“Markus Lanz”: Afghanistan mission “not unsuccessful” – a sentence from a CSU politician stunned the Afghanistan expert

So there was this CSU politician sitting with Markus Lanz on Wednesday evening and talking about the fact that the entire Afghanistan mission was “not unsuccessful”. The idea was to fight against terrorism. “This part was quite successful,” said Markus Blume and one asked oneself, what is the matter with this man, how does he come up with such fantasy stuff? Two other guests, Janine Wissler and Emran Feroz, could only shake their heads. And violently disagreed. “There have been tons of attacks in Afghanistan in recent years,” said the left-wing politician. Feroz, who could hardly believe what he had just heard, reminded Blume: “The Taliban have just conquered Kabul, control almost the entire country and are the best positioned Islamist-militant group in the world.” You have to know: Feroz himself has Afghan roots, knows the country well and has many contacts there. In complete ignorance, Blume went on talking: “We have succeeded in curbing international terrorism.” Another objection from Feroz: “That is also not true.” Al Qaeda has spread globally and operates in regions around the world such as Yemen and Syria. “Osama bin Laden would be happy today,” said the journalist and book author.

Is every deported Afghan criminal?

The guests of the talk in alphabetical order:

In general, Feroz was a great asset to the show. An expert on the subject who made it clear: “Election campaigns have been going on for years at the expense of Afghan human lives.” It is not only people who have committed serious crimes are deported to Afghanistan. “You are already considered a criminal if you ride the S-Bahn illegally.” Blume was visibly upset: “You can’t trivialize every criminal.” Lanz and Alexander were also irritated and insisted that deported Afghans were exclusively criminals. Wissler argued on the side of Feroz and made it clear that she was aware of numerous cases in which young men who were not criminals were deported: “One of them said they are now 18 years old, they are being deported . ” It is hard to believe that this was alien to Blume, because he clearly rejected it. In 2018, for example, research by the ARD magazine Panorama revealed that at least 50 of the 69 “Seehofer Afghans” were neither threats nor criminals, but were already well integrated, including in the German labor market.

The “Lanzsche Tribunal” shoots down on Wissler

Another look back, to December 2016, goes to a protest rally at Frankfurt Airport. Chants demanded: “Deportation is torture, deportation is murder, everyone has the right to stay, now.” Janine Wissler was among the demonstrators at the time, who also affirmed at Lanz that she had always campaigned for the rescue of refugees. But why, according to the moderator, did she abstain from today’s vote in the Bundestag on the evacuation mission of the Bundeswehr, and with it the majority of the left, with a few exceptions? The politician was gripped three times on this question. In addition to Lanz, Blume and Alexander also shot at her. You know it, the Lanz Tribunal. He also worked for another left-wing politician, Sahra Wagenknecht. And even if every request is justified, one would like Lanz to stop this “shooting from all sides” at some point, because it leaves the discussion level and it is only about cornering someone. Feroz made it clear en passant that he considers the rescue operation to be window dressing anyway: “It is generally shocking that people in the German bubble are pretending to want to save people after all.”

So why did Janine Wissler do that? Even if the left in the Bundestag have so far voted against all foreign deployments of the Bundeswehr and have been against the deployment of the military in Afghanistan from the start, it is difficult to understand why the strategy is not deviated from here, since it is about saving human lives. Wissler emphasized several times that by abstaining, she had in no way voted against the rescue. The objections that she had to raise could not be made clear enough because of the verbal roller of the tribunal. For them, it is essential that the group of people who are to be flown out is far too limited: “These are explicitly designated persons who are to be rescued. We consider this limitation to be a huge problem.” In particular, Wissler denounced the “stay bonuses” that people would receive if they pledged not to allow themselves to be saved. She also sharply criticized the fact that the mandate included the use of military force should it be necessary to protect the people to be evacuated.

Flower turns out

Now even the greatest pacifist should know that a cuddle course is not possible with the Taliban. Nevertheless, Blume was meanwhile thinking out loud how “one could get into conversation with the Taliban.” And did everything else to distract from the fact that in June 2021 the Union and the SPD had voted against a motion by the Left and the Greens that wanted to start the rescue of local workers in Afghanistan. “Was that a mistake?”, Lanz had asked Stephan Weil the day before. “Of course that was a mistake,” the SPD politician admitted. Not so flower. He preferred to keep turning to Wissler and accusing her of all people of risking human lives. “The Greens and the left were right then,” insisted Lanz. And kept asking again.

Flower twisted out. You couldn’t have known exactly at that time. When the Union’s candidate for chancellor came up later, he was able to say exactly: “We are doing everything we can to ensure that Laschet wins.” He, as we know, an avowed Söder fan, even “posted Armin Laschet” in his constituency. The fact that this has to be mentioned at all shows deeply anyway. Regarding the current survey results, he said: “We don’t like that either.” Alone: ​​”As the CSU, we must not overestimate our possibilities.” Hear hear. Such sentences from a CSU politician. Of all things. Robin Alexander laughed and wondered whether Franz Josef Strauss was turning around in the grave.

Source Link