Skip to content

Today Europe Has More Troops in Afghanistan than Last Year

Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, gave a speech on The United States and Europe: An Agenda for Engagement at SAIS in Washington DC, where I studied in 1999/2000. It was an okay round-up of the transatlantic relationship. Dr. Gordon, formerly of the Brookings Institution, praised the cooperation with Europe: "There could be no better partner than Europe, where we work with democratic, prosperous, militarily-capable allies who share our values and share our interests."

I missed some enthusiasm in his voice to match his words. He does, however, seem to genuinely appreciate Europe's contributions. He did not only delivering the following part of his manuscript:

In Afghanistan, in the wake of the President's speech in November 2009, Europe contributed about 7000 additional troops, over 100 training teams for the Afghan army and police, and nearly $300 million for the Afghan National Army trust fund. European nations now have almost 40,000 troops in Afghanistan and the total European contribution to Afghanistan since 2001 comes to $14 billion.

But he also looked into the audience and added to the prepared text (see video at 7:53 minutes, since it is not in the transcript): "Today as we speak European countries have more troops in Afghanistan than they ever had before despite notions out of there of withdrawal and waning interest." That's good point.

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

Pat Patterson on :

But he wasn't really speaking to the big players as France and Germany have exactly the same number of troops in Afghanistan this year as last. The largest contributer on a per capita basis is Georgia, basically multiplying its number of troops by ten and Poland adding 25% to its commitment. That means that 2,000 of those new troops are coming from two small countries and the rest are coming from former Soviet countries and not from what is considered the main part of Europe. I would say that the subtext of his speech is thanking France and Germany for not withdrawing troops when it is obviousl they did not deploy any more.

Zyme on :

Not much of an issue, is it? Isn't it commonly assumed that rather sooner than later we will see negotiations with the Taliban and then hand the country back to whoever is strong enough to rule it afterwards? Why put further emphasis in this adventure? There is little to win anyway.

Kevin Sampson on :

Ahmed Sidiqui, the German national who reportedly gave up the European operation, was captured in Afghanistan. The Predator strikes which have seriously disrupted it, were launched from Afghanistan.

Marie Claude on :

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/world/asia/20afghan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Pamela on :

Hi Zyme, You're missing one small detail. The other party at the table will be Iran. Remember them? The country that smuggles weapons into Afghanistan to kill our and our allies' soldiers? I want Obama impeached.

Zyme on :

Good point, they surely will want to take part in drafting the future order in Afghanistan - but will they be accepted at the table? Rather not I believe. Instead they will have to rely on the same tactics as in Lebanon for example, to exert influence. So while their influence will be noticeable, they won't be able to shape the order the way they want it to be. Instead I think the crucial point is whether or not the different ethnic groups can agree to remain in the same country or not.

mbast on :

What strikes me in this speech is the fact that the Obama administration has seemingly put an emphasis on a very rational approach to US-European relationships. Of course, Mr. Gordon, as a member of the current administration,is not going to criticise his own boss in such a public forum and thus is maybe painting an overly optimistic picture. But the fact remains that he places US-European relationshps in a global context instead of falling into the easy trap of narrowing it down to single issues (like European troop strength in Afghanistan only or EU-Iran relationships only). He also acknowledges the EU as something positive to be encouraged instead of falling into this other easy trap of blind criticism, or worse, active sabotage of inter-european relationships for the sake of a supposedly stronger US power base ("divide et impera"-principle, which is what the Bush administration did more often than not). All in all a very good speech. Much more brain-thinking than the gut-thinking approach by the previous administration.

Pamela on :

for the sake of a supposedly stronger US power base ("divide et impera"-principle, which is what the Bush administration did more often than not). ------------ One example would suffice

Zyme on :

Does "Old Europe" vs "New Europe" suffice ? How about the nervousness towards the Lisbon Treaty when it comes to European countries creating their own military structures independent from Nato? How about the American resistance towards Gallileo Satellite system? Who wanted its precision reduced to impair its military capabilities? Are you guys sure that the last two examples are no longer valid under Obama?

