“Does anyone know if the publics in Germany, France and Italy are aware of the difference between OEF and ISAF?”

I think, the German public is aware of the difference. By and large they approve of ISAF, but are skeptical of OEF, because it is often seen as alienating the Afghan people, because of so much collateral damage. That’s my impression. And then there were allegations against German OEF troops in the Kurnaz affair.

At the upcoming NATO summit, Germany wants to have a debate about strategy in Afghanistan and increasing reconstruction etc. I think that is good. We cannot bring stability to Afghanistan, if we only focus on defeating the Taliban.
Germany has not done much reconstruction in the North and has done a poor job in training the Afghan police.
It should be a priority to change that.

That is more important in my opinion than sending a German troops to South Afghanistan.

I think we might have to give up South Afghanistan. Pakistan is supporting the Taliban. NATO does not have enough troops.
If 150,000 troops can’t stabilize Iraq, then 40,000 troops are not enough for Afghanistan either.

I understand NATO’s plea for German troops to be send to Afghanistan. The Canadians and the Brits and others have paid a heavy price.
Though, we have to be realistic.

We have to have a debate about our goals in Afghanistan.

Do we want to stabilize the entire country? If yes, then we have to provide enough ressources:
+ More reconstruction efforts (building roads, schools, creating jobs etc) so that the Afghans see progress and support us.
+ Better institution training. Germany has only 40 police trainers in Afghanistan. That is joke.
+ More troops. The number of US troops in Afghanistan is a joke, if you compare them with Iraq. Both coutnries have about 30 million inhabitants.

“The desire for a quick, cheap war followed by a quick, cheap peace is what has brought Afghanistan to the present, increasingly dangerous situation. (...) The intervention in Afghanistan has been done on the cheap. Compared even to many recent post-conflict situations (Bosnia, Kosovo) it was given proportionately many fewer peacekeepers and less resources ““ and Afghanistan has never been a post-conflict situation.”

@ MikeS

The numbers are for ISAF. The US has some 10,000-20.000 troops in OEF. Does anyone know the actual number?
Australia might have additional troops in Afghanistan as part of OEF.

“The number of US troops in Afghanistan is a joke”Â?

I beg to differ, you should be saying the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan is a joke.

America is part of NATO…

Sure, Germany does not provide that many troops. Although more than many other NATO members.

Though, if you look at the number of US troops in Iraq and the complains about a lack of troops there: Do you really think the US has been taking Afghanistan seriously and provides an adequate number of troops?

Yes, Afghanistan is now a NATO mission, but it did not start that way. The Bush admin first wanted to go it alone. NATO became involved, when you run into troubles and preferred to take out Saddam for some reason.

Here’s an analogy:
You (America) and I (Germany, and other NATO allies) are buddies.
Your car breaks down (9/11).
I offer help (NATO invoking article V), but you prefer to fix your car by yourself (invading Afghanistan).
You run into problems and ask me (Germany and other NATO allies) to give you a hand. My mechanical skills (Bundeswehr) are worse than yours, but you are my buddy and I try.
Then, you lose interest in fixing the car. You have more free time than I have (US military is bigger, stronger, more experienced than ours), but you do not work much more on fixing the car than I do (There are about as many US troops in Afghanistan as there are non-US troops). You prefer to fiddle with your sailing boat hoping to make it more robust, faster, more beautiful (US invasion of Iraq in the hope to bring democracy to the Arab world) rather than to fix your car (Afghanistan, Al Qaeda). The sailing boat is cooler than your car. You spend much more time on your sailing boat than on fixing your car (Seven times more US troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan and, I guess, 20 (?) times more money spend on Iraq than Afghanistan).
I get the impression that you are not really all that interested in fixing your car (stabilizing Afghanistan, incl. reconstruction and some form of democracy). You spend most of your time on your sailing boat rather than your car. This does not encourage me to spend much of my time on fixing your car. I got plenty of other issues to deal with. I need to get a better job (Germany’s economy is in bad shape, poverty is rising, EU enlargement is an expensive form of civilian security policy) and I have plenty of other problems, like finally fixing my motorbike (Bosnia, Kosovo) and I should really spend more time helping my other friends (Germany’s contribution for the peace-keeping missions re Lebanon, Congo are small. And then there is Darfur…)

I was never a fan of your sailing boat (Iraq war). I told you not to buy that boat. You responded that I would not be invited on that boat (reconstruction jobs). I did not really care about that, but remember it.
You spend most of your time and money on that boat, but you expect me to fix your car. I understand that fixing your car is also in my interest. We have shared that car. And it would be bad for me, if the car does not get fixed.

Yes, my mechanical car fixing skills are not good and I need to work on that (improving Germany’s military capabilities), but I just don’t see the point to devote my limited resources on fixing that car, if the car is of such little priority to you.

To fix the car we need to work together, but you prefer to work on your sailing boat. That’s why I don’t want to sacrifice more of my free time to make an extra effort of trying in vain to fix your car (Germany is not sending troops to Southern Afghanistan, because this would not result in defeating the Taliban and stabilizing Afghanistan. Much more is needed to achieve that. Our problems are much bigger than a lack of German combat troops in Southern Afghanistan. We need a new strategy for Iraq and have to commit sufficient resources, but the US is not able to do that due to Iraq. Therefore Germany does not consider it worthwhile to send more troops to Iraq)

Does that make sense?
No analogy is perfect, but I hope you get my point.

I have written on my blog how Germany failed to train the police and do reconstruction in the North.

Other Nations have failed as well. More and more Afghans see only destruction, but not reconstruction. That’s why we are not winning.

Josh,
Nato article 5 was issued 9/12/01.