NATO in Afghanistan till 2015 (merged thread)

[Norfolk]

I suspect that Secretary Gates is largely right, but maybe not for the reasons that some might assume. The other NATO countries are not really engaged in true COIN operations, let alone adhering to a true COIN strategy. But the reason for this is twofold: 1. There simply are not anywhere near enough NATO troops in the south of Afghanistan to allow them to adopt a true COIN strategy, rather than just sallying out from their bases or outposts to destroy Taleban or AQ when and where they find them; and 2. There is no true unity of effort - Eden talked about that - amongst them. The Brits, Canadians, Danes, and Dutch all go about things more or less their own way - and the Dutch seem hardly to be fighting at all; whether that's a good approach or not, I can't say. They are all just left doing their own thing, more or less. The Americans in the East don't have anywhere near that problem, since so much of their forces are well, American, and there are not the same political issues there.

So Mr. Gates is quite right about the other NATO countries not engaging in COIN; but the truth is, the reasons aren't because they're not properly trained in COIN - they certainly are - but COIN is simply impossible given the political obstacles to unity of effort and the gross lack of troops and resources required for a COIN strategy. They couldn't pursue a COIN strategy if they wanted to, so all they can do is hunt and kill, conventional-style, because that's all they have the means for at hand. Consequently, pretty much all they can do is search and destroy - a fist into water - and nothing else.

[Eden]

Excellent points on NATO in Afghanistan. Having worked in ISAF, I can confirm that the command structure is only slightly more functional than the French army at Agincourt. Why is that?

1. Genuine professional differences of opinion. The Dutch, the British, the Canadians, the Americans, and others involved have different approaches to the mission. The Brits tend to be much more willing to compromise and negotiate with local bad guys, the Americans are much more kinetically-minded, the Dutch are committed to a soft-cap approach, etc. Each has its good points and its faults - but the point is that local commanders can and do refuse to modify their tactics to fit an overarching NATO operational concept.

2. Poor troop-to-task fit. NATO countries want to participate in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the force generation process is so disordered and riven by politics that the troops who actually show up are sometimes not what the alliance truly needs. Every month we would be notified that a Polish engineer battalion or Romanian force protection company was on its way, when what we really needed was infantry, aviation, or civil affairs. As a result, our operations - and to a lesser extent our tactics - were severely constrained by the nearly random selection of forces at our disposal.

3. Political nervousness. Many contingent commanders had to keep one eye firmly cocked over their shoulders. I know of at least one occasion when a national representative of the defense ministry sat in the operations center of an infantry battalion, satellite phone in hand, to report back on current ops in real time. Some commanders were under tremendous personal and professional pressure, which reduced their ability to operate according to a common NATO plan.

4. Money. You need money to fight insurgents and rebuild countries. NATO doesn't have money. Many individual countries don't have money. Some had money but preferred to spend it on national (and therefore outside the NATO span of control) programs. Nobody had money like the Americans, and even they didn't have enough.

5. Higher headquarters. Some may find this hard to believe, but NATO - as a military headquarters - contributes very little value added to the war in Afghanistan. ISAF is essentially a fiefdom, whose commander feels very little constrained by the NATO Supreme Commander. Thus, there is no higher headquarters - a la CENTCOM - providing continuity or guidance as the command of ISAF rotates. More importantly, there is no Eisenhower-figure, empowered by the alliance nations to impose discipline on subordinate national commanders.

Enough. Things are getting better in some ways. NATO officers are not idiots or incompetent. The problems are recognized and some minor patches made, but I agree that the alliance is going to be weaker coming out of Afghanistan than it was going in.

By the way, and a lot of us Americans forget this, but the US is in NATO also. We sinned as much as anyone in not fulfilling our troop committments, in refusing to modify our tactics, and in imposing caveats on the use of our troops. If NATO fails, we will have contributed to the problem.

[Stan]

"The Pentagon chief said he reluctantly asked President George W. Bush to approve the 3,200 additional troops announced on Tuesday because it was clear European nations would not boost their force levels in Afghanistan."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon does not plan to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan beyond the additional Marines promised this week despite a lingering shortfall in trainers for the Afghan forces...

