U.S. Touts Provincial Reconstruction Teams as a Model

[davidbfpo]

I understand the value of PRTs and am aware that the Czechs are soon to have an independent one, with a reinforced Army company alongside - alas cannot recall which province they are going to.

In Helmand, where the UK and allies are there is a UK PRT. There the difficulty has been in getting Kabul to release funding - allocated to Kabul - so £20m in one year built twenty wells. Not value for money there and heaven knows what the annoucement by PM Gordon Brown in late '07 of an aid allocation of £200m actually will produce.

Security first. Then build schools and sink wells.

None of the collective experience augurs well for the much-mooted USAID effort in NWFP, where security is unclear and local hostility guaranteed. Afghans are too poor - yes proud - not to accept help, however meagre.

I suspect the idea of a NATO/UN "overlord", sorry co-ordinator, is underpinned by the diversion of aid funds.

davidbfpo

[MattC86]

I suspect the idea of a NATO/UN "overlord", sorry co-ordinator, is underpinned by the diversion of aid funds.

davidbfpo

Given how mightily we've struggled to coordinate our military efforts, with just a relative handful of military commands theoretically merged into one ISAF command structure, I shudder to think of the difficulties in coordinating the many national agencies under some type of coordinated structure.

Keeping aid funds and agency/NGO work with the decentralized PRTs in theory prevents an ineffective cookie-cutter approach, but the accounting problems you mention mean that HQs are going to step in. . .

Matt

[redbullets]

Here's an unfortunate wrinkle around PRTs and their staffing.

Both in Afghanistan and Iraq, due, I suppose to the lack of enthusiastic volunteers, contractors occupy some positions on the teams. This makes some of the smaller NGOs like mine nervous about information sharing and anything beyond that.

Based on years of experience, when we meet USAID and Department for International Development (DfID, of the UK) personnel in the field, we ask if they are core or contract employees. It makes us nervous to share too much information with folks who might be tasked by their contributing company with both output delivered under the existing contract, as well as business development tasks on top. We've heard more than once, in the field, "well, we're supposed to do that" from contract employees of PRTs, and that causes us to immediately leave the room and cease all contact. The conflicts of interest seem obvious, but they continue to exist, and we're not overly enthusiastic about sticking our own heads in the noose.

Cheers,

[Surferbeetle]

This Princeton report is linked on the the SWC site and covers the US, UK, German, Canadian, Italian, and Lithuanian PRT's. "The Lithuanian PRT includes Ukranians, Croatians, Georgians, Icelanders, U.S., U.K., and Danish soldiers."

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...truction-team/

To date, there has been no comprehensive review of PRT models to evaluate effectiveness or address shortcomings. This report seeks to answer three questions in order to begin filling the knowledge gap:

- Should the United States and coalition partners continue to use PRTs?
- Are PRTs achieving the goals for which they are funded?
- What are the best practices of countries that sponsor and contribute to PRTs?

Because there is very little standardization of mission and operations across PRTs, we used the following assumptions as the basis for our analysis and research.

-Using a variety of models, missions and functions, PRTs initiate progress on reconstruction, security, and development in post-conflict environments.
- The PRT concept is part of a larger set of responses to post-conflict challenges.
- PRTs are part of an evolutionary process of civil-military relations and interagency cooperation.

Here is a British Army view, CMIC oriented, presented by MG Riley

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...rity/hl893.cfm

I thought I would give you a divisional commander’s view, informed by two years’ service in Iraq with the British and U.S. armies, as well as in Sierra Leone and the Balkans. These operations have all been complex, involving kinetic warfighting, counter-insurgency, information operations, humanitarian support, civil– military cooperation (CIMIC),[1] and security-sector reform running concurrently in the same battle space.

Here is a short German analysis (March 2004) of their military structure vs. mission requirements:

http://www.swp-berlin.org/de/common/...5cf84e2145757a

The article examines how ~242,000 Bundeswehr personnel are utilized in terms of a strategy which must address european security and political concerns, international terrorism, conflict prevention, and coping with crisises. It appears that ~35,000 soldiers are designated for high intensity operations.

The Bundeswehr website provides this snapshot (2007) on funding for reconstruction work

http://www.einsatz.bundeswehr.de/C12...-6460_isaf.pdf

Deutschland unterstützt als viertgrößter bilateraler Geber den Wieder- aufbau und die Entwicklung Afghanistans seit 2002 mit jährlich über 80 Mio. Euro. Dieser Beitrag wurde 2007 auf 100 Mio. Euro erhöht und soll 2008 auf 125 Mio. Euro steigen.

'Germany underwrites as the fourth largest provider for Reconstruction and Development in Afghanistan since 2002 with a yearly 80 million Euro. This became 100 million Euro in 2007. Funding/Euro was increased and will rise to 125 million Euro in 2008.'

(This entry leads to questions about the funding contributions of the 1st through 3rd place providers, insight would be appreciated).

Wikipedia has an interesting link on PRT's as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinc...struction_Team

[jcustis]

Provincial reconstruction teams are modeled on a similar concept used in Afghanistan. Each team consists of about 65 specialists from the State Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USAID and the American military's civil affairs contingent.

I just came across a solicitation of sorts on the Lightfighter.net forum, posted by someone who states that: "The company I work for is gearing up for a major Iraq-wide project involving management and leadership of provincial reconstruction teams.

There are a wide variety of positions, from construction, public planning, liason with local groups, engineering, etc.

Experience in country is a must, as are leadership skills.

If you are interested, send me a PM. This is a long, long term contract."

I paid particular attention to the use of the word company vice agency/organization. What are folks' thoughts on the merits of contracting out "leadership skills"?

Will this mean that, as with PMCs delivering security products, there could be companies out there contracting the business of PRT work, assuming that some govt agencies will not be able to source the manpower that is required (and needs to be willing) to fill the PRT slots?

[marct]

Hi JC,

I paid particular attention to the use of the word company vice agency/organization. What are folks' thoughts on the merits of contracting out "leadership skills"?

Isn't that the modern way ? I paid more attention to the phrase "this will be a long, long term contract." There are some very interesting assumptions behind that statement, most of which I really don't like. For example, a friend of mine just finished bidding on a contract to do provincial reconstruction in an African country - full infrastructure upgrades, training, economic development, etc. - and that contract is only going to last for 3 years.

Will this mean that, as with PMCs delivering security products, there could be companies out there contracting the business of PRT work, assuming that some govt agencies will not be able to source the manpower that is required (and needs to be willing) to fill the PRT slots?

They already exist JC. Increasingly we are seeing government agencies refusing to develop internal capacity. By way of a parallel, they are operating in exactly the same way the Byzantine bureaucrats did after the death of Basil II - I just hope that there policies don't have a similar effect (think Manzikert, 1071).