Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

March 11, 2008 |  11 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Uta  Ermler

Time to Send the German Army to South-Afghanistan

Uta Ermler: A comparison of statistics in road casualty to killed German soldiers in Afghanistan points out, that the increasing danger in the south should be no reason for the refusal of the German government to deploy troops in southern Afghanistan.

Last month I nearly killed a soldier of the German Army. I was driving alongside a parked army-convoi, when a soldier suddenly appeared on the street in front of me, running out from behind a truck. Fortunately I was able to brake just in time and prevent an accident. I thought about what might have happened, if I had really hit him. It would have meant a lot of trouble for me, but for the public there, it would just about have been worthy of a small note in the regional newspaper.

But I also thought about the possible consquences of this soldier dying in Afghanistan. There would have been a general outcry in the whole of Germany. The news would have been printed in every German newspaper with fiery debates about the need to withdraw troops as it has been the case after every deadly Taliban attack. I certainly understand that every life has its own worth, but I cannot understand that Germans merely accept that people die in road accidents, climbing, sailing etc., yet equate the death of a German soldier in the fight for freedom and security with an absolute catastrophe.

According to the statistics of the German Army, 26 (!) German soldiers died in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2008. In contrast, about 5000 Germans are dying every year in road accidents ("World" 2008-02-26). That means 30.000 dead people in the last 6 years. (For Non- Germans: There is no speed-limit on German freeways). No wonder, the German government is really concerned (about the 26 soldiers).

Although this comparison is no scientific statistic, it probably shows how far German public discussions about ISAF & Co have left all reality behind them. Maybe the time will come, when the number German soldiers dying will increase dramatically. Not on the day they finally reach the south. But on the day the first high-speed freeway is built in Afghanistan.

Uta Ermler is doing social work for the guardianship court in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany.

 

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | Afghanistan |
 
Comments
Donald  Stadler

March 11, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I don't think the German government is driving the concern about accidental deaths - the German people are. The government may be pandering to this concern instead of pointing out that Germany is paying a very real price for the febrile hysteria of the German public over the deaths in Afghanistan.

Put it this way: how do Germans think this plays in the US, or Canada, or the UK? I am not happy about the 26 German soldiers who have died in accidents at all. But Germany's sacrifice is not unique or even particularly notable! I also remember that hundreds of thousands of US soldiers have been stationed in Germany under NATO auspices since 1948 (I won't count the post-war occupation as part f the NATO mission). Canada and the UK can claim a similar committment. How many of those Americans, Canadians, and Brits died in accidents in Germany. Whether in their 'civilian' lives or during the performance of their duties. I suspect the total number can be counted in the thousands, perhaps many thousands.

Germans feel the loss of their own peircingly. The accumulative losses of their NATO allies (whether in combat or for other causes) obvously counts far less to Germans, and that trend continues to this day.

Germans who wish to make Bush accountable for German loss of life should perhaps consider their own accountability - and possibly bite their tongues.
 
Florian  Kuhne

March 12, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
26 dead soldiers are 26 dead soldiers too many.

I am sorry, but I can not see the point in this article about German soldiers in Afghanistan. A comparison of dead soldiers and people dying in car accidents is not adequate and not just "no scientific statistics" but made-up and inappropriate.
And of course there is an outcry with every German soldier killed. Its because the majority in Germany does not understand why Germans need to fight in Afghanistan. A war against Terror which Germany did not begin and which Germany is in because an ally was attacked.
This may result of the bad communication of goals and benefits, but it may also occur because Germans do not want to see German soldiers abroad. (Check the German Constitution: Article 26: "Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations [...] are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.")
And I really would like to know where the "thousands, maybe many thousands" of NATO-soldiers died in Germany and in what connection? Maybe ten of them were killed by the Red Army Fraction in the 70s. But how could thousands of them die in "performance of their duties"?
I think noone wants to blame Mr Bush for dead German soldiers, but Germans do not have to bite their tongues when complaining about German soldiers abroad.
 
