Political Hypocrisy in a Matter of Facts and Nomenclature

Thoughts on the ongoing discussion on the nature of Germany’s involvement in Afghanistan


Are German soldiers in Afghanistan at war, or not? This question has been troubling the current, as well as the previous administration, and has lead to animated discussions within and between the ruling and opposition parties, the special interest group of the Bundeswehr (Bundeswehrverband), and the media. More importantly, the hesitating and hypocritical manner with which this matter has been treated by the Government, and even by the Ministry of Defence, has left German soldiers unsure of what they are placing their lives on the line for.

Unfortunately, the administration links the question of whether it is politically and morally correct to be involved in Afghanistan to the question of whether it actually is involved in a war. From an American, British or other western country’s point of view, this question won’t come up. However, it is a matter, which in Germany, is strongly interconnected with its historical past and with a responsibility, sensible to most Germans, not to forget about the horrid actions of the Nazi regime. It may, therefore, be understandable that no politician of a ruling party would want to be the first in the German post-WWII history to declare, in any way, that the country is actively engaged in a war.

However, it is not the word “war” that will make the cause, itself, wrong or the country involved, an evil one. This has been a self-conception of the United States ever since it has significantly contributed to free Europe. This self-conception has only been slightly dented by the Vietnam War’s national, as well as global impact, on society’s concept of morality. But this particular change in society could never reach the intensity that the heritage of WWII had on German society.

Yet, it becomes almost unbearable as German Minister of Defence, Franz Josef Jung, consequently dismisses even the idea of German soldiers being at war in Afghanistan. In a recent statement to a local newspaper, he stated “in a war you don’t build schools, in a war you don’t build hospitals, in a war you don’t train armed forces” – an interesting perspective which, however, lacks any historical and logical foundation. The reconstruction of devastated areas, the assistance to the population as well as the training of native forces are facets of war which have more than one example in the long history of man-made conflicts. They have also been intentionally employed by armed forces in order to support the military efforts of the war-fighters and of the success of the entire cause (most prominently World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War).

The discussion in Germany reaches as far as the question of whether to say that German soldiers killed in Afghanistan have “died” or have been “killed in action” – the latter (“Gefallener”) being more customary in the German language than the rather specialized term used in English-speaking countries. It is only in October 2008 that the Defence Minister first used this term. Before, Jung used words such as “to perish” or “to be robbed of one’s life” in official speeches and documents. Yesterday, the German Armed Forces Commissioner, Reinhold Robbe, reportedly said there is not enough recognition within the German population for the efforts of the soldiers who often return home traumatised. Perhaps this would change a little if this operation would not be presented to the public as a merry excursion.

Back in 2008, Volker Rühe, a member of the same political party as Mr Jung, correctly stated: “It is delusive if the Government pretends that the Afghanistan operation is a sort of armed development assistance. It is a war of NATO, of the West, of civilisation against the global octopus-like terrorism.” The question begs to be asked whether the Defence Minister ignores that the Bundeswehr is currently carrying out its largest military operation abroad since its founding after WWII. Since the beginning of the ISAF operation Germany has lost 35 soldiers, many of those through IEDs, gunfire and RPG rockets employed by an organised enemy force which has been capable of “keeping the pot boiling” in Afghanistan and western Pakistan for almost eight years now.

Jung added to the above-mentioned interview: “As a matter of fact, soldiers may also be killed in peace-keeping operations.” However, concluding this, it still has to be asserted that it is not a single involved party that decides whether it is in a state of war or not. It is a question of facts, not of political opinion, caution or correctness. Any realistic definition of war that I have encountered fully applies to the state which German soldiers find themselves, again, in Afghanistan fighting against the Taliban.

The wording of the German Federal Parliament’s decision on the extension of the Bundeswehr mandate in the ISAF operation is quite univocal: “The International Security Assistance Force is authorised to take all required actions, including to use military force, in order to implement the mandate according to resolution 1833 (2008).” And as the Taliban considers their fight against “the infidels” as a war, and is acting as if in a war, (painfully experienced by soldiers of every involved nation), it is not because of the German administration saying it is not playing along, that the game is not running.

Neither the restrictive rules of engagement nor the positive efforts of reconstruction will hide the fact that German soldiers, just as their allied comrades, are confronted with an organised enemy that should not be underestimated as light-headed. This should be a lesson learned, dramatically proven by the Vietnam War, for every modern army.

(This entry is an OpEd that I originally wrote for the defence news site defpro.com in June 2009)