Post-Treatment Elements

Future Losses

As the German defense minister declared in a press interview, he wants to initiate troop withdrawal from Afghanistan ("transfer of responsibility") by "next year at the very latest".[1] In the meantime one can expect an escalation of hostilities. This is particularly in reference to Kunduz, where the German Bundeswehr is currently coming under intensified attack. German troops must "expect a continuation of losses and injuries." The months to come will be "a hard test of endurance." Guttenberg's reaction to the growing debate taking place in several NATO countries around a rapid withdrawal, is an emphatic warning to maintain strict unity. In the event "that, for example one of the main or even the main ally, for whatever reason, should rapidly withdraw from Afghanistan", the minister demands that "coordination be absolutely necessary." There should "not be one (...) left behind alone, to turn off the lights."

Intelligence Services and Special Forces

The German defense minster continues to call for a debate around the "elements of post-treatment" for the aftermath of the withdrawal of regular troops. It is "essential" that from Afghanistan "no threat is posed to the international community."[2] One has to say farewell to all the other "wishes," "even fantasy images", Afghanistan will "never let itself be stabilized along the lines of our standards." Still, the international "terrorist elements" that have established for themselves a "permanent haven" at the Hindu Kush should be "confronted" internationally, necessitating an "international coordination of the engagement of intelligence services and special forces". In answer to the question whether he approved measures patterned after US operations in Pakistan, Guttenberg was ambiguous: "perhaps in some respects, similar." In any case, contrary to US activities, a clear "legal basis" must be established for special forces operations.

Like in Pakistan?

Operations in Pakistan are a mixture of special forces and aerial attacks with drones, carrying out targeted killings of insurgents. There are routinely a large number of civilian deaths through drone attacks. The US operations are supplemented with ground offensives by proxy troops, in this case, the Pakistani military, who seek to maintain certain insurgent-free areas - with questionable success. A similar pattern can be observed in Yemen. And even more, in Somalia, where US units attempt to neutralize groups of the insurgents with special forces, while proxy troops - Ethiopian soldiers for a while, now mainly African Union units are attempting to keep a halfway pro-western "government" in office- at least formally. Every prospect of the country's development is out of the question.

A Worthless Piece of Dirt

Last year, the military journalist, Ralph Peters, a ret. Lt. Col. of the US Armed Forces proposed a strategy incorporating the consequences from these patterns of operations. Afghanistan "doesn't matter", Peters explained in the unofficial US military magazine "Joint Force Quarterly". "Afghanistan's just a worthless piece of dirt. Al Qaeda matters." At the Hindu Kush it is important to insure that Al Qaida does not have a safe haven, for which there are two possible approaches. Either one reduces troop levels to relatively few soldiers - approx. 15,000 or less - concentrate on individual attacks against suspected cells of insurgents, cease development efforts completely. Or withdraw completely from Afghanistan, while continuing aerial strikes against the enemy with drones and special forces.[3]

Ungovernable

Similar propositions have appeared in the renowned Washington Post in late summer of 2009. A former US Marine Corps Chief of Staff General advocated the creation of "hunter-killer teams" which "should be only given minimal rules of engagement." (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[4]) The military journalist, Ralph Peters, goes a step further summing up his strategic suggestions with the concept "ungovernable". According to Peters "the Taliban's asymmetric strategy is not to defeat us militarily, but to make Afghanistan ungovernable. But what if our strategy, instead of seeking to transform the country into a model state, were simply to make it ungovernable for the Taliban?" And Peters concludes: "Allow Afghanistan to further disintegrate if that is its fate."[5]

Without Violent Upheaval

Afghanistan strategies of force, such as what Peters proposes, are not the only ones being currently discussed in Germany. German government advisors are advocating deepening the involvement of neighboring states in controlling Afghanistan. But this would also mean the West engaging in a certain amount of cooperation with Iran. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[6]) When Guttenberg observes that operating with "intelligence services and special forces" is a necessity, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction in principle to strategies of force. According to the columnist of a leading German daily, the current "mood of retreat" has become stronger "because of the widening gap between political objectives and military possibilities." Despite the population's long held negative mood, the claim that "the failure of the military is due to the lack of support on the home front" is a "myth". Commenting on the European and US populations' indulgence of violence, the columnist writes that "after all, Western societies have endured the human and financial costs of this war without violent upheaval."[7]

[1], [2] "Afghanistan wird sich nie absolut stabilisieren lassen"; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 05.07.2010
[3] Ralph Peters: Trapping Ourselves in Afghanistan and Losing Focus on the Essential Mission; Joint Force Quarterly 54 (2009)
[4] see also Killer Teams
[5] Ralph Peters: Trapping Ourselves in Afghanistan and Losing Focus on the Essential Mission; Joint Force Quarterly 54 (2009)
[6] see also Weder Herzen noch Köpfe
[7] Petraeus' Mission; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 05.07.2010