Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

They came, they saw, then left the Afghan war without a single mission



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 October 2008
GERMANY has admitted its Special Forces have spent three years in Afghanistan without doing a single mission, and are now going to be withdrawn.

More than 100 soldiers from the elite Kommando Spezialkrafte regiment, or KSK, are set to leave the war-torn country after their foreign minister revealed they had never left their bases on an operation.

The KSK troops were originally sent to A
fghanistan to lead counter-terrorist operations.

But Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the foreign minister, admitted they had not been deployed "a single time" in the last three years, despite a desperate shortage of Special Forces units in the country.

Troops from Britain's Special Boat Service and the SAS work round the clock, across Afghanistan, alongside US navy Seals and Delta Force, to target terrorists, arrest drug lords and rescue hostages.

The KSK were part of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom, which spearheads the international hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Senior military officials last night blasted the KSK commanders for keeping the troops in camp. One western military official accused Germany of "sitting on the sidelines while the rest of the world fights".

He said: "It's just unbelievable to think there have been 100 highly-trained troops sitting doing nothing for three years, while everyone else has worked their socks off. It's no good sending troops if they don't do anything. They might as well have stayed at home."

Another source said: "It's ludicrous that they would be here and not contributing."

Berlin is under almost constant pressure from the rest of Nato to increase its troop contribution and scrap special national caveats which prevent German troops deploying to volatile parts of the country, like Helmand. Last year it emerged that Norwegian troops, fighting alongside their German allies, were forced to abandon a battle at tea-time because German pilots refused to fly emergency medical helicopters in the dark.

Mr Steinmeier claimed the KSK's inactivity as an excuse to withdraw the Commandos from Afghanistan.

He said: "That's why the KSK element should be taken out of the OEF mandate."

Berlin was set to renew the KSK mission for another year in November, but they are now expected to fly home instead.

A spokesman for Operation Enduring Freedom said: "We don't have enough troops in Afghanistan."

But, he added: "Common sense says if they weren't being used, they won't be missed."

The KSK revelations came as Nato's leading commanders were renewing their calls for more troops.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, agreed to send an extra 1,000 troops to Afghanistan this week, but they will be confined to the north of the country which is relatively safe.

Most of Germany's troops are based in Mazar-e Sharif, at an airbase complete with a series of bars and a nightclub. Nato wants Germany to do more in Afghanistan, but the mission is deeply unpopular with German voters.

Mr Steinmeier told Der Spiegel newspaper: "You cannot just keep piling elements on without taking a critical look at our current responsibilities."

BACKGROUND

SOME 40 countries contribute troops to the 47,600-strong Nato mission in Afghanistan, led by the United States with some 18,000 troops and Britain with more than 8,000. Germany is the third largest contributor. The US is set to send an extra 14,000 troops to Afghanistan next year, and it has been rumoured there are British plans to send 4,000 more.

It is still British, American, Canadian, Dutch, Australian and Danish soldiers who bear much of the combat weight in the country, alongside the soldiers of the Afghan national army. A recent French deployment led to the death of ten soldiers in a Taleban ambush, leading to widespread calls to withdraw the troops.





The full article contains 634 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 October 2008 11:13 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

09/10/2008 01:30:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

SCULLION1,

Canada 09/10/2008 01:34:46
I'm torn. Canada has fulfilled its NATO obligations and has a right to call it a day after doing good and bloody work.(I think our current and probably future PM has said 2011 is it for us).We are proud of our troops.
That said, the German chancellor has to be admired for doing what her citizenry want as distasteful as that might be to her allies. Time for all to start withdrawing and negotiating.
3

SCULLION1,

Canada 09/10/2008 01:36:17
Who do you think the real Scullion is? An insulting boor or a liberal who is trying to see both sides of an argument.
Not too tough.
4

SCULLION1,

Canada 09/10/2008 01:38:04
Oh, and the real Scullion would know of which country Sarkozy is President.
5

nolimits,

Canada 09/10/2008 01:46:25
Scullion1: I think.................................:)
6

2dogs in D.C.,

09/10/2008 02:08:42
I vote for Scullion @#1and#3. Do I win a prize?
7

Tobermory,

09/10/2008 02:23:58
1 SCULLlON1

Agreed! France is no longer the cheese eating surrender monkeys, that title now belongs to Germany!
8

Tobermory,

09/10/2008 02:30:33
#6 2dogs in D.C

I vote for Scullion @ #1 and #2. The troll at #3 gave himself away by saying liberals try to see both sides, we know they are too partisan.

At least we both agree #1 is the real Scullion and # 4 is a troll.
9

SouthernGent,

09/10/2008 04:46:29
The future of nato looks bleak. If nato votes as one, yet fights as many, all countries will pick and choose in the future. Germany best hope they are not the next attacked.
10

Guga II,

Rockall 09/10/2008 07:27:26
Why should the Germans, or anyone else, send troops to Afghanistan to protect an oil pipeline for the war criminal Bush and his business buddies?

