So here is one that you won’t hear discussed out there. What happens when NATO falters or members leave unexpectedly, as the war drags on? Each country in NATO has it’s own set of politics back home, and like most countries, they can get into a position where support for operations overseas just diminishes. Call it the economy, or media/activist groups, unexpected rise in war deaths, natural disasters, Black Swan events, etc. An example would be the Dutch, and their sudden switch-a-roo/’I am out of here’ move in Afghanistan. I didn’t see that one coming, but that is exactly what I am talking about. So who is next in NATO? And most of all, who will take up their slack, if the war effort depends upon those troops?
Well for one, my pick is contractors. Mostly because we are the fastest means of filling that vacuum, and we do the least at disrupting the mechanics of the war machine. Especially if the Dutch were tasked with training or menial/defensive operations. Or the coalition can play the game where they rob Peter, to pay Paul, and shift forces from one vital mission, to fill another vital mission. Kind of like with the Georgian conflict with Russia, and how those Georgian troops had to leave Iraq immediately to respond to a crisis in their homeland. The US military had to scramble to backfill, and problems like this cause vacuums in all sorts of places in the war machine. Especially if contractors are already doing the menial jobs out there–meaning troops are already filling vital positions in the war. So you take troops from one effort, and move them to another– it has an impact on the machine.
I also say contractors are a good choice for this ‘vacuum plug’ when it comes to non-offensive operations. If that member nation was tasked with training, convoy operations, PSD or static security, then contractors could easily be called upon to fill that vacuum so the rest of the war machine continues to function properly. Hell, I could put a call out on this blog for a small army, have them vetted, tell them to bring their own kit, secure weapons/vehicles/living quarters/ID cards/licenses and deploy them into Afghanistan to fill those PSD/convoy/static positions quicker than you can say ‘Eric Cartman’. People would be amazed at how quickly security contractors could be spun up, and especially if a company has the resources to do a quick spin up. (and most companies do)
Of course it would be ideal to use military forces to fill these instant voids, and in most cases they do. But my question is how could they possible act as fast as a private company, or how could this not impact another vital mission they are performing? Now the military can do stuff like divert troops from one country, to the other, or do an early deployment for a incoming unit, but yet again, this is taking from one vital mission, to fill another. To me, it makes more sense to not disrupt that harmony of planning, and just contract a company to step in. Especially for the defensive operational stuff. (military replacement is the only option for offensive related ops at this time)
Using contractors can even buy military planners some time to actually assemble a military team to fill in that hole. Another way to look at it, is that we are the 50 mph tape for a hole in the fuel line, so that we can get the car back home. Then at home, we can replace the fuel line. It does not make sense, to disable the brakes and use a chunk of brake line to repair the fuel line. Or you could use a vacuum line to repair the fuel line, but yet again, the engine will not run correctly– if at all.
Now to wrap this up.(pun intended-lol) The point of it all is that when I hear guys like Senator Levin slam private contractors in one hearing, and then in another quote, he whines about NATO not having enough troops to do the training in Afghanistan, I have to think that politically speaking he is saying one thing, but realistically speaking he has to know that contractors are vital to the war effort. Because as more NATO folks leave, do to political turmoil, the economy, or some Black Swan event back home, contractors are gonna be as vital to the war machine tool box, as a roll of 50mph tape. –Matt
——————————————————————
The ever handy roll of 50mph tape.
More Military Trainers Needed in Afghanistan
Coalition forces pressed to fill gap in trainers needed to help growing Afghan Army and Police forces
Al Pessin
09 March 2010
The U.S. Navy admiral who commands all NATO forces worldwide says he and the alliance secretary general are pressing each member to fulfill a specific part of the shortfall in military trainers in Afghanistan. The admiral spoke at a U.S. Senate hearing, where senior members from both parties criticized NATO allies for the shortage.Admiral James Stavridis gave the Senate Armed Services Committee specific numbers. He said the NATO-run command in Afghanistan needed 1,278 trainers for the growing Afghan Army and Police forces, but it has so far received only 541 – a shortfall of 737.”It is absolutely correct to say that NATO has fallen short in providing these vital trainers. What we are doing about it is taking further steps in terms of contacting each of the nations individually and going one-by-one through the precise requirement for each of the nations in terms of where they could most effectively fill in the trainer mix,” Stavridis said.The shortage of trainers comes at a time when Afghan Army recruiting is sharply up, due in part to a significant salary increase the Kabul government implemented late last year.The committee chairman, Democrat Carl Levin, said the training commander in Afghanistan told him some of the Afghan recruits cannot enter the army immediately due to the lack of trainers.”That is totally unacceptable, almost unbelievable to me, that we can not get NATO allies to carry out that kind of commitment, which is not the most dangerous. There is obviously danger anywhere, but compared to being in combat it falls well short of that,” Levin said.
