• Print
• E-Mail
• Feedback

12/17/2009

It didn't take long for the Social Democrats to become comfortable with their new role in the opposition. The center-left party, left out in the cold after its catastrophic results in late September elections, wasted little time going on the attack. And, on Thursday, the party has once again found a weak spot in the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Speaking to the German public television station ZDF on Thursday, SPD head Sigmar Gabriel took aim at Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who is under fire for alleged untruths in connection with the Sept. 4 German-ordered bombing of two tanker trucks in Kunduz, Afghanistan -- an attack which killed up to 142 people, many of them civilians.

"Just to make a good impression on the public, he simply threw out a well-respected general," Gabriel said, adding that Guttenberg had "lied" in connection with that firing.

Gabriel was referring to ex-Bundeswehr Inspector General Wolfgang Schneiderhan, whose offer to resign was accepted by Guttenberg at the end of November -- at the same time the defense minister fired Peter Wicherta, top Defense Ministry official. Guttenberg accuses Schneiderhan of having withheld important documents related to the Sept. 4 incident, a charge which Schneiderhan disputes. On Wednesday, the general blasted Guttenberg for lying, saying that the minister was guilty of "an attack on my honor."

SPD floor leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier also laid into Guttenberg on Thursday. "It's one assertion versus another. Both can't be right," he said. "If we are demanding courage from our soldiers, then (Guttenberg) should have the political courage to tell the truth, and he clearly doesn't."

Pointing Fingers

Guttenberg is on the hot seat for his zig-zagging position on the Sept. 4 attacks. The bombings were ordered by German Colonel Georg Klein and came after a number of procedural errors and alleged violations of NATO rules of engagement in Afghanistan. Guttenberg became defense minister well after the attacks, but he initially threw his support behind Klein, saying the bombings were "militarily appropriate." He accused Schneiderhan of withholding vital reports on the incident, leading him to his original assessment, which he has since backed away from.

Still, many have pointed out that Guttenberg had access to a NATO report immediately upon taking office -- a report that raises a number of serious questions surrounding the Sept. 4 attacks. Schneiderhan's claim that Guttenberg is lying about having been misinformed has increased already intense pressure on the minister.

German commentators on Thursday take a closer look:

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"Schneiderhan is now ferociously attacking Guttenberg -- unusual tactics for a man who, until now, drew his strength from going on the defensive. Schneiderhan is hurt. But it is unclear what the purpose is of his ... public attack. There are possible motives since he doesn't belong to Guttenberg's political camp. Maybe he thinks his life's work is being destroyed; perhaps he suspects a conspiracy."

"Guttenberg has made mistakes in how he got rid of his top officials. He should not have justified the firings; he should merely have cited a lack of confidence. Now he is being forced to explain himself publicly. It is one assertion against the other -- and the public wants to know who lied."

"The mud is being slung and no one will come out of this untainted. The affair leaves Guttenberg looking indecisive. He has distanced himself from his top soldier but, at the same time, has left him in his current position until the end of the year. Inconsistency is a grave political sin."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"Now Schneiderhan has publicly accused ... (Guttenberg) of telling 'untruths' in a 'dishonorable' way. That is serious stuff. It is not a private speaking but, rather, the highest-ranking soldier in the Bundeswehr, a man who has held this position longer than any of his predecessors. Guttenberg, who hoped that the dismissal of Schneiderhan and Wichert would link the Kunduz affair to his predecessor (former Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung) and spare his own reputation, has simply got himself into a scrape."

"Following a rather quiet 100 days as general secretary of the Christian Social Union and nearly nine months at the head of the Economics Ministry -- which, despite Opel, must now seem like a safe haven -- Guttenberg is now, for the first time, caught in the crossfire. The harshness of this test will reveal what the whiz kid of German politics can really do -- and how much pressure he can take."

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"Assuming the Kunduz affair is adequately investigated, there is a much more important debate to be had -- namely, over the fact that our society and our politicians should have the courage to confront the reality that Germany is involved in a regional war in Afghanistan. Post-World War II Germany drew pacifist consequences out of our National Socialist past and the fact that the Wehrmacht (eds. note: Wehrmacht refers to the German military under Hitler) committed numerous crimes. The lesson was clear: no more war. Since postwar Germany wasn't entirely sovereign, it was freed from the temptation and agony of becoming involved in wars. And Germans preferred it that way. They became comfortable in their geopolitical niche and interpreted their distance to militarism as moral superiority."

"That changed ... with the war in Kosovo. But not for long. It remained the exception, and the hated George W. Bush made it easy for Germans to once again play the pacifists. That, though, is no longer possible. We can no longer act as though the Bundeswehr's mission in Afghanistan is merely that of a security and development force. Should our troops remain, we have to take an honest look at the concept of war. Were we to do so, it would be the greatest shift in our national understanding since the founding of postwar Germany. We can't allow the process just to transpire by itself. It must be shaped and examined. Politics often involves merely navigating the seas of pragmatism. But that won't work with this issue. It requires an inclusive debate; it requires grand speeches. The chancellor, who is, with good reason, averse to sweeping gestures, must soon make her voice heard."