Germany begs Canada to continue

[Flip]

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
From Friday's Globe and Mail

BERLIN — Stung by a thwarted terrorist attack and facing their own ugly parliamentary debate over the war, German leaders are begging Canada to avoid withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in early 2009 as scheduled.

"I want to say how much we appreciate what Canada is doing. We know that, for instance, about 100,000 Canadian soldiers lie in the European soil, [soldiers] that fought in two world wars begun by Germany. And it was never a question for Canada to defend our common values where it was needed," Eckart von Klaeden, Chancellor Angela Merkel's foreign-policy spokesman, said in an interview yesterday.

"Canada is a really important country as a role model for others. It would have consequences for the whole alliance and for the whole Western world if Canada would leave Afghanistan."

In both Canada and Germany, the Afghan mission faces intense pressure from the public and from opposition parties supporting shaky governments. Germany, like Canada, is in the midst of a debate over the nature of its commitment. But both parties in the German coalition government, the left-wing Social Democrats and the conservative Christian Democrats, have declared that troops should stay for at least 10 years, and the Social Democrats are arguing that the number of troops should be increased.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said recently that Canada's 2,500 troops would not stay beyond the current February, 2009, deadline unless there is a parliamentary mandate, which would probably be impossible in the current minority government.

NATO leaders, meeting in Ottawa yesterday and facing withdrawals from the 37-nation Afghanistan mission by Canada, the Netherlands and several other nations, urged Canada to "stay the course."

In the war-plagued south, the loss of Canada and the Netherlands would leave only Britain and the United States, and NATO would be forced to press other nations, which have so far refused to enter this more intense battle, to send their troops into the line of fire.

This has created an air of crisis in Germany, whose 3,500 troops are mostly engaged in non-combat work securing the relatively peaceful north of Afghanistan.

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.

"The ideal should be, you go in together, you go out together, mission accomplished and we're leaving. ... I think it would be the best to go out together, but I appreciate very much and I estimate very highly the commitment of Canada as it is today."

Germany on Wednesday arrested three men and is seeking about a dozen other suspects after breaking up an alleged Islamist terrorist plot that sought to explode huge bombs outside U.S.-linked military installations near Frankfurt. Such strikes could become prevalent if the NATO coalition was seen to be weak and divided, German officials said.

"I think we are only successful if we stand together, and if the terrorists would identify Germany as the weakest link in NATO's chain, I think this would increase the probability of such attacks. So standing together is really very, very important," Mr. von Klaeden said.

The German parliament will vote during the next three months on a series of bills that would extend the country's military commitment in Afghanistan, which expires before the end of this year. While both the conservative and left-wing parties in the coalition government are likely to support an extension of the NATO mission in northern Afghanistan, they are deeply divided over the country's other commitments and the details of the arrangement.

The debate in Berlin is strikingly similar to the one unfolding in Ottawa. The German public is generally opposed to the mission, with 65 per cent of voters supporting an immediate withdrawal.

And the left-leaning Social Democrats may be poised to vote against Germany's contribution to the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom mission, which is largely indistinguishable from the NATO operation but is more active in the south. They will hold a party convention later this month to decide their position. The party has been losing voters to the Left Party, made of former East German Communists and far-left former Social Democrats, because it is the only party backing a complete withdrawal.

Rainer Arnold, the Social Democrat defence spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that his party would back a troop increase if the generals wanted it, and that they are largely supporting the German non-combat role in the north, but that it may need to be examined.

"I think our main responsibility is to find a better understanding of why it is that Germany has decided to maintain its strong position in the north," he said. "It's the same question I was confronted with recently in Kabul from the Canadian generals, asking why we can't send a strong army to the south."

Mr. Arnold said that Germany would likely be considering an immediate withdrawal if it were facing the number of deaths that Canada has been enduring. Since the war's outset in 2001, 21 German soldiers and three policemen have died, compared with 70 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat.

