« | Home | »

The Engagement in the Hindu Kush

Tags: | | |

Those who should hear, they hear no more,
Destroyed is the army that went to war,
With thirteen thousand their trek began,
Only one came back from Afghanistan.

These lines weren’t written by Andrew Motion or Carol Ann Duffy but by the 19th-century German novelist and poet Theodor Fontane. Between 1855 and 1859 he was the Prussian ministry’s foreign correspondent in London: he found himself increasingly frustrated by the local fondness for drinking and dancing (‘Music, as many have pointed out, is England’s Achilles heel’) and the class system (‘England and Germany relate to one another like form and content’).

One thing, though, aroused his pity rather than contempt. In 1857, he read about the humiliating defeat of William Elphinstone’s army during the First Anglo-Afghan War: as many as 16,000 British and Indian soldiers were killed in January 1842. The poem Fontane wrote in response, ‘The Tragedy of Afghanistan’, turns the military defeat into a story of Victorian imperial decline, though it’s also a specific warning against military engagement in Afghanistan. A full translation can be found here.

Fontane is extremely uncool these days, but the Afghanistan poem is doing the rounds again. Even the godmother of German punk, Nina Hagen, has been singing it at concerts. One explanation might be that pity, with all the distance that implies, best sums up the German public’s attitude to the conflict: Afghanistan is seen as an Anglo-American problem. Britain and America have criticised Berlin’s reluctance to commit more troops to the country – the ones that are out there have been ridiculed as lazy, drunken and overweight. One of the US embassy cables leaked last week revealed that Joe Biden thought Germany had ‘completely dropped the ball on police training’ in Afghanistan.

The German government and mainstream news outlets never talk about a ‘war’ in Afghanistan, but the ‘Einsatz am Hindukusch’, the engagement in the Hindu Kush. All the same, Germany has the third-largest presence in the country after the US and Britain. Earlier this year Horst Köhler resigned as president after he got himself into a tangle trying to explain what exactly German troops were still doing there. Forty-five German soldiers and three policemen have died in Afghanistan since 2001.

Comments on “The Engagement in the Hindu Kush”

  1. A.J.P. Crown says:

    I’m sorry for their families, but 48 dead Germans is neither here nor there. There are moral reasons why you don’t invade countries like Afghanistan or Iraq.

  2. Geoff Roberts says:

    I’m not sure which ‘mainstream news outlets’ you read but I’d say that the media certainly do not hide behind the government rhetoric. The ‘Einsatz’ was the invention of Peter Strück, who was Defence Minister eight years ago and it served as a smoke screen for the Germans’ surrender to US pressure. They were given the ‘much safer’ northern region, where it was implied that there were no Taliban activities, and the local people liked the Germans for some long forgotten largesse a dozen wars ago. The deaths of over a hundred civilians at Kundus was clearly labelled in the German press as a misfortune under the rubric of ‘war is hell’ The ‘Tageszeitung'(all right, not necessarily mainstream) has consistently called the war a war, and the Frankfurter Rundschau reported on 2 December that ‘the Germans do not know what is happening in Afghanistan’ and even the Frankfurter Allgemeine had to report that ‘German forces are viewed by the population as foreign occupation forces.’
    On Köhler’s resignation: the more believable version is that he was angered by the failure of Merkel and Westerwelle to give him any backing.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement