the poor herders as the _Polizei_ drive by on their BMW motorcycles.


----------



## ironduke57 (10 Sep 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> ... BMW motorcycles.


No. This is more appropriate:
- http://www.car.ee/galleries/techart-porsche-polizei/ee/ ;D
(BTW: Our police is in the process of changing there color from green back to blue.)

SCNR,
ironduke57


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Sep 2007)

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> No. This is more appropriate:
> - http://www.car.ee/galleries/techart-porsche-polizei/ee/ ;D
> (BTW: Our police is in the process of changing there color from green back to blue.)
> 
> ...



Now you've gone and done it! Zipperhead cop is going to be wanting one of those now!! ;D


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2007)

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> (BTW: Our police is in the process of changing there color from green back to blue.)
> 
> SCNR,
> ironduke57



- Uniforms too?  I bet they won't miss those yellow shirts!


----------



## ironduke57 (11 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Uniforms too?  ...



Yes, completely. But it will take some time. Some part´s plan to start the change in 2011 and later. Other´s have already finished the change.(Example from Hamburg(left old, right new): (editSee Attachment)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Genetk44 (11 Sep 2007)

I don't mean to be rude....but the new uniform on the right just makes me think ....  "bus driver"


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Sep 2007)

Genetk44 said:
			
		

> I don't mean to be rude....but the new uniform on the right just makes me think ....  "bus driver"


You wouldn't think that if one had you down in a choke-hold with his truncheon.  _Die Polizei _ were never known for their tender graces.


----------



## ironduke57 (11 Sep 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> You wouldn't think that if one had you down in a choke-hold with his truncheon.  _Die Polizei _ were never known for their tender graces.


Sound´s like you have some experience in this. ;D

SCNR,
ironduke57


----------



## geo (11 Sep 2007)

Die Polizei certainly knows how to get your total and undivided attention..... or else!


----------



## RangerRay (11 Sep 2007)

Looks very...NYPD!   ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Sep 2007)

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Sound´s like you have some experience in this. ;D
> 
> SCNR,
> ironduke57


Nur als Beobachter!

Only as a witness


----------



## militaryman (15 Sep 2007)

The Canadian military needs to keep its presence in Kandahar. Though the Germans need to step up there game in Afghanistan.


----------



## TCBF (15 Sep 2007)

No they don't - I will say it again:

WE GOT STUCK IN KANDAHAR BECAUSE WE COULD NOT MAKE UP OUR MINDS!

We dithered while other countries picked their missions - we got what was left.

Our fault - not NATO's.

Perhaps they are laughing at the irony of this happening after we did not pull our weight on the Central Front since 1970.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> No they don't - I will say it again:
> 
> WE GOT STUCK IN KANDAHAR BECAUSE WE COULD NOT MAKE UP OUR MINDS!
> 
> ...



That's only partially correct.  We got stuck with the PRT in Kandahar because we dithered.  We decided to go heavy in the province afterwards - a Canadian decision.

The Germans do need to step up - they've contributed nothing substantial to the real effort thus far, as many, many posts on this forum indicate.  My distain for them knows no bounds.


----------



## TCBF (15 Sep 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> That's only partially correct.  We got stuck with the PRT in Kandahar because we dithered.  We decided to go heavy in the province afterwards - a Canadian decision.



- The above is a much more accurate statement than mine.
 :-[



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The Germans do need to step up - they've contributed nothing substantial to the real effort thus far, as many, many posts on this forum indicate.  My distain for them knows no bounds.



- I modestly disagree. We drove NATO nuts for years by nickle and diming our "forward deployed" forces in Europe.  Now that they use the same arguments, not much we should say.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I modestly disagree. We drove NATO nuts for years by nickle and diming our "forward deployed" forces in Europe.  Now that they use the same arguments, not much we should say.



Yes, but there's a difference.  Without diminishing what happened during the Cold War, Afghanistan is currently where the rubber meets the road and where NATO is engaged in a shooting war.  There's a difference between making a political decision that there wasn't a significant enough of a Soviet threat to forward deploy Canadian troops in large numbers, and failing to step up when the Alliance is engaged in combat operations and when Allies are paying the price.  Had the Soviets come across the Czech border, would we have pulled the brigade back to France and awaited events?

Elsewhere on this site (I'm far too lazy this morning to find it) are Der Spiegal articles detailing German obfuscation, vacillation, and inactivity in theatre: the "glee" at avoiding a southern deployment; the manoeuvring to avoid even a modicum of involvement in Kandahar; the criminal inactivity in the North - on and on.  

Sadly, IMHO (and I can quote example after example from time on operations), the German Army of today is not the West German Army of the Cold War, nor is their political leadership.  Compared to Canada, they still have enormous resources, yet have failed miserably to step up.


----------



## Flip (15 Sep 2007)

> Compared to Canada, they still have enormous resources, yet have failed miserably to step up.



The real tragedy is the political failure of NATO.  Europeans won't step up
if all we can talk about in the press is stepping down.  The Canadian mission 
could actually fail because of a lack of information getting to the voting public. 
The NATO mission could fail if Canada makes the wrong example in stepping out.
This would be a most unfortunate way for Canada to show leadership.

A shoe was lost for want of a nail........?


----------



## TCBF (15 Sep 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Sadly, IMHO (and I can quote example after example from time on operations), the German Army of today is not the West German Army of the Cold War, nor is their political leadership.



- Interesting.  One wonders if the absorbtion of 21,000,000 "Ossies" in the former DDR has watered down the national character a bit.  Many of their dominant political players today are "from the East".


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Interesting.  One wonders if the absorbtion of 21,000,000 "Ossies" in the former DDR has watered down the national character a bit.  Many of their dominant political players today are "from the East".



Precisely what I had a senior German officer tell me...  It sounds plausible.  There were plenty of Russian-speakers and Croatians with the Battle Group during my time with them too.


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2007)

Mass rally in Berlin urges German pullout from Afghanistan
By Saeid Najar Nobari Berlin, Sept 15, IRNA  
Article Link

Hundreds of people rallied in Berlin's city center Saturday, demanding the pullout of German troops from Afghanistan ahead of a key parliamentary vote on extending the Afghan military mandate. 

Protesters, among them radical leftists, anarchists, union activists and religious groups, carried signs which called for the withdrawal of German soldiers from Afghanistan. 

Speaking with IRNA, an organizer of the rally stressed that German troops have "not enabled the peaceful development" of the 
war-stricken. 

"Soldiers who lead a war and soldiers who destroy villages don't help (to create peace) ..., said the spokesperson of 'Jurists against ABC weapons', Reiner Braun. 

"We believe peace can only be achieved once foreign troops are out of the country and the sorely afflicted country and its people can determine their own future ... ," he added. 

Braun pointed out that contrary to claims by the German government, the security situation in Afghanistan has not improved. 

"Even the 2005 CIA report says that everything has gotten worse in Afghanistan (since 2003)." 
Everything else is "only propaganda" to deceive the German public, Braun added. 

The peace activist's remarks were shared by a leading lawmaker of the opposition The Left (Linke) party, Norman Paech who reaffirmed his fraction's rejection of renewing Germany's three mandates in Afghanistan, namely the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the anti-terror mission Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and the Tornado fighter jet mandate. 
More on link


----------

