Der Spiegel published a fascinating, in-depth review of the signals and confusion that confronted the colonel in charge that made the fateful mis-decision. It shows how easy it will be for similar tragedies to occur in the future, under US command, creating the same kind of furor here. 

Below is an initial excerpt, with a link to the full story. The in-depth review starts on page 2 of the article. Be sure to get that far. Links to more recent articles are in the left sidebar. These article show that this single incident is continuing to fuel the opposition to German involvement in Afghanistan. What lies ahead for Obama in the US?

The End of Innocence in Afghanistan

‘The German Air Strike Has Changed Everything’

By SPIEGEL Staff

The recent bombing of two tanker trucks in an attack ordered by a German military colonel has led to major international criticism of the Bundeswehr. The incident has given a black eye to a country whose politicians have never been shy of telling others what’s best in Afghanistan.

…

The commander of the German reconstruction team in the northern city of Kunduz is experiencing the most horrendous days of his life. His decision to order air strikes against two hijacked NATO fuel trucks on the night of Sept. 4 changed everything — him, his career, German politics, relations with the Americans and the deployment of German soldiers in Afghanistan.

…

[A] German officer has issued a devastating order to shoot, causing two US fighter jets to kill 50 to 100 people on the ground, including civilians. It was an unnecessary air strike, that much is certain. The village of Omar Khel, which lies in the vicinity of the air strikes, now stands for the end of the illusion that a country could keep its hands clean in a world plagued by military conflict.

Full Story

The latest development in this story in Germany was reported today.

I find in the headlines today that the Bush comparison occurred to others – the Huff Post and Der Spiegel, and I’m sure many others. Here is the Der Spiegel headline and summary. I highly recommend reading the whole article.

Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic 

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught. Full Story

Obama’s action on Afghanistan is certainly another nail in the coffin of my hopes the Obama would bring about positive change. Add his militarism to his “economic” (wall street bailout) policies and what is there left to give one hope?

I watched a very interesting Bill Moyer program that I highly recommend if you didn’t see it. He assembled audios of phone conversations of Lyndon Johnson when he was considering what to do in Viet Nam in the period after he assumed power. The frightening part of it is how much he wanted to avoid committing troops to Viet Nam and how the political forces and  calculations, the military, and American macho character steadily and surely sucked him down the road to war. As I watched it, I saw the inevitability of Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan.

A very sad day for me and and our country and especially for all those from America and in Afghanistan and Pakistan that will be ground up in the meat grinder of war.

In the next few days I will try to send several articles on an important news story in Germany that has received no coverage in the US but that foreshadows what is sure to emerge here as the Afghan conflict escalates.

Should Western countries be trying to dictate moral and spiritual values in other countries?

This not a question I can easily answer.

German Army Can’t Protect Afghan Girls’ Schools

Resuming the schooling of Afghanistan’s girls became a much-celebrated post-Taliban achievement for the international community, but that success is now at risk. Six schools in the northern region of Kunduz closed following Taliban threats in recent weeks. The German army says it can’t protect them.

One of the most significant and widely-touted successes in the rebuilding of Afghanistan — schooling for girls, which was banned under the Taliban — is at risk after six girls’ schools were closed in the northern province of Kunduz following threats from Islamic terrorists in recent weeks.

REUTERS

Girls in eastern Afghanistan attend class at a secondary school.

The schools received letters threatening acid and gas attacks, and teachers and pupils responded by staying home. The Afghan authorities finally decided to shut the schools altogether.

The affected district of Chahar Darreh in the province of Kunduz is largely under the Taliban’s control — some of the Pashtun people who live in the area support them.

The German army, which has led a reconstruction team in Kunduz since 2003, doesn’t feel able to protect the schools, and the German government doesn’t know how to respond to the threats.

It’s not just threats — last week, a girls’ school in northeastern Afghanistan was hit with an apparent poison gas attack, requiring the hospitilization of 84 students and 11 teachers who collapsed with headaches and nausea. The case marked the region’s third alleged poisoning at a girls’ school within roughly two weeks.

Militants in southern Afghanistan have assaulted schoolgirls in the past — spraying acid in their faces and burning down their schools. Afghan girls were forbidden to attend school under the Taliban’s rule and many conservative extremist groups continue to oppose the idea.

