Once again, German troops in Afghanistan came up for vote in the German parliament on Wednesday and, by an overwhelming majority, parliamentarians agreed to not only continue, but broaden the Bundeswehr's mission in Afghanistan. The Bundestag signed-on to increase troop-levels from 2,250 to 3,000, and an assumption of command in the north-eastern section of Afghanistan, which would require opening a new base in the city of Masar-i-Sharaf.

The "expansion" is, of course, minimal by other countries' (read: US) standards. But, even simply as a re-affirmation of the military enterprise, the vote is an objective milestone for a country whose citizens and politicians, for a good half-century after World War II, were too busy piecing together their society -- and trying to make sense of the unprecedented misery that they had perpetrated -- to seriously consider the thought of putting its troops into action.

Now, ever-aware of its past transgressions, Germany sees itself as a major player on the world stage, eager to assume all the clout and self-importance -- and the military responsibilities -- that status implies. Since 1999 German troops have been prominently stationed in the Balkans and Afghanistan, if not in Iraq.

The Afghan mission, in particular, has proved more intractable than originally envisioned: warlords are still in control of much the country, opium production has increased exponentially, and the country's fledgling democracy is constantly threatened by remnants of the Taliban. Despite reminders that Afghanistan was a dangerous place -- reinforced by news of a Taliban suicide attack in Kabul on Wednesday that killed nine people -- parliamentarians proved, across all party lines to be supportive of the mission. German commentators took the opportunity to sound off.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung notes that the German engagement in Afghanistan has reaped some positive political dividends, but takes the government to task for not having a more clear-eyed vision of their mission. "There remain protective walls behind which the Germans are hiding." The commentators point out that, according to its mandate, "the Bundeswehr is not to get involved in the dealings of the warlords or take action against drugs trading." The Parliament, though, hasn't shown the will to issue a "more robust mandate". Thus, what's left is a half-baked policy that is "reflective of either ignorance to the reality of the situation or the desire to leave unpleasant tasks to the partner nations". And such a mandate, the writers conclude, is unlikely to be successful.

The conservative editors at Die Welt chime in as well. In a fatalistic tone, the paper castigates parliamentarians for investing, at all, in the possibility of victory. They point out that the area for which German troops are responsible is equivalent in size to the terrain that lies between Paris and Warsaw: "It is an illusion to believe that a few thousand soldiers can provide stability in such a region," they opine. "They can undertake nothing against the huge production of narcotics because the region cannot be completely monitored." The parliament's ostensible support of the military is actually, then, an abuse. Not only have politicians not given the soldiers a chance to win -- by avoiding discussion of a realistic exit strategy -- but, they ignore the German lives that have been lost as a result of their neglect.

Readers looking for a more optimistic assessment can turn to the Financial Times Deutschland. "The engagement in Afghanistan is a success story of the Schröder-era," a bold-face pull-quote announces. "Germany has contributed immensely to the stability of Afghanistan," the writers confidently assert. But, they warn that the public should not fall under the illusion that the mission is without peril. In fact, they remind that the mission "will become even more dangerous when troops move from the relatively safety Kabul to more northern regions." Nonetheless, troops should steel themselves, because "if Germany takes its role seriously, then it has to take this step." It's the responsibility of policy-makers in Berlin, though, the paper concludes, to ensure that German participation in the UN-mandated peace-keeping operation does not get hopelessly intermingled with the aggressive American-led operations.