Afghanistan is still become an election issue. The death of about 100 Afghans has caused this. The exact number of fatalities and the exact percentage of the gunmen, who perished in the bombing of a requested by Colonel Klein American F-15 Jagdbomers victim is probably not currently be out. Because the fronts are completely process not only in Afghanistan but also in the home.
The German Basic Law and international human rights law prohibit wars of aggression, and the Bundeswehr must be expressly used only for defensive purposes. Thus Article 26 of the Basic Law says:
Actions that are appropriate to and undertaken with intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare the war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional. They are to be punishable.
Immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 2001 were called Laden as the mastermind of the heinous attacks out of Afghanistan a certain Osama Bin acting, although he himself, are just like his 19 accomplices in their (majority), Saudi nationals.
The attacks in 2001 were certainly liable to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, but was Osama Bin Laden, a State? Had his evil deeds under international law relevance? This question was answered by America and NATO clearly 'yes'. The question can only be answered with good reason just 'no', because in this way could in future every fanatic, no matter what stripe, the country where he allegedly staying straight, make a war aim. Is that what the Allies, above all do the Americans and British, but also more and more Germans in Afghanistan, likely to disturb the peaceful relations between nations involved?
Serious questions and serious consequences if this question can be answered with "Yes".
Since October 2001 (Operation Enduring Freedom) German soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, since November 2001, as part of the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) under the OEF. The German contingent was increased again and currently comprises 4,000 soldiers.
The Afghanistan-company of the army described as a kind of double aid mission: had as aid mission for the Americans and as a contribution in an initiated this war on terror, the one to face, without further questions or seen any findings, connected, and as relief efforts for Afghan President: The Germans want to help the Afghan government to ensure security and stability in and around Kabul around for Afghanistan again become a sovereign and economically prosperous country. The Recce Tornados you've come to help, to obtain a complete overview of the ISAF operations.
So something is usually called "aerial reconnaissance"; including the supply of target data falls for subsequent bombings. A Recce Tornado, a car license plate still photograph from 5 km away, it was said in the press. "Recce", which is simply an acronym for Reconnaissance = Enlightenment.
The German leaders hold a series of nouns for the willing, what is happening in Afghanistan. The word war is not present. There is talk of "Mission", "commitment", "action", "contribution", "security applications", last of a "robust stabilization measure". The range of designs is subject to strong fluctuations: Stand at the very beginning during Operation Enduring Freedom to hunt Bin Laden himself in the foreground, so the hunting joined to all terrorists, Taliban, warlords, rebels and insurgents soon added to by reasons such as termination of drug cultivation and the liberation of women and girls from the rule of the Islamists to be supplemented by quasi development help innovative designs.
Still on 23.8.2009 denied Federal Defence Minister Jung at Anne Will ("Adventure Afghanistan - Germany at War?") Flatly that it sat around a war handele.Im Studio next to the Minister including Michael Wolffsohn, a professor at the Federal Armed Forces University in Munich, and the knowledgeable Peter Scholl-Latour.
The mission was enlightening, particularly Jung could one do almost sorry in his verbal contortions. However, the background is not only the consistent rejection (70%) of the Germans against the "use" of it must be verbally justice, but the thin ice on which Jung moves seen in international law, after Germany headless in the alliance case has let in encounter:
Germany had shown in the statement of the alliance case by the North Atlantic Council in October 2001, less than a sovereign state, but more as a hostage of the Council. One would be in that situation without further reflection to the results of an international commission on the attacks of September 11 can beg. However, the great ally should not be offended, Nibelungentreue ran hard evidence from the rank.
In the public debate, in every talk-round, is scrupulously avoided to discuss the questionable basis of the Afghanistan war. This all "expert panels" necessarily something ghostly in itself, the expertise of the expert moves so repeatedly on the perceived level of twelve year olds when it comes to the concrete behind-reasons. But Scholl-Latour succeeded been his but almost all Saudis in the mentioned program laboriously the setting in the thick throw, the assassin.
