Putting Out Fires in Iraq and Afghanistan
By Dr. Jackson Janes

This week's NATO meeting in Romania was not designed to generate major decisions but it was a stage on which the Germans could repeat their insistence that German troops are not headed for Iraq in the near future. Although Defense Minister Struck created some headlines earlier in the week by suggesting during a newspaper interview that there may be a future opening for German troops to play a role in Iraq, he was quickly called to task by the Chancellery's statement that such considerations were not on the agenda.

At the same time that Berlin was saying what they could not do in Iraq, the September 30 decision in the Bundestag to extend the German presence in Afghanistan for another year was an indication that the government remains committed to that theater. Yet it is against any initiative to combine the NATO-led ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) presence with the American led Enduring Freedom effort to wipe out the remnants of Al Qaida in Afghanistan.

What works and what does not work depends as much on the home front as it does on what is happening in the theater of operations abroad. The quick reaction to Struck's speculation about German troops illustrates how thin the political margin for maneuver is within the German debate over its role in that turbulent region. While the Chancellor's recent visit to Kabul underlined Germany's intention to stay the course in ISAF, the nein to a possible presence in Iraq remains part of the political posture of Berlin. But it also reminds us that we are a long way from a common transatlantic message about what is at stake there.

Minister Struck suggested that an opening might come through a possible international Iraq conference, a proposal Senator Kerry has been circulating as part of his campaign. "This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference."

Yet it remains to be seen whether even then sufficient latitude for German military engagement in Iraq would be possible, given the public mood so totally against any military involvement in Iraq. And if President Bush is reelected, the question is whether such a conference would be proposed at all.

In truth, Washington is not expecting German troops in Iraq in the near future. Despite the fact that many of the coalition partners are pulling out troops or threatening to do so, neither the current White House nor the Pentagon are counting on fresh assistance from Berlin. Yes, Germany is providing financial assistance to Iraq and training Iraqi troops and police officers in the United Arab Emirates. But with public opinion still firmly against the U.S. role in Iraq and against any increased German engagement there, anything more is unlikely.

While Germans might look anxiously at the prospect of another four years of George W. Bush as President- someone who has been particularly skeptical about the value and importance of international conferences during his campaign - there is still a need to figure out what the limits and possibilities of German engagement in Iraq will be regardless of who sits in the White House. Whether that is under a NATO umbrella or in whatever form, the important question is to define what the German interests are in a stable Iraq. If the security of Germany, as Minister Struck has suggested, is being defended in Afghanistan, it is difficult to understand how that same security will be less immediately in danger if the fires in Iraq continue to burn out of control. Clearly the United States has managed the process of getting unity on that issue very badly in the last two years. Yet whether Bush or Kerry is in the Oval Office, the need to find that unity remains just as acute.

At the NATO meeting, there were loud complaints about the ability of the NATO partners to come up with the necessary resources to deal with the crises in the Balkans and Afghanistan. Getting the members to ante up with the needed money, troops and equipment remains a tough job for NATO's Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer who told the gathering:"We have less reason for satisfaction with our arrangements for marshaling forces for operations and sustaining them in the field."

In the months following the November 2nd election results, the need for a better understanding of what is at stake in Iraq is going to be directly related to the need for leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to explain it to their respective audiences. Getting to a common message will be no easier after November 2 nd than has been heretofore.

........................................................................................................................

This At Issue appeared in the October 14, 2004 AICGS Advisor.