"It's a very difficult position the Canadians are in, especially given the smallness of their army and the very difficult situation in the south and the high number of victims," Mr. Arnold said. "If we had these kind of figures in Germany, I don't know if the German population and politicians would support the mandate."

The military's role

The role of the German military has been severely restricted since the adoption of a new constitution in 1949 after its Second World War defeat.

Under Germany's constitution, known as its Basic Law, the military's role is strictly defensive. Constitutional court rulings in the 1990s, however, expanded the definition of "defensive" beyond protecting Germany's borders to include guarding the security of Germany anywhere in the world. Before that change, the German military mostly helped out in times of natural disaster.

Around the same time that the military role was changed, the courts also made it clear that a specific resolution of parliament, which describes the details of the mission and limits its term, is required to send German troops outside the territory of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

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]

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

 

[Flip]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[1feral1]

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

Wes

 

[The Bread Guy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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]

Precisely.

 

[kratz]

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]

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]

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.

If we pull out from the Afghanistan mission before then, as the opposition leaders would have us do, we would be leaving a country and its men, women and children, to certain hopelessness and destruction. And, for that possibility, we can place the blame at the feet of our defeatist and hypocritical opposition leaders.

Remember, it was the Liberals who sent our military to Afghanistan in the first place and it was the Liberals who made a long-term commitment to the U.S., the U.N. and NATO. Yet, day after day we hear Jack Layton, Stephane Dion and Gilles Duceppe talk about bringing the soldiers home. As a result, many Canadians have the impression that we shouldn’t be there, that it is simply a matter of choice for us to leave. But, what about our word as a country? Does it not mean anything anymore — that as soon as things get tough or uncomfortable, we cut and run?

Let’s review how we got involved in Afghanistan in the first place. Here is a time line (from CTV)  in brief:

    * September 11, 2001 — Terrorists who trained in Afghanistan attacked the U.S.
    * October 7, 2001 – Prime Minister Jean Chretien orders the Canadian military to help the U.S. launch attacks in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
    * October 8, 2001 — Defence Minister Art Eggleton pledges 2000 troops in the U.S. led campaign.
    * January 14, 2002 — Canadian soldiers arrive in Kabul, Afghanistan.
    * January 25, 2002 — After the fall of the Taliban, Canada re-establishes diplomatic ties with Kabul.
    * February 12, 2003 — Defence Minister John McCallum announces Canada part of UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
    * February 9, 2004 — Canada takes command of NATO in Kabul.
    * June 29, 2005 — Canadian soldiers begin deploying to Kandahar.
    * July 29, 2005 — Prime Minister Paul Martin says Kandahar mission right thing to do.
    * January 23, 2006 — Conservatives form minority government who support completing the commitment already made by the former Liberal government.
    * February 24, 2006 — Canadian troops start takeover from Americans on the front lines of Kandahar province — previously agreed to by the Liberal caucus.

Now, over and above the fact that it was the Liberals under both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin who agreed to go to Afghanistan in the first place, Canada is a signatory to the Afghanistan Compact, an agreement that was signed in January 2006 with the United Nations and 60 nations from all parts of the world — including Canada — and was for five years to the end of 2011.

Therefore, since that compact was signed by Canada towards the end of the last federal election, it means that the Liberal government of Paul Martin was in complete agreement to the hoped for outcomes. Which is why Canada cannot simply cut and run and why the Canadian people must be told, loud and clear, why we must finish the job in Afghanistan. Because we gave our word that we would do so — word that came from both Liberal and Conservative politicians and diplomats.

We need to remember that! We also need to remember that this is the country of Vimy Ridge and all the guts and courage that represents.

[…]

Note: Also posted at the Western Standard’s Shotgun blog & Jack’s Newswatch.

 

[Flip]

+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]

(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]

(My Opinion...)

... Now would the German people approve of it? ...

Regards,
TN2IC

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