Stop denying seriousness of Afghan threat
By Anthony Cordesman
The situation in Afghanistan is still far from grim, but Nato may well be on a track that will cost both it and the Afghan government victory.
The Taliban and other extremist groups have increased their area of operations by more than four times between 2005 and 2006, acting as the de facto government once again in parts of the south and east. Direct fire attacks increased from 1,347 in the first 11 months of 2005 to 3,824 during a similar period in 2006. Suicide attacks increased from 18 to 116. Attacks on Afghan forces increased by more than 300 per cent. Attacks on Nato forces increased by over 270 per cent. A big offensive against Nato and Afghan forces is expected this spring.
Nato's current forces would be inadequate even if all Nato countries were fully in the fight. There are roughly 30,000 Nato troops in Afghanistan, plus some 12,000 remaining US troops that still operate independently. Compare this to the total of 162,000 coalition troops in Iraq. Yet Afghanistan, in many ways, poses as big a challenge. It has a population of more than 31m, compared with some 27m in Iraq, its territory is 50 per cent larger and its transportation and communications infrastructure is far more primitive. The enemy in Iraq has no major sanctuary outside the country; al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network and Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin all use sanctuaries in Waziristan in eastern Pakistan.
To make matters worse, only US, Canadian, British, Danish, Estonian and Dutch forces are really in the fight. Important Nato partners such as France, Germany, Spain, Turkey and Italy do not provide troops, except for French special forces.
Elsewhere, British weakness in the south has forced a political compromise that has allowed a big increase in the Taliban presence. Britain needs substantial additional forces to hold the south and prevent the slow growth of a Taliban presence that could end in the loss of Kandahar. Much of Helmand and Kandahar provinces are already at risk. Canada, the Netherlands and Romania play an important role in combat and Poland is coming. All these forces need heavier equipment and weapons. Indeed, Canada is introducing main battle tanks, the first country to do so. US commanders recognise that US troop strength is too weak in the east. America needs to increase forward deployed infantry battalions from two to at least three and probably four; more special forces are needed, too.
Moreover, studies by the International Security Force, the Nato command in Afghanistan, indicate that the Nato force needs six more battalions - especially another battalion in the south; a rapid expansion of military trainers for the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police; and extra troops and specialists in other areas.
Nato needs integrated operations with common rules of engagement. It needs a truly integrated command with continuity of service and adequate tour lengths. Countries need to provide adequate armour, artillery, tactical mobility and air support. More effort is needed to integrate US advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets into Nato and Afghan operations. Nato also needs an integrated structure for using advanced US air and IS&R assets in the Combined Air Operation Center in Qatar, and a comprehensive, workable strategy for dealing with battlefield detainees.
Nato needs to put pressure on Pakistan to end the sanctuary it gives to the enemy. Nato has not addressed the weakness of the Afghan government and the scale of the problems created by a dependence on a narco-economy. It will be years before the central government in Kabul can create an effective presence and services in most local areas, particularly those under threat.
All Nato countries need to make a commitment to provide sustained military and economic aid at the required levels. Stronger efforts are needed to create effective military and police forces. The Afghan army is just beginning to be effective and has big pay, equipment and morale problems. Some key battalions have less than a quarter of authorised strength and retention is low. Germany wasted years training the wrong kind of police at inadequate levels. Effective police now have to be created virtually from the ground up and Nato/International Security Assistance Force aid is needed to build the capacity of the ministry of interior and in training, equipping and basing the Afghan National Police.
At the same time, Nato needs to restructure counter-narcotics efforts to focus on near-term economic development, anti-corruption and law enforcement, and phased eradication. It needs to broaden its aid efforts to support the government and help provide education, clinics and other local services.
It is time to stop denying how serious the threat has become, stop issuing empty political assurances and stop saying that far too little is enough. Nato needs realistic and honest assessments, it needs urgent short-term reinforcements. All of its forces must be in the fight all over the country. It needs to make immediate increases in aid and to create a fully resourced long-term plan to fight a long war.
_______________________________________________________________
The writer holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and has recently returned from a visit to the military forces in Afghanistan
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007.
