NATO in Afghanistan till 2015 (merged thread)

[Shivan]

Times (London) headline above, article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2733769.ece

The Brits, Canadians, US and Dutch have been pulling their weight, but not the other NATO countries. And what UK/US is asking of these other members are not combat forces, but logistical and reconstruction support. The combat forces have been holding their own (or better), but these reconstruction efforts are a necessary part of counter-insurgency.

This brings to fore the issue of US in NATO, does it not? Why is there such a huge one-sided commitment by Americans to an entity that invoked Art. 5 but has not followed through? Separate discussion thread would be necessary for that though!

Thanks!

[Icebreaker]

As a non-military type, I would like to get some input from those more knowledgeable to help me understand an article I read in the "Economist" magazine regarding Afghanistan "A ray of light in a dark defile".

The following is a link to the article for those interested:

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ry_id=10919203

The article had a chart title "Killing season" that showed the casulaties for the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom. This chart showed the "United States" casulaties and "Other" casualties. The thing that confused me was that the chart indicated that the casualties for the other nations (non-US) were higher then those for the US in Calendar Years 2006, 2007 and so far in 2008.

My understanding was that the majority of troops in Afghanistan were American and that the Americans were in the most dangerous areas (please note that I am in no way lessening the contributions and suffering of the other countries). It seems logical that the US should be incurring the most casulaties. The source for the chart was www.icasualties.org, and the Economist is usually a very reliaable source. Is the information inaccurate? If the information is accurate then why are the non US countries suffering such heavy casualties (I have heard reports that the Taliban is specifically targeting countries like Canada and Germany to increase pressure on these countries to quit the war)?

Also, I think this issue illustrates one of the most frustrating things for non-professionals in regards to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - finding accurate and relaible sources of information.

Thank you

[wm]

The article had a chart title "Killing season" that showed the casulaties for the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom. This chart showed the "United States" casulaties and "Other" casualties. The thing that confused me was that the chart indicated that the casualties for the other nations (non-US) were higher then those for the US in Calendar Years 2006, 2007 and so far in 2008.

My understanding was that the majority of troops in Afghanistan were American and that the Americans were in the most dangerous areas (please note that I am in no way lessening the contributions and suffering of the other countries). It seems logical that the US should be incurring the most casulaties. The source for the chart was www.icasualties.org, and

Thank you

The lines below are excerpted from the icasualties web link that you provided. I do not see how, except in 08, you can claim that ISAF casualties exceed those of the US.

Year US Other Total
2008 16 24 40
2007 117 115 232
2006 98 93 191

[Entropy]

First of all, comparing US casualties to ISAF isn't completely helpful because many US forces are part of ISAF.

Secondly, the type of chart used is confusing - it's called a "stacked area chart." Google it for an explanation of how they work, but the highest peaks are the total casualties, not the total ISAF casualties.

[Surferbeetle]

From the Spanish Newspaper El Pais

‘Spain resists increasing its military presence in Afghanistan’

Aunque Bush volvió a reclamar ayer la solidaridad de los aliados, el ministro de Defensa en funciones, José Antonio Alonso, reiteró antes de salir de Madrid que se mantendría "en las mismas condiciones" el compromiso militar en Afganistán. Con 750 efectivos, España es la contribuyente número 11 de la ISAF (Fuerza de Asistencia de la OTAN para Afganistán) sobre un total de 40 países y 47.000 soldados, pero perderá peso si se concretan los refuerzos anunciados por diez países.

My 'soldiers spanish' is a bit rough so please bear with me...

‘Although (President) Bush turned this (Spain keeps its forces from working in the south or participating in offensive operations) into a claim of solidarity of the allies, the minister of defense, José Antonio Alonso, repeated after the departure for Madrid (a Spanish delegation led by Mr. Zapatero was in Bucharest) that they will maintain “in the same conditions” the military commitment in Afghanistan. With 750 personnel Spain is number 11 in contributing to ISAF (Assistance Force of NATO for Afghanistan) among 40 nations and 47,000 soldiers, despite the small contribution it is a concrete/specific announcement of reinforcement among ten nations.’

More in Spanish at the link....

