NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1763721,00.html
Berlin and Washington are currently at odds over the mission as the German government is resisting US efforts to mesh "Operation Enduring Freedom" and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, to which Germany has contributed some 2,250 soldiers.
Berlin wants to maintain a clear division between peacekeeping and combat operations.

The German government has now extended the mandate for the Bundeswehr to be involved in Operation "Enduring Freedom", ie the operations along the African coast and Afghanistan.
That includes possible combat operations by German troops, something that's fairly unusual. Even in the attack on Serbia in the Kosovo War, the Luftwaffe only flew SEAD sorties (which weren't counted as attack missions).
I'm of course talking about the KSK (http://www.specwarnet.com/europe/ksk.htm), the German Special Forces, whose missions and lives are so secretive that the Chancellor wouldn't be authorised to know where they are and what they're doing.

It seems though that the German government feels rather differently about this and its Peacekeeping efforts as part of ISAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force). The US considers the fight against remaining Taliban forces as connected with the peacekeeping on the ground in places like Kabul, while the Germans wish to keep them seperate - I guess they think that if you concentrate on both, your effectiveness in both suffers.

So how do you feel? Is "Peacekeeping" different from the normal duties of an army? Or is it just another politically correct term for an occupation?

So how do you feel? Is "Peacekeeping" different from the normal duties of an army? Or is it just another politically correct term for an occupation?

Another Politically Correct term for occupation.

Another Politically Correct term for occupation.
Care to elaborate?

And should the two be kept seperate? Does having to care about both under the same command mean that you're going to be doing both less well?

Well all we do is Peace Keep or Keep Peace........

Yes the two missions should be kept seperate. They should be kept seperate because it's important for local area people to recognize that the military presence there is multinational in scope, and varied in their goals.

Yes the two missions should be kept seperate. They should be kept seperate because it's important for local area people to recognize that the military presence there is multinational in scope, and varied in their goals.
I just think that you need a very different mindset, and very different priorities for the two.
In combat missions it's about finding out where they are, and killing them. That simple.
In a fight like this that obviously means that everyone is a potential enemy, and everyone needs to be checked and treated with caution.

Peacekeeping is about understanding, about establishing trust, about respecting the local population and their customs. It's a lot more complicated job.
I just don't think a single command structure could take care of these two completely different areas without neglecting one - most likely the peacekeeping. And then all you do is provoke locals and create a less secure environment.

I just think that you need a very different mindset, and very different priorities for the two.
In combat missions it's about finding out where they are, and killing them. That simple.
In a fight like this that obviously means that everyone is a potential enemy, and everyone needs to be checked and treated with caution.

Peacekeeping is about understanding, about establishing trust, about respecting the local population and their customs. It's a lot more complicated job.
I just don't think a single command structure could take care of these two completely different areas without neglecting one - most likely the peacekeeping. And then all you do is provoke locals and create a less secure environment.
Agreed. If you present a single, albeit unified, face you run the risk of alienating the local area residents. Peacekeeping is very much about building trust and acting as an international/local police force, in many ways. Mix the peacekeeping with combat missions and you'll end up with the wrong sort of mindsets for the wrong jobs. Or you'll have locals who assume there's combat missions underway in their villages. A bad idea, I hope they remain independent of each other.

Another Politically Correct term for occupation.
dictionary.com says this
Occupation
Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

Peacekeeping
Of or relating to the preservation of peace, especially the supervision by international forces of a truce between hostile nations.
Peacekeeping is not about controlling the locals though, an occupation clearly is. As such an occupation is an aggressive militaristic act, while peacekeeping is more passive and humanitarian in nature.

Both Germany and the United States should end their occupations of foreign countries altogether. Calling it a “Peace Keeping Mission” is bullshit and everybody knows it.

Both Germany and the United States should end their occupations of foreign countries altogether. Calling it a “Peace Keeping Mission” is bullshit and everybody knows it.
No, it's not bullshit. Peacekeeping is perhaps the most socially relevant function of the rotten ol' militarism to be devised in the last century.

No, it's not bullshit. Peacekeeping is perhaps the most socially relevant function of the rotten ol' militarism to be devised in the last century.
Bullshit.
Those whose “peace” is being kept just grow to resent what they (rightfully) see as occupation.

Bullshit.
Those whose “peace” is being kept just grow to resent what they (rightfully) see as occupation.
Oh yeah? Tell that to the Turkish and Greek Cypriots.

Those whose “peace” is being kept just grow to resent what they (rightfully) see as occupation.
http://www.german-embassy.org.uk/germany_as_peacekeeper.html
Obviously it is to be taken with a grain of salt, but you should compare this peacekeeping mission with the more occupation-oriented situation in Iraq.

http://www.german-embassy.org.uk/germany_as_peacekeeper.html
Obviously it is to be taken with a grain of salt, but you should compare this peacekeeping mission with the more occupation-oriented situation in Iraq.
The German government and its politicians have squandered what little trust I could possibly have had in them by ineffectively and self-servingly decrying that disaster of a “situation” you have referred to.
Oh yeah? Tell that to the Turkish and Greek Cypriots.
Were there any on hand, I would.

There's a distinct difference, the duties of a Peace Keeping Force are similar to that of police and limited therein.

Peace Keeping is different from occupation, basically because Peace Keepers are generally supporting the population, generally being invited, or at least being tolerated by the powers of a certain region. Offcourse that different zones ask different peacekeepers; In Bosnia, you have engineers, in Afganistan, you have commandos, but the principle is the same: They are not to occupy a nation, just to stand between beligerant forces in order not to allow bloodshed.

