2012: But Obama's funding request indicates that the decision has already been made. There will be no contingency for maintaining the ANSF at its full strength. In other words, Obama has decided that Afghanistan's security forces will be significantly reduced after 2014, regardless of the security situation and the status of Taliban reconciliation.
Two reports, published more than a year apart at Bloomberg and Long War Journal, point to the counterproductive U.S./NATO approach to their own war plan. Below are both reports. Note the discussion of the Pakistan factor in the Bloomberg report. As preface to the reports I'm posting two important commentaries about the funding of the ANSF that are in the comment section for the LWJ report:
Posted by jean at March 30, 2012 12:34 PM ET:From Bloomberg report, January 25, 2011:
In terms of government spending 4 billion is not a huge amount; look at the aid provided to other countries.
It has been several years since my direct involvement with ANSF so my perspective is dated. The progress that has been achieved is not sustainable. The culture of corruption is deeply embedded in the current IRoG.
Afghan Engineering Departmant (AED) has built significant infrastructure for the ANA/ANP. However, can they maintain it? Camp Blessing in Kunar is not a good example. Blessing was a former ODA base that became Task force HQ. It was handed over to the ANA in 2010. We were forced to re-occupy within a year. The base was in complete disrepair and looted of all valuables. Not to mention the spread of AQ/TAB influence right to the front gate.
I had a great discussion with a Bundeswehr Colonel about police training. His contention was that we (ISAF) had already trained thousands of ANP officers in 2003-2008, but the ministries could not account for the money or what happened to the trained officers. He dealt with the same issues concerning fielding of equipment or actually the diversion of equipment, embezzlement of pay, and turnover/job abandonment. All the issues that we faced in RC east.
Posted by Neo at March 31, 2012 10:57 AM ET:
Insurance losses alone from 9/11 cost upward $32.5 billion. That doesn’t even start to include all of the other slightly less direct losses such as business & airline disruption, extra security costs. Mass casualty attacks are expensive. We can't affort to maintain our current level of expenditure fending them off but it will continue to be expensive even at a much lower level. An extra billion or two added to $4.1 billion to prop up the Afghan government isn’t out of proportion even if aid only buys you a few years. What ever doubts you have about the long term viability of the project, what is the use in projecting a short budget. If the Afghan army cannot sustain it’s current size than budget accordingly when faced with that dilemma.
On a side note: The Taliban isn’t going to negotiate a meaningful agreement with the Afghan government. Hard core Islamists don’t consider agreements with unworthy parties to be binding.
The White House and NATO are holding up a decision on increasing the size of Afghan security forces because of their concerns over the cost and possible objections from Pakistan, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said.
Levin said he urged President Barack Obama at a White House event yesterday to approve an increase in the goal for the number of Afghan soldiers and police officers to 378,000, beyond the current plan to field 305,000 by October. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and Army General David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, have all recommended the increase, Levin said.
“I urged the president strongly and with very direct words that this needed to be done,” Levin told reporters at the Capitol in Washington today after returning from a week-long trip to Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. The decision is necessary “to enhance the possibilities of success of our mission and to speed up the reduction of our forces,” he said.
The coalition fighting in Afghanistan, led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, aims to turn back the Taliban and build an Afghan army and police force to take over from the foreign troops. Obama plans to begin a U.S. drawdown in July, and officials have said that training is on schedule to meet the current goal of 305,000 Afghan forces in the field by October.
The Pakistan Factor
In addition to the concerns over cost, the U.S. may be considering objections from Pakistan to having so many Afghan troops across the border, Levin said. Such an objection would be “interesting,” considering that Pakistan has often blamed Afghanistan for not controlling the flow of fighters over its border.
“They can’t have it both ways,” Levin said. “If they want the Afghans to take greater responsibility on their side of the border to stop the flow, then they should not object to the Afghan security forces being enlarged.”
******
US funding request calls for reduction in Afghan security forces after 2014By CJ Radin
March 29, 2012 12:51 PM
President Obama has made a request for the "post-2014" funding of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). According to The Washington Post:
The Obama administration has made an urgent appeal for international donors to pledge more money to pay for Afghanistan's security forces after the departure of U.S. and coalition combat troops at the end of 2014.The size of the ANSF
In formal diplomatic demarches sent to 64 countries this month, and in direct appeals by President Obama and top national security aides, the administration has outlined a $4.1 billion annual budget for the Afghan army and police, according to U.S. and foreign officials.
The US and the international community currently pay for the vast majority of ANSF expenses, with the US providing most of the funds.
The ANSF has been steadily growing in size and will reach its goal of 352,000 troops later this year. The plan is to maintain that size until the end of 2014. The post-2014 plan had not been decided. But questions as to whether the ANSF should be maintained in future at the 352,000-troop level (at a cost of $6 billion per year), or instead its size and cost should be cut, have been under consideration.
Discussions on this topic began last September, and a proposal was put forward at a NATO conference in February this year. Now, Obama is moving ahead with a formal request for funds. With the request, as reported in The Washington Post, it is apparent that the question of the future size of the ANSF has been answered:
The combined Afghan force is expected to reach a target strength of 352,000 in October.... The post-2014 budget ... anticipates additional savings from a reduction in the size of the force of up to one-third by 2017, a projection that assumes successful reconciliation with the Taliban.A budget of $4.1 billion per year dictates that the ANSF will be cut by one-third, from 352,000 to 230,000 troops, after 2014.
The real decision made
One important point should to be noted. The budget "assumes successful reconciliation with the Taliban." That is a difficult assumption to make at this time.
In his testimony to Congress last week, General John Allen, commander of ISAF forces in Afghanistan, said the decision to reduce the size of the ANSF had not yet been made, and that the decision would be contingent upon the security situation having improved enough to justify the cut. One would assume that the best time to make that determination would be sometime in 2014 when the security situation, and the status of "Taliban reconciliation," would be clearer.
But Obama's funding request indicates that the decision has already been made. There will be no contingency for maintaining the ANSF at its full strength. In other words, Obama has decided that Afghanistan's security forces will be significantly reduced after 2014, regardless of the security situation and the status of Taliban reconciliation.
No comments:
Post a Comment