The Afghanistan debate must therefore, if they are not from the outset phantomatös and thus should be irrelevant, taking the results of the 9/11 truth movement to knowledge. Not at the Afganistandiskussion must clarify who were ultimately those responsible of the attacks. No need. You just need the base of Afghanistan "commitment" scrutinize and quite simply on the basis of facts that were brought gradually since 2001 to light. Is it too much to ask, when responsible politicians take note, what has promoted as a result of the Italian MEP Giulietto Chiesa to days and in the film, (who was recently seen in the ORF), together with the Italian writer Dario Fo (including ) logged?
When we look at the video of Anne-Will-broadcast, falls on something, that nobody, neither in the show later in the media comments, offensive or somehow was criticized: A Statement of Professor Michael Wolffsohn:
Anne Will: "Had the German soldiers better protected there, if you would define the entire application as a war and would equip the soldiers accordingly also in the sense of what I have just understood as you said, there must be a more intensive use give? "
M. Wolffsohn: "Well, words do not alter the reality Whether you call it war, and it is a war, and the general public can only slowly prepared.. You can not switch from zero to full speed, and as such needs to the public, that is the task of political control, will be gradually used to it. The fact that the Bundeswehr is not optimally equipped, is also related that Mr. Jung, I may not be fly on the wall at budget discussions, but certainly not as much as he gets needed, and that in turn is related to the unwillingness not only politics, but also of society together, hineinzustecken more money in the defense budget. "
Wolffsohn contradicts Minister Jung, which would have been without nachgehakt. His statement is simple: Yes, it is war, and yes, we must spend more money on war. Most interesting, however, is his way of dealing with the truth in public! He says in plain language not more than that we need to be lied to by means of politics!
Now Mr. Wolffsohn is not a blank slate more. Born in Tel-Aviv (1947) German-Israeli and support of the Druid Order (1998) has been teaching since 1981 at the Munich Bundeswehrhochschule aspiring officers in modern history. Wolffsohn is a German citizen and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Basic Law, and also of the German civil service law. Doubts about his loyalty to the constitution were already 2004 when he front of the camera when Sandra Maischberger (NTV, 5.5.2004) to the question "So torture is legitimate even against terrorists in any case ?!" said
"I would say: Yes, it is legitimate because of the terror basically with the normative foundations, so the valuation basis of our civilized order has nothing more to do. And if we as with Gentleman methods attempt to counter terrorism, we will fail. "
What Wolffsohn testified so, was that he considers torture to be legal and that one can make in the fight against terror quiet outside the civilized order, as in "terrorist" our civilized standards were not to apply.
With this assessment, Wolffsohn had clarified outside the Constitution, and also revealed that he has learned as a historian from history, because torture seeks nothing, they can find no truth except the that torture must also be classified as terrorist.
After sending a storm of indignation broke out, and many a politician called Wolffsohn to resign, in all seriousness! Its distance to the civil service would have been much more effective than waiting for his "resignation". Since then us this bellicist has blessed with other up instead of resignations in the media, which prove that it is not just for one-time verbal gaffes, but systematic action.
In woodcut-style comments and calling in his house journal he tries tirelessly to give Germany the spores, internally and upgrade externally to lower the moral standards and not take from the bitter experience of his story out a special loathing for war, but these now overboard throw and finally carefree on the side of its allies, most notably the US and Israel to take the field and to fall on the new field of honor also. For Wolffsohn is even a new Iron Cross right.
Not everywhere Wolffsohn has admittedly wrong, and in many areas, covers his assessment, for example, the situation in Afghanistan, with the other observers. However, it is dangerous there, where Wolfensohn the primacy of military logic and momentum of its own before the political talks the word, and he does constantly in usual schnodderiger Art.
So in the WORLD (v 21.8.2009.):
Example Afghanistan. Ex-Defence Minister Peter Struck (SPD) announced in December 2002 that in the Hindu Kush would defend Germany's security. A few days ago he has repeated this assertion. In Afghanistan itself, the security situation has become more uncertain than ever, and the Bundeswehr especially busy defending themselves. For the first time since the beginning of the local insert there under Franz Josef guys Director tentative signs of a transition from the defensive to the offensive, and thus also to the politically active control of the insert. If our soldiers shooting in the Hindu Kush, they risk, however, the public prosecutor in Potsdam. Lately accepts the Bundeswehr this at least the costs of legal protection. Sure there are for it now forms.
