The Bundestag wants to clarify why the Afghanistan mission failed and why the radical Islamic Taliban were able to retake the country on the Hindu Kush. It's about more than the chaotic withdrawal of the Bundeswehr.
In August 2021, the Bundeswehr evacuated soldiers and civilian personnel from Afghanistan with an airlift
“It's a catastrophe that hardly gets any media attention,” Ralf Stegner said in June during a Bundestag debate on the situation in Afghanistan. The social democrat means the famine in the economically ruined country. But he devotes most of his speech to the chaotic end of the Bundeswehr mission in August 2021. This debacle is now to be examined in a committee of inquiry led by Stegner.
Stegner asked the central question in the Bundestag that the committee will deal with: “How did the questionable assessment of the situation, the lightning-fast takeover of power by the Taliban and the hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan come about?” Apparently, the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), which is responsible for foreign countries, miscalculated. In any case, the BND had no idea that the radical Islamists would succeed in driving out the regular Afghan troops and the government with them within a few days.
Enquête Commission looks at the whole of Afghanistan -Insert
Stegner thinks it's right to only look at the last two years of the engagement in the Hindu Kush that began in 2001. Anyone who calls for an investigation into the entire Afghanistan mission fails to recognize “that a lot has gone wrong in 20 years, but such a period of time could not possibly be processed by a committee of inquiry.” A study commission meeting at the same time is to deal with this.
Setback for women in Afghanistan: TV journalists have to cover their faces again by order of the Taliban
Thorsten Gromes from the Leibniz Institute Hessian Foundation for Peace and Conflict Research (PRIF) takes a similar view. “How did it happen that you completely misjudged the situation?” he asked in a DW interview. The political scientist finds it fascinating that the Afghanistan mission in Germany was supported by a wide variety of government alliances, “all of which somehow bear some responsibility.” This could be an opportunity to face it, but also lead “above all to defending one's own decisions and one's own people”.
Does the left have to justify its foreign policy?
In the case of the opposition left, Gromes expects that it will withdraw more than ever from its negative attitude towards the Afghanistan mission, “precisely because, under the impression of the war in Ukraine is under all the more pressure to justify itself in foreign policy”.
Peace and conflict researcher Thorsten Gromes: “How did it come about that you completely misjudged the situation?”
The background is the polyphony within the left when it comes to the role of Russian President Vladimir Putin and NATO. The party is going through a clarification process, so the Afghanistan question is an opportunity for self-assurance: “We were always right, we don't have to change everything.”
59 Bundeswehr soldiers died in Afghanistan
< p>The foreign policy expert of the left, Sevim Dağdelen, sounds similar when she speaks about Afghanistan in the Bundestag. The chaotic withdrawal was not the basic mistake, “that was the 20 years of war”. The left, emphasizes Dağdelen, was against it from the start.
She considers the joint investigation commissioned by the government factions of the SPD, Greens and FDP and the opposition conservatives (CDU/CSU) to be a diversionary tactic. “What they definitely don't want is a comprehensive review of their involvement in the war in Afghanistan,” says Dağdelen . She points to around 200,000 dead, including 59 soldiers from the Bundeswehr, “who lost their lives in this senseless adventure”.
When are foreign missions perceived as occupation?
Investigation committee chief Ralf Stegner, on the other hand, wants to know “whether and under what conditions it can be a legitimate goal of foreign missions to want to turn a society upside down in our sense or to strive for a regime change”.
The scientist Jan Koehler, who knows Afghanistan very well through numerous trips since 2003, has similar thoughts on the investigation.
In the DW interview, he asked the question “when is a military intervention perceived as an occupation?”  ;He also asks whether the security situation tends to improve or worsen from a local perspective as a result of the military presence over such a long period of time. It is important to look at the opportunities and risks that arose at different points in time.
Military, civil and diplomatic engagement
The political scientist, who works in London and Osnabrück, does not want to speak of a “heap of broken pieces”. But one cannot simply say that after 20 years of military, civil and diplomatic engagement, much has changed for the better. The truth lies somewhere in between. “It's very difficult to make a definitive historical assessment of something like this,” emphasizes Koehler.
Watch video 03:05
Afghanistan: The trauma after the deployment
It would make sense to look at individual developments: did they arise from the different parts of the country and population groups themselves or, for example, due to loyalty obligations towards the Americans?
Missed a chance to involve the Taliban in good time?
In order to answer these and other questions, Jan Koehler mentally returns to the beginnings of the international military intervention. Back then, in 2001, the international Petersberg conference was looking for a peaceful solution in Afghanistan. And – as it turned out dramatically 20 years later – not found.
Too the second Afghanistan conference on the Petersberg near Bonn in 2011 was accompanied by protests
As part of the Petersberg process, the Taliban were left out, says Koehler. Instead, other actors were sought “who were believed to have real power”. Looking back, he thinks that was a mistake. In the first three years after the military intervention, the opportunity was missed to “involve the Taliban from a situation of political weakness.” After that, they regained their strength.
Donald Trump weakened the Afghan government
According to Koehler's conviction, another end to the international Afghanistan mission would have been possible, despite all the mistakes. “Fatal” was the agreement concluded by then US President Donald Trump with the Taliban in 2020 – bypassing the Afghan government – on the withdrawal of troops. In doing so, he “massively weakened” the government under Ashraf Ghani.
08/15/2021: Taliban fighters pose after the flight of Afghan Prime Minister Ashraf Ghani in his palace
That was the last point that could have been set differently, says the longtime expert on Afghanistan. After that, a peace process between the government and the Taliban was no longer possible. “The sudden collapse of the government and Ghani's flight destroyed the last chance for an orderly takeover of power that the more moderate forces among the Taliban wanted,” Koehler sums up.
No “German navel gazing”
Peace and conflict researcher Thorsten Gromes would like both the committee of inquiry and the commission of inquiry to discuss “open-ended”. It is about learning lessons for better decisions in the future. This presupposes that there is no “German navel gazing”. Because the missions are embedded in an international framework.
Watch the video 02:41
Memorial for the Afghanistan mission of the Bundeswehr
In Gromes' view, this means that the Afghanistan mission should not be viewed in isolation, but comparatively. The political debate often tends to swing from one extreme to the other. This could lead to Afghanistan being described as an “absolute isolated case” from which not much can be learned, or to the assertion that “Afghanistan is everywhere and stands for all foreign missions”. Both positions are wrong.
Between democracy and regime change
You have to be more specific, for example when it comes to democracy and human rights. Thorsten Gromes thinks the context is important: is it about operations after civil wars or during conflicts that are still raging? “Is it linked to regime change or not?” There are many factors to consider, says the political scientist.
It will be seen by 2025 at the latest whether the Afghanistan investigative committee and the Enquête Commission will fulfill their hopes. Then the legislative period ends and both bodies have to present their final reports. They want to start working on this after the end of the parliamentary summer break in Germany in September. The meetings will usually be open to the public.