PrintFebruary 4, 2008
Thanks for your help, Germany
Germany has refused to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan to assist beleaguered Canadian and Dutch forces in the south.
The flat refusal to help is a big blow to the Bush Administration who are desperately trying to get NATO countries who do not have troops in active combat zones to commit to the fight:
The flat refusal to help is a big blow to the Bush Administration who are desperately trying to get NATO countries who do not have troops in active combat zones to commit to the fight:
A bitter diplomatic row between Germany and the United States deepened yesterday after Berlin flatly rejected demands from Washington that it deploy troops in war-torn southern Afghanistan and angrily dismissed the request as "impertinent" and a "fantastic cheek".Make no mistake. This is the diplomatic crisis of the war in Afghanistan. NATO countries are terrified of the political firestorm that would erupt if they put their troops in harms way and they suffered casualties. The European left is looking for any excuse to get troops out of Afghanistan and if nations like Germany, France, Belgium, and Italy were to change their rules of engagement and allow their troops to engage the Taliban in the south, the political can of worms such actions would open could prove fatal to some governments.
Germany currently has some 3,200 soldiers stationed in comparatively tranquil northern Afghanistan and the capital Kabul as part of the current Nato peacekeeping mission. It has been urged to deploy troops in the south before but has consistently refused.
Yesterday however, it became clear that Washington had stepped up pressure on Berlin to commit troops to the south. The move followed increased Taliban attacks and threats from Canada that it would withdraw its Afghanistan contingent completely unless more Nato troops were sent south.
Canada has lost 77 combat troops in the region. Two US non-governmental studies released this week warned that Afghanistan could once again become a failed state and terrorist haven.
Meanwhile, the Canucks and their 2500 troops along with a small contingent of Dutch soldiers try and hold off the Taliban at the point where inflitration over the Pakistani border is most common - in Kandahar province. This is while German troops sit at the Kabul airport in perfect safety.
If NATO won't fight in Afghanistan where so much is at stake, where will they fight?
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- The Upside Of A Terminal Illness
- Can You Trust that Airplane?
- Closing the DoE
- The Arbery Shooting: The Facts
- Unleashing American Competitiveness: Trump and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
- EU and Ukraine: Stop Blaming Trump, Look in the Mirror
- The Democrats Descend into Madness
- The Supreme Court Just Greenlit a $2 Billion USAID Power Grab
- The Enduring Battle Over ‘Merit’
- Who Is Andrew Tate and Why Is The President Trying to Protect Him?
Blog Posts
- There’s a new sheriff in town — and he’s taking no prisoners.
- So-called ‘Gender affirming’ surgery is bad for people’s happiness
- Stacey Abrams takes a page from Hugo Chavez on the matter of home appliances
- After Trump's speech, they can’t get there from here
- In San Francisco, a bathhouse gets grief for trying to have a ‘phallus free’ environment
- Does mourning brutally murdered children who are white mean you are a ‘white supremacist?' Some leftists think so
- ‘People used to care about each other’
- At Twitter, a single point of failure for freedom
- Active-duty soldiers indicted for disclosing sensitive government info to China
- Zelensky's arrogance
- Americans have already chosen their fighter
- Breaking the chains of financial enslavement
- Blue on blue, heartache on heartache
- Michelle Wu sets a new criminal-enabling standard
- California tries to tear down the Castle Doctrine