Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Wednesday, February 21. 2007
An editorial in the Los Angeles Times is surprisingly supportive of Germany's position on Afghanistan:
The old saw that there are no military solutions to political conflicts was never more true than in Afghanistan. Yet, in the five years since U.S. forces toppled the Taliban government with a "light footprint," the Bush administration has never spent enough on reconstruction, opium-crop substitution payments for farmers, road building, education, healthcare or jobs programs — or enough on security to make sure the rebuilding succeeds. Bush will not get the full support and cooperation of NATO allies until he demonstrates that reconstruction is not a second priority to fighting Al Qaeda. There are serious differences with Germany, which has sent thousands of troops and spent millions in Afghanistan, commanded NATO forces and been responsible for security in the country's north, where Berlin believes its style of nation-building has been notably successful. The government of Angela Merkel has signaled it believes that Washington is relying too heavily on military solutions. The war effort cannot be allowed to falter over an "Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus" cultural divide on whether to emphasize military commitment or nation-building. Both approaches are necessary. NATO needs to bear its share of the burden, contributing troops to the fight in the south and continuing to lift conditions on their deployment. And Washington, however distracted by its Iraqi adventure, cannot shortchange the effort to rebuild the nation whose failure led directly to 9/11. The possibility that democracy could fail in Afghanistan is awful to contemplate.
Personal comments: The last two sentences in the editorial indicate a simplistic and unrealistic view of Afghanistan and international terrorism. This view seems to be very common and at the heart of the West's problems in Afghanistan: (1) Afghanistan has not been a "nation" which NATO can "rebuild" now. Such statements are considered arrogant in many parts of the world and indicate a lack of understanding and delusions of grandeur. This Western megalomania is hurting the West's interests. We should be more realistic and beware of quagmires.
(2) Blaming 9/11 on the "failure" of this "nation" is a rather simplistic reading of history. Al Qaeda is a global movement and does not depend on Afghanistan as a safe haven to plan and train for terrorist attacks. The 9/11 hijackers did not receive their pilot training in Afghanistan. Planning and training for the next 9/11 attack is likely to take place in Europe, the U.S., Canada, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Domestic law enforcement authorities and intelligence agencies need more money and better equipment and have to continue to improve cooperation with their international partners.
(3) President Bush's mantra "We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so we don't have to face them here at home." is not entirely wrong, but it is largely wishful thinking and creates a false sense of security. Killing Taliban in Afghanistan does not significantly reduce the terrorist threat and does not make Europe or the United States significantly safer. In fact, accidentally killing civilians is likely to increase support for the Taliban and increase the risk of terrorism. So, what is the cost-benefit analysis of the war on southern Afghanistan? Besides, Al Qaeda is on the march, reorganizing and regrouping in Pakistan ("with passive connivance of Pakistani authorities") and elsewhere. Even if Afghanistan would turn into a model democracy, Europe and the US will obviously continue to be at risk of terrorist attacks.
(4) Considering it "awful to contemplate" the failure of democracy in Afghanistan indicates an unwillingness to face the tough reality. It would be wiser, if the LA Times were more realistic of what can be achieved in Afghanistan and where the other Al Qaeda threats are coming from.
Moreover, the LA Times editorial fails to point out that Germany has not provided sufficient resources for reconstruction, as explained in the Atlantic Review post: Germany and the United States Failed to Train Afghanistan's Police. Besides, the Bush administration apparently plans to provide more resources to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, this effort is not matched by similar commitments from Germany and the EU: Fixing the Afghanistan mission: The U.S. wants to try, but what about Europe?
Welcome! You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW -- a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis by four young professionals from Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. More about us.
The horizontal menu bar at the top helps to navigate this site.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter, which is emailed twice per month.
We appreciate any thoughtful comment!
Would you like to read more? Have a look at our directory of Atlantic Review posts.
Or check out the constantly updated reading recommendations from our readers in the sidebar: "Tips From Our Readers." More information on this project in this post. Feel free to comment on any article recommended in the sidebar.
BBCode format allowed. You can make a clickable link with this code: If you write "[url=http://america-germany.atlanticreview.org]Carnival of US-German Relations[/url]", then this will be displayed: "Carnival of US-German Relations". And if you write "[url]http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html[/url]", then this will be displayed: "http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html"
|