Nestea Plunge: Germany has not been a fan of non defensive warfare for over 60 years now.

You're not wrong there.

We were invited. Punch was served.

NATO troops who go into Afghanistan with these bullshiat 'national caveats' that keep them from actually fighting, or from being posted where fighting is occurring, shouldn't even be there. Go home.

40below: shouldn't even be there.

Agreed.

40below: Go home.

I'm sure any of the troops that fall under these rules would be more than happy to GTFO.

Whether Germany should contribute more troops or not is irrelevent, if the USA sends a stern letter demanding troops there's no way in hell any soverign country would acquiesce to such a demand. Asking nicely and providing incentives, as lame as it sounds, is the only way the government of Germany can agree and not look like complete tools to their people, who would look unfavourably upon what would be described as their government licking Uncle Sam's balls, guarunteeing election defeat.

Ah yes, another example of the utter success of "cowboy diplomacy"...

Maybe Dubya can give Angela another back rub...

"Hmm, this isn't working. Maybe we should have translated 'git r dun' into German?"

Drang nach Sud.

You know who else didn't want his troops to get shot at?

/got nuthin

Slaxl: Asking nicely and providing incentives, as lame as it sounds, is the only way the government of Germany can agree and not look like complete tools to their people

Maybe a nice back rub could convince them.

"We're sick of our unwinnable occupation, can you contribute some troops? There is no visible exit strategy and we're stretched really thin!"

Yea right.

FTFA: "He warned that without reinforcements the Nato-led force could lose credibility in the country."

How could NATO possibly lose that which it does not have?

Lessee...
Germany's part of NATO? Yep.
This is a NATO operation? Yep.
Well, where the fark are they?

Meet your treaty obligations or get the fark out.

ThatGuyGreg: I'm sure any of the troops that fall under these rules would be more than happy to GTFO.

Which is why the UN and NATO are a farking joke.

keylock71: Ah yes, another example of the utter success of "cowboy diplomacy"...

Actually this is pretty much the exact opposite of cowboy diplomacy. We are talking about afghanistan not Iraq.

OttoDog: Germany's part of NATO? Yep.
This is a NATO operation? Yep.
Well, where the fark are they?

You know, the truly discerning reader might have noted that the article mentioned that Germany had been asked to contribute more troops. Especially since it said that in the first sentence. And in case reading is beyond your capabilities, they even have a nice visual aid which does, in fact, list the German flag in the northern part of the country.

Man, we've come a long way since the days of "The Hun".

Aarontology: Slaxl: Asking nicely and providing incentives, as lame as it sounds, is the only way the government of Germany can agree and not look like complete tools to their people

Maybe a nice back rub could convince them.

LOL. That pic cracks me up every time. It's like watching a particularly immature 14-year-old try his best at international diplomacy.

Try to see it from Germany's POV:

Afghanistan CLEARLY isn't a priority for the Americans. Since that's the case, why should it be a priority for the Germans?

NATO was meant to be a mutual self-defense alliance, not an extra set of reserve troops used to free up U.S. resources for that dumbass unnecessary war in Iraq.

The American effort in Afghanistan is so starved of resources it's very probably going to fail whether or not Germany makes an extra effort.

Why spend the money and get troops killed for a lost cause?

===========================================


I often wonder what Afghanistan would be like today if we poured all the troops and resources we've wasted in Iraq into that country instead.

liam76: ThatGuyGreg: I'm sure any of the troops that fall under these rules would be more than happy to GTFO.

Which is why the UN and NATO are a farking joke.

keylock71: Ah yes, another example of the utter success of "cowboy diplomacy"...

Actually this is pretty much the exact opposite of cowboy diplomacy. We are talking about afghanistan not Iraq.

I was referring to the sending of an "unusually stern" letter demanding more troops be sent...

binnster: LOL. That pic cracks me up every time. It's like watching a particularly immature 14-year-old try his best at international diplomacy.

That's really the moment that made me most embarrassed to have him as president. Argue about policy all you want, that back rub was just... ick.

Riche: Try to see it from Germany's POV:


NATO was meant to be a mutual self-defense alliance, not an extra set of reserve troops used to free up U.S. resources for that dumbass unnecessary war in Iraq.


