Afghanistan

Our new minister of defence, Guttenberg, already used the "w"-word, i.e. officially acknowledging that we're in war.
 
Germany's Labour Minister Franz Josef Jung can also sod off. Today he has resigned amid allegations of a cover-up relating to a deadly NATO air strike in Afghanistan.

He was defense minister when the strike was ordered.

FranzJosefJung.jpg


Dozens of civilians were killed, but Mr Jung had repeatedly denied civilians were killed in the attack.
 
Yes, lying about these things is very bad.  I am not surprised he was also forced to resign.  It is probably for the best.
 
I know you guys are not going to understand this, but I think there are worse criminals in the German government.
 
Haha, that remark made me actually laugh, Per. ;)

Should I think about corrupt politicians, or people who (wish to) make some crazy laws?
 
People who try their hardest to undermine the very foundations of democracy: privacy, freedom of expression (mostly demonstrations) and education. How is a country supposed to faithfully establish democracy at the Hindukush when it is slowly but steadily demolishing its own? While Jung's cover-up policy was an outrage, nobody was honestly surprised by it.
 
Any hopes for the big conference tomorrow?


I'm starting to think that maybe the whole war is a mistake. I read an article today which put the whole matter into perspective, explaining how and why the British and Soviets failed in Afghanistan and how the Enduring Freedom countries are happily making exactly the same mistakes all over again. Apparently, this war has the same pattern as the previous ones did.

What struck me is how little people actually relate Enduring Freedom to the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. If people would have cared to look at that war just a little bit, they would have realised that motivation, execution and progression of Enduring Freedom and the Soviet war are virtually the same. The Soviets withdrew with 15,000 dead on their side and, well, 1.3 million dead Afghanis, a complete country in turmoil and the seeds sown for the Taleban.

If the Soviet war brought the Taleban into existence, then what hideous monster will Enduring Freedom produce? I dare not think about it.
 
The Soviets, did they have a similar approach?

Did they try to rebuild the country besides the fighting?
 
Forostar said:
The Soviets, did they have a similar approach?

Did they try to rebuild the country besides the fighting?
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, yes. They never wanted to conquer the country, they wanted to stabilise it. They built factories and schools while fighting. One of the mistakes they made was to tell the people in Afghanistan they should organise themselves in collectives and kolkhoses (sp?). And that religion is wrong.
Now we're there telling them western democracy is the only way to go. Of course we believe it, but the Soviets believed in Communism too. What matters is that the Afghans don't believe it- and they don't want others to tell them what to believe in.

That's what I mean. Nobody has a fucking clue about the Soviet war.
 
Interesting.

As you know, currently there is a “3D” approach going on: Defense, Development and Diplomacy.

I need to read more about the Soviet war and try to compare this.
 
Yeah, in the end the Soviets also negotiated with their initial enemies. Same pattern.


I think that we are facing a much more in-depth problem than we are realising right now. In fact, I believe that we are at the start of something so big that we have trouble imagining it.

When the Iron Curtain fell, Francis Fukuyama wrote that history has reached its end. The rival to the system of Western Democracy, Communism, has failed and its former subjects are now striving to become Democratic. Economic prosperity, so the common idea, is only possible with open markets- and open markets presuppose political freedom, because traditionally, there has always been trade of goods and ideas.

Face it, we all believe that. We all believe that we live in the best system in the world, and that it is our moral duty to export this system and bring the freedom we enjoy to every other people in the world. That's why we are in Afghanistan- to turn the country into a free, democratic nation.

And that is why we want to win this war so bitterly, and why we will not accept to have lost it. Democracy can not lose. Democracy is the winner. It is the best, nay, the only way to live. Democracy must not lose. Anybody who claims that there are other ways to live, and that Afghanistan is not compatible to our way of life and is best left in its traditional ways is a traitor to humanity. The people in Afghanistan are benighted, and we must enlighten them. The only ones who resist are either uneducated and stupid, or deluded by a reactionary ideology. It is completely impossible that the people of Afghanistan do not want our Democracy. Or, as we would say in newspeak, does not compute.

So the Soviets wanted to bring Communism to Afghanistan. It did not work because Communism is wrong, because Communism does not work. The Soviets were wrong. There is only one system that works, and that is ours. Admit it, that is what we all believe. It is totally impossible that we are wrong. We defeated Communism. We prevailed. We are right. We have the best system in the world, and we must give it to everyone, or else we are inhumane. Afghanistan must become a Democracy because every country must become a Democracy at some point. That is the goal of history. It is an inevitable development. It may take years, decades or centuries, but that is the essential end.

That is what we believe, and that is why there will be many more dead in Afghanistan, no matter whether we will succeed in the end or not.

And here's why it matters that we remember the Soviet war. The Soviets believed the exact same thing we do, only that they applied their belief to Communism, not to Democracy. Their failure in Afghanistan was the failure of Communism, and that is what ultimately turned the Soviet Union to dust.

I think that unless we give up our belief that Western Democracy is the one right thing for everybody, the one size that fits all, Afghanistan will mark the begin of the end of our empire. It wouldn't be the first one to fall here.
 
But let's not forget that this is not only about bringing our values to them for their sake.
It's for "our" sake as well. To bring the rest of the world more safety so to speak.

It's cliche, but what else?

What's good about letting the Taliban breed on and on?
 
Forostar said:
What's good about letting the Taliban breed on and on?
Click to expand...

But we have failed miserably in preventing that so far.
 
Perun said:
If the Soviet war brought the Taleban into existence, then what hideous monster will Enduring Freedom produce? I dare not think about it.
Click to expand...
That's really f%*$& bad!
Perun said:
Yeah, in the end the Soviets also negotiated with their initial enemies. Same pattern.