Admiral Stavridis said he and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen are working hard on the issue.”We will continue to hammer away at this until we fulfill that commitment. And I will continue to place it, as I told you Senator Levin, at the top of my priority list,” Stavidis said.The admiral said overall the NATO effort is “on track,” and that member nations have committed 9,500 of the 10,000 additional troops they were supposed to provide, to fight and train Afghans alongside the 30,000 more U.S. troops heading for Afghanistan.But the senior Republican on the Senate committee, former presidential candidate John McCain, challenged the admiral’s numbers, because 2,000 Dutch troops are scheduled to withdraw by August.”So, we are really not on track then. I mean, it is nice to say but if you are going to lose 2,000 Dutch troops, who are, by the way, great fighters from my visits, it is not 9,500. It is closer to 7,500,” McCain said.And the senator said even some of those NATO troop pledges are have “not been firmed up yet.”Admiral Stavridis indicated the need for NATO trainers in Afghanistan is not likely to end soon. He said the goal is for the Afghan Army to reach 300,000 and the police force to grow to 100,000, and he said he expects recruitment to remain strong for at least several more months. The admiral said a key focus now is to convince those recruits to stay in the army after their initial commitments end.Building the Afghan forces is a key element in the effort to reach President Barack Obama’s goal of starting to transfer security responsibility to the Afghans by July of next year.At the hearing, Admiral Stavridis also acknowledged that 20 of the 42 countries with troops in Afghanistan continue to put restrictions, or caveats, on their activities, in spite of years of U.S. pressure to end that practice. Stavridis said some of the caveats are “very restrictive” and he is continuing to press the countries involved to reduce or end them.
Story here.
——————————————————————-
After the Dutch, Who’s the Next to Leave Afghanistan?
Roland Flamini
08 Mar 2010
If our European allies want to capture Barack Obama’s full attention, they could certainly do so by announcing en masse their intention to withdraw from Afghanistan by the coming July. Europe would suddenly loom large on Obama’s radar screen, triggering a flurry of diplomatic activity by the White House in a bid to prevent or at least whittle down the extent of the exodus. Obama would be in Madrid like a shot for this month’s EU-U.S. summit — from which he had previously begged off, citing commitments at home — and again for the NATO summit in April.
The Europeans’ justification for pulling out could start with the argument that Article V of the NATO Treaty, which considers an attack on one member state an attack on all the members, no longer applies to Afghanistan. Beyond that, the Obama administration’s unilateral deadline of July 2011 for beginning a drawdown from Afghanistan means that Europe is logically entitled to set its own.
But the underlying causes would of course be political: A war that once had broad public acceptance in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 is now dangerously unpopular. The German government, which fields the third-largest force in Afghanistan, is certainly not the only NATO member with a more-or-less secret contingency plan spelling out the circumstances when calling it quits would become a matter of political survival.
Regardless of national caveats on the rules of engagement, the departure of some 36,000 troops representing some 25 nations would leave northern and eastern Afghanistan bereft of virtually any effective allied presence. That would probably cause the collapse of the whole Afghan “adventure” (as Gerhard Schroeder once described the U.S.-led Iraq war).
The British probably would not sign on to such a plan — although if Prime Minister Gordon Brown could summon up the courage to lead the withdrawal he would in one stroke ensure his re-election and at the same time position Britain at the head of Europe for at least the next decade. Realistically, the initiative would be Franco-German driven. But fortunately for Obama and his commitment to Afghanistan, the Europeans have shown themselves incapable of such unified action.