Donald  Stadler

March 12, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"And I really would like to know where the “thousands, maybe many thousands” of NATO-soldiers died in Germany"

The 26 deaths of German soldiers include accidents of all kinds, I believe. Perhaps it also includes other deaths, I am not sure.

So using the same criteria I lump together all accidental deaths of American servicemen over the past 50 years in Germany, including accidents handling ordinance, stepping in front of a tank, deaths from 'friendly fire' in training, deaths occuring during NATO exercises, deaths from malfunctioning aircraft either in Germany or during training related to the defense of Germany, civilian traffic accidents, murders, drug OD's, terrorist actions. The common factor being that they occurred in Germany or were related to the defense of Germany. Over 50 years there must be several thousand such deaths at the very least I should think. Perhaps not 'many thousand' unless one counts 3 or 4 thousand as 'many'.

Note that I'm not counting 'natural' deaths; deaths from heart ailments, cancer, etc. Deaths from infectious diseases might be a grey area.

This is fully as reasonable as blaming Bush for the 26 poor German soldiers who have died in Afghanistan from accidents, as seesm to be the custom in Germany. Very well, but try to see it from the US perspective, which is that you're still way behind US sacrifices - not only in lives but in treasure expended.....
 
Uta  Ermler

March 14, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you for your comments. For a better understanding: The 26 soldiers I mentioned are soldiers who died in fights in Afghanistan.
I think, the following sentence of Mr. Kuhne gets to the heart of the German resistance regarding to Afghanistan: "A war against terror which Germany did not begin and which Germany is in because an ally was attacked." This is including the cognition, that German soldiers should not die in an American fight (Better: for American interests).

But this is the heart of the NATO: If one ally is attacked the others are obliged to help.
And because it is a military alliance, helping means fighting and fighting includes dying.
What might happen, when sometimes Germany gets attacked and the Americans say:
Okay, we help you with a lot of money, armours and guns and special military equipment.
We also send you a number of soldiers but please take care, that they do not get involved with fights, because American soldiers should not die in a German fight.

This NATO alliance just works, when all allies unify their interests with the interests of an attacked member. Consequently German soldiers had to die for Great Britain, France or the USA. And if Germany is the target of an attack it should be the same. This is the basis of the transatlantic security.
If this cognition "German soldiers should not die for an ally" becomes usual, it might be the end of all military alliances. Because other nations begin to think in the same way and in the end, none of the NATO members know, if they can really trust in their military partners.
This is the reason, why the refusal of the German government (which incudes this unspoken cognition) is really dangerous and undermining the whole NATO agreement.
 
Florian  Kuhne

March 17, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Of corse you are right with pointing out the NATO-ties Germany is in and Germany is maybe happy with. But one thought I had when reading your latest comment is: Should not every member of the NATO behave like it wouldnt like to be attacked? If noone gets attacked, the allies must not help. But the United States do not behave like a peaceloving, responsible ally. This should not open another discussion, it was something that came to my mind when reading your comment.
 
Donald  Stadler

March 17, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"This is including the cognition, that German soldiers should not die in an American fight"

Frauy Emler is completely correct: "German soldiers should not die in an American War" means the converse is also true "American Soldiers should not die in a German war".

From my POV Kosovo counts as a 'GTerman' or at least European war, but who did the fighting? It's true that no US serviceman seems to have been killed in Kosovo (due to bombing from 20,000 feet and killing more indiscriminatly than we should have). But the US fought that war in the European interest but with little European participation except for the British.

Don't count on it happening again, no matter what the circumstances. Uncle Sam is not going to fight another war for a group of countries who cannot be bothered to defend themselves, but who DO seem to be overly eager to sit on 'War-Crime' tribunals and sentence US officers and enlisted to serve time as 'war-criminals'.

Europe, it's time to find another sucker - The US, Canada, and even the UK have figured out the game....
 
