Why The US and NATO are Losing the War in Afghanistan
ANON | 03.04.2013 05:28 | Afghanistan | World
In this study I will examine whether NATO and the United States have failed in their War in Afghanistan against Islamic terrorism between 2001-09. To do this I will compare their objectives against measurements of effectiveness (MOE’s) as provided by both political and military sources as prescribed by the intervening forces.
As Petraeus & Amos state,
Warfare remains a violent clash of interests between organised groups characterised by the use of force. Achieving victory still depends on a group’s ability to mobilise support for its political interests and to generate enough violence to achieve political consequences.
To understand if NATO and the US are failing in their War in Afghanistan we first need to understand the context of the war and look at the political objectives of this particular conflict.
Kenneth Katzman has developed a formula to examine the political aspects of the War in Afghanistan which can be found in his Congressional Report. In this report Katzman has built a fully integrated policy approach analysing the political objectives of the war as,
(1) disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan to degrade their ability to launch international terrorist attacks; (2) promote a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan; (3) develop self-reliant Afghan security forces; and (4) involve the international community to actively assist in addressing these objectives.
To compliment this, the US Army has a similar approach which develops a system of MOE’s and this can be seen in David Barno’s Five Pillars of COIN for Afghanistan,
Defeat terrorism and deny sanctuary.
Enable the Afghan security structure.
Sustain area ownership.
Enable reconstruction and good governance.
Engage regional states.
In combing Katzman’s and Barno’s MOE’s in this study I will examine whether NATO and the United States has been failing in their military war between 2001-09 and whether they have been able to generate enough violence in the right concentration to achieve their political goals.
The United States launched the War in Afghanistan with Operation Enduring Freedom on the 1st October, 2001 in which the US military worked in co-operation with the forces of the Northern Alliance. A concerted use of force helped achieve victory with the toppling of the Taliban regime in Kandahar on the 9th December 2001. The co-operation extended into Operation Anaconda at Tora Bora which saw the final military defeat of the Taliban’s and al-Qaeda conventional forces. These were conventional operations that resulted ‘in defeating the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies and in liberating Afghanistan in a few short weeks’. One of the defining characteristics of the success of Operation Enduring Freedom was the Unity of Command emanating from Central Command (CentComm) in Tampa Florida.
The Unity in Command saw the merging of resources and capabilities from Department of Defence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and from several other US governments which provided timely outcomes. The initial phase of the conflict in Afghanistan was described by General Franks as an ‘unqualified and complete success’ . The United States won its war to defeat terrorism and deny sanctuary with operations Enduring Freedom and Anaconda in Afghanistan. These efforts had a major impact on the organisational ability of both the Taliban and al-Qaeda to inflict there fundamentalist theocracy upon the people of Afghanistan. The US victory in this phase of the war was achieved through a unity of command that allowed the concentrated use of overwhelming force. The defeat of the Taliban’s conventional force was so efficient that Marston points out that it, ‘left a political vacuum’ which was to have enormous ‘significant consequences’.
The context of the War in Afghanistan changed significantly with NATO taking over control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) form the US The handover of control of military forces to NATO control saw a change in the nature of the intervention from a militaristic seek and destroy mission to political mission of security and stability mission. To achieve this goal it was decided in August 2003 that ISAF should extend its influence outside of Kabul through the creation of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT’s). As ISAF forces started to move out into the regions what they faced was not a conventional war but a low level insurgency against a reorganised Taliban groups comprising of less than one hundred men.
As NATO’s ability to rebuild rural Afghanistan was floundering, the reformed Taliban forces with the support of Pakistan and Iran started to up efforts utilising insurgent tactics to force ISAF out of Pashtun tribal areas. The over militarisation of NATO’s approach through PRT’s and the failure to adequately deal with the origins of the Afghan problem, which are according to Saikal are, ‘political, economic and regional’ led to the disenfranchisement of Pashtun’s in the new Afghan government. As Petraeus & Amos point out, ‘the primary struggle in an internal war is to mobilise people in a struggle for political control and legitimacy.’ As around 42% Afghanistan’s population are of Pashtun origin it is essential for any potential government in Afghanistan to gain the support of Pashtun tribes.
During late 2005 many US and NATO commanders believed that the war had been won due to a combination of military and political responses and that these had defeated the low-level insurgency. They were sadly mistaken and as a result NATO assumed responsibility for all security in Afghanistan by early 2006. As McCrystal stated in his Commanders Initial Assessment, ‘ISAF is a conventional force that is poorly configured for COIN, inexperienced in local languages and culture, and struggling with challenges inherent to coalition warfare.’ The failure of defeating a low-level insurgency combined with the absolute failure of ISAF’s PRT’s to win the support and trust of the Pashtun tribes in RC SOUTH and EAST saw the low level violence of Taliban remnants develop into a full blown insurgency by 2005-06.
The failure of NATO and US efforts in the second phase of the Afghan War between 2003-06 can be seen as a failure to sustain area ownership of rural Afghanistan. As NATO and the US attempted to extend its mandate outside of Kabul from September 2003 the approach was one of clear and retreat and not one of Thompson’s clear, build and hold strategy which created enormous power vacuums which according to Petraeus & Amos ‘breed insurgencies’. NATO political efforts with their takeover of ISAF in 2003 were a complete failure and as a result in the summer of 2005-06 the low intensity insurgency being conducted by Taliban and Islamic remnants of previous Afghan governments was transformed into a full scale insurgency. A conflict that has the potential to not only bring down the Kazai regime but also to propel the whole region into a greater conflict.
Full report see
http://www.indymedia.org.au/2012/08/31/why-the-us-and-nato-are-losing-the-war-in-afghanistan-leaked-defence-report
Warfare remains a violent clash of interests between organised groups characterised by the use of force. Achieving victory still depends on a group’s ability to mobilise support for its political interests and to generate enough violence to achieve political consequences.
To understand if NATO and the US are failing in their War in Afghanistan we first need to understand the context of the war and look at the political objectives of this particular conflict.
Kenneth Katzman has developed a formula to examine the political aspects of the War in Afghanistan which can be found in his Congressional Report. In this report Katzman has built a fully integrated policy approach analysing the political objectives of the war as,
(1) disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan to degrade their ability to launch international terrorist attacks; (2) promote a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan; (3) develop self-reliant Afghan security forces; and (4) involve the international community to actively assist in addressing these objectives.
To compliment this, the US Army has a similar approach which develops a system of MOE’s and this can be seen in David Barno’s Five Pillars of COIN for Afghanistan,
Defeat terrorism and deny sanctuary.
Enable the Afghan security structure.
Sustain area ownership.
Enable reconstruction and good governance.
Engage regional states.
In combing Katzman’s and Barno’s MOE’s in this study I will examine whether NATO and the United States has been failing in their military war between 2001-09 and whether they have been able to generate enough violence in the right concentration to achieve their political goals.
The United States launched the War in Afghanistan with Operation Enduring Freedom on the 1st October, 2001 in which the US military worked in co-operation with the forces of the Northern Alliance. A concerted use of force helped achieve victory with the toppling of the Taliban regime in Kandahar on the 9th December 2001. The co-operation extended into Operation Anaconda at Tora Bora which saw the final military defeat of the Taliban’s and al-Qaeda conventional forces. These were conventional operations that resulted ‘in defeating the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies and in liberating Afghanistan in a few short weeks’. One of the defining characteristics of the success of Operation Enduring Freedom was the Unity of Command emanating from Central Command (CentComm) in Tampa Florida.
The Unity in Command saw the merging of resources and