By Steve Hynd
The United States, in the person of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, the man responsible for all training of Afghan security forces, is trying to blackmail its NATO allies into providing more trainers after those allies have dragged their feet on escalating their involvement in the nine-year quagmire.
"We made a decision two or three years ago that we were going to produce war-fighting formations first, and then all the other things that are essential for an enduring force -- engineering, medical, communications, transportation, maintenance, logistics, intelligence -- that we have not built yet."
The current forces "are very dependent on the coalition forces for all that right now."
Topping his list of 15 immediate priorities was the police force, including paramilitary and border police, followed by air, medical, signals and counter-insurgency capabilities, he said.
"We came up with 684 slots so we can keep the momentum going on the progress we have already achieved this year," he said, adding that 1,500 trainers would be needed over the coming 18 months.
"If we don't get these trainers, no trainers, no transition."
That decision to produce lightly-armed cannon fodder with no back-up formations was essentially a Bush administration unilateral decision, just as it was in Iraq, and for much the same reasons: to keep the locals dependent upon the US just a little longer. Caldwell doesn't address whether it was a good thing - but many analysts argued for a much earlier and better integrated build-up of indigenous logistics, armor, air and command/control capacity as being the best route to local self-sufficiency.
However General Caldwell, who was Bush's hand-picked man to go to Iraq and spin everything he could as "progress", may be over-playing his hand. Even if other NATO nations refuse to provide the trainers he wants, the Dutch have already proven that the NATO charter-call and committment to Afghanistan are unilaterally withdrawable from. If other NATO nations decide to follow suit, that would leave the US pretty much alone in Afghanistan, providing the trainers and holding the bag - the phrase "no trainers, no transition" would be left applying to the US alone. And, so far, none of the US' allies have shown any inclination to buckle to Caldwell's ultimatum.
Such a course of events would probably lead directly to the break-up of NATO and that's really the only thing Caldwell has to hold over allied nations' heads. He's gambling that "no trainers, no transition" doesn't turn into "no transition, no NATO".
"No trainers, no transition" isn't a threat or an attempt at blackmail, it's a fact, given the timetable set out by President Obama. If the Coalition doesn't get more trainers, training of the Afghans will take longer than is necessary, and there won't be a transition starting in July 2011. Instead it will be in 2012 or 2013, and won't be complete until much later.
ReplyDeleteThe reason for building combat formations before logistics units in the Afghan force is a political one, correct, but it has nothing to do with needing Afghans to "depend" on us longer. Combat forces get shot at more often than logistical forces. If we transition combat forces first and logistical forces second, then the American people are happier because less Americans are getting killed. Afghan dependency is what we're trying to get away from, and is why more trainers are needed.
It boggles me that people want to end our involvement in the war but aren't willing to put up the resources to do it properly. The Coalition is the cornerstone in a house of cards. Taking our ball and going home will put Afghanistan right back where it was in 2001, which obviously isn't a solution. I understand the hesitation, and the impatience, but fixing problems we ignored for 8 years is going to take time.
I find your response a bit American-centric, K.C. Maybe you should have mentioned you came via the Dod Network Information Center. On duty or personal off-duty opinion? Anyway...
ReplyDeleteThe timetable set out by Obama is not in any way binding on other NATO nations - for example, the UK's own timetable is explicitly for full withdrawal by 2015 no matter where the US plan stands at the time.
Opposition to this occupation is even higher across the pond than it is in the US - 70%+ against, in most European members of the coalition - and they too are democracies that must take account of their voters. More Europeans understand, I think, that nine years on we're certainly no nearer fixing Afghanistan than we were on day one and the current US plan is highly economical with the truth: any success from the kind of COIN the US is practising will take another decade at least and cost upwards of another $trillion. (As to the Afghan security forces part of the transition plan - they've been entirely cannon fodder for ISAF so far and that reality is reflected in their horrendous desertion rates.) And even then, there's no guarantee it won't collapse again - in slo-mo as Iraq is now doing - as soon as Coalition troops leave. I understand wanting to "fix" Afghanistan but believe that can't be done by anyone except the Afghans - all of them, including the Taliban.
Given all that and the Dutch proof that individual members can walk away, demanding that NATO members stick to a US plan is indeed blackmail. None of the NATO members, the US included, can afford the blood and treasure on a wild COIN goose-chase. European members are both politically nearer to voicing that and supported in doing so by their populations. So to preserve the US plan it is necessary to hold the future of NATO to ransom for a few thousand trainers that the US has already refused to provide on its own. Non-US Coalition members would far rather pursue a track of reconciliation, allowing the Taliban back into Afghan government in exchange for concessions and an overwatch of future conduct. That entirely removes the need for a massive Afghan security force that Afghanistan itself couldn't even afford 10% of. We saw all this at the London Conference and many times since then.
What European NATO members are asking is "why should we do what we can't afford, what won't work and what our voters don't want us to do - just so that the American president can look tough to his own domestic crowd?"
Regards, Steve
Given the track record of the US military, I highly doubt it has competent trainers. Even SecDef Gates has admitted they are lousy at counterinsurgency.
ReplyDelete