Yes, but after September 11th, NATO invoked its article V obligations saying the attack on the US was an attack on the entire alliance and approved action against Afghanistan. The fact that the operation has gone on longer than expected and is unpopular is no reason to shy away from obligations your country knowingly accepted. If Germany, or any other NATO member, doesn't want to serve in Afghanistan that is their national right but they should be required to withdraw from the alliance.

Carth: Riche: Try to see it from Germany's POV:


NATO was meant to be a mutual self-defense alliance, not an extra set of reserve troops used to free up U.S. resources for that dumbass unnecessary war in Iraq.


Yes, but after September 11th, NATO invoked its article V obligations saying the attack on the US was an attack on the entire alliance and approved action against Afghanistan. The fact that the operation has gone on longer than expected and is unpopular is no reason to shy away from obligations your country knowingly accepted. If Germany, or any other NATO member, doesn't want to serve in Afghanistan that is their national right but they should be required to withdraw from the alliance.

Yeah NATO members should be ashamed to be annoyed that the US is half-assing their private war against Muslims in Afghanistan so they can keep their troops/funds in Iraq to get the oil.

A soldier will go and fight where his country asks. This is clearly a political issue.

I honestly couldn't tell you whether the U.S. or Germany is in the "right" on this one. All I know is, if shiat ever hits the fan in Germany the U.S. will help and support them as best we can. Should a terrorist group ever hit Berlin don't get pissed for not warning y'all.

Bored Horde:



Yeah NATO members should be ashamed to be annoyed that the US is half-assing their private war against Muslims in Afghanistan so they can keep their troops/funds in Iraq to get the oil.

Yea, i mean look at those Belgium troops who refuse to leave their base or the Turkish troops who won't even respond the the radio. If only the U.S. would be as committed to meeting their treaty obligations as they are.

But nice job trying to straw man the argument you managed to bring up Iraq, Muslims, oil and private war in one sentence.

Carth: Yea, i mean look at those Belgium troops who refuse to leave their base or the Turkish troops who won't even respond the the radio. If only the U.S. would be as committed to meeting their treaty obligations as they are.

But nice job trying to straw man the argument you managed to bring up Iraq, Muslims, oil and private war in one sentence.

So you're saying that the US can do whatever we want with our resources and the obligations of other NATO signees include picking up our slack whenever we tell them to do so? What authority does the US have to order Germany to send more troops?

And speaking of straw men, what do Belgian and Turkish troops have to do with Germany's involvement?

As a Canadian who supports the mission, I am sick and tired of seeing our forces take the brunt of the blows. As you can see, Canada is in Kandahar where some of the most brutal battles have been taking place.

Now I'm proud of the mission they are doing there, and I sure as hell don't want to see them pull out, I DO want to see some of the other nations step up and grow a pair and start helping to shoulder the burden. And I am willing to bet they havent even ponied up half the resources they promised in foreign aid to the Afghani's either.

Playing politics in Afghanistan makes EVERYONE look petty.

Carth: Yes, but after September 11th, NATO invoked its article V obligations saying the attack on the US was an attack on the entire alliance and approved action against Afghanistan.

Two different events.

NATO invoked article 5 and the US (at the time) pretty much said "Thanks - don't call us, we'll call you." The 2001 attack on Afghanistan was very much not a NATO operation.

NATO didn't get involved in Afghanistan until 2003, and not under article V at all. The Afghanistan operation is 100% voluntary.

Frankly, I don't think the US has reason to feel miffed, here.

- NATO offered help under article V and was turned down.
- NATO members still volunteered troops for Afghanistan.
- Then the US decided to transfer its focus and resources to Iraq, against the advice of major NATO players.

And now you're pissed that people aren't supporting the project that you yourself decided to put on the back burner?

If my neighbor asks me to help rebuild a garage after a storm, I expect him to stay on that project, rather than saying "Looks like you have the garage well in hand, so I'll go build that deck I always wanted."

77 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan since the mission began. Now I admit thats a not a lot considering previous wars, but every death is a headline in this country, and the people's patience is wearing thin.

I am fearful though that if Canada pulls out, it will lead to a Domino effect among other allies, and lead to a successive mass-pull out that could turn Afghanistan into Rwanda-style anarchy.

"Remember that whole "old Europe" thing? Yeah, fark right off."

Why would Germany even consider it? So far, this US led invasion across the Middle East isn't exactly going as the powers-that-be planned. We've had many countries pulling out. The latest being Australia and possibly Canada. Why would ANY Country send in troops knowing full well nothing is going to happen from it?

