Britain has been sending troops all around the world since - forever.
But recent German pacifism has meant that Germany has not been too keen on sending its troops abroad, and its military spending - smaller than that of Britain and France - has meant that several parts of its army have been using obsolete military equipment.
Germany's armed forces
Abroad, by inches
Jul 27th 2006 | POTSDAM
From The Economist print edition
Afghanistan, Congo, maybe Lebanon: more German troops are going abroad
THE Luftwaffe, the Red Army, the East German Volksarmee, the Bundeswehr: the Henning-von-Tresckow barracks, named after a German general who tried to blow up Hitler, has had many tenants. Its latest may be the most surprising of all. For this base near Potsdam is the European Union's operational headquarters for its mission to Kinshasa, capital of Congo, during the election this weekend.
The flags of 20 EU members (plus Turkey) mark the mission's command centre. But the focus of interest is Germany, which is providing not only the bulk of the EU contingent, but also its commander, Karlheinz Viereck—a first since the war. The Congo mission now has added significance in the light of talk about European troops going to Lebanon. German officials do not exclude that possibility, given Germany's historical responsibility to defend Israel. Others say it is precisely because of history that German uniforms cannot be seen near Israel's borders.
At all events, it is a far cry from the pacifism of Germany up to the 1990s. Surprisingly, it was the Social Democrat/Green government that broke the post-war taboo against sending troops into armed combat. In late 1998, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder survived a vote of no confidence to send fighters into former Yugoslavia. “If there is a historic achievement of the Schröder government, it was overcoming this taboo, while preserving the policy emphasis on civilian power,” comments Constanze Stelzenmüller, of the Berlin office of the German Marshall Fund.
Since then, Germany has become a big provider of peacekeeping troops, with 7,706 now spread over a dozen missions (see table). Congo is a step to normality in another way. For the first time, the debate was not about moral imperatives, but plain national interest: the threat of Congo becoming another failed state. It did not split along party lines, either; rather, the argument was between “internationalists” and “isolationalists”. Social Democrats, young Christian Democrats and even Greens favoured the mission. It was opposed by the Free Democrats and an old guard of cold-war defence buffs. The compromise, which parliament approved by a big majority, was to limit the mission both in time (until the end of November) and geographically (to Kinshasa only).
Lacking a clear position in advance, Chancellor Angela Merkel found it hard to say no to French demands that Germany take the lead in Congo. Strategic debate in Berlin has yet to reach the level of, say, Paris or London. The media have worried most over whether German troops might catch diseases, or have to shoot at child soldiers (if attacked, they will, is Mr Viereck's obvious answer). And there are still doubts over how Germans might react were things to go badly wrong.
That some 63 German soldiers have died on foreign missions since the early 1990s (over 100 British soldiers have died in Iraq alone since 2003) has caused remarkably little stir. Although two-thirds of Germans disapprove of sending soldiers to Congo, few have protested. Yet with the Bundeswehr mostly engaged in humanitarian work and peacekeeping, Germans may see sending soldiers abroad as just a form of armed development aid. “When Somalia turned out a failure in the mid-1990s, we were thrown back several years,” says Stefan Mair of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. Many Germans seem surprised that their soldiers in Afghanistan have been targets of attacks.
To avoid a backlash, Germany needs a proper discussion of how to decide where troops should go. It should get involved earlier, so that it can influence decisions about operations. But Germans do not seem ready for this. The government has postponed decisions on defence and security guidelines. Rather than discussing the Bundeswehr's forays abroad, the argument has been over whether to use it at home. Yet new missions are on the horizon: if not Lebanon, perhaps Sudan. With Germany holding the presidencies of both the EU and the G8 in the first half of 2007, it will have a hard time saying no.
COUNTRIES
Military Spending In Billion Dollars (2003-04)
United States 335.7
Japan 46.7
United Kingdom 36
France 33.6
China 31.1
Germany 27.7
Saudi Arabia 21.6
Italy 21.1
Iran 17.5
South Korea 13.5
--------------------------------------------------------
Britain VS Germany - How the militaries compare.
Nuclear weapons
Britain - over 200
Germany - 0
---------------------------------------------------------
Military spending (% of GDP)
Britain - 2.7
Germany - 1.2
-------------------------------------------------------
Global power projection
Britain - her global power projection capabilities are second only to those of the United States Military.
Germany - has only limited power projection capabilities
----------------------------------------------------------
Naval power
Britain - the Royal Navy is the 2nd-most powerful navy on Earth after the US and is also the world's 2nd-largest in terms of gross tonnage, with almost 100 warships and employing 36,320 people.
Germany - the German naval manpower is only around half that of Britain, with around 19,000 people.
------------------------------------------------------------
Air power
Britain - the RAF has almost 1000 planes and is often deployed on missions around the world. It will soon have 232 Eurofighter Typhoons, the most of any European nation. The RAF also has its mighty Nimrods, some of which may soon be used as a British heavy bomber force. The new-generation Nimrods are also about to be constructed.