Pamela on :

Does "Old Europe" vs "New Europe" suffice ? No. How about the nervousness towards the Lisbon Treaty when it comes to European countries creating their own military structures independent from Nato? Zyme. Please. I'm probably the only one here who has actually read the thing and I also have contacts in the U.S. military. I can assure you that the only thing that made anyone nervous was the debacle that would be made of it. How about the American resistance towards Gallileo Satellite system? Who wanted its precision reduced to impair its military capabilities? I am unaware of that specific complaint, so I can't comment. But I do recall a concern about access of some sort by China and the security problems THAT would introduce. Are you guys sure that the last two examples are no longer valid under Obama? Speaking for myself, yes I am. Obama doesn't like the United States, let alone our military and if Europe wants to take over fine by him. As for our space program, he has tasked his NASA chief with the priority mission of better relations with the Muslim world. Ergo, NASA's next project will be to develop flying carpets, which will have the added bonus of zero carbon emissions.

Pat Patterson on :

It's finding those non-polluting and Fair Trade weavers that has been the problem so far. But I can only reiterate what Pamela said in that in the senior ranks they were only afraid of the same kind of command structure as evidenced in Kosovo while the junior ranks liked to be assigned to Europe they also wished that Europe pulled its own weight and didn't require the expense that the UK and the US spent annually maintaining units in Germany. Does Europe still need the Brits and the US to serve as 'speed bumps' after all these years?

Marie Claude on :

"Does Europe still need the Brits and the US to serve as 'speed bumps' after all these years?" We never need them, but they thought being indispensable, I wonder why, n war, only peacelovers around !

Joe Noory on :

Someday, there will be a documentary, and it will be called: [i]Europe: the Story of [b]MeMeMeMeMe!!!!![/i][/b]

Marie Claude on :

some day I'll call my dog Jonouri Jonouri, Ruhe !!!

Joe Noory on :

Let's point one thing out before it gets carried away. That was ONE comment, made ONCE, in a news conference as an opinion. Europeans, I have become convinced, seem unable to differentiate between words and acts any longer, or for that matter, the notion that a report-of-news isn't itself the news-event.

Zyme on :

"That was ONE comment, made ONCE, in a news conference as an opinion." Which is exactly why I provided two further examples below.

Pat Patterson on :

Old Europe vs New Europe is pretty vague as to the tactics of divide and conquer. Gallileo has been a bust since proposed and like GPS bandwidth is reserved for the military. Isn't Gallileo running some ten years late? And since the Europeans resurrected it as a matter of pride the US views it simply as another boondoggle by bureaucrats looking to spend some money and watch rockets launch. Europe has been attempting to create its own independent forces for decades but simply rebranding existing NATO forces as part of a new command is naturally something the US would oppose since we are supposed to at least consult with each other.

Zyme on :

Yes Galileo is way beyond its schedule. I just found it very revealing when I read that the US originally insisted on Galileo's precision capabilities being reduced due to fear of military usage.

Pamela on :

Zyme, can you direct me to something to read about that? I'm not challenging you. I really was unaware and would like to learn more.

Pat Patterson on :

But those parts of what Gallileo can do have not been removed. They are reserved for military use only. The only country that can't access those guidance systems are the Chinese.

Zyme on :

A technical assessment with some political concerns explained: http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/galileo/an-evaluation-military-benefits-galileo-system-792 And this seems to be a summary of the peak of the disagreements: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/dec/08/world.internationaleducationnews

Pat Patterson on :

The GPS link is rather confusing because it really doesn't make the argument that Gallileo is some great leap forward or that it might conflict with GPS in certain cases. In fact it reads like the authors have only a sketchy idea of what the military applications are. The second link is incomplete.

Zyme on :

Both links work fine here - don't become shy just because there is no file ending at the end of the url :)

Pat Patterson on :

I got it to work but I think it proves my point in that there is nothing special about Gallileo and that US concern was not that it had some advantage but rather in a war zone some enemy could use Gallileo while GPS is encrypted. In other words Gallileo was not as secure as GPS and posed a threat to the US as well as Europe.