You know, I never did like the French either - until they stood up to Bush and refused to participate in his oil war. Then, I found some respect for France.

/fark puppet Bush

RockyMtnMan: I honestly couldn't tell you whether the U.S. or Germany is in the "right" on this one. All I know is, if shiat ever hits the fan in Germany the U.S. will help and support them as best we can. Should a terrorist group ever hit Berlin don't get pissed for not warning y'all.

As Germany (& NATO) offered their support to the US in 2001, which as it should be. Obviously, an alliance mostly built to repel a Warsaw pact armoured attack through the Fulda Gap will have a hard time finding its footing as regards an attack like 9/11, so I actually think the US turning down the offer and dealing with individual nations made sense. (I loathe GWB, but in the first months after 9/11, he played a pretty good game.)

Incidentally, Germany is no stranger to terrorism, although (luckily) not on the 9/11 scale. The Baader-Meinhoff group springs to mind, as do the 1972 Olympics. (The Germans botched the latter, but took the lesson to mind. I would not want to tackle with the GSG9.)

BudTheSpud: 77 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan since the mission began. Now I admit thats a not a lot considering previous wars, but every death is a headline in this country, and the people's patience is wearing thin.

I am fearful though that if Canada pulls out, it will lead to a Domino effect among other allies, and lead to a successive mass-pull out that could turn Afghanistan into Rwanda-style anarchy.

We've already had a Domino effect. Many countries have already pulled out, leaving us alone. When Britain announced pulling its troops out, Bush also announced the "surge" tactic. I mean, Bush had NO choice but to do a surge. He had to fill in the areas Britain was leaving behind. Italy also pulled out, and Australia is also leaving. You just can't ask a Country for a troop deployment without any plan. We're talking about the cost of war, the lives of troops, the lives of civilians, etc that take into effect.

Germany to blindly send in troops is equivalent to "pulling a Bush"

The First: BudTheSpud: 77 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan since the mission began. Now I admit thats a not a lot considering previous wars, but every death is a headline in this country, and the people's patience is wearing thin.

I am fearful though that if Canada pulls out, it will lead to a Domino effect among other allies, and lead to a successive mass-pull out that could turn Afghanistan into Rwanda-style anarchy.

We've already had a Domino effect. Many countries have already pulled out, leaving us alone. When Britain announced pulling its troops out, Bush also announced the "surge" tactic. I mean, Bush had NO choice but to do a surge. He had to fill in the areas Britain was leaving behind. Italy also pulled out, and Australia is also leaving. You just can't ask a Country for a troop deployment without any plan. We're talking about the cost of war, the lives of troops, the lives of civilians, etc that take into effect.

Germany to blindly send in troops is equivalent to "pulling a Bush"

This is NOT Iraq. You have the two mixed up. The surge involved Iraq, and Britain pulled out of Iraq.

Also I think its rather selfish of countries to be talking about the cost of life in terms of their own soldiers, when the cost of life is so much higher for Afghani's left in anarchy,tribal warfare and poverty without the security given by those soldiers to recover.

BudTheSpud: This is NOT Iraq. You have the two mixed up. The surge involved Iraq, and Britain pulled out of Iraq.

I understand we're talking about Afghanistan, and not Iraq. But, to tell you the truth, the management of the wars is the same. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are a total mess. We left Afghanistan to invade Iraq. We claimed the Taliban was disbanned and a thing of the past (which we know is a load of BS). Pretty much my analogy of Britain leaving Iraq and Bush calling for a surge to replace the troops serves the same example here. In BOTH wars we're loosing international support and military might.

My point was Germany can't just blindly send in troops to Afghanistan, when witnessing the events of Iraq AND seeing the chaos of Afghanistan.

Erik_Emune: If my neighbor asks me to help rebuild a garage after a storm, I expect him to stay on that project, rather than saying "Looks like you have the garage well in hand, so I'll go build that deck I always wanted."

Quoted for massive truth. As a Canadian, it really burns my ass to see Canadian troops over in Afghanistan fighting the people who were more directly involved in 9/11 than Saddam, while the US is off in another country doing God knows what.

I'd have no problem with keeping our troops in Afghan *if* the US would stay as well. When the US themselves pretty much pulled out... then why the hell should Canadians stay?