Moreover, the Germans may have had a wee glance at some history books, and realised that no-one has ever managed to win a war against the Afghanis.
11

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 09/10/2008 08:03:53
I wish the rest of the western troops sent there copied the German model.
12

carrottop,

Dumfries 09/10/2008 08:10:14
Obliterate and colonise, Afghans are a waste of space unless you are a drug addict.
13

,

09/10/2008 09:21:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

danielrober,

09/10/2008 09:29:10
Germany has its own choices to make. In the long run though it kind of reduces Germany's chance of a permanent seat on the security council.
15

Americanbob,

09/10/2008 11:02:03
Hope these "heroes" all get their campaign medals!
16

James Donald,

Newbridge 09/10/2008 12:37:48
The Western Allies only allowed West Germany to have an Army post WW2 when they realised that they needed German manpower to counter the Soviet threat in Europe. Now those same Western Allies (mostly the USA with their "let's shoot 'em up" Armed Forces) complain that the Germans are not doing their bit when it suits (previously they were quite happy for German troops to be confined to Europe).
The relative combat inactivity of German troops in Afghanistan cannot be blamed entirely on the troops themselves (specifically the highly trained and professional KSK troops) and has moore to do with German politics. Merkel's government is a "Grand Coalition" in which the SPD is a junior partner and the SPD includes many who are strongly anti-military and are opposed to German deployment. More German body bag means more votes for the SPD (as well as extremist goups such as the PDS and NPD) and would eventually lead to the dissolution of the Grand Coalition and another election. Merkel knows this and will not commit political suicide just to please the US.
German troops have suffered 28 fatalities in Afghanistan so some German troops will be receiving their medals posthumasly. Aside from the USA, UK and Canada, no other coalition forces in Afghanistan have suffered as many casualties.
17

,

09/10/2008 13:21:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Covert Action,

09/10/2008 14:13:33
Pity. We could use some German troops with battle experience in the forthcoming pan-european civil war.
19

SouthernGent,

09/10/2008 15:40:04
By the looks of comments here, it seems many have no clue what it means to be a member of nato. Considering many countries in europe are unable to defend themselves without the assitance of nato, they may want to re-evaluate the situation.
20

James Donald,

Newbridge 09/10/2008 17:10:13
#19 SouthernGent - "By the looks of comments here, it seems many have no clue what it means to be a member of nato" - Your comments being no exception. The International Security Assistance Force is NATO-led but not made up exclusively of NATO members. The mission has nothing to do with the collective defence of NATO members in Europe.
21

SouthernGent,

09/10/2008 19:23:25
#20
You might want to apply your comments to yourself. The NATO members agreed to take over command of ISAF, and ALL NATO countries participate. The key is that the ALLIES (in 2003) agreed to expand the duties of NATO. If NATO countries have/had a problem with that, it should have been addressed then, not now. The mission has everything to do with the collective defence of NATO members in Europe. If members are waivering on current agreed upon committments, what makes you think members wouldn't waiver on future agreed upon committments. Thats like getting married - with conditions.
22

James Donald,

Newbridge 09/10/2008 20:24:56
#21 SouthernGent - "You might want to apply your comments to yourself" - No thanks, I don't think I want to do that at all. The mission is NATO-led (and UN mandated) but includes many troops from non-NATO countries such as Albania, Croatia, Finland, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand.
This is a Mission in an Asian country far from Europe where no NATO country has been directly attacked by the insurgents being fought there. This has nothing to do with the collective defence of Europe other than in your head.
It is with good reason that British soldiers often refer to Yanks as having "all the gear but no idea". Most European NATO countries are unwilling to commit to the expanded "duties of NATO" for fear of the organisations role becoming an extension of US foreign policy.
23

SouthernGent,

09/10/2008 20:45:42
#22
"The mission is NATO-led"

Which means ALL members of NATO agreed to lead it.

"This is a Mission in an Asian country far from Europe where no NATO country has been directly attacked by the insurgents being fought there. This has nothing to do with the collective defence of Europe other than in your head."

Unless NATO implements "article 5", which they did after 9/11.

"Most European NATO countries are unwilling to commit to the expanded "duties of NATO" for fear of the organisations role becoming an extension of US foreign policy."