Lavonne  Emler

March 27, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
As a woman serving military in the Middle East in the 80's I have found that nothing has really changed. I do not see why we must always be apart of other countries affairs. Nothing is going to change, I still have bad memories of what I saw and there was not even "technically" a war going on. RESPECT for LIFE, not for Oil.

Not all Americans are related to Uncle Sam. We do have our own opinions about this war and the majority do not believe in it. Americans get a bad name just because of the decisions of few.

 
Donald  Stadler

March 28, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Perhaps, Frau Emler. But don't forget that there was majority support for this war in 2003, and that some of the anti-war sentiment in the US is not true abhorrence of war, but merely distaste for the way in which this war has been mishandled. So it's not accurate to believe (as some do) that public opinion in the US has become congruent with public opinion in Germany.

Moreover there is a good deal of anger and bitterness in the US about the way that most of continental Europe have comported themselves in this crisis. A large minority (perhaps even a majority) of people in the US believe that it would be a good thing for Germans and French to be required to actually do more within NATO; i.e. defend themselves and the remainder of Europe rather than sitting on the sideline and making snide remarks.

Some americans have actually become more favorable to the European pacifist opinion. In my subjective view perhaps 15 or 20% feel this way. But the ground that you have lost with the remaining 80-85% of the US public more than overcomes that gain. Actually I'd say you have lost ground with perhaps 50-55%, the remainder being "don't-cares". Some peopel styill view you favorable - but less so, some have become neutral, and others have switched polarity from favorable to negative.

Can the US force Europe to defend itself? Probably not through negociation or sweet words or electing an appealing new President, no.

The US can force a change by creating 'facts on the ground' however. If the US withdraws it's troops from eastern and central europe don't expect them to return easily in case of a crisis. Germany/France have been reluctant to bear part of the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan; expect the US to be balky about returning to face the Russians (should it come to that of course).
 
Florian  Kuhne

April 1, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
There were "majority support" for the war because the administration LIED to the American people!!!
And: Europe is not the US. Because of the "softer" politics the European governments made in the last years European policy is way more accepted than the US-trigger-happy-policy throughout the world. And what do you mean by "defend themselves ... rather than sitting on the sideline and making snide remarks"? Is there an army coming to Western Europe? The threats we are exposed to are, if there are any, of a terrorist nature. And the US intelligence showed that they could not defend themselves at 9/11 (maybe they did not want), so why could they defend us?
I am sorry, but your argumentation, Mr Stadler, makes no sense to me and seems acerbated and a little jealous that Germany and France do not have to complain about 4000 dead young soldiers...
 
Donald  Stadler

April 1, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"There were “majority support” for the war because the administration LIED to the American people!!!"

Ummmm, isn't this just a trifle simplistic, Herr Kuhne? My impression after probably paying a lot more attention to the course of events and public opinion in the US was that the President wasn't forming pupular opinion in the US - he was following it! If that was true (and I believe it was) that make's your premise into utter nonsense - does it not?

'Bush lied, people died'. I instinctively mistrust rhyming slogans - perhaps just another mark of my inherent stupidity I suppose.
 
Florian  Kuhne

April 2, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I am sorry but I can not agree. You think that the American citizens wanted to go to Iraq and kick Saddam out? Because of this there were millions on the street to declare their NO to this operation? And I can not imagine that a single citizen thought of Iraq a few days after 9/11. But Bush started planning then. Go ahead and read "Plan of attack" by Woodward. And there is a lot of sense in the phrase "Bush lied, people died". But Bush lied because he did not know better. Rumsfeld, Armitage, Wolfowitz are to blame for the war and its outcomings. And when public opinion maybe accepted a war in spring 2003 it has been because of a massive campaign in the US and the United Nations.

This is my opinion and I can not understand people backing this fatal course of the US-administration. Sorry.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Anna  Przybyll
Anna Przybyll
"A wise old owl lived in an oak The more he..."

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?