A careless approach

If a referendum were conducted in Germany on the question of supplying Iraqi Kurds with weapons, the result would be easy to predict. Currently, around two thirds of Germans are against the idea. And although German Chancellor Angela Merkel usually makes public opinion her benchmark - for example, on the country's overhasty nuclear phase-out and energy policy turnaround, which are costing individuals and businesses billions of euros - survey results count for nothing in this case.

In one sense, the chancellor is simply upholding tradition. Until now, nearly every decision on military involvement in Germany's modern history has been against the dominant view expressed in opinion polls. Examples include Germany's rearmament in the 1950s, the NATO Double-Track Decision of 1979, the Kosovo War of the late 1990s and the Afghanistan mission that has continued since 2002.

Since the catastrophes of World War II, the German population has shown little enthusiasm for anything military. And while foreign observers with a different perspective on things may snicker at this fact, it needs to be taken into account. Apart from that, bans on war of aggression and certain weapons controls are codified in the German constitution.

Overstated virtues of military missions

This lack of general support is the reason why every time Germany plans to contribute to a military mission beyond NATO's sphere, its politicians feel the need to exaggerate the moral aspects of such involvement.

In 1999, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer justified Germany's military involvement in the Kosovo War with allegations that Serbia was planning to commit genocide against the Kosovo Albanians. But a few weeks later, it turned out that the Kosovars' greatest source of suffering were NATO attacks on the territory.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, "Germany's security" is being safeguarded, according to a statement by Defense Minister Peter Struck in 2002. Since then, record opium harvests are being reaped in Afghanistan under NATO supervision, but a glance at probability tables shows that the danger of me becoming a casualty of drug-related crime is much greater than my chances of getting killed in a terrorist attack.

Now, politicians and their publicists are once again making references to genocide. They are also drawing attention to the unimaginable brutality displayed by the terror group that calls itself "Islamic State" (IS), saying its fighters disregard the basic standards of civilization. Purportedly, the best solution to both problems is delivering weapons to the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters. This standpoint raises a lot of questions.

A legitimate fight

Indeed, the "Islamic State," judging by its publications and videos, is an organization of sadistic killers who strive to destroy existing state structures. For this reason, the war against them is legitimate and justifiable in the context of international law and emergency defense aid. The UN resolution on the issue, adopted two weeks ago with rare unanimity, reaffirmed that fact.

But why is this battle against IS focused solely on Iraq? In neighboring Syria, people are being terrorized and slaughtered the same way - as recently demonstrated by the brutal murder of US journalist James Foley. Do the persecuted Syrian Alawites deserve less of our solidarity than Iraqi Yazidis? This shows that there are no objective criteria when it comes to providing military assistance. For example, who took interest in the mass killings taking place in South Sudan a few months ago? Nobody.

The Kurdish Peshmerga are going to receive weapons from Germany because they are ready to fight IS and therefore make good partners. The possibility that their main goal is achieving a sovereign Kurdish state and that in a few years' time they might use the same weapons against Germany's NATO partner Turkey is being deliberately glossed over. That is careless!

Not in the position to be choosy

My enemy's enemy is my friend - it's the unselective approach of those who don't really want to get involved. However, Angela Merkel has already ruled out the deployment of German soldiers in Iraq, even though that would be a much more honest response to the threat seen as emerging from the IS. But Germany and the rest of western Europe lack the courage to do it, and this is why nobody is trying to obtain the necessary UN mandate. That's an inconsistent approach.

Aside from weapons exports, there are several other ways Germany could help those persecuted by IS and assist in weakening the terrorist movement. But has anybody demanded that Turkey open its borders to refugees from Iraq so that they can be flown into Europe? No. And where is the plan to stop weapons exports to Persian Gulf states that are suspected of supporting IS?

I would also like to see the intelligence service not only reporting on how many German Islamist radicals have traveled to Syria and Iraq and back. More than that, I'd like the agency to use the data it has to prevent the recruitment and international movement of hundreds of terrorists. This would be a major blow to IS and a big step forward in ensuring Germany's security - without the need for weapons.