Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

German Troops in Afghanistan Wearing "I fight for Merkel" badges

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • German Troops in Afghanistan Wearing "I fight for Merkel" badges

    If true this raises some sobering questions about discipline and morale in the German military.

    German troops in Afghanistan call on Angela Merkel to explain why they're at war | Mail Online

    German troops in Afghanistan call on Angela Merkel to explain why they're at war

    By Mail Foreign Service
    Last updated at 4:12 PM on 21st April 2010

    * Comments (0)
    * Add to My Stories

    Angela Merkel

    Under pressure: German troops are calling on Chancellor Angela Merkel to tell them why they're at war in Afghanistan

    German soldiers are wearing their hearts on their sleeves - in the form of a badge that protests their country's involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

    Some troops have taken to wearing the cloth accessory that states - ironically - 'I fight for Merkel' in a bid to persuade the German Chancellor Angela Merkel to explain exactly what they are fighting and dying for.

    Four more troops were killed, and five badly injured, in Afghanistan last week.

    Seven soldiers have died there so far this month, bringing the total to 43 in all since they were first deployed eight years ago.

    Unable to engage the Taliban directly on the ground, frustrated by their government’s inability to acknowledge they are even engaged in a war and angered by the lack of popular support for their mission, the badges are a low-key mutiny that has sent shock waves through the top brass of the Bundeswehr.

    Soldiers were warned this week that it is illegal to sew the cloth patches on to their uniforms.

    But that hasn’t stopped them from buying the badges in their hundreds, in desert beige or NATO green, at the ISAF camp at Mazar-e-Sharif.

    'They want the Chancellor, their ultimate boss, to finally find the clear words to put the war against the Taliban into black and white,' Bild Zeitung, Germany’s biggest daily paper, said today.

    Chancellor Merkel is to make a statement to parliament tomorrow. Her spokesman said she wants to make clear her 'high-esteem' for the work of the German soldiers in Afghanistan in the light of the recent casualties.

    But she will be speaking in the Reichstag after being put under pressure from U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, who arrived in Germany today with a brief from the White House to get the Germans to do more in Afghanistan.

    Germany has the third largest presence in Afghanistan after the U.S. and Britain. The German parliament approved the dispatch of a further 850 soldiers in February when it extended the mandate for the military mission.

    Yet the political will for German troops to engage the enemy head-on remains lacking.

    Cracks are growing in the parties that supported their engagement there up until now.
    Ottmar Schreiner, a left-wing member of the opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD), said his party has 'growing doubts' about German involvement in Afghanistan.

    He said: 'If things haven't improved in Afghanistan by next year then I don't see where a majority for a new extension of the mandate is going to come from.'

    The trouble for Mrs Merkel is that German involvement is deeply unpopular with some 80 per cent of the public, who want the troops to come home. Germany’s disastrous wars of the last century have left its public with a deep pacifistic streak.

    The German press has been swift to condemn the government for its indecisiveness.

    The Financial Times Deutschland said: 'With every dead German soldier in Afghanistan, the calls for an immediate withdrawal grow louder. This reflex shows that the German public is still not clear about the character of the mission.

    'The politicians are largely to blame. Since the beginning of the mission eight years ago they suppressed a realistic description of the situation... Deaths, injuries, battles and heavy weaponry -- none of these suit the picture that was painted back then.'

    The left-wing Berliner Zeitung said: 'Why are German soldiers in Afghanistan at all? As the chancellor and her government are still sticking to the military mission there it is their duty to explain it. But she has failed to do so.

    'This can be explained by her basic attitude - it is only worth talking about problems when they become virulent.

    'In the case of Afghanistan this is particularly catastrophic. Because the government has failed to make its case in what is the biggest foreign policy and security policy challenge in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany.'

  • #2
    Originally posted by citanon View Post
    If true this raises some sobering questions about discipline and morale in the German military.

    German troops in Afghanistan call on Angela Merkel to explain why they're at war | Mail Online
    These people joined the Army to defend their country, instead they were sent thousands of kilometers far away to occupy someone else's country.