[Surferbeetle]

From the NYT

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is considering sending as many as 7,000 more American troops to Afghanistan next year to make up for a shortfall in contributions from NATO allies, senior Bush administration officials said. They said the step would push the number of American forces there to roughly 40,000, the highest level since the war began more than six years ago, and would require at least a modest reduction in troops from Iraq.

The planning began in recent weeks, reflecting a growing resignation to the fact that NATO is unable or unwilling to contribute more troops despite public pledges of an intensified effort in Afghanistan from the presidents and prime ministers who attended an alliance summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania, last month.

Only one country so far has actually begun preparing more troops to deploy: France, which is sending 700 to Afghanistan, NATO officials said.

This article is referenced in a fair number of the european papers.

[Surferbeetle]

From the NATO website

RC(N)

* Since 2002, 1,054 PRT projects totalling 31.5 million USD, and 6842 other major infrastructure projects totalling 2.2 million USD
* 185 ongoing R&D projects totalling 6.5 million USD in 2007. Total R&D project for 2007 is 21.3 million USD.

RC(S)

* Since 2002, 1,362 PRT projects totalling 175.3 million USD, and 4,150 other major infrastructure projects totalling 1.8 million USD
* Kajaki Dam in Helmand aimed at providing power to 1.7 million people, irrigation to farmers, jobs to thousands within the next 2-3 years
* The major Gershk-Sangin-Kajaki road-building project has started and progresses north
* ANA patrol bases and 18 new permanent security check points being constructed

[Surferbeetle]

From the NYT By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and RACHEL DONADIO Afghan Blast Raises New Doubts in Europe

Earlier in the day, Umberto Bossi, the leader of the Northern League, arguably the most powerful party in Mr. Berlusconi’s coalition, reiterated his calls for an immediate withdrawal of Italian troops. “I hope by Christmas everyone can come home,” Mr. Bossi said, according to the news agency ANSA.

But the Italian defense minister, Ignazio La Russa, said in Parliament that the bomb attack would not stop Italy’s “firm commitment” to the international mission.

The powerful suicide car bomb exploded about noon in central Kabul near the heart of the American and NATO military command. It blew an Italian armored vehicle across two lanes of traffic and, according to Italian officials, left six soldiers dead and four wounded.

[Surferbeetle]

...by TGV

From today's Times Online: Afghan lawsuit adds pressure for Sarkozyto agree troop withdrawal

Relatives of French soldiers killed in an ambush by insurgents in Afghanistan are to file a criminal lawsuit alleging that officers placed their troops’ lives at risk through a series of blunders.

The lawsuit is likely to add to President Sarkozy’s difficulties as he seeks to defend the French military presence in Afghanistan in the face of increasing public scepticism.

Mr Sarkozy has worked hard to improve relations with Nato, whose military arm France boycotted for several decades. But with 36 French soldiers killed in the conflict since 2001, 64 per cent of French voters believe that France should withdraw from Nato’s Afghanistan force. The percentage in favour has fallen by nine points in a year, the survey found.

Martine Aubry, the leader of the opposition French Socialist Party, has called on France to “get out of the quagmire”, although the Left is split over the issue of complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

[Fuchs]

...by TGV

From today's Times Online: Afghan lawsuit adds pressure for Sarkozyto agree troop withdrawal

Sarkozy is erratic. I doubt that any rational arguments like pressure here or there have decisive influence on his decisions about French troops in Afghanistan.

[SWJED]

30 May Washington Post - NATO General Tells of Taliban Setbacks by Jason Ukman.

A top NATO alliance general said yesterday that Afghanistan's Taliban militia has lost its ability to control large swaths of territory, even if the hard-line Islamic movement remains strong in "small pockets" of the country.

Dutch Maj. Gen. Ton van Loon, who this month ended his tour as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan's volatile south, said Taliban fighters had been driven out of the regions where they had sought to gain a foothold, including Kandahar city and parts of Helmand province...

