Skybird
04-04-08, 05:17 AM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-545348,00.html
(...)
The secrecy, some say, is necessary as the dossier contains details that could compromise the safety of NATO troops in Afghanistan. Others have been a bit more direct, saying that the paper is simply too controversial to be made public.
According to diplomats, there are indeed some interesting details to be found. The paper illustrates a new train of thought developing within NATO: For the first time, a step-by-step outline has been sketched -- with substantial help from Germany -- for when the 47,000 NATO troops currently in Afghanistan might be pulled out. According to diplomats, concrete benchmarks are laid out -- though any withdrawl, they make clear, would not be immediate.
It is no accident that Germany has played a big part in the drafting of the paper. It has long been clear in Berlin that Germany's involvement in the mission has a limited shelf-life given widespread opposition among the German populace and growing doubts in parliament. Were there something of a "master plan" for the operation, politicians in the chancellery and defense ministry would be able to offer the prospect of German troops returning from Afghanistan. Benchmarks for what must be achieved before that happens could also be clearly defined.
(...)
a critical thing. It makes sense to have a clear and realistic definition of what you want to achieve (the lack of this I criticise since years), and make that a criterion for an also defined exit-strategy becoming active. but as German newspaper Die Welt also made a valid point: as long as recontruction efforts and support gets not multiplied, this exit strategy sounds more like a plan for taking a flight. Which can again be countered by saying that this multiplication of efforts and fiances will not happen for lacking will and lacking ressources anyway and thus the military mission to make these efforts possible is in vain, so why risking your soldiers' lives all for nothing. This is my main reason why I reject the Afghanistan mission. right now as it is, it just is an eternal war that is not to be won militarily, even more so as the massive interference of Pakistan supporting Taleban forces is not stopped with all force needed. And that would be a quite considerable ammount of force.
Can't see we have to win anything over there. But that was already said by Sovjet General Lebed, but nobody in the West listened. we better should, he knew from own intimate experience how war in Afghanistan is looking like.
Sooner or later troops will be withdrawn under the cover of opportunistic fairy-tales anyway. Not now and not next year, but in the forseeable future. It's seems to be doomed to become a mission unaccomplished.
(...)
The secrecy, some say, is necessary as the dossier contains details that could compromise the safety of NATO troops in Afghanistan. Others have been a bit more direct, saying that the paper is simply too controversial to be made public.
According to diplomats, there are indeed some interesting details to be found. The paper illustrates a new train of thought developing within NATO: For the first time, a step-by-step outline has been sketched -- with substantial help from Germany -- for when the 47,000 NATO troops currently in Afghanistan might be pulled out. According to diplomats, concrete benchmarks are laid out -- though any withdrawl, they make clear, would not be immediate.
It is no accident that Germany has played a big part in the drafting of the paper. It has long been clear in Berlin that Germany's involvement in the mission has a limited shelf-life given widespread opposition among the German populace and growing doubts in parliament. Were there something of a "master plan" for the operation, politicians in the chancellery and defense ministry would be able to offer the prospect of German troops returning from Afghanistan. Benchmarks for what must be achieved before that happens could also be clearly defined.
(...)
a critical thing. It makes sense to have a clear and realistic definition of what you want to achieve (the lack of this I criticise since years), and make that a criterion for an also defined exit-strategy becoming active. but as German newspaper Die Welt also made a valid point: as long as recontruction efforts and support gets not multiplied, this exit strategy sounds more like a plan for taking a flight. Which can again be countered by saying that this multiplication of efforts and fiances will not happen for lacking will and lacking ressources anyway and thus the military mission to make these efforts possible is in vain, so why risking your soldiers' lives all for nothing. This is my main reason why I reject the Afghanistan mission. right now as it is, it just is an eternal war that is not to be won militarily, even more so as the massive interference of Pakistan supporting Taleban forces is not stopped with all force needed. And that would be a quite considerable ammount of force.
Can't see we have to win anything over there. But that was already said by Sovjet General Lebed, but nobody in the West listened. we better should, he knew from own intimate experience how war in Afghanistan is looking like.
Sooner or later troops will be withdrawn under the cover of opportunistic fairy-tales anyway. Not now and not next year, but in the forseeable future. It's seems to be doomed to become a mission unaccomplished.