Providing schooling for Afghan girls has been one of Berlin’s main arguments for justifying the military mission, which is increasingly unpopular among German voters. Germany has about 3,800 troops in Afghanistan and Berlin has resisted pressure from allies to send German soldiers to the more dangerous south of the country, where allied forces are battling the Taliban. Most of the German soldiers are in northern areas.

Recently, Chancellor Angela Merkel included the "six million schoolchildren, among them very, very many girls" as one of the "creditable successes" of the German reconstruction team. "During my visit to the northern part of the country, I was able to see that for myself," she told reporters.

Merkel was at the German military bases in Kunuz and Mazar-i-Sharif at the beginning of April and visited a school there. The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development announced it had "great concerns" regarding the closure of the schools. The advancement of girls is "one of the focal points of the German development cooperation," a representative said.

The Afghan government "must do everything they can so that girls can regularly and safely go to school."

The Strategic Debate Over Afghanistan

May 11, 2009 | 1805 GMT

By George Friedman

After U.S. airstrikes killed scores of civilians in western Afghanistan this past week, White House National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones said the United States would continue with the airstrikes and would not tie the hands of U.S. generals fighting in Afghanistan. At the same time, U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus has cautioned against using tactics that undermine strategic U.S. goals in Afghanistan — raising the question of what exactly are the U.S. strategic goals in Afghanistan. A debate inside the U.S. camp has emerged over this very question, the outcome of which is likely to determine the future of the region.

On one side are President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a substantial amount of the U.S. Army leadership. On the other side are Petraeus — the architect of U.S. strategy in Iraq after 2006 — and his staff and supporters. An Army general — even one with four stars — is unlikely to overcome a president and a defense secretary; even the five-star Gen. Douglas MacArthur couldn’t pull that off. But the Afghan debate is important, and it provides us with a sense of future U.S. strategy in the region…

Full Article

Der Spiegel reported on the appointment, which has received little notice in the US:

Der Spiegel

03/19/2009

NEW NATO COMMANDER

Obama Choice Surprises Europeans

By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Washington

US Admiral James Stavridis is expected to take command of NATO forces soon. Obama’s decision to appoint him has astounded many in Europe, but the nominee brings important experience to the Afghanistan mission.

For Europeans at least, President Barack Obama’s choice for the new NATO commander comes as a surprise.

On Wednesday afternoon, e-mails circulating between Brussels and Berlin suggesting that, within the course of the day, Washington would name General James N. Mattis as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. The commander is in charge of all US troops in Europe as well as NATO deployments, including the ISAF security force in Afghanistan…

Admiral James Stavridis is expected to be approved
by Congress as the next commander of NATO troops.

In the end, though, Mattis didn’t get the appointment. Instead, Defense Minister Robert Gates announced that Admiral James Stavridis would be nominated for the highly prestigious position. The US Senate and the NATO Council must approve his nomination, but it appears likely he will get through. Gates said Stavridis was "probably one of the best senior military officers" in the US…

It appears Obama was swayed towards Stavridis because the admiral, during his work as the head of the US Military Command in Latin America, promoted cooperation between the military and civilian institutions. Washington now wants to adopt this approach as its new maxim in Afghanistan…

Full Article

I incorrectly identified General Craddock as the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan. Rather, he is the High Commander of all Nato Forces, the head general of Nato. Thus, the opposition to his order was politically far more important than I realized.

Der Spiegel has a follow-up article reporting on the latest developments and the ultimate back down by General Craddock, with his withdrawal of the order. It makes clear that US international actions take place within an arena filled with participants from many countries, with their own concerns, obligations, and political needs. Reading it, I realized perhaps more than ever just how destructive was George W. Bush’s Imperial Presidency — and how much ground Obama has to recover in our foreign relations at all levels.

Below are some key excerpts from the follow-up article with a link to the full article.

SPIEGEL ONLINE

02/05/2009 05:24 PM

GENERAL CRADDOCK’S CONTENTIOUS ORDER

Time May Be Short for NATO High Commander

By Susanne Koelbl, Hans-Jürgen Schlamp and Alexander Szandar

At the end January, SPIEGEL reported that NATO High Commander General Craddock had ordered troops to attack drug traffickers — without checking to see if they were also insurgents. He lost the internal dispute that ensued and his time may now be short in the Western alliance.