The situation in Afghanistan is still far from grim, but Nato may well be on a track that will cost both it and the Afghan government victory.
The Taliban and other extremist groups have increased their area of operations by more than four times between 2005 and 2006, acting as the de facto government once again in parts of the south and east. Direct fire attacks increased from 1,347 in the first 11 months of 2005 to 3,824 during a similar period in 2006. Suicide attacks increased from 18 to 116. Attacks on Afghan forces increased by more than 300 per cent. Attacks on Nato forces increased by over 270 per cent. A big offensive against Nato and Afghan forces is expected this spring.
Nato's current forces would be inadequate even if all Nato countries were fully in the fight. There are roughly 30,000 Nato troops in Afghanistan, plus some 12,000 remaining US troops that still operate independently. Compare this to the total of 162,000 coalition troops in Iraq. Yet Afghanistan, in many ways, poses as big a challenge. It has a population of more than 31m, compared with some 27m in Iraq, its territory is 50 per cent larger and its transportation and communications infrastructure is far more primitive. The enemy in Iraq has no major sanctuary outside the country; al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network and Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin all use sanctuaries in Waziristan in eastern Pakistan.
To make matters worse, only US, Canadian, British, Danish, Estonian and Dutch forces are really in the fight. Important Nato partners such as France, Germany, Spain, Turkey and Italy do not provide troops, except for French special forces.
Elsewhere, British weakness in the south has forced a political compromise that has allowed a big increase in the Taliban presence. Britain needs substantial additional forces to hold the south and prevent the slow growth of a Taliban presence that could end in the loss of Kandahar. Much of Helmand and Kandahar provinces are already at risk. Canada, the Netherlands and Romania play an important role in combat and Poland is coming. All these forces need heavier equipment and weapons. Indeed, Canada is introducing main battle tanks, the first country to do so. US commanders recognise that US troop strength is too weak in the east. America needs to increase forward deployed infantry battalions from two to at least three and probably four; more special forces are needed, too.
Moreover, studies by the International Security Force, the Nato command in Afghanistan, indicate that the Nato force needs six more battalions - especially another battalion in the south; a rapid expansion of military trainers for the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police; and extra troops and specialists in other areas.
Nato needs integrated operations with common rules of engagement. It needs a truly integrated command with continuity of service and adequate tour lengths. Countries need to provide adequate armour, artillery, tactical mobility and air support. More effort is needed to integrate US advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets into Nato and Afghan operations. Nato also needs an integrated structure for using advanced US air and IS&R assets in the Combined Air Operation Center in Qatar, and a comprehensive, workable strategy for dealing with battlefield detainees.
Nato needs to put pressure on Pakistan to end the sanctuary it gives to the enemy. Nato has not addressed the weakness of the Afghan government and the scale of the problems created by a dependence on a narco-economy. It will be years before the central government in Kabul can create an effective presence and services in most local areas, particularly those under threat.
All Nato countries need to make a commitment to provide sustained military and economic aid at the required levels. Stronger efforts are needed to create effective military and police forces. The Afghan army is just beginning to be effective and has big pay, equipment and morale problems. Some key battalions have less than a quarter of authorised strength and retention is low. Germany wasted years training the wrong kind of police at inadequate levels. Effective police now have to be created virtually from the ground up and Nato/International Security Assistance Force aid is needed to build the capacity of the ministry of interior and in training, equipping and basing the Afghan National Police.
At the same time, Nato needs to restructure counter-narcotics efforts to focus on near-term economic development, anti-corruption and law enforcement, and phased eradication. It needs to broaden its aid efforts to support the government and help provide education, clinics and other local services.
It is time to stop denying how serious the threat has become, stop issuing empty political assurances and stop saying that far too little is enough. Nato needs realistic and honest assessments, it needs urgent short-term reinforcements. All of its forces must be in the fight all over the country. It needs to make immediate increases in aid and to create a fully resourced long-term plan to fight a long war.
_______________________________________________________________
The writer holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and has recently returned from a visit to the military forces in Afghanistan
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home