"I think it was pretty clear it was not going to come from NATO," Gates said in the interview, according to a text of his remarks. "And as much as I was reluctant to recommend to the president that we add additional forces there, I think it was important to build on the military successes that we had in 2007."

"We certainly don't have any plans to send further troops to Afghanistan beyond what we've just announced."

The additional Marines being sent to Afghanistan to counter rising Taliban violence, will raise the number of U.S. forces there by more than 10 percent.

[J Wolfsberger]

I first heard about this listening to Radio Netherlands on Sirius - World Radio news. The Dutch have had 14 KIA in Afghanistan ( a big number, given their population) and were, shall we say, miffed. I was looking forward to reading Gates' interview. Imagine my surprise that the LA Times hasn't actually published the interview.

Here's what they have published:

"I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Gates said in an interview. (What was the question? )

"Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap," Gates said ... (Again, what was the question?)

"Our guys in the east, under Gen. Rodriguez, are doing a terrific job. They've got the [counterinsurgency] thing down pat," Gates said. "But I think our allies over there, this is not something they have any experience with." (Again, what was the question?)

Huh. Damn short interview.

Let me help the LA Times state the intro more accurately. "The LA Times accuses Sec Def Gates of insulting NATO allies in an unpublished interview."

[Stan]

WASHINGTON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday denied reports of discontent between Washington and NATO allies over Afghanistan, a day after a newspaper quoted him criticizing NATO's counterinsurgency skills.

Gates projected an image of unity among Western nations involved in Afghanistan during a Pentagon news briefing, praising the "valor and sacrifice" of NATO forces battling Taliban militants in the country's volatile south.

"Allied forces from the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia and Denmark and other nations have stepped up to the plate and are playing a significant and powerful role in Afghanistan," the U.S. defense chief said in remarks that struck a conciliatory tone.

CONCERN AMONG ALLIES

NATO allies responded to the Times interview with concern.

Britain insisted its troops had extensive counterinsurgency training, while the Netherlands summoned the U.S. ambassador for an explanation. Gates phoned his Canadian counterpart to say his quotes had been taken out of context.

"I mention this because there have been several recent media reports of discontent in the United States and among other NATO members about operations in Afghanistan," he said. "This does not reflect reality or, I believe, the views of our governments."

Anyone for the Tennessee two-step ?

[Jedburgh]

Threats Watch, 18 Jan 08: A Flip of the COIN

....But while Secretary Gates will publicly refer to ‘training’ and counterinsurgency ‘know how,’ the matter at hand is clearly one of will, not skill. Furthermore, it is a matter in the hands of our allies’ political leadership, not in the performance of their fielded forces who operate as directed. The commanders know it. Secretary Gates knows it. And the NATO political leaders retorting and taking offense to criticism of “training” and “tactics” know it all too well. They simply dare not say it. Instead, they respond safely within the public cover the US Secretary of Defense graciously provided by stopping short of addressing some of our allies’ flagging will.

One thing is for certain. The recent decision to send in an additional 3,200 seasoned United States Marines, who decidedly “know how to do counterinsurgency operations,” is indicative of Washington’s lack of confidence that there will be any shift in our allies’ political will any time soon. Not even against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

[Stan]

Beth Gorham, The Canadian Press - U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates scrambled today to praise Canada and other NATO allies fighting in Afghanistan, saying reports that he’s unhappy with their efforts don’t “reflect reality” or the views of the American government.

Countries like Canada that are committing combat troops are playing a significant and powerful role, Gates told a news conference called to quell an international furor after he told the Los Angeles Times this week he’s worried some allied forces weren’t trained in counterinsurgency operations.

As a result of the valour and sacrifice of these allies, the Taliban has suffered significant losses and no longer holds real estate of any consequence, said Gates, who announced this week he’s sending 3,200 extra U.S. marines.

He insisted he wasn’t singling out any country when he told the L.A. newspaper that U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan are doing a terrific job, but he’s concerned NATO allies in the violent south aren’t well trained in counterinsurgency.

Asked whether he was talking about Canada, Gates said: “I do not include the Canadians in that respect.”

Yet he repeated his concerns about NATO’s ability to conduct counterinsurgency campaigns against the militants.

More at the link...