The Afghanistan National Police (ANP)

[DaveDoyle]

Only had time to read the first 16 pages of the Wilder paper and the Washington Post article. Haven’t scanned the posts on our government’s approach to the problem. I do suspect that what we (the U.S. government) expect, as a standard for police work may be divorced from what is necessary and effective. That definition will certainly change over time as well.

Getting to the point –

If Taliban are targeting police, and they are, it is because they see the immediate threat. Police, not military, have the ability to effectively limit the Taliban control over the population. Establishing the “profession” of police work is going to be the biggest challenge to a society that distrusts authority. Young Afghans may aspire to be in the military, but at this point not many aspire to protect and serve as a member of the police force, local or national. How does one build on the idea of the importance of the police? Seems like it is going to take a lot of local work first. Work in the districts and villages like the Post article describes.

Thoughts?

[Jedburgh]

ICG, 18 Nov 08: Policing in Afghanistan: Still Searching for a Strategy

Police reform in Afghanistan is receiving more attention and resources than ever before, but such increased efforts are still yet to be matched by significant improvements in police effectiveness and public confidence. Too much emphasis has continued to be placed on using the police to fight the insurgency rather than crime. Corruption and political appointments are derailing attempts to professionalise the force. The government and the international community need to reinforce the International Policing Coordination Board (IPCB) as the central forum for prioritising efforts and drive forward with much greater unity of effort. Tangible steps such as appointing a career police commissioner and establishing community liaison boards will build professionalism and wider outreach. A national police force able to uphold the rule of law is crucial to statebuilding and would help tackle the root causes of alienation that drive the insurgency.......

[Old Eagle]

In an insurgency, police are caught in the middle. How they are trained and equipped, who controls them, what their missions are, etc. pose massive problems for the counterinsurgent.

Ordinary crime and corruption are problems in Afghanistan (as is traffic control), so traditional police would have their hands full under any circumstances. In fact, the German training program was initially targeted on this mission set.

Then come the organized drug bosses and quickly overwhelm traditional police.

Then come the Taliban, AQ, whoever else and realy overwhelm the police. Remember -- the insurgent is not the counter-soldier, he is the counter-policeman. He doesn't want to win battles, he wants to impose control.

So now the police tend to become something that they didn't start out to be -- paramilitary forces, and in the process, lose the ability to do traditional policing functions.

Well, of course the army can fight insurgents, but there's also a problem with that: we don't want the military to be domestic enforcers. Posse commitatus and all that.

Now my head is starting to hurt.

But wait there's more. When I was working in the Afghan MOD, the senior leadership came in and started the "gotcha" round --
"didn't you say that unity of command is a principle of war?"
"yes..."
"so we need command and control of the police, not the MOI."
'now wait -- the ANA will eventually be an externally directed traditional military force, and police are not part of the military function"
"Are you nuts? We have a huge insurgency inside our borders...(gotcha!)"

Well, you get the idea.

In short, there are not clean cut solutions. Wish there were.

[Ken White]

ever pragmatic Dutch have at least a partial solution. Won't work for and in the US but it might work for some nations and for Afghanistan. The Marechaussee LINK and the Gendarmerie LINK concepts are also widely copied in the ME. Iran for example, in the days of the Shahs had two police forces; the totally civilian National Police who performed all standard police functions in the towns and cities and the paramilitary Gendarmerie who policed rural areas AND provdiced the border Guard and a paramilitary force (which coincidentally served as a counterweight and coup deterrent to the Armed Forces).

The Turks also have a Gendarmerie. LINK. Note that in all cases, there's a dual chain, civilian and military and note also that the Turks are using Gendarmes in their counterinsurgency (as did the Dutch and French in their former colonies and as did the Viet Namese use their Field Police).

We have a bad tendency to believe that only US solutions are appropriate and to apply the 'not invented here' syndrome to some good ideas that others have. Of course, one argument certain to be deployed to support that ego centric American concept is that "It's hard enough to stand up one police force, much less two." To which I respond -- when you have an absolute and demonstrated NEED for two different kinds of police forces, that's not an issue, it's simply a minor impediment.

[reed11b]

ever pragmatic Dutch have at least a partial solution. Won't work for and in the US but it might work for some nations and for Afghanistan. The Marechaussee LINK and the Gendarmerie LINK concepts are also widely copied in the ME. Iran for example, in the days of the Shahs had two police forces; the totally civilian National Police who performed all standard police functions in the towns and cities and the paramilitary Gendarmerie who policed rural areas AND provdiced the border Guard and a paramilitary force (which coincidentally served as a counterweight and coup deterrent to the Armed Forces).

The Turks also have a Gendarmerie. LINK. Note that in all cases, there's a dual chain, civilian and military and note also that the Turks are using Gendarmes in their counterinsurgency (as did the Dutch and French in their former colonies and as did the Viet Namese use their Field Police).