    Comment


    • #3
      Kermanshahi Reply

      "...instead they were sent thousands of kilometers far away to occupy someone else's country"

      They are there under the mandate of the U.N. and by the invitation of the same Afghan government whom your nation recognizes, you twit. If it were an "occupation" in the eyes of the Iranian government I rather doubt Adminejad & Co. would recognize a puppet regime.

      Your feeble-minded rhetoric is tiresome and childlike.

      Here's their address so you can write the ambassador for a clarification-

      Embassy of IRAN
      Kabul, Afghanistan
      Est. 1921

      Address: Shir Pur SQ. Share Now Ave., E. Kabul, Afghanistan

      Tel: +93- 210 1391-5
      Fax: +93- 210 1397


      Working Days: Saturday to Thursday
      Working Hours: 8:30 - 14:30
      Day Off: Friday
      Last edited by S2; 23 Apr 10,, 18:37.
      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

      Comment


      • #4
        These people joined the Army to defend their country, instead they were sent thousands of kilometers far away to occupy someone else's country.
        The Taliban conducted numerous massacres on the Shia population of Afghanistan and murdered Iranian diplomats, while Iran did rather little. ISAF/NATO's presence is preventing further campaigns of the same type.
        To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by citanon View Post
          If true this raises some sobering questions about discipline and morale in the German military.
          It's not necessarily true. The "news" was broken by a right-wing tabloid, Bild, that has a rather... remote connection with reality sometimes.
          Sort of like certain British tabloids and newspapers creating "facts" out of thin air and then citing each other (yeah, i'm talking about the Daily Mail, the source of the above article).

          The badge is available from civilian shops - e.g. here - and according to Bild a pack of 50 was supposedly delivered to some commissary in Afghanistan and sold to soldiers there. Without saying which one it was of course (consider that number of 50 in comparison with the smallest base having some 1200-1400 soldiers at the moment...).

          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by S-2 View Post
            "...instead they were sent thousands of kilometers far away to occupy someone else's country"

            They are there under the mandate of the U.N. and by the invitation of the same Afghan government whom your nation recognizes, you twit. If it were an "occupation" in the eyes of the Iranian government I rather doubt Adminejad & Co. would recognize a puppet regime.


            Are they? I was under the impression that OEF was sanctioned under article 5 of NATO charter, not UN charter.

            And surely the fact that Germany doesn't want to fight a war is a sign of the Apocalypse.....

            Comment


            • #7
              Germany doesn't have any soldiers with OEF in Afghanistan anymore, since 2004 or so. Officially at least.

              Comment


              • #8
                Afghanistan and the UN

                Originally posted by aktarian View Post
                Are they? I was under the impression that OEF was sanctioned under article 5 of NATO charter, not UN charter.
                Afghanistan is confusing, as there are 2 seperate but intertwined operations going on there. There is the US OEF and the ISAF missions. The German forces are there under the ISAF portion which I do believe is a UN mandated operation.

                Regards

                Arty
                "Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations".- Motto of the Gun Crew who have just done something incredibly stupid!!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by troung View Post
                  The Taliban conducted numerous massacres on the Shia population of Afghanistan and murdered Iranian diplomats, while Iran did rather little. ISAF/NATO's presence is preventing further campaigns of the same type.
                  I wouldnt say that Iran had done relatively little. The Iranian army was mobilized to invade Afghanistan after the 1998 fall of Mazar-e Sharif and murder of Iranian diplomats in the city by the Taliban. At the time the IRGC did not have the same clout in Iran as it does now and so the plan to respond militarily was aborted after the Pakistanis lobbied Iran hard against such a move. The IRGC however was firm in its desire to invade. The decision not to was taken against their wishes. Iran may not have backed the Northern Alliance with the same level of intrigue and oversight that the Pakistanis gave to the Taliban but there is no doubt that whatever aid Iran did provide to the N.A was well received and helped to prolong their ability to resist.