Zyme on :

That is not what I extracted from those informations. It rather seems the US were deeply worried about the fact that they would no longer fully control access to satellite systems in war zones. So they strongly objected against everything that undermined their monopoly. Not exactly what you would expect from a friendly nation. You don't have to convince me of the fact that nations do not have friends, only interests. But it shows how absurd other interpretations of the trans-atlantic relationship are.

Pamela on :

Thank you Zyme. It seems to me that the U.S.'s concerns over the ability to jam signals when needed is/was a valid one. As is China's involvement. So I would take issue with any characterization of U.S. concern as not wanting Galileo to be 'as good/accurate' as GPS. They are perfectly legitimate problems. On the other hand, it would seem to me that it is in the interests of the U.S. to help out with technology that would not only solve the signal problem WITHOUT degrading Galileo's effectiveness. I very much like the idea of redundant/backup systems up there.

mbast on :

Concerning the policy of the Bush administration towards the EU, Zyme has already given you examples, I could give you a few more like the American reaction to the Tervuren proposal, or the Bush administration's reaction to EU regulations for industry and standards (like the EU "REACH" legislation), and on and on and on, in all sectors, not just security policy. Concerning Galileo, I think you are quite right: the Bush administration was concerned about security, precisely because they didn't have final say in the matter and didn't trust the Europeans not to make "a hash" of it as you put it. Which was the underlying rationale for their stance toward NATO and the ESS as well. The Bush administration didn't trust anybody not to make a hash of it and thus wanted to retain control over everything, especially Nato and perhaps even over any joint European defence strategy (as much as they could). Indeed, retaining control over everything (not just the EU), was the whole point of their foreign policy since even before 2001 (cf. the AEI and PNAC doctrines). But we're digressing, I think. The question is: is Obama really any different? And IMO, he is, quite a bit, if only because you can actually talk sense to this administration. As evidenced by this speech, among others. Doesn't mean that this administration will always agree to everything the EU says and does, but if it does disagree, there is a stronger likelyhood that it will have rational reasons for doing so other than just "America first". What exactly makes you think Obama "doesn't like the US", Pamela? Examples, please.

Pamela on :

First some clairification please: "REACH". Are you referring to the chem regs that used the 'precautionary principle'?, etc. I want to be sure we're on the same page. I will wait for your response before replying to that issue. ---------------- Concerning Galileo, I think you are quite right: the Bush administration was concerned about security, precisely because they didn't have final say in the matter and didn't trust the Europeans not to make "a hash" of it as you put it. You are conflating two issues. Galileo's are tehcnical. Wihin the GPS protocol, public, unencrypted signals are jammed in order to protect encrypted military transmissions. Galileo's public signals are too close to GPS's military signals - jamming Galileo's public signals would compromise GPS military signals. That obviously is not a consideration about 'wanting to control everything'. In its very specificity, Galileo is differentiated from ---> --------------------- The Bush administration didn't trust anybody not to make a hash of it and thus wanted to retain control over everything, especially Nato and perhaps even over any joint European defence strategy (as much as they could). Indeed, retaining control over everything (not just the EU), was the whole point of their foreign policy since even before 2001 (cf. the AEI and PNAC doctrines). AAAARRRGH! Can we PLEASE dispense with the AEI/PNAC canard already? They have nothing to do with any administration. They are think tanks and we've got tons of them. I could just as easily go on about that prat Mark Leonard ("Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century"), whose 'patron' Tony Blair got him the plum job of Executive Director of the European Council, a pan-European think tank. And don't get me started on Timothy Garton Ash The U.S. anxieties about EU defense are also not about 'control'. They are about resources and will. As in, the EU has neither. (And I would remind you that once Tony Blair had signed off on the idea of an EU defense force, he couldn't sell Clinton on it either). I assure you, the American people would be delighted to pull back as much of our military as possible from Europe (The howls about lost domestic jobs in, say, Germany, would be music to some of our ears.) The hard, cold truth is that even if you had the resources to allocate (which you don't), you would not commit your budgets and manpower to fulfilling the requirements. That means the ONLY avenue for creating anything with the EU label would be to strip men and material from NATO. The result is that instead of one fairly robust force you've got two, neither of which could piss up a rope without getting wet. These are serious strategic interests that deserve more sober regard than a peurile BUSH JUST WANTS TO BE COWBOY OF THE WORLD reflex. As for Obama, I will be delighted to write a treatise. But not tonight. I have to walk the dog and eat dinner. Not in that order.