Under Struck lead our soldiers were primarily busy digging wells or dig themselves. As with the Oder-flood the Bundeswehr operated as the best civil protection, the ever in or from Germany.
Cleverly and usual polemical attempts Wolffsohn to portray the German troops as wimps and wimps, as a kind of "civilians" and development workers Army with soldiers who are too cowardly right times durchzuladen the rifle and commends the Secretary of Defense for signs of a military offensive. We need such gentlemen actually as instructors of future German officers on a Bundeswehrhochschule?
And again very correct:
Despite their deliberate and practiced civility was the Bundeswehr for the Taliban always military occupiers and enemies. Now they are so strong that they attack the Bundeswehr. The longstanding presence of the Bundeswehr has improved neither the security nor the political conditions or the fight against opium production in Afghanistan.
Wolffsohn consequence: More War to Afghanistan! His superficial analyzes displace totally factors point to the Afghanistan connoisseurs as Scholl-Latour: The Afghans will never tolerate as Mohammedan unbelievers in their territory, look quite the same as the uniforms and how good the intention may be made. And after eight years of war in Afghanistan, with more and worse results for the country's security, it is also a question of intelligence, the whole company from the ground to stand on in question. But not for Wolfensohn.
Of course, for Wolffsohn the long current German model of the "citizen in uniform", which wanted to see the soldiers more than active, the basic law defending citizens and not first as compliant command receiver (as in the past!), Also long since become an outdated model , which is part scrapped. Way with this "pseudo psychological" Quark!
Among the many inconsistencies I want a pick. The "citizen in uniform". What would that be? Is not every police officer, every customs officer, any pilot not a citizen in uniform? Under the guiding principle of inner leadership the soldiers should learn less defend their own country rather than democracy. That these pseudo psychological considerations for the real thing does not suck, the practice has taught. The more often the Bundeswehr is in use, the more it becomes a normal army, led and used in accordance with principles that apply in all armed forces in the world. It was a long road to this realization. And it is not over yet!
People of the caliber of Wolffsohn want the have back what in the past we already had: soldiers and officers who do not think for themselves, simply follow orders, can be send willingly to any location in this world and in the end simply say again: I had only acted on command!
Wolffsohn's favorite idea: He wants the Bundeswehr like "fit splash" for a war with Iran (a country that has never attacked in the history of another!). Iran-bashing one of Wolffsohn's standard program. This is most evident from an Israeli perspective:
What does the Bundeswehr to secure Germany against future, nuclear-tipped missiles from Iran? Is the rumor that Germany participated in the US-Israeli anti-missile program? That would make sense.
In world-cited article in which Wolffsohn with alleged "legends" of the Bundeswehr clears, he sparked weeks of outrage, as he railed that expressed most conscripts a vintage on a "ego trip" before their duty. Wolffsohn it is obvious to divide it, because he certainly knows that the Bundeswehr every year needs only about 45,000 soldiers and not about 380,000, which corresponds to the current relevant year of birth (1992).
Wolffsohn's WORLD-agitation was headlined: "The Bundeswehr is an underlayer Army". As he explains it? The equating of "Ossis" with undercoat. Wolffsohn-vulgo: "ossification".
In fact, about 35 percent of the military personnel are from the new countries. Their proportion is only about 20 percent of Germans. This fact supports the thesis that the Bundeswehr is on its way to become an underclass army.
Would Wolffsohn not a professor at a German Federal Armed Forces University, his thesis would be easy to be seen as expressions of opinion of a political agitator. But if one has no choice when his embarrassing theses to be taken seriously. Because they contain always somewhere a bit truth, that's his way to get in the headlines and in the talk rounds.