                  As for today, Iran as you probably know continues to be one of Afghanistan's major donor's. This is despite Iran being only a developing-country itself and having a comparatively much weaker economy to that of the US and other interested parties to the Afghan conflict.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The problem is you guys think it actually matters. Occupation is occupation, you can call it NATO, you can call it ISAF, or OEF, or UN "peace mission," the only difference is some papers which aren't worth the ink they are written on. Do you really think it matters to the average Afghan that those foreigners who toppled their government and installed a puppet regime (which is not democraticly elected BTW, check Karzai's massive election fraud) are allowed to be there from the UN or not? Do you think it really matters to people who joined the army to defend their country and where then sent to occupy someone else's country and kill it's people that they have some papers signed by some *** lickers of George Bush in the UN, which sais they are on a "peace mission" and not participating in an occupation?

                    For me an occupation is when a country invades another country, topples it's government and than annexes that country or installes a puppet regime. This is also how vast majority of the people who live in such countries or regions feel (it doesn't need to be a recognised country to be occupied, for instance North Kurdistan was seized by Turkish land-grab operation and then recognised as part of Turkey, but occupation remains occupation). For some of you occupation is when the US President and a few of his side-kicks sign some papers which say a force present somewhere is an "occupation force" and it's not an occupation when the US President his side-kicks sign a paper saying this is a "UN peace mission" or when some US-installed puppet dictator signs an agreement "allowing" them to stay.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I wouldnt say that Iran had done relatively little. The Iranian army was mobilized to invade Afghanistan after the 1998 fall of Mazar-e Sharif and murder of Iranian diplomats in the city by the Taliban. At the time the IRGC did not have the same clout in Iran as it does now and so the plan to respond militarily was aborted after the Pakistanis lobbied Iran hard against such a move. The IRGC however was firm in its desire to invade. The decision not to was taken against their wishes.
                      They backed down regardless. Political pressure is so often used to save face. The Taliban followed that up with starving the Hazrajat and once again Iran didn't go in and break the siege.

                      The Taliban are slightly more militarily competent then student protesters and all...

                      Iran may not have backed the Northern Alliance with the same level of intrigue and oversight that the Pakistanis gave to the Taliban but there is no doubt that whatever aid Iran did provide to the N.A was well received and helped to prolong their ability to resist.
                      Not denying it, just saying without the USA/NATO/ISAF the Taliban would be lopping off Shia heads to their hearts content.

                      =========
                      Do you really think it matters to the average Afghan that those foreigners who toppled their government
                      You really have no idea what you are talking about.
                      To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kermanshahi View Post
                        The problem is you guys think it actually matters.
                        The same could be said about you, me or any number of other observers. Do you matter? No, you don’t. That would be the answer. Besides, your analyses is far too naive and simplistic. I don’t think you are aware of the difference between Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and what their two (different) roles and mandates for being in Afghanistan are.

                        As for Karzai’s regime, it is far from being a puppet of anyone else. You must have missed all the recent dysfunctional politicking between his regime and the Obama administration lately. Nobody who matters in the World considers Karzai to be a “puppet”. Only the Taliban and other Afghan insurgent forces do. And by the same token, they too, can be considered as the "puppets" of other powers at play in Afghanistan.

                        Also whoever said that the American’s were in Afghanistan on a ‘peace-keeping’ mission? It’s a war, straight up… The Americans being on the winning side. They were justified in going to war there back in 2001 and they are still there now at the invitation, or rather request, of Afghans themselves. What you apparently are not aware of is that Afghanistan has never been a cohesive state with a representative government in place and this is especially true for the past 30 years. Every regime and every power-broker and force for change in Afghanistan for about 3 decades or more has been tied to in one way or another and dependant on the foreign alliances they have made. Najibullah with the Soviets, Mullah Omar with Pakistan, Ahmad Shah Masoud with Iran, and now Karzai with the US. There are no puppets here, just what you call survival instincts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by troung View Post
                          They backed down regardless. Political pressure is so often used to save face. The Taliban followed that up with starving the Hazrajat and once again Iran didn't go in and break the siege.

                          The Taliban are slightly more militarily competent then student protesters and all...