Zyme on :

I agree, Nato is going to lose at every further step with which EU-forces are taking shape. Maybe this process will eventually lead to a disband of the alliance - I hope so! Btw I look forward to your assessment of Mr. President :D

Marie Claude on :

with Ashton at the head of the foreign affairs, the EU army will not be effective until.............. nobody knows ! besises the different EU countries Ministers of defense are reluctant to collaborate with her. and the last but nonetheless sorry new for Paterson, the nitpicker, and for my favorite dog, Jounouri, "come here", the Brits want to share their defense with ours ! isn't it a villan stone at the EU army project? Also one of our head general at a convention said tht he trust more Nato recrews

Pat Patterson on :

Actually all three countries are trying to better coordinate long term strategic issues. For exmple there is not much point in duplicating equipment if there are redundancies that make capacity available for other countries to use. And France has still not been able to talk the British into sharing one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class air craft carriers. Which means that Thailand has one more air craft carrier available than the French. One vs zero.

Pat Patterson on :

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4784167

Marie Claude on :

interesting, I wasn't aware of that then what is the fuss of Deauville with Medvedev ?

Marie Claude on :

"And France has still not been able to talk the British into sharing one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class air craft carriers." because a new carrier isn't a priority now, as warfares are evolving, see in Afghanistan the progession of the drones uses, that cost less as far as recrews and oil, also submarines are going to be more the choice for nuclear missiles transports than planes. If you remember China's incident with a US carrier, lately and or Iran with its rustic submarines that could hit a US carrier a few years ago, I expect nations that are watching for their budget will be more reluctant to put at risk expensive carriers Apart of that the franco-english cooperation is still valuable and prodjected for nuclear researches.

Joe Noory on :

Tu parle l’allemand comme une vache espagnole.

Marie Claude on :

uh c'est parce que je ne fais pas de cirque, I didn't learn the right orders auf deutsch natürlisch !

Pamela on :

I hope so! Zyme, so do I. I fervently want Europe to be able to defend itself. All other considerations aside, I truly believe it is in the best interest of Western Civilization. NATO, as structured, served its purpose well. That purpose, thankfully, has evaporated. But it is in no one's interest to grope toward the next iteration leaving in place impotent forces. Can we agree on that much?

Zyme on :

Good point. I think it would be far easier for me to hold the US in high esteem when our governments would no longer need to pay lip service to such an outdated alliance. Because then it would be clearly visible: When we cooperate, there are mutual interests. And when we don't, well then apparently there are differing interests. No longer the kind of cooperation nobody benefits from! Would you also want the US to withdraw all their forces from Europe? I would strongly appreciate such a move. "NATO, as structured, served its purpose well. That purpose, thankfully, has evaporated." I almost agree. Surely, Nato has kept Communism away from Europe for decades, which is a remarkeable achievement given the circumstances in Eastern Europe. But then again, if it hadn't been for the Western Allies, the communists would have been dealt with once and for all in the 40s :-)

Pamela on :

"Would you also want the US to withdraw all their forces from Europe? I would strongly appreciate such a move." As would I. I WANT Europe to be strong enough to not need us anymore. But there lies the rub. Implicit in that premise is that Europe is a front line. A front line that can hold. You and I have both been around long enough to have heard the slurs against the U.S. for being late to the party in World War I. I want Europe to be strong enough so that no one even CONSIDERS throwing a party. And then there's Turkey. "But then again, if it hadn't been for the Western Allies, the communists would have been dealt with once and for all in the 40s :-)" Ah, the comforts of hindsight. But you and I both know that's not true. FYI: On this side of the pond, with our economy on life-support, one argument is that Pres. Roosevelt got us out of the depression with stimulus spending. So obviously we need more of the same. I've had to gird my loins to explain that a big part of the reason our post-war economy took off is that we bombed Europe back to the stone age, thereby killing, literally, any manufacturing capability and creating a captive market for American refridgerators. People want linear, moral narratives. No such thing. On the whole, democracy and capitalism give the best value for the blood. Yet, I am an American to the marrow of my bones. This is the best experiment in human freedom and individual autonomy that I know of. It's almost impossible to explain to Europeans. Ok, forget the 'almost' part.

