Center for a New American Security

The war has made it into the

The war has made it into the election here too. The conservatives want us to go all in and commit our frankly unprepared forces to Helmand asap. The left want to keep on going as we are.A question to y´all: Is it really in the best interest of the effort if you suddenly have many national command-structures trying to do something they have no experience with and no training for in the frontlines? Wouldnt a better effort be to embed discreet NATO "hunter"/SF units to each area, who can do the on-the-ground engagement in situations like this outside of the main body of troops? And wouldnt it be smarter to think about what we "soft" (that means reluctant) nations can contribute to in the hearts and minds department? Why not press for a Norwegian terp sanctuary, or a german School of Basic Buerocracy in Pashtun instead of wading into the local politics and demanding more pointy end, more pointy end like it has been for the last 5 years?

To me, it seems like Nato is behaving now and then like a soccer team for under-11 where everyone is supposed to chase the ball, instead of having a in-depth strategy...

With the risk of ranting,

With the risk of ranting, the story of the norwegian gunner is translated here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=164509

First link (as of now) goes

First link (as of now) goes to wrong story - but an interesting story nonetheless.

I had wondered if being

I had wondered if being P.O'd at the Euro's general criticism of USA "heavy handedness" was a factor in this....that, or just the opportunity for someone else to get some bad press.

This falling out serves no one. Hell, the Afghans don't seem to even want it.

The spot on analysis for the day goes to --Fnord: "To me, it seems like Nato is behaving now and then like a soccer team for under-11 where everyone is supposed to chase the ball, instead of having a in-depth strategy..."

Yes. We're both right. This "alliance" which should have ended 20 years ago needs a mercy bullet.

And this may be it.

when you talk about "the

when you talk about "the Germans" or "Germany", don't forget the differences which exist between different groups involved (also with lots of simplifications of cause)

- our general public is highly pacifistic and doesn't want to see anyone harmed by Germans ever again (and probably to a lesser degree our soldiers to be killed)

- our politicians found it a wonderful idea "to demonstrate commitment and solidarity" and deployed the Bundeswehr - with little more than the idea that Srebrenica (and of cause Auschwitz) had proven you must never turn away from bad things going on and the hope, that the military will figure out a strategy when in theater

- our senior ranks are even more still stuck in the Balkan. They still somehow expect that the situation will improve, if only we can stay on in our bases long enough. Of cause in this world-view, taking risks to own troops doesn't pay out (as does serious Intel-gathering). Losing soldiers in combat is the best way to ruin your career. Improving the PRT however (protection measures as well as troop welfare or beautification or at least environmental protection measures ) DOES pay out, for you can easily impress any visitor and even send photos to your superiors.

- as a personal experience, many young officers who actually served OUTSIDE the camps find such a gap between what they experienced and what the FOBbits believe, that they see little appeal in staying in the army after their initial contract expires. That is to say we DO go out at night (in Badakhshan for example you can not reach, let alone operate in many areas in less than a couple of days); we HAVE some combat-experience and at least some of us wish to ACHIEVE something when we put ourselves and our soldiers at risk. However, the general idea "up there" is still, that our presence will improve the situation, not our actions. in the absence of "strategy top-down; operations bottom-up" we do some "no strategy; operations top-down" which mostly amounts to "cover is more important than impact".

What I want to point out - although after several tours, I personnally feel some pain confessing it: I guess that if our approach doesn't change (perhaps after the elections) for the overall mission it would make a minor difference if Germany would leave. However, there is also room for improvement, German forces and junior leaders mostly want to achieve something and I am pretty sure they could (...and they do night-patrols...). I just cannot figure out how the higher echelons could be brought to a point where they would let their troops do their jobs without force protection measures interfering (but I have deepest sympathy for Gen McChrystals handling of this case if his intent was to build up pressure).
I guess I too have to follow our tried & tested Afghanistan-Strategy in this case: Smile and Hope (and Wave).

More bad news for German

More bad news for German troops. I didn't know they were that overweight.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6825321.ece

"Nato began an investigation

"Nato began an investigation later that morning but military sources said that General McChrystal was furious because he “couldn’t get hold of the people he needed to get hold of and he blamed it on all-night partying”."

fck. (Sorry, ma Exum.) Thats just fascinating.