                          Not denying it, just saying without the USA/NATO/ISAF the Taliban would be lopping off Shia heads to their hearts content.
                          I have no idea what the minutes of the Pakistani intervention in the 1998 Iran-Taliban stand-off was. All any layperson can know is that it was a successful lobby by the Pakistanis. Altho i suspect that the Iranian government at the time was naïve to the real intent and purpose of the Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan and was won over by Pakistani assurances that the Taliban would be kept in-line of sorts. If im not mistaken actually an assurance of this nature was delivered to the Iranian mission in Mazar-e Sharif by the Pakistanis before the city fell. It was then to their embarrassment that once the Taliban entered the city they murdered about a dozen odd Iranian officials alongside the general looting and ethnic-cleansing that took place there.

                          Anyway, Pakistanis have a talent for false assurances and duplicity that few else can rival. I wont deny that the incident can be considered as a blow or defeat for Iran. But what we don’t know is why they decided not to invade in the end. Hardliners in Iran, especially the Revolutionary Guard, certainly wanted to. But the pragmatists and what was at the time a reformist-led government were convinced otherwise, and it was their stance that finally prevailed. History tho would have been very, very different had the IRGC had its way and invaded…

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 1980s View Post
                            The same could be said about you, me or any number of other observers. Do you matter? No, you don’t. That would be the answer.
                            I'm not talking about us, I'm talking about these different trems, which are just bureaucratic loopholes to make occupation seem legal, the difference between them doesn't matter.

                            Besides, your analyses is far too naive and simplistic. I don’t think you are aware of the difference between Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and what their two (different) roles and mandates for being in Afghanistan are.
                            There is no difference, they are both illegal occupiers of Afghan land and should immedietly go back to their own country's. The difference between them only exists on worthless papers signed by American leaders and foreign statelite states and have no relevance at all for the situation on the ground.

                            As for Karzai’s regime, it is far from being a puppet of anyone else. You must have missed all the recent dysfunctional politicking between his regime and the Obama administration lately. Nobody who matters in the World considers Karzai to be a “puppet”. Only the Taliban and other Afghan insurgent forces do. And by the same token, they too, can be considered as the "puppets" of other powers at play in Afghanistan.
                            Karzai was put in power by the Americans and the only reason he's still in power was because they're there to keep him in power. The American government wasn't happy that the election fraud was brought to the public cause it was embaressing for them, but for the rest they allowed him (and probably helped him) to commit this fraud and remain in power.

                            Also whoever said that the American’s were in Afghanistan on a ‘peace-keeping’ mission? It’s a war, straight up…
                            "Peace-keeping" is exactly the same as war.

                            The Americans being on the winning side.
                            You wish.

                            They were justified in going to war there back in 2001 and they are still there now at the invitation, or rather request, of Afghans themselves.
                            Not at request of the Afghans, but at request of the puppet regime they installed in Afghanistan.

                            What you apparently are not aware of is that Afghanistan has never been a cohesive state with a representative government in place and this is especially true for the past 30 years.
                            Oh, I am very aware of the fact that Afghanistan is an artificial state, created by the British, which should be dismanteld for the sake of everybody.

                            But that still doesn't give the Americans the right to occupy it, it does however give the locals the right to resist occupation. No matter in between which artificial colonialist-drawn borders you live, when these neo-colonialists occupy the land you are living in you should resist.

                            Every regime and every power-broker and force for change in Afghanistan for about 3 decades or more has been tied to in one way or another and dependant on the foreign alliances they have made. Najibullah with the Soviets, Mullah Omar with Pakistan, Ahmad Shah Masoud with Iran, and now Karzai with the US. There are no puppets here, just what you call survival instincts.
                            The others were backed by foreign powers, they accepted the backing but didn't do these countries' bidings, the only regimes actually put in power by foreing invasion and occupation were the Communist regime and the regime of Hamid Karzai (who BTW, is just as bad as Mullah Omar, but unlike Mullah Omar, is in bed with the Americans).

                            Originally posted by 1980s View Post
                            But the pragmatists and what was at the time a reformist-led government
                            Ow, you mean those guys you support?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kermanshahi View Post
                              There is no difference, they are both illegal occupiers of Afghan land and should immedietly go back to their own country's.
                              Illegal according to who? Do you even know what you're talking about? I think not... Are you the same Kermanshai from the Iranian defence forum? If so, arent you like a 14 year old kid or something? Please remind me.

                              Id be happy to debate with you, but i cant when you clearly dont have a clue about what you're saying.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X