Wolffsohn's engagement in Afghanistan gets military relief of - who would have thought - Michel Friedman, recipient of the Federal Cross of Merit 1st Class and Officer of the French Legion of Honor (the highest medal of France). He, too, so an Afghanistan expert! On 9.9.2009 he appeared in the TV show "abyss Afghanistan" in the first and demanded:
We need a policy statement that we need rest for years, namely that the policy tells us plainly, instead uptight and repressed to deal with it: We are in military operations in Afghanistan; Incidentally, it is just 1.2 days, there will mark 9/11. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, which has not only suppressed its own people, but has attacked the West aggressively terrorists, in fact. We are therefore geostrategic reasons there. That is the legitimacy of the policy, which is the only justification, instead of the population to tell constantly, which is the use of do-gooders, ultimately to build there a country, in which the population is suppressed, if that were the argument because I would still ne list of 50 other countries in which the People who are women suppressed; eg Dafour since then the army should go fortiori. So tell the truth, it's about a geostrategic interests, it comes to international terrorism, it is about an Islamic theocracy, we want to prevent over can least discuss politically and we argue, that would be an honest basis.
The CDU politician Friedmann is comparable in its rhetoric with Wolffsohn: His recipe: a few grains of truth and disinformation. Both come to Germany on the war acceptable again, let him be to normalcy, reduce thresholds. Friedmann even used terms such as "geo-strategic" in order to identify yourself as an expert. No real need but geostrategist 9/11 to justify the "commitment" in Afghanistan! But he has just geostrategic reasons ...
Let Finally, two real geo-strategists have their say: The founders of the "Project for a New American Century (PNAC) Robert Kagan and William Kristol, editor of the latter influential policy magazine" Weekly Standard "from Washington. Reminder: PNAC (Project for a New American = Jahrhundet) is a neo-conservative think tank American, which began in plan documents for a priority of the military in the US foreign policy. They made use of including the thesis of Professor Samuel Huntington of "clash of civilizations" to give her questionable projects to paint the Humanities. Strategy papers talked geopolitical scenarios in a unipolar world the word, with a single world power, the United States, which makes the rest of the world actively and with new-found confidence. Entire regions should be reorganized (nation building), especially the oil and gas rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia (especially Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan). PNAC was the authoritative and influential source of ideas for the foreign policy of the Bush era.
On 19.10.2001 was Weekley Standard under the headline: "A storm is brewing"
following to read the PNAC Tandem Robert Kagan and William Kristol:
Here's a prediction: When all is said and done, the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terror, what the African campaign for the 2nd World War: An important early on the way to victory. But compared with what is brewing in the distance - an all out war in areas of Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, again coming back to the United States - Afghanistan will prove just as an opening battle. [...] And this war will not end in Afghanistan. He will spread out and a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity tear. He could easily require the use of American military force in different places simultaneously. It will resemble the clash of civilizations, which all wanted to avoid ...
Madness! We should in no glue crawl in the justifications for the war in Afghanistan, not even on the keyword "geo-strategic reasons"! It is good that Afghanistan has finally moved more into view. The problem field "Afghanistan" is the result of a misguided US foreign policy from more than three decades with her fateful proxy war by insurgents to weaken the Soviet Union, and a heavy burden from the Bush era, in which we have to bear all.
What the German parties say about Afghanistan?
CDU, SPD, FDP request a withdrawal within the next few years. This is an elastic term. Ultimately, it will be important that the United States and the competent commander Stanley McChrystal is calling for in its dual function as commander of the local US troops and the ISAF troops. And that's just once: More soldiers.
For the Greens, the party leadership was behind the application, but had in 2007 already suffer a heavy electoral defeat. The party rank and ran in a different direction. The motto is now: There must be an exit strategy here for the next legislative period plus increased training of police officers.
The left calls for an immediate withdrawal clearly and in turn an increase in the civilian efforts.
The NPD calls even a withdrawal from NATO, an immediate withdrawal and a tightening of international law.
The Pirate Party is to use the very critical, but still do not know to say whether an immediate withdrawal would be feasible.
It occurred 27 parties in the election on 27 September. If you are still unsure where he is best looked after with his views, it should times with the Wahlomat try. I've done it and I've been surprised pretty!
- Ads -