Germany, Afghanistan, and the Future of NATO
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200806300311 |
| Author | Markus Kaim |
| Published date | 01 September 2008 |
| Date | 01 September 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Canada-Germany RelationEssays in Honour of Robert Spencer |
Markus Kaim
Germany,
Afghanistan, and
the future of NATO
| International Journal | Summer 2008 | 607 |
The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2007-08 has meant that
NATO and its international security assistance force (ISAF) have had to
evolve into a counterinsurgency operation in more and more parts of the
country. Its chances of an easy victory are slim. According to official United
Nations documents, neither ISAF nor the Afghan authorities have provided
sufficiently security, with the result that the political and economic recon-
struction process is faltering. The Taliban, related armed groups, and the
drug economy represent fundamental threats to still-fragile political, eco-
nomic, and social institutions. Despite tactical successes by national and in-
ternational military forces, anti-government elements are far from defeated.
Thirty-six out of 376 districts, including most districts in the east, southeast,
and south, remain largely inaccessible to Afghan officials and aid workers.
Markus Kaim is head of the European and Atlantic security division of the German Institute
for International and Security Affairs. He was visiting professor of German and European
studies at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto in 2007-
08. He has published widely on transatlantic security relations, NATO-EU relations, and EU
common foreign and security policy.
1 See for example “The situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international
peace and security,” report of the secretary-general, 6 March 2008, www.unama-afg.org.
This hinders the delivery of humanitarian assistance to wide parts of Afghan
society.1Military experts in Kabul suggest that the Afghan capital is about to
be surrounded by Taliban-controlled territory.
It is obvious that ISAF is currently ill-equipped and inadequately trained
to confront the insurgency and that the forces it has are already over-
stretched. Constrained by a shortage of troops and restrictions to use them
appropriately, NATO is able to establish full military control only temporarily
in various areas and thus cannot provide security for the population in the
long run. The force has had support from the Afghans over the last few years,
though this seems to be slowly slipping because of a lack of overall progress.
To maintain the current ISAF operation within the existing framework raises
difficult questions: what is the operational goal of the mission and what are
necessary elements of a successful strategy? What is the point of the mission
if member states are not prepared to raise the necessary resources to make
success a reasonable prospect? So far the German government and parlia-
ment have avoided those questions. Instead, Germany has insisted several
times on deploying the German army only in the north of the country and
repeatedly rejected providing additional troops or equipment to the Afghan
south, where Canadian troops are based in volatile Kandahar province.
Given this situation on the ground and the ambivalent results of the lat-
est NATO summit in Bucharest with regard to allied support for the Cana-
dian ISAF contingent, Germany currently enjoys a prominent place in the
mind of many Canadians. One observes almost a “German obsession,”
which has to do exclusively with Afghanistan. Mostly it is expressed as harsh
criticism of German foreign and security policy.
In the fall of 2007, the
Globe and Mail
devoted two controversial edito-
rial pieces exclusively to the German military role in Afghanistan. In Sep-
tember 2007 Marcus Gee was highly critical of Germany,asking “Where are
our allies? Where is Germany?” He emphasized that Canada and Germany
share a commitment to democracy, to the rights of women and minorities,
and to the right of oppressed peoples to free from fear; he stated that there
would not be a better place than Afghanistan to stand together for those val-
ues. Gee concluded the piece by demanding that the Merkel government put
its money where its mouth is and step up with a major military contribution
| 608 | International Journal | Summer 2008 |
| Markus Kaim |
To continue reading
Request your trial