Germany - the only time the Luftwaffe has seen proper military action since WWII was in 1999. It will soon have 180 Eurofighter Typhoons.
economist.com
But recent German pacifism has meant that Germany has not been too keen on sending its troops abroad, and its military spending - smaller than that of Britain and France - has meant that several parts of its army have been using obsolete military equipment.
Germany's armed forces
Abroad, by inches
Jul 27th 2006 | POTSDAM
From The Economist print edition
Afghanistan, Congo, maybe Lebanon: more German troops are going abroad
THE Luftwaffe, the Red Army, the East German Volksarmee, the Bundeswehr: the Henning-von-Tresckow barracks, named after a German general who tried to blow up Hitler, has had many tenants. Its latest may be the most surprising of all. For this base near Potsdam is the European Union's operational headquarters for its mission to Kinshasa, capital of Congo, during the election this weekend.
The flags of 20 EU members (plus Turkey) mark the mission's command centre. But the focus of interest is Germany, which is providing not only the bulk of the EU contingent, but also its commander, Karlheinz Viereck—a first since the war. The Congo mission now has added significance in the light of talk about European troops going to Lebanon. German officials do not exclude that possibility, given Germany's historical responsibility to defend Israel. Others say it is precisely because of history that German uniforms cannot be seen near Israel's borders.
At all events, it is a far cry from the pacifism of Germany up to the 1990s. Surprisingly, it was the Social Democrat/Green government that broke the post-war taboo against sending troops into armed combat. In late 1998, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder survived a vote of no confidence to send fighters into former Yugoslavia. “If there is a historic achievement of the Schröder government, it was overcoming this taboo, while preserving the policy emphasis on civilian power,” comments Constanze Stelzenmüller, of the Berlin office of the German Marshall Fund.
Since then, Germany has become a big provider of peacekeeping troops, with 7,706 now spread over a dozen missions (see table). Congo is a step to normality in another way. For the first time, the debate was not about moral imperatives, but plain national interest: the threat of Congo becoming another failed state. It did not split along party lines, either; rather, the argument was between “internationalists” and “isolationalists”. Social Democrats, young Christian Democrats and even Greens favoured the mission. It was opposed by the Free Democrats and an old guard of cold-war defence buffs. The compromise, which parliament approved by a big majority, was to limit the mission both in time (until the end of November) and geographically (to Kinshasa only).
Lacking a clear position in advance, Chancellor Angela Merkel found it hard to say no to French demands that Germany take the lead in Congo. Strategic debate in Berlin has yet to reach the level of, say, Paris or London. The media have worried most over whether German troops might catch diseases, or have to shoot at child soldiers (if attacked, they will, is Mr Viereck's obvious answer). And there are still doubts over how Germans might react were things to go badly wrong.
That some 63 German soldiers have died on foreign missions since the early 1990s (over 100 British soldiers have died in Iraq alone since 2003) has caused remarkably little stir. Although two-thirds of Germans disapprove of sending soldiers to Congo, few have protested. Yet with the Bundeswehr mostly engaged in humanitarian work and peacekeeping, Germans may see sending soldiers abroad as just a form of armed development aid. “When Somalia turned out a failure in the mid-1990s, we were thrown back several years,” says Stefan Mair of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. Many Germans seem surprised that their soldiers in Afghanistan have been targets of attacks.
To avoid a backlash, Germany needs a proper discussion of how to decide where troops should go. It should get involved earlier, so that it can influence decisions about operations. But Germans do not seem ready for this. The government has postponed decisions on defence and security guidelines. Rather than discussing the Bundeswehr's forays abroad, the argument has been over whether to use it at home. Yet new missions are on the horizon: if not Lebanon, perhaps Sudan. With Germany holding the presidencies of both the EU and the G8 in the first half of 2007, it will have a hard time saying no.
COUNTRIES
Military Spending In Billion Dollars (2003-04)
United States 335.7
Japan 46.7
United Kingdom 36
France 33.6
China 31.1
Germany 27.7
Saudi Arabia 21.6
Italy 21.1
Iran 17.5
South Korea 13.5
--------------------------------------------------------
Britain VS Germany - How the militaries compare.
Nuclear weapons
Britain - over 200
Germany - 0
---------------------------------------------------------
Military spending (% of GDP)
Britain - 2.7
Germany - 1.2
-------------------------------------------------------
Global power projection
Britain - her global power projection capabilities are second only to those of the United States Military.
Germany - has only limited power projection capabilities
----------------------------------------------------------
Naval power
Britain - the Royal Navy is the 2nd-most powerful navy on Earth after the US and is also the world's 2nd-largest in terms of gross tonnage, with almost 100 warships and employing 36,320 people.
Germany - the German naval manpower is only around half that of Britain, with around 19,000 people.
------------------------------------------------------------
Air power
Britain - the RAF has almost 1000 planes and is often deployed on missions around the world. It will soon have 232 Eurofighter Typhoons, the most of any European nation. The RAF also has its mighty Nimrods, some of which may soon be used as a British heavy bomber force. The new-generation Nimrods are also about to be constructed.
Germany - the only time the Luftwaffe has seen proper military action since WWII was in 1999. It will soon have 180 Eurofighter Typhoons.
economist.com