On Jan. 30, General Bantz John Craddock gave up. On that day, the NATO High Commander retracted an order calling on troops fighting in Afghanistan with NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to attack drug traffickers and facilities. Many of Craddock’s comrades found the order unpalatable — it explicitly directed NATO troops to kill those involved in the drug trade even if there was no proof that they supported insurgents fighting against NATO or Afghan security forces.

General Egon Ramms, from Germany, who heads up the NATO command center responsible for Afghanistan in Brunssum, the

AP General Craddock ordered NATO troops in Afghanistan to shoot those involved in the drug trade.

Netherlands, expressed his displeasure with the order as did US General David McKiernan, who heads up the NATO command in Afghanistan. Both felt that the order violated ISAF rules of engagement as well as international law. Craddock was extremely upset by the resistance from his subordinates, insiders report. They say he even considered sending a written demand to Berlin that General Ramms be relieved of duty. In the end, though, the US general bowed to the inevitable and made the change demanded by both Ramms and McKiernan. Instead of being given a free hand against drug traffickers, NATO troops will continue to be allowed to attack only those drug traffickers with provable ties to insurgents and terror groups. The change, a NATO spokesperson said on Wednesday, means that the incident is over…

The contentious contents of Craddock’s paper unleashed dismay throughout the alliance and across the political spectrum. "Afghan people are not chickens whom one could hunt whenever one wanted to," commented Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta.

"This does not reflect the decision made by the defense ministers during their meeting in Budapest and does not represent the positions of the member states," Robert Farla, spokesman for the Dutch Embassy in Berlin, told SPIEGEL on Wednesday…

Craddock remained unflinching as the debate unfolded. For him, it is a proven fact that all drug traffickers help finance the radical Islamists of the Taliban. The NATO Council, he said at the beginning of the week in Kabul, has confirmed the connection between the drug trade and the insurgents. "I have never issued an illegal order," he said…

German Foreign Minister Franz Josef Jung, though, refused to distance himself from Craddock’s controversial order. There will be "no criticism of Craddock’s letter to be heard" from the Berlin Defense Ministry, spokesman Thomas Raabe said last week, before it was clear that Craddock would be forced to back down. But while German General Ramms was rebuffed by his boss in Berlin, the 60-year-old received support from all political parties in German parliament…

But it may soon be Craddock himself in the hot seat. Already, there are those in NATO headquarters in Brussels, as well as in the alliance’s military headquarters in Mons, who are speculating about "the last days of Craddock." Hardly anyone believes that the "hard-core Rumsfeld man," as some refer to him, will make it to the end of his term of service this summer. Craddock is seen as a leftover of the George W. Bush administration. It is seen as likely that his defeat in the just-ended dispute among NATO generals will speed his departure.

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2009

Full Article

The most important information, perhaps, is in the last paragraph (emphases added):

German NATO General Ramms made it perfectly clear in his answer to General Craddock that he was not prepared to deviate from the current rules of engagement for attacks, which reportedly deeply angered Craddock. The US general, who is considered a loyal Bush man and fears that he could be replaced by the new US president, has already made his intention known internally that he would like to relieve any commander who doesn’t want to follow his instructions to go after the drug mafia of his duties. Back in December, Central Command in Florida, which is responsible for the US Armed Forces deployment in Afghanistan, yet again watered-down provisions in the rules of engagement for the Afghanistan deployment pertaining to the protection of civilians. According to the new rules, US forces can now bomb drug labs if they have previous analysis that the operation would not kill "more than 10 civilians."

This attitude explains why, as the article says, "relations between the Americans and the local population are extremely tense due the rising number of US-led air strikes and the dramatic increase in the number of civilian casualties."

Let’s hope that an early action under President Obama is the replacement of General Craddock and a reassessment of the policy on "acceptable civilian casualties."

__________________________

SPIEGEL ONLINE

01/28/2009 08:22 PM

BATTLING AFGHAN DRUG DEALERS

NATO High Commander Issues Illegitimate Order to Kill

By Susanne Koelbl

The approach to combatting the drug mafia in Afghanistan has spurred an open rift inside NATO. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, top NATO commander John Craddock wants the alliance to kill opium dealers, without proof of connection to the insurgency. NATO commanders, however, do not want to follow the order.