I think that we are facing a much more in-depth problem than we are realising right now. In fact, I believe that we are at the start of something so big that we have trouble imagining it.

When the Iron Curtain fell, Francis Fukuyama wrote that history has reached its end. The rival to the system of Western Democracy, Communism, has failed and its former subjects are now striving to become Democratic. Economic prosperity, so the common idea, is only possible with open markets- and open markets presuppose political freedom, because traditionally, there has always been trade of goods and ideas.

Face it, we all believe that. We all believe that we live in the best system in the world, and that it is our moral duty to export this system and bring the freedom we enjoy to every other people in the world. That's why we are in Afghanistan- to turn the country into a free, democratic nation.

And that is why we want to win this war so bitterly, and why we will not accept to have lost it. Democracy can not lose. Democracy is the winner. It is the best, nay, the only way to live. Democracy must not lose. Anybody who claims that there are other ways to live, and that Afghanistan is not compatible to our way of life and is best left in its traditional ways is a traitor to humanity. The people in Afghanistan are benighted, and we must enlighten them. The only ones who resist are either uneducated and stupid, or deluded by a reactionary ideology. It is completely impossible that the people of Afghanistan do not want our Democracy. Or, as we would say in newspeak, does not compute.

So the Soviets wanted to bring Communism to Afghanistan. It did not work because Communism is wrong, because Communism does not work. The Soviets were wrong. There is only one system that works, and that is ours. Admit it, that is what we all believe. It is totally impossible that we are wrong. We defeated Communism. We prevailed. We are right. We have the best system in the world, and we must give it to everyone, or else we are inhumane. Afghanistan must become a Democracy because every country must become a Democracy at some point. That is the goal of history. It is an inevitable development. It may take years, decades or centuries, but that is the essential end.

That is what we believe, and that is why there will be many more dead in Afghanistan, no matter whether we will succeed in the end or not.

And here's why it matters that we remember the Soviet war. The Soviets believed the exact same thing we do, only that they applied their belief to Communism, not to Democracy. Their failure in Afghanistan was the failure of Communism, and that is what ultimately turned the Soviet Union to dust.

I think that unless we give up our belief that Western Democracy is the one right thing for everybody, the one size that fits all, Afghanistan will mark the begin of the end of our empire. It wouldn't be the first one to fall here.
Click to expand...

The problem is that some people can accept the contradiction that war can force freedom upon disinterested people. 
Forostar said:
But let's not forget that this is not only about bringing our values to them for their sake.
It's for "our" sake as well. To bring the rest of the world more safety so to speak.

It's cliche, but what else?

What's good about letting the Taliban breed on and on?
Click to expand...

Yes, attacking Afghanistan was meant to be for the purpose of self-defense against the initiators of force.  But the plan was bad from the beginning.  I'm no strategist, but the way I see it, the only objective should have been to eliminate Al-Qaeda.  Iraq was a huge mistake and gave Al-Qaeda plenty of time to react.
 
Not sure if this is getting any coverage outside, but apart from the Icelandic ash cloud and people stranded in airports, there is really only one other topic in German media right now:


Four German soldiers killed in Afghanistan
Four German soldiers have been killed and several others wounded in a clash in Afghanistan as they came under fire near the northern city of Baghlan, near Kunduz.

The German Defense Ministry has announced that four German troops were killed in Afghanistan, while on patrol in the north of the country.

According to reports, the four soldiers were killed and several others wounded when their patrol came under attack travelling between Kunduz and Baghlan. Fighting broke out after a German armored vehicle was struck by what was believed to be a rocket, close to Pol-i-Khomri camp.

During a visit to the United States, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her condolences to the families of the soldiers who were killed or injured. But she said the German military's mission in Afghanistan would continue.

"I see no sensible alternative," she said in a statement to reporters in San Francisco.

Guttenberg returns

German Defense Minister Karl-Theodore zu Guttenberg, who had left Afghanistan after a two-day visit, returned to the country after briefly landing in Uzbekistan.

Guttenberg said in a statement that he was "deeply saddened" by the news and that he and military chief Volker Wieker would return to the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif "to be with our soldiers".

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle condemned the "treacherous attack" and said the tragedy "touches all Germans." He added the attack "also touches the great majority of the Afghan people, who detest this terror as much as we do."

This brings to 43 the number of German soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the Bundeswehr's mission there began in 2002. Of those, 26 have been killed in firefights or insurgent attacks.

In recent weeks, Taliban insurgents have stepped up pressure on the German troops based in the northern province of Kunduz. On April 2, three German soldiers were killed during a mine-clearing expedition.
Click to expand...

Source


This comes just after the funerary ceremonies for the soldiers killed in the "Good Friday Incident" on 2. April. Back then, people have demanded from the government that there be a change in the Afghanistan mission, both in military hardware deployed (there had been talk about Leopard II tanks being used, but that has been dismissed by the government because they are unsuitable for the Kunduz province terrain), and in the way the war is being presented by the government. There are also calls for a new mandate that gives the troops more possibilities and safety.
 
What does a new mandate for better possibilities and safety mean, Perun? Less combat?
 
LooseCannon said:
What does a new mandate for better possibilities and safety mean, Perun? Less combat?
Click to expand...

Better equipment, and more offense weaponry. Heavy artillery, stronger armoured vehicles and all that. A new mandate would be expected to take into account that it is actually a war out there, and that the troops need to be equipped for that. A frequent motif used in current polemics is that the soldiers aren't dying while digging wells. It would probably mean more combat, but more decisive combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top