Thanks for proving my point. The problem is, they already DID commit, in 2003. Now is not the time to re-negotiate the agreement.
24

James Donald,

Newbridge 09/10/2008 21:35:49
#23 SouthernGent - "Which means ALL members of NATO agreed to lead it" - and your point is what?
"Thanks for proving my point. The problem is, they already DID commit, in 2003" - I think you will find that they committed to the expansion of the ISAF mission in 2003 after the UNSC passed Resolution 1510. Becoming an extension of US foreign policy was not part of the deal and it is no coincidence that the violence has escalated since ISAF has been commanded by US Generals have been in command.
The US has its own agenda in Afghanistan and that is why it has some 10,000 troops in the country which do not fall under ISAF command.

25

SouthernGent,

09/10/2008 23:44:37
NATO wouldn't be there at all if ALL the members did not agree to be there. NATO decided it was a NATO mission - not the US. If some members have doubdts about the mission, they should have addressed those doubts before NATO agreed to the mission - they did not. Now your telling me they do have doubts. And I'm saying if that is the case, don't be surprised down the road when other countries have doubts about future missions.

NATO agreed to be "ONE", not "MANY".

26

Rio Amazoco,

Berlin 10/10/2008 00:17:43
1.) Jerome Starkmad is lying, just as all those goons and henchmen hired by Murdock lie. The KSK left Afghanistan in 2005, and that's the reason why it is dropped from the next ISAF mandate. Before 2005, it joined in many successful combat missions.
2.) We are in Afghanistan for the benefit of the Afghan people, not the fascist British imperialists.
3.) If Mr. Weaky ever wants to taste how cowardly german soldiers really are, I'm inviting him over to get a taste of my bayonet. We have no problems with Iraqis, no problem with Afghans and no problem with Iranians. We have problems with greedy capitalists, uncivilized cowboys and Anglo-Saxon warmongers longing for world domination. We know who our real enemies are!
27

James Donald,

Newbridge 10/10/2008 07:48:09
#25 SouthernGent - "NATO wouldn't be there at all if ALL the members did not agree to be there" - I don't think I suggested otherwise.
"NATO decided it was a NATO mission - not the US" - It is not a "NATO mission" but rather a NATO-led mission under a UN mandate.
Conditions in theatre have changed since the original agreement and of course some countries will express concern at the way the mission is being conducted (especially when it is led by overly-aggressive US Generals). Again agreement to participate in the ISAF mission is not a carte blanche for the US to pursue its own agenda using these troops. No other nation in NATO has sent troops to the country which are not under ISAF control - why then does the US have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan not under ISAF control if the mission is so short of troops?
28

SouthernGent,

10/10/2008 12:47:11
"It is not a "NATO mission" but rather a NATO-led mission under a UN mandate."

The NATO "mission" is to assume leadership of the ISAF under the UN mandate agreed on by NATO members.

"if the mission is so short of troops?"


Because other NATO countries are not honoring their commitment.
29

James Donald,

Newbridge 10/10/2008 13:59:07
#28 SouthernGent - "The NATO "mission" is to assume leadership of the ISAF under the UN mandate agreed on by NATO members" - In other words a NATO-led mission under a UN Mandate agreed by the UN Security Council.
"Because other NATO countries are not honoring their commitment" - I do not recall any other NATO countries giving a specific undertaking to commit a specific number of troops to be reinforced when it suits the US.
Why does the US need 10,000 troops in the country not under ISAF command?


30

SouthernGent,

10/10/2008 14:15:50
Going in circles - have a good day.
31

,

10/10/2008 16:01:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

James Donald,

Newbridge 10/10/2008 19:29:29
#30 SouthernGent - "Going in circles" - Yes you must be getting dizzy and still no answer as to why the US needs 10,000 troops in Afghanistan not under ISAF command.
33

SouthernGent,

10/10/2008 22:12:13
No, just realized you are hopeless and wasting my energy.
34

SouthernGent,

10/10/2008 22:28:01
" 12,000 of the 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan now are part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force. The remaining 8,000 remain assigned to Combined Forces Command Afghanistan to conduct counterterrorism efforts, train Afghan security forces and provide combat service support."

And if the mission is so short handed, why should the US be the country to supply more?
35

James Donald,

Newbridge 12/10/2008 00:07:16
#33 SouthernGent - "just realized you are hopeless and wasting my energy" - Strange, I was thinking the same (and worse) about you.
"And if the mission is so short handed, why should the US be the country to supply more?" - Why should European nation feed reinforcements into a doomed mission that will last for years for the benefit of the US? The USA has 10,000 (not 8,0000 troops in Afghanistan which are not under ISAF control so it can pursue its own agenda without interference from NATO. Otherwise they could quite easily "conduct counterterrorism efforts, train Afghan security forces and provide combat service support" under ISAF command.
36

Fernando Diniz,

Brazil 13/10/2008 15:37:52
Is very sad to see troops that are already a legend just tied by stupid laws. Perhaps Germany still has afraid of the ghosts from the SS era ??? I hope not...

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.