A dispute has emerged among NATO High Command in Afghanistan regarding the conditions under which alliance troops can use deadly violence against those identified as insurgents. In a classified document, which SPIEGEL has obtained, NATO’s top commander, US General John Craddock, has issued a "guidance" providing NATO troops with the authority "to attack directly drug producers and facilities throughout Afghanistan."

According to the document, deadly force is to be used even in those cases where there is no proof that suspects are actively engaged in the armed resistance against the Afghanistan government or against Western troops. It is "no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets the criteria of being a military objective," Craddock writes.

The NATO commander has long been frustrated by the reluctance of some NATO member states — particularly Germany — to take aggressive action against those involved in the drug trade. Craddock rationalizes his directive by writing that the alliance "has decided that (drug traffickers and narcotics facilities) are inextricably linked to the Opposing Military Forces, and thus may be attacked." In the document, Craddock writes that the directive is the result of an October 2008 meeting of NATO defense ministers in which it was agreed that NATO soldiers in Afghanistan may attack opium traffickers.

The directive was sent on Jan. 5 to Egon Ramms, the German leader at NATO Command in Brunssum, Netherlands, which is currently in charge of the NATO ISAF mission, as well as David McKiernan, the commander of the ISAF peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. Neither want to follow it. Both consider the order to be illegitimate and believe it violates both ISAF rules of engagement and international law, the "Law of Armed Conflict."

A classified letter issued by McKiernan’s Kabul office in response claims that Craddock is trying to create a "new category" in the rules of engagement for dealing with opposing forces that would "seriously undermine the commitment ISAF has made to the Afghan people and the international community … to restrain our use of force and avoid civilian casualties to the greatest degree predictable."

A value equivalent to 50 percent of Afghanistan’s gross national product is generated through the production and trade of opium and the heroin that is derived from it. Of those earnings, at least $100 million flows each year to the Taliban and its allies, which is used to purchase weapons and pay fighters. That, at least, is the estimate given by Antonio Maria Costas, head of the UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime.

But the chain of people profiting from the drug trade goes a lot further — reaching day laborers in the fields, drug laboratory workers and going all the way up to police stations, provincial governments and high-level government circles that include some with close proximity to President Hamid Karzai. If Craddock’s order were to go into effect, it would lead to the addition of thousands of Afghans to the description of so-called "legitimate military targets" and could also land them on so-called targeting lists.

The Taliban are still responsible for the majority of civilian victims in Afghanistan. According to a United Nations report, more than half of the approximately 2,000 citizens killed last year died as a result of suicide attacks, car bombs and fighting with extremists. Nevertheless, relations between the Americans and the local population are extremely tense due the rising number of US-led air strikes and the dramatic increase in the number of civilian casualties.

Afghan villagers complain of the increase in the deaths of relatives who were mistakenly killed during military operations carried out by the Americans and their allies, such as the one carried out recently in Masamut, a village in the eastern Afghan province of Laghman. The US army announced that it had "eliminated" 32 Taliban insurgents. However, survivors claim that 13 civilians had been killed during the search for a Taliban commander. In the eyes of many Afghans the former liberators have long become ruthless occupiers.

German NATO General Ramms made it perfectly clear in his answer to General Craddock that he was not prepared to deviate from the current rules of engagement for attacks, which reportedly deeply angered Craddock. The US general, who is considered a loyal Bush man and fears that he could be replaced by the new US president, has already made his intention known internally that he would like to relieve any commander who doesn’t want to follow his instructions to go after the drug mafia of his duties. Back in December, Central Command in Florida, which is responsible for the US Armed Forces deployment in Afghanistan, yet again watered-down provisions in the rules of engagement for the Afghanistan deployment pertaining to the protection of civilians. According to the new rules, US forces can now bomb drug labs if they have previous analysis that the operation would not kill "more than 10 civilians."

URL:

• http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,604183,00.html

RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS:

• Photo Gallery: Combatting Drugs in Afghanistan
  http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-39262.html

WALKING THE TERRORIST TIGHTROPE

Pakistan’s President Zardari Attempts the Impossible

By Susanne Koelbl in Muridke, Pakistan

Pakistan’s President Zardari is trying to avoid a conflict with India without completely alienating his own powerful army. The attempt may be doomed. His crackdown on Islamists suspected of planning the Mumbai attacks has already made him many enemies within the military.

More