[DGreen]

I'm looking for practical solutions to help NATO in southern Afghanistan with the planning assumption that we will not get any significant infusion of troops outside the currently planned Marine deployment. Initial thoughts:

1. Move SEALs from Iraq to the south.
2. Embed civil-affairs teams with NATO units to provide on-the-ground CERP capability, advice, limited fighting capacity
3. Provide military liaisons who would be embedded with the Dutch, the British, the Canadians to improve coordination among the provinces and pass on accumulated expertise from U.S. forces with respect to fighting insurgencies.
4. Approach "moderate" Muslim countries such as Turkey, UAE. Jordan, etc to provide troops, development and reconstruction capabilities, aid, etc...
5. Undertake a determined training program among the NATO forces on basics of counter-insurgency with a particular focus on population protection approaches, civil-affairs, information operations, etc.
6. Eliminate physical safehavens. Use as a planning assumption that each district needs one forward operating base or, at minimum, a reinforced rifle platoon house.
7. Create robust civil affairs deliverables for each population center: power generation, agricultural programs, health, education, etc.
8. Eliminate tribal safe havens by bolstering the Provincial Council, District Councils, and members of Parliament and working to make sure they are representative and efficacious.
9. Hire civilians with key skills sets (e.g. water engineers, agricultural specialists, etc.) for each province (although my preference is each district) and give them a career path. Tactically harden them and ensure they have the same benefits as a person in uniform.
10. Deploy and embed Human Terrain Team members with NATO forces.

Some initial thoughts....I look forward to seeing your ideas.

[Progressive Ranger]

The southern area is a disaster. When I was in A-stan (Afg-Pak) border, Paktika had just cooled off as the hot zone. A year before we got there it was "the most dangerous place on earth" according to the conventional guys that were there. US moved forces in, bad guys moved out and went south. Same thing will happen again as the #s just aren't there to maintain sustained presence in all of the hot spots across the problem areas (Kunar, border region and Helmand - let's not even mention Kabul).

The CERP piece is interesting. Problem is there are not enough teams to implement CERP. My team had an AID guy attached to us with MUCH greater funding pools that helped us do some serious infrasturcture development - thereby helping to reduce the underlying causes of extremism and violent groups - poverty, education, unemployment, etc. We were able to build the trust of the locals, the shuras, the district, etc, plus we were teamed with Afg Army (ANA) to increase gov't provided security and ultimately provide some much needed legitimacy to GoA since not a single rep of GoA had been to the area in over 56 years!

However, I think an even better tool would be for AID to bring in Development Contractors (not the big aerospace guys or security contractors that think they can run development work just because DOD is throwing money there) but actual devlopment companies, to run the CERP piece. They can respond much quicker, have a history of doing small grant programs as part of AID's OTI program in Iraq (managed ~ $500m over 3 years) and can implement much faster. The company can have numerous reps to allow AID to focus its people elsewhere (we all know how limited they are) and work directly with MNF, as well as US ODAs and CAT-A (CA teams).

We are already doing this in a couple of areas in A-stan and it has been incredibly successful with big down turns in violence.

Just my $.02.

[Ken White]

...
1. Move SEALs from Iraq to the south.
2. Embed civil-affairs teams with NATO units to provide on-the-ground CERP capability, advice, limited fighting capacity
3. Provide military liaisons who would be embedded with the Dutch, the British, the Canadians to improve coordination among the provinces and pass on accumulated expertise from U.S. forces with respect to fighting insurgencies.
4. Approach "moderate" Muslim countries such as Turkey, UAE. Jordan, etc to provide troops, development and reconstruction capabilities, aid, etc...
5. Undertake a determined training program among the NATO forces on basics of counter-insurgency with a particular focus on population protection approaches, civil-affairs, information operations, etc.
6. Eliminate physical safehavens. Use as a planning assumption that each district needs one forward operating base or, at minimum, a reinforced rifle platoon house.
7. Create robust civil affairs deliverables for each population center: power generation, agricultural programs, health, education, etc.
8. Eliminate tribal safe havens by bolstering the Provincial Council, District Councils, and members of Parliament and working to make sure they are representative and efficacious.
9. Hire civilians with key skills sets (e.g. water engineers, agricultural specialists, etc.) for each province (although my preference is each district) and give them a career path. Tactically harden them and ensure they have the same benefits as a person in uniform.
10. Deploy and embed Human Terrain Team members with NATO forces.

Some initial thoughts....I look forward to seeing your ideas.

The "S" is SEAL stands for Sea. Afghanistan is far from it and people work best in a familiar environment. Putting SEAL Teams in the 'Stan never made a whole lot of sense. They've been there and done some great things but Afghan conditions are not their bag.