Zyme on :

Alright, now that we have covered the economic aspect - do you mind me asking for one more assessment? As you can see from the recent link to the right, anti-muslim sentiment is in the rise in Europe (maybe you linked it here? I didn't). Has this change in mentality been a topic in America, or are people there busy with their own kind of immigration problems, like in Arizona? This issue has indeed been reported here on occasion, but too little for me to have a qualified opinion on it. All I recall is a huge controversy about the police gaining additional powers when it comes to checking people's identity. Powers which are common and completely uncontroversial everywhere in Europe.

Pamela on :

--------- Has this change in mentality been a topic in America, or are people there busy with their own kind of immigration problems, like in Arizona? This issue has indeed been reported here on occasion, but too little for me to have a qualified opinion on it. -------- Ok, let's break this down piece by piece. First, the 'anti-muslim' sentiment in Europe. It has got some - but not a lot of coverage. Certainly, France's ban on the face covering but media coverage is very muted. Today, the Washington Post carried an article on Sweden. "Anti-muslim feelings propel right wing" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102505601.html You will note that the entire tone of the article is that tolerant Sweden has suddenly been convulsed by bigotry. There is NO acknowledgement that Malmo has been a 'no go' zone for police and firefighters FOR YEARS. The other day, when Angela Merkel said that multi-culturism in Germany has been an utter failure, the mainstream media gave it a one-line acknowledgement. Our media is in a bind about this. To be blunt, they don't know whether to wind their asses or scratch their watches. Everything going on in Europe feeds right back into what is being labelled as The Ground Zero Mosque controversy. A muslim group wants to open a mosque next to the pit that was the World Trade Center. As, according to the Muslim group, a multi-faith can't-we-all-get-along center. People who oppose it are being called bigots and racists. The most recent shit-storm is about National Public Radio (partially funded by taxpayer monies) and a journalist formerly on their roster, Juan Williams, a black man and an avowed liberal. Mr. Williams was a regular commentator on Fox - the liberal voice. Not the only one from NPR - Mara Liasson is another. Mr. Williams was going up against Bill O'Reilly. He said when he boarded a plane and there were Muslims recognizable as Muslims because they chose dress to identify themselves as such, he gets nervous. Yet, Mr. Williams, continued, that is no reason to discriminate against Muslims and we all have to be aware, etc.......... NPR fired him. You. Would. Not. Belive. The. Fallout. There is now a move in Congress to strip NPR of taxpayer monies. Especially after it was revealed that they accepted $1.8 million from George Soros. And Fox gave him a 3-year, $2 million contract. HA! Bill O'Reilly is loaded for bear. Free speech is still a big deal around here. Tell Joerg to give you my email address. We can continue this discussion. As for Arizona. Today's Wall Street Journal has this article "Donors send millions to defend Arizona Law" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304248704575574461341942940.html This is getting considerable coverage given the circumstances, e.g., the midterm elections. That is sucking up all the oxygen in the room. American citizens in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico are being overrun by these thugs and Obama is letting it happen for electoral concerns. This is getting a lot of play. Yesterday Obama gave a speech to the Latino community. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-latinos-punish-your-enemies-voting-booth_511932.html Quote: If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.” Punish our enemies. Oh, goodie. How about persuading the American people? What isn't available in that link is the lead-in. Obama said "I'm not a king, I can't do this by myself". If I were a Latino concerned about immigration issues I'd be thinking "Well, gee, you're not a king but you got health care reform, financial reform, stimulus funding ALL against the will of the American people, but you couldn't do THIS? Mid-term elections are 6 days away. Already, states with early voting statutes are reporting fraud. Obama has managed to do the one thing I never thought possible. Redeem Jimmy Carter as the worst president in U.S. history.

