I have not heard of CA, but it sounds like common sense. The police police, the army provides security and ISAF provide the overwatch and specialist capabilities. Is the role of the ANA to mentor, monitor or protect the ANP?
One of the lessons we learnt in the UK from Iraq was our lack of a deployable policing capability. The US Army's Military Police branch is however much larger then its UK equivalent, and with a much broader scope (rear area security) so it is more useable to fill the identified gap.
As far as I can make out the ANP is little more then a local protection force at the moment, and not what we would regard as a police force. Does AFG want the ANP to provide a policing service or an internal security service? Perhaps what we should be looking at is rolling out a paramilitary security service (the ANP) with limited policing expertise (and powers) and a separate more specialised policing branch. Many developed countries have a policing service and then a paramilitary 'knock heads' service (the French CRS, elements of the Italian Carabineri and the Spanish Civil Guard all spring to mind) with the balance weighted towards the policing. Perhaps in an unstable country we want to reverse polarity, with the majority of the policing being of the paramilitary type and a smaller civil policing / investigative branch?
Bookmarks