Your offers of 'help' to other Nations are unlikely to be well received and could be taken as Yankee arrogance. The Brits think they do COIN better than we do. They don't but perception is reality and most of NATO would, properly, tell us to butt out. We, after all, invited and cajoled NATO to go in there...

There are between 350 and 400 Districts there. They range in population from a few hundred to well over 100K. The terrain varies widely as does the geographic area. Thus it seems that more than a Platoon would be required in some districts. Accepting your Platoon/District fit and the common figure of 366 Districts, you need 366 Platoons -- that equates to roughly 14 Brigades. With the support slice that's about 140,000 troops -- about double the number now present . Where would those additional troops come from?

Aside from that number -- which posits no reserve -- you're confronted with the fact that a Platoon base is a target for 300-400 bad guys and if all your Platoons are farmed out, they won't be able to help each other.

Good luck with getting any Muslim nation other than Turkey to assist. Consider also that Afghans really do NOT like Arabs.

Your last three suggestions are obviously ideal but it does not appear that the Afghans are quite there yet and may be dome time in getting there. It's rather difficult to turn around 3,000 plus years in just a few. Then there's the problem of getting that batch of civilian expertise to go to a combat zone...

[DGreen]

How many districts are there in Uruzgan, Helmand, and Kandahar?

I know Uruzgan has six and I think Kandahar has sixteen and Helmand has thirteen for a total of thirty-five.

I believe the SEALs (Sea, Air, and Land, can't forget the "Land" part) are pretty bored in Anbar so sending them to Afghanistan would at least have them focused on fighting.

At this point in their deployments I think many of the NATO countries have had to alter their strategies and realize their own unique approaches may not be working that well.

My sense is that the UAE and Jordan have pretty good reputations in that part of the world due to their humanitarian and development assistance. It's certainly worth a try.

[Progressive Ranger]

We worked with Arab allies on the Afg-Pak border and were very effective with the partnership.

[Eden]

Making the assumption that resources are not constrained - which they most definitely are - and evaluating each point on its own merits:

1. Why not? SF were the most effective combat multipliers we had. The SEALs are not ideally fitted for the environment or the overall mission, but they would be a useful asset.
2. Absolutely. CA teams with money are highly useful, and our NATO allies do not have the deep pockets or the flexibility that CERP affords their US counterparts. Would be a great help.
3. There is already a southern regional headquarters, essentially a brigade(+) hq, that should be coordinating provincial activities. The lack of coordination is not due to a spare command structure or lack of communications, it is caused by competing military and politcal agendas. More liaison officers would not help and could possibly harm what cooperation and coordination already exists.
4. This has already happened and is happening. There were Turks, Kuwaitis, Egyptians, and Jordanians in Afghanistan when I was there, and a UAE SF unit. You are unlikely to get much additional help from that quarter.
5. With limited exceptions, NATO does not train national forces, so any effort like this would have to be US acting more or less unilaterally. Assuming that we have our own act together on the subject, which is debatable, your suggestion implies that there is a "right" way to do COIN in Afghanistan. There is not. Afghanistan is not one war, it is multiple conflicts with many actors with shifting loyalties, objectives, and tactics. The fact that we in Paktia and the Dutch in Uruzgan take different approaches is not (necessarily) a bad thing. The idea that we all need to operate in a common way is, if not bad, an unnecessary constraint on local commanders.
6. All for eliminating safe havens. However, it cannot be done by establishing platoon houses, multiple FOBs, or any other form of blockhouses. The terrain is too rough and the area too large for that. Plus there is that pesky Pakistan...
7. Right on. Repairing the irrigation system would do more for the country than any thing else I can think of.
8. Ummm, who do you think sits on those councils? The weakening of tribal influences brought on by three decades of continuous war is one of the things that has contributed to higer levels of violence in Afghanistan. This suggestion indicates a lack of understanding on how the society you want to help actually operates.
9. These are called contractors. If you meant indigenous engineers, etc., you'll have to bring them back from wherever they fled years ago.
10. I don't know what a Human Terrain Team is, but they sound awfully effective. I would guess they are experts at discovering the mechanisms that drive society, linking important players, and analyzing the needs of specific localities, and not a bunch of soldiers who have read three books on Afghanistan. I'll defer judgment on this one.

