NATO Report Highlights Tensions of Afghan Mission

It is not just Washington that is re-appraising policy in Afghanistan. A combination of an increasingly aggressive insurgency and a crisis of legitimacy in the Afghan government have raised new questions about the future of NATO’s mission and European participation in it. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was created to consolidate a post-Taliban regime in Kabul. Now, one need only look at the role of Germany, the third largest contributor of troops to ISAF, to see why some think the future of the commitment is in jeopardy. 

In a confidential report delivered to the senior leadership of the German armed forces, the NATO alliance passed an ambivalent verdict on the controversial bombing of an oil tanker in Kunduz on September 4th. The air strike, which killed around 140 people, a significant number of whom were civilians, raised concerns about whether the German colonel who ordered the attack followed correct procedure. The Commander-in-Chief of NATO forces in Afghanistan, American General Stanley McChrystal, declared early in his tenure that avoiding civilian casualties should be a top priority of allied forces. While this air strike would be an example of such incautious use of force, it is clear from the German press reaction that the NATO report represents neither a clear-cut exoneration nor a full-throated condemnation of Bundeswehr operations. The report, in attempting to address the proper use of force to protect NATO troops, adds one more variable to the calculations of the German presence in Afghanistan.

The context of alliance relations underscores the difficulty of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO Secretary-General, has publicly backed the alliance commitment to Afghanistan. When NATO defense ministers met in Bratislava, he was publicly supportive of McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy. His hawkishness, however, belies tensions within the alliance. Canada has already announced a timetable for the end of its mission. Denmark and the Netherlands recently vetoed sending more troops unless their governments are satisfied with Obama’s new strategy. Non-NATO U.S. ally Australia also cautions that its commitment is reaching its end-point.

German ambivalence must be a source of worry for the Obama Administration. In a rhetorical acknowledgement of post-World War II German reluctance toward the use of force, the German military was deployed for peacekeeping and humanitarian support, rather than explicitly for combat operations. The Kunduz bombing highlights than in a war like Afghanistan, such distinctions are effectively meaningless. As the Berliner Zeitung declared, it is the “war, that is not allowed to be called a war.” One indication of the sensitivity of the mission was Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to extend the parliamentary mandate until December, which mooted any debate for the elections which took place in late September. Merkel will thus have a fully-instituted government when debate over the mandate begins.

Successive offensives by the Taliban, including more brazen attacks on international agencies, have started to change perspectives on the desirability of continuing that mission. Now that German units find themselves more and more undertaking combat operations, some questions are becoming more difficult to answer. Will the German public still maintain its support for its country’s underwriting of the Karzai regime, its mandate now extended without a run-off election, especially if his lack of legitimacy only fuels anti-NATO sentiment on the ground? Will Germans still be comfortable with a sharp escalation in casualties?

The prospects of renewal for the German mandate may well depend on whatever Afghanistan strategy President Obama pursues, and how he sells it to European allies like Germany. Judging by Secretary Gates’ remarks at the Bratislava ministerial meeting, President Obama is hopeful that, if he opts for a significant increase in forces, he will also receive multilateral support, either in the form of troops or financial contributions. Europe is watching closely. An editorial published in Der Spiegel made clear its impatience with Obama’s decision-making process. The next month, when Obama is due to announce a surge in forces, might prove a crucial test for German and wider European foreign policy, NATO credibility, and the Western presence in Central Asia.