So far. But now the Canadians are planning to pull out, and so are the Dutch, barring some unlikely miracle. Both are brave contingents that have seen their share of fighting and casualties. The gradual process of corrosion will continue even as Afghanistan’s elaborate dance of death drags on, despite the surge in U.S. forces.
The Obama administration lives with this reality. Defense Secretary Robert Gates hinted at Washington’s frustration in a recent speech: “The demilitarization of Europe — where large swathes of general public and the political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st century.”
And there will be little Obama can do to stop European support for the Afghanistan war from draining away. This is partly because his administration has lost the old Washington knack of making the Europeans feel important in order to achieve American objectives.
Story here.
——————————————————————
Dutch withdrawal from Afghanistan: a vacuum for peace-building?
By: Nathan Andrews
Posted: 3/2/10
Although international peace and security seems to be paramount on the agenda of most developed countries, it gets to a time when domestic politics takes precedence.
The governing Dutch coalition collapsed Feb. 20 over disputes about the date for the withdrawal of their soldiers Afghanistan. In October 2009, the Dutch parliament voted that the deployment must end by August 2010. But Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende’s government gave no endorsement to the vote.
After not being able to reach a compromise during the marathon talks that ran until early Feb. 19, the Labor Party (the second largest party in the coalition government) decided to pull out of the coalition.
This leaves Balkenende’s government with a minority in parliament. As there is no common ground, Balkenende has offered his cabinet’s resignation to Queen Beatrix.
While most of the 150 members of the legislature oppose keeping the troops in Afghanistan, NATO has asked the Netherlands to extend its commitment for a year past the August withdrawal date. NATO is under the litmus test. The way in which it handles these developments will prove its efficacy.
“The ‘Afghanistan surge’ will put NATO to an even greater test,” said Dr. Hans-Martin Jaeger, a political science professor at Carleton University. “I don’t see it as a make-or-break situation for NATO, but […] the reluctance of America’s European allies to increase their troop levels could further diminish NATO’s international standing. From the US perspective, it is a test of intra-Western solidarity; from the European perspective, a test of the viability of US leadership.”
Since Aug. 1, 2006, the Netherlands has been the lead nation in the province of Uruzgan with a contribution of between 1,650 and 2,000 troops – 21 Dutch soldiers have been killed so far.
Their mission in the Uruzgan province is of a military-civilian nature, an approach widely known as “3-D” (Defense, Development and Diplomacy), with the focus on reconstruction, and military action only when necessary.
From 2006, the Netherlands has disbursed more than €300 million ($450 million US) in official development assistance to Afghanistan, more than €100 million ($150 million US) in Uruzgan alone. The total between 2006 and 2011 has reached more than €1.5 billion.
With this, the governor of Uruzgan province has said peace and reconstruction efforts would suffer a setback if the Dutch left as they have been playing a vital role building roads, training the Afghan police and providing security for civilians.
“If they withdraw and leave these projects incomplete, then they will leave a big vacuum,” said Asadullah Hamdam, Governor of Uruzgan province, to the BBC.
The good news, however, is that Britain plans to be militarily engaged with Afghanistan for another five years.
The head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, has said the ongoing offensive attack on the Taliban is beginning to show positive signs and he is quite optimistic things will soon fall into its proper shape.
“The Taliban is now beginning to realize that they can lose this war, which was not the view they had a year ago,” said Richards to the BBC.
Almost on the contrary, Afghan President Hamid Karzai seems to have forgotten the promises he gave the international community during his inauguration. He has reportedly granted himself powers over a key electoral watchdog, the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC), ahead of the country’s elections on August 20.
In a new presidential decree, Karzai has given himself the power to appoint all five members of the ECC. This decree has removed the three foreign experts that were on the commission under the previous law. The move will possibly upset NATO allies fighting insurgents within the country.
While NATO is expected to have 4,000 extra soldiers in advance of the summer elections, Karzai’s quest to make sure Afghanistan does not become a “puppet state” might only slow the progress and stability that many countries hope to see in the war-torn country.
In essence, a much stronger and prudent leadership is expected of Karzai to get Afghanistan on its feet as a stable country.
Story here.