Good luck

[Ken White]

How many districts are there in Uruzgan, Helmand, and Kandahar?

I know Uruzgan has six and I think Kandahar has sixteen and Helmand has thirteen for a total of thirty-five.

You want to ignore the rest of the country and concentrate on the south? Cool. Mullah Omar will say "Go west and north, Young Man...

However, covering only 35 Districts of different sizes with varying terrain and populations cuts the troop requirement -- it does not obviate your tactical problem.

I believe the SEALs (Sea, Air, and Land, can't forget the "Land" part) are pretty bored in Anbar so sending them to Afghanistan would at least have them focused on fighting.

Is the object to focus the SEAL Teams on fighting or to achieve an acceptable outcome in the 'Stan?

At this point in their deployments I think many of the NATO countries have had to alter their strategies and realize their own unique approaches may not be working that well.

I don't think any of them have altered their strategy at all -- that would entail leaving the country, they may have tried different TTP -- as have we. Doesn't affect the fact that you're suggesting trampling on National pride and can expect rejection -- or them leaving the country, a move most of those nations voters would support.

My sense is that the UAE and Jordan have pretty good reputations in that part of the world due to their humanitarian and development assistance. It's certainly worth a try.

They do indeed have such a reputation in the ME, less so in south Asia where the mores and attitudes differ a bit. However, that's not the issue -- Bismallah the average Afghans reaction to Arabs is the issue. Plus the fact that most Muslims are still not at all sure what we're up to and and are reluctant to interfere in other Muslim nations. You are certainly welcome to try.

Oh, and while looking for all those civilians that would be nice to have there, ponder the thought of our Congress, already upset with many NATO nations (relative) lack of effort in Afghanistan, agreeing to allow us to expend CERP funds for some of those nations...

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, honest. You asked for thoughts and I gave you some. No question what you suggest would be beneficial, the questions I raise are solely addressed not at how good or bad the ideas are but at some considerations and what might be realistically achievable.

[DGreen]

NATO Confronts Surprisingly Fierce Taliban
Militia Undermines Rebuilding Efforts in Southern Province of Uruzgan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...503089_pf.html

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A01

TARIN KOT, Afghanistan -- Lt. Col. Wilfred Rietdijk, a 6-foot-7 blond Dutchman, took command of his military's reconstruction team in the southern Afghan district of Deh Rawood in September. Tranquil and welcoming, it seemed like the perfect place for the Netherlands' mission to help rebuild this country.

Intelligence reports indicated that the district was free of the Taliban, allowing the soldiers greater freedom of movement than elsewhere in Uruzgan province.

"We could go out on foot," Rietdijk said.

Reconstruction teams, escorted by a platoon of soldiers, fanned across the fertile countryside, building bridges over streams and canals, repairing irrigation systems, and distributing books and pens to local schools.

But the day after Rietdijk arrived in Afghanistan, his field officers reported hundreds of villagers suddenly fleeing parts of Deh Rawood. "Within a few weeks, everybody was gone," Rietdijk said. "We didn't understand why."

Now the Dutch say they realize what happened. Even as the soldiers believed they had won the support of the local population, the Taliban had secretly returned to reclaim Deh Rawood, home district of the group's revered leader, Mohammad Omar. It took only a few months for the Taliban to undermine nearly six years of intelligence work by U.S. forces and almost two years of goodwill efforts by Dutch soldiers.

See the rest of the article at the link...

[AdamG]

In 1919, a young British army officer, Francis Stockdale, was deployed to the Waziristan area of British India.

The title of his book, "Walk Warily in Waziristan" seems no less appropriate now than it did 90 years ago, because today the autonomous Pakistani tribal region of North and South Waziristan is the centre of militancy orchestrated by pro-Taleban and al-Qaeda militants.

It is also an area where many believe the al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden, may be hiding after the September 2001 World Trade Centre attacks.

It wasn't until the 1980s that Capt Stockdale's family published a handful of copies of the book, only a few of which survive. But because or renewed interest in the region, the family in the English county of Norfolk are considering reprinting it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7325117.stm

Summon the publishers!