My nations army has a great reputation around the world for their job in peacekeeping missions because they get to know the locals, learn their customs and have the solid 'getting on with things' kiwi rep.

keep them seperate.

dictionary.com says this


Peacekeeping is not about controlling the locals though, an occupation clearly is. As such an occupation is an aggressive militaristic act, while peacekeeping is more passive and humanitarian in nature.

If its not about controling the locals from causing mischief then why have peacekeeping forces? That is the whole purpose of peacekeeping is to keep the peace but they are still on the ground in someone else's territory.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1763721,00.html


The German government has now extended the mandate for the Bundeswehr to be involved in Operation "Enduring Freedom", ie the operations along the African coast and Afghanistan.
That includes possible combat operations by German troops, something that's fairly unusual. Even in the attack on Serbia in the Kosovo War, the Luftwaffe only flew SEAD sorties (which weren't counted as attack missions).
I'm of course talking about the KSK (http://www.specwarnet.com/europe/ksk.htm), the German Special Forces, whose missions and lives are so secretive that the Chancellor wouldn't be authorised to know where they are and what they're doing.

It seems though that the German government feels rather differently about this and its Peacekeeping efforts as part of ISAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force). The US considers the fight against remaining Taliban forces as connected with the peacekeeping on the ground in places like Kabul, while the Germans wish to keep them seperate - I guess they think that if you concentrate on both, your effectiveness in both suffers.

So how do you feel? Is "Peacekeeping" different from the normal duties of an army? Or is it just another politically correct term for an occupation?


Peacekeeping is an oxymoron, like "common wisdom" or "military intelligence".

Soldiers theoretically should be keeping the peace through extensive monitoring of a situation AND through the threat of decisive and immediate force. Most peacekeeping missions have insufficient forces and an insufficient mandate to bring to bear the amount of force necessary to make the threat credible. Hence, the general continuation of massacres, violence, etc., under most UN peacekeeping situations. Additionally, a military is better used to bring a decisive political solution - through traditional military actions to violently subdue an enemy.

Having them stand around with rules that sharply limit their ability to even fire back, while politicians negotiate things is an idiotic role for the military.

I believe that the US has the idea that if you're going to have a military presence in an area, then they should be under a common command, and the mission should be delineated as common.

Having multiple militaries in an area under separate commands with separate missions is a recipe for trouble. Somalia, for instance, was a disaster waiting to happen - largely because the forces present felt fit to act separately (the US acted on its own - the Pakistanis were reticent to help after the battle started, and the Italians forewarned the Somali militias (acting on their own initiative).

It's a military dictum that you need one command. Not a purely American thing. The fact that the Germans want their own command means that they feel that they have a completely separate mission, and don't want to get politically involved in any other mission.

Something for the politicians to work out.

Soldiers theoretically should be keeping the peace through extensive monitoring of a situation AND through the threat of decisive and immediate force.
Just as a police force would. But it is vital that you don't provoke violence, even if you would come out the stronger in the end.

Most peacekeeping missions have insufficient forces and an insufficient mandate to bring to bear the amount of force necessary to make the threat credible. Hence, the general continuation of massacres, violence, etc., under most UN peacekeeping situations.
I'm talking Afghanistan right now. ISAF provides security for the people (at least in the cities), and the US Army goes hunting (with little success it seems).
No massacres at this point, and the continuation of violence is not thanks to ISAF, so much is clear.

I believe that the US has the idea that if you're going to have a military presence in an area, then they should be under a common command, and the mission should be delineated as common.
So what do you say to my assertion that such a common command is undoubtedly going to have the wrong mindset to build the trust necessary for nationbuilding to work?

All that being said, one German soldier was killed and two others injured (one badly) when a suicide bomber rammed their truck. :(
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1776382,00.html

So what do you say to my assertion that such a common command is undoubtedly going to have the wrong mindset to build the trust necessary for nationbuilding to work?

All that being said, one German soldier was killed and two others injured (one badly) when a suicide bomber rammed their truck. :(
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1776382,00.html

You can have the separate commands all you like.

You can even have 95 percent of the population loving BOTH forces regardless.

That last 5 percent with their suicide bombers could care less what your mission statement is, or who your commander is. They want to kill you because you're a Westerner.

That last 5 percent with their suicide bombers could care less what your mission statement is, or who your commander is. They want to kill you because you're a Westerner.

Thats a blanket statement if ever I saw one... and a wrong one to boot.

The Lebanese, the Katanganese, the Haitians, the Cote d'Ivorians, the Cypriots etc etc etc

..... don't want to kill you merely because you are a Westerner. They have other reasons they want to kill you (you being a peacekeeper)- being a Westerner has nothing to do with it.

Thats a blanket statement if ever I saw one... and a wrong one to boot.

The Lebanese, the Katanganese, the Haitians, the Cote d'Ivorians, the Cypriots etc etc etc

..... don't want to kill you merely because you are a Westerner. They have other reasons they want to kill you (you being a peacekeeper)- being a Westerner has nothing to do with it.

We're talking about the Taliban...

We're talking about the Taliban...
Ah goddamit.....


Here was I on my peacekeeping rant and all.....
:(
Bugger. Yeah, you're on the ball with the Taliban, I retract above statement.

Ah goddamit.....

Here was I on my peacekeeping rant and all.....
:(
Bugger. Yeah, you're on the ball with the Taliban, I retract above statement.

Peacekeeping in relatively peaceful areas (where the peace has already been agreed upon and the people are reasonable) is a good idea.

Probably the best peacekeeping location is the Sinai Peninsula.

In other locations, with other people, your mileage may vary. In some places, people will keep killing each other while the peacekeepers stand around with their rifles up their butts.