You know, I read through this and wondered to myself, how is this possible that such an important event, was treated with such reckless disregard. Both by the coalition and by the Afghan government? This just kills me. There was a lot riding on this election, and it has turned into a disaster. The Taliban love it, because it has turned into a wonderful propaganda tool.
All grumbling aside, this is what my solution to the elections mission would have been. I would have treated it just like a forest fire here in the US. And if these guys only have three weeks now, to do a second runoff election, good luck. But either way, if I had the time we had prior to the first election, here are a few of my suggestions for running this so called logistical nightmare.
First off, this is not a logistical nightmare. It is a challenge, and it requires organization and the correct management structure to make sure it runs smoothly and efficiently. It needs to be broken off into manageable sections that answer to a structure that makes sense. That organizational structure should have been Incident Command.
I have talked about this system, over and over again, and here we are looking at a situation that would have been perfect for this kind of command system. That’s if everyone was signed off on one command system to get something like this done. That is the beauty of fire, because in that world, no matter where you come from or what your job is, you will know Incident Command and you will live Incident Command. It is the only way to get unity of effort between city, state, federal, and international resources. There is no other system that is as efficient and effective as this system of emergency management, and why we are not using it in places like Afghanistan, is beyond me. Afghanistan is filled with civilian and military groups from all over the world, all with different languages and different command systems and different ideas of what is what. We are having a heck of time with unity of effort, and this election and the war effort as a whole shows signs of that all the time.
I bring up fires earlier, because often times, entire cities of workers and disaster relief specialists all gather under one banner command, and over the immediate need of a certain fire that has grown out of control. Everything from helicopters to fire tankers to communications tents and chow halls and shower trucks etc., all from cities, states, federal agencies, and international actors are all brought in to the fight. That fight could be up in the mountains, only accessible by helicopter, or could be in a city. The fight could be spread amongst multiple fires caused by lightning strikes, and the developing fire storm requires the kind of incident management system that flexes, evolves and only contributes to a unity of effort. It is an amazing system to watch in action.
So lets fast forward to Afghanistan. Tell me again who is organizing the election monitoring and security effort? Has the command effectively met the needs of the election and did they accomplish their goal? I don’t think so, and it is pretty apparent by the millions of fraudulent votes that something was terribly wrong with the planning of this thing.
Incident Command would have been able to recognize the short comings in the system, it could have flexed and expanded easily with the ever evolving situation, and it would have been very easy for all involved to understand the process and operate together under one goal.
The other thing I have to get off my chest, is that there should be no excuse about a lack of manpower for this. I know there are thousands of contractors looking for work, who would have gladly taken on a short term mission in Afghanistan, specifically for the election. If Blackwater, along with the dozens of other security contracting companies during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, could spin up teams and get them out in the field within days of the disaster, then we can spin up the necessary troops for security for these elections in Afghanistan.
As for the makeup of this kind of security force? I would have had three components–military, contractor, and local national security forces. I have seen this combination work before, and it would have worked here. The military(NATO, ISAF) runs the radios, CAS, command and control and QRF for regions or the sites, the contractors work as a liaisons and managers of the local national forces, and the local national security contractors would answer to the contractors and military. Going hybrid like this, would have worked just fine and they could have all fallen under the command of a Incident Commander for that site. The IC would be tasked with monitoring and managing every aspect of the mission at that particular voting site.
With excellent planning and vision, these teams could have been recruited and inserted in a timely manner. If the teams all operated under an Incident Command structure, we could have assigned Incident Commanders to each site. These IC’s would be the ones to communicate exactly what is needed, and what are the problems. Tie everything into dispatch centers located throughout the region, and set up Type 1 Management Teems throughout the country as central points for the effort. IC’s and the Type 1 Management Teams could have everyone (civilian and military) operating under one system of management, and everyone would have one command language to operate under. Everyone should know what a IC is, or Air Operations, or Logistics, etc. Keep it simple, and don’t fight the incident, but evolve with it. The proof is in the pudding, and if you want to organize chaos and win that logistics fight, then Incident Command is the way to go. –Matt
——————————————————————
The best part of this, is that the troops could have stayed focus on battling Taliban, as opposed to taking on this election mission. Delegate the mission folks, and I think contractors could have been used for this, if indeed there was a manpower issue.
Afghanistan election runoff poses daunting challenges
A second round of voting in the Afghanistan election, set for Nov. 7, adds security and logistical difficulties to a process already marred by fraud.
By Ben Arnoldy
October 20, 2009
Kabul, Afghanistan – Flanked by a slew of international statesmen Tuesday, President Hamid Karzai put a second round Afghan election on the calendar, adding daunting new security and logistical pressures to an already deeply troubled election effort.
To this point, observers widely doubted the fraud-marred election would go into a runoff. But Mr. Karzai went for a runoff, rejecting speculation that he and his rival, Abdullah Abdullah, would sidestep another vote through a powersharing deal.
“A coalition government, no, there is no place for a coalition government in the law. There is no legitimacy in that,” Karzai told reporters. “A new set of elections will be held in about 14 days’ time,” he added.
On several occasions, Karzai mentioned “14 days,” the window given by the Constitution. Such a rapid runoff would be extremely difficult to conduct and – for it to inspire confidence – would require an immediate, major mobilization of people, money, and institutions.