mbast on :

Sorry for the delay in replying. That pesky day job, you know ;). Concerning Reach, it's not of central importance, but it was a good example of what I mean. "Reach" is the acronym for "Regulation, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical Substances". It's a EU Regulation. For more information, here's the official EU-Website: [url]http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm[/url] . If you google it up, you'll find sites about the ongoing debate about Reach with the chemical industry, and also the Bush administration's measures against it. Concerning the AEI/PNAC issue: I strongly disagree. This wasn't a canard. Several high ranking Bush administration officials were leading figures in these particular think tanks, and applied their doctrines while in office. They were instrumental in shaping the administration's policies. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was prone to fall for the "wild yeehaw cowboy" cliché. It's just that I think the Bush administration as a rule acted a lot less rationally than the Obama administration does, at least in the first few years in office.

Pamela on :

Hi mbast. What exactly makes you think Obama "doesn't like the US", Pamela? Examples, please. Let's start with his comment on the Constitution/Supreme Court Here's a link that is without editorial filter. Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM Redistribution of wealth. Economic justice. Charter of negative liberties. Civil Rights movement became so court focused - lose track of political organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the acutal coalitions of power thru which to bring about the actual redistributive change. ------------- that's just a hint of his background/philosophy. Let's talk about how he has governed. 1. The war in Afghanistan. Obama's Wars" hasn't hit store shelves yet, but copies have been leaked to the press. According to published reports, "Obama's Wars" says that the president decided to set a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because, he said, "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/woodward-obama-determined-find-afghanistan-exit-strategy/story?id=11698528 Please note that I am not linking to a right wing source like Fox. Read the article. His goal was not to 'win'. His goal was to put enough troops in to prevent losing until the 2012 elections. This is our so-called commander in chief. Our soldiers are simple objects on a chessboard. As he signaled to our enemies that we would be gone sometime in 2011, so all they have to do is hang in there. Then comes Iran to the negotiating table. The country that has been shoveling every resource it can muster to kill allied soldiers. Obama's msg is "Keep killing us till 2011, we can sustain that, then we'll be gone, I have an election and a base to take care of". 2. Arizona I don't know how much 'play' this is getting in the European press. Basically, our southwest border with Mexico is being overrun - not just with illegal immigrants - but with the drug cartel mules from Mexico. It is a slaughter (and not just in Arizona). The Federal gov't failed to protect our borders. So Arizona enacted its own law, modeled on the Federal laws that allowed Arizona state authorities to protect the borders. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html Obama's admin has sued Arizona. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6653Q320100706 The overt case is that Arizona's law would lead to a patchwork of state laws. Obama made a risible comment that if the law were allowed to stand, a Hispanic looking person buying ice cream could be arrested. Bullshit. Obama let slip the real rational for not securing the borders. On June 18, Kyl, the Senate Republican Whip, told a North Tempe Tea Party town hall that in an Oval Office conversation between the two of them about securing the US-Mexico border, "here's what the president said: 'The problem is,' he said, 'if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’ In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/white-house-senator-kyl-not-telling-truth-about-immigration-reform-conversation.html The White House, has of course denied it, but every contact on the Hill we have confirms it. So. What do we have. A man who thinks the purpose of gov't is to redistribute wealth, a commander in chief who casually sacrifices our soldiers for his own political goals, even to the point of encouraging the enemy that is killing said soldiers. A president who not only refuses to secure our borders in the interest of 'comprehensive immigration reform', but will bring down the full force of the Federal gov't onto the states that try to secure their own borders to protect their citizens from murdering thugs.

Zyme on :

Good news for all German-speakers! The German Bundeswehr seems to have significantly relaxed its censorship and appears to be more transparent when it comes to publishing details of its combat engagements in Afghanistan: http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443DnQHSYGZASH6kTCxoJRUfV-P_NxUfW_9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQD649Wi/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfQ180QzU!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256EF4002AED30%2FW28AVJFS328INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

Form options