And the reason they should be interested in going is ... ?
And the reason we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and kill OBL is .... ?

I guess that some people would think that Germany should have some responsibility for that sack of rotten meat in the White House's failure to follow through and finish the job. If GW and his controller's are not willing to do what it takes, why should any other country pull up the slack?

I don't know who is more of a moron, GW and his absolutely wrong world view or the people who come up with excuses for him.

Oh sure, invade countries, leave the Canadians in charge, then whine when the Germans don't want to join.

BlackPete: more directly involved in 9/11 than Saddam

Stop implying that he was indirectly involved.

You know who else submitted this article, but with a crappier headline? That's right, me.

So for the last hundred years, give or take, Germany has been told it's a bad thing to go and invade countries even if they are right there in their own freaking back yard, and has learned that giving blank cheques to allies (like Austria or Italy or Japan)is a dumb idea that will only fire back. And now the US expects Germany to reverse not just a minor procedure but NATIONAL FREAKING POLICY, to fight some unwinnable bullshiat war 3,000 MF'ing miles away?



Screw you guys, we're going home.

I thought the main goal of the West was keeping Germans AWAY from guns and armed conflicts?

As a Canadian who initially supported the mission in Afghanisatn (until Dumbya decided to abandon the fight there to open up his second front in Iraq while threatening to start a third front in Iran) I gotta say that I totally understand why the Germans are reluctant to get more involved. A couple of months ago when it became clear that alleged Taliban prisoners picked up by Canadian forces were being handed over to the Afghan government were they were being tortured into being incontinent nut cases the moral ambiguity of the mission shifted from the greater good to the greater evil for me. Even today we still don't know whether that process is continuing as that information has suddenly become verboten.

The resopurces needed to win the war in Afghanistan in terms of hearts and minds and political evolution is not now forthcoming. It doesn't look like troops are in the area for any reason other than to protect the Unocal pipeline projects under the guise of bringing democracy to an essentially tribal land not yet ready fo rit.

Combine all of that with the fact that the AQ and the real Taliban leadership are growing stronger in their base in the FATA of Pakistan ie the 7 agencies that make up the area including the Waziristans in the south and the northern areas where Bin Laden is rumoured to be and you have an essentially unwinnable situation. Granted, American predator drones are in country in the FATA and firing hellfire missiles at various targets occasionally with some success but the overall effect is to further radicalise the region and give more international support to the Jihadists. Support that includes foreign born fighters, money and weapons.

Canada should honor our commitment till 2009 and then get the hell out. We've done our stint. Germany can do wot it likes. NATO isn't America's box of toy soldiers to play with at will.

OttoDog: Lessee...
Germany's part of NATO? Yep.
This is a NATO operation? Yep.
Well, where the fark are they?

Meet your treaty obligations or get the fark out.

NATO is a defensive pact, not a source of cannon fodder for retarded US adventures.

The First: Why would Germany even consider it? So far, this US led invasion across the Middle East isn't exactly going as the powers-that-be planned. We've had many countries pulling out.

And Poland, don't forget Poland. Pulling out of Iraq effective Oct of 08.

Kar98: And now the USBush expects Germany to reverse not just a minor procedure but NATIONAL FREAKING POLICY

Why would Bush think that something as insignificant as national policy should stop anyone when he wipes his ass with the constitution? And, you have to know that he has no concept of history or reality, he thinks the world is 6,500 years old.

I'm sure in his world, "Hogan's Heroes" was a documentary.

'k, rosebud_the_sled, I should have said Bush, and everybody who's responsible for putting him and those around him in charge.

BudTheSpud: I am fearful though that if Canada pulls out, it will lead to a Domino effect among other allies, and lead to a successive mass-pull out that could turn Afghanistan into Rwanda-style anarchy.

I'd be surprised if that occurred there. They already have a de facto (if not primitive) tribal/warlord hierarchy in place that has been in place for centuries. While the Taliban were in power, there was not the same paranoid purging of leaders that occurred in Iraq.

They would fight a little bit and then fall back into the pecking order they had before. The Taliban would reassert their hold and we could start over again.

OttoDog: Lessee...
Germany's part of NATO? Yep.
This is a NATO operation? Yep.
Well, where the fark are they?

Meet your treaty obligations or get the fark out.

You're not really up on the details of this "NATO" deal, are you?