We have a bad tendency to believe that only US solutions are appropriate and to apply the 'not invented here' syndrome to some good ideas that others have. Of course, one argument certain to be deployed to support that ego centric American concept is that "It's hard enough to stand up one police force, much less two." To which I respond -- when you have an absolute and demonstrated NEED for two different kinds of police forces, that's not an issue, it's simply a minor impediment.

I am a fan of the Gendarmerie concept but I have to ask if A-stan has the $$ to support two national police forces. Even with massive stand-up support, just maintaining well equiped forces seems to be beyond A-stans reach. All the more reason why I see the mission as defeating AQ and the Taliban over standing up A-stan stability.
Reed

[Ken White]

...All the more reason why I see the mission as defeating AQ and the Taliban over standing up A-stan stability.
Reed

I don't think that's possible. Suppress, control to an extent? Yes. Defeat? No -- they'll just go to ground and wait out the west.

As for this:

I am a fan of the Gendarmerie concept but I have to ask if A-stan has the $$ to support two national police forces. Even with massive stand-up support, just maintaining well equiped forces seems to be beyond A-stans reach.

First, at this time, we're paying the bills, so stand up is not an issue. Second, given a cessation of western support, Afghanistan will almost certainly continue to exist and it will almost certainly have Police. Those Police will number X. Whether they're all in one agency or four different crews is of little account. Efficiency is always important -- effectiveness is usually more important.

As an aside, I'd suggest that given what I know of Afghanistan, they'd be better off with one National Gendarmerie and having the normal police functions at Province and city level -- but that's in the too hard box at this time.

[reed11b]

I don't think that's possible. Suppress, control to an extent? Yes. Defeat? No -- they'll just go to ground and wait out the west.

I would have to have better then my current knowledge of the Taliban to continue that line of discourse. If you have any suggestions on sources for that feel free to PM me with them, I am always willing to learn.

As an aside, I'd suggest that given what I know of Afghanistan, they'd be better off with one National Gendarmerie and having the normal police functions at Province and city level -- but that's in the too hard box at this time.

Sometimes it takes somebody to actually say the obvious. I agree and I am embarrassed I did not think of that right of the bat.
Reed

[Rob Thornton]

While having an interesting discussion here at work about security requirements, in terms of what capabilities are required and how they might shape organization at various levels, some questions came up – there a bit random so I apologize up front:

What purpose does / or should a security force of a given type serve, and is there more than one purpose it could serve? Police in cities that have no other mechanisms to preserve order and protect the public make sense – particularly where the demographics lend themselves to the requirement – but what about elsewhere – in the fringes where there is not much variance in the demographics and outside presence in solving disputes is not taken kindly?

Does Afghanistan need a national police, or does it need some of the capabilities we normally associate with a national police, perhaps resident in the ANA? Kind of like a frontier army?

Is there other (political) value in building what might be a competing power structure?

Could some of the functions that might be desired from a national police be fulfilled from tribal constabularies? If so, could a combination of tribal constabularies and the ANA organized, trained and equipped to perform along the lines of a frontier army/constabulary meet the requirement? Could it do so with less risk?

If a national police or gendarme was the preferred COA – which model (Guardia Civil, Canadian Mounties, Australian National Police, German Border Guards, the Frontier Corps, even something along the lines of other forms of LE with national authorities such as some of the big national park rangers in places where poaching is big money and brings in well armed criminals)? What would be most suitable given the environment and conditions?

How might a national police be perceived in a place like Afghanistan? What might the enforcement of national laws in accordance with national standards mean to tribal authorities?

I’m not pointing to a yes or no, just trying to work through the consequences on a number of levels. If the solution was an organizational one, it seems there would have to be some serious work done in other areas – tribal and/or provincial buy in would seem to be critical, as well as some serious legislative pieces on the Afghan part.

While we have good reasons for our separation and distribution of authorities (and systems we’ve grown to support them), we have in the past had what we might consider a dual use military ( such as in in the 1800s where there was a lack of other types of authority).

Over time we have developed a very complex system with overlapping agencies from local to state to federal, and with discreet capabilities emerging to fill gaps. Its difficult to know if had we known exactly where we were going and had the resources that we would have been better served to put them into place all at once – there may have been a requirement to adjust in other areas to make what we have suitable to our environment. Awkward, but I heard an analogy the other day about putting 9 pregnant women in the same room does not necessarily get you a baby in one month.

It is hard to live with the idea that some things may take more time than we are comfortable with, particularly when their problem is our problem. Somehow we’ve got to reconcile expectations – not an easy task by any measure.


Best, Rob

[SWJED]

The Afghan National Police: Turning a Counterinsurgency Problem into a Solution – Naval Postgraduate School Master of Science thesis by Major David J. Haskell, U.S. Army.