Obama on Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly: Why won't the Germans fight against the Taliban?

Senator Obama: You know, part of the reason. . .

Bill O'Reilly: What?

Senator Obama: Part of the reason is that we soured our relationship with
the
Europeans after Iraq . . . [followed by some comments about his speech in
Berlin] In his answer, Senator Obama proved to be woefully ignorant of the
limited role of German military engagement post-World War II. He also showed
that he is ignorant of another fact that any true foreign policy expert
should know if he served in the Senate from 2005 onwards, namely that the Germans
progressed the farthest in their modern history toward approving a
quasi-combat role after the Iraq invasion -- indeed after the war turned sour in 2006.
Thus, Senator Obama was wrong in both the general and specifics of his answer to
Bill O'Reilly.

In Article 87A, the German Basic Law or Grundgesetz (the nation's defacto
Constitution), expressly limits the nation's military to defensive purposes.
Over time, the German Supreme Court defined participation in NATO exercises
as consistent with the Basic Law and authorized the first foreign expeditionary
deployments in 1994 to the former Yugoslavia. Under the law, the military
mission had to be expressly approved by the German Bundestag, and was
limited to peacekeeping and supporting functions. Here's a summary from the Christian
Science Monitor:

In 1994, Germany's Constitutional Court ruled that German forces could
deploy beyond the NATO area if the security of Germany or its allies' was at stake,
and if the parliament approved. But German sensitivity to its militant Nazi
history has held it back, with German forces taking mostly peripheral positions
abroad.

This same arrangement was followed in the deployment of German forces to
Afghanistan in 2002. The German Parliament approved a limited peacekeeping
and supportive role for German troops consistent with the Basic Law. It was in
this role that the German military served in a peacekeeping capacity in
relatively quiet areas in the Afghan north.

In 2006, however, something remarkable happened. The German government
issued a new policy that broadened the military's ability to work in an integrated
capacity with a multinational force when deployed on a foreign expedition.
The new policy, which put German forces as close as ever to combat missions with
NATO allies, was issued in 2006 -- long after the invasion of Iraq and long
after the war had begun to go badly.


Within a year, with Iraq more controversial than ever, the German government
deployed six Tornado reconnaisance jets to Afghanistan to provide direct
support to ground troops. As Reuters reported on February 7, 2007:
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's cabinet agreed on Wednesday to send six Tornado
reconnaissance jets to Afghanistan as requested by NATO to help boost
intelligence gathering ahead of an expected spring offensive by Taliban
insurgents.

About 500 crew and maintenance staff will accompany the aircraft to
Afghanistan where Germany already has about 3,000 troops stationed, mainly in Kabul and
the relatively stable northern region, as part of the NATO-led peacekeeping
mission.

Although the spy planes are not directly used in combat, they are used to
support combat operations by NATO allies. The decision was not without
controversy as the German Supreme Court had to issue a ruling to say the
deployment was not inconsistent with a defensive mission and the Basic Law.

As shown above, Senator Obama's answer to Bill O'Reilly's question was wrong
in almost every respect. Antipathy toward the war in Iraq has nothing to do
with the German unwillingness to engage in direct combat with the Taliban. The
German Basic Law and the Bundestag authorization are the reasons why. Moreover, if
anything, the Germans' ability to engage in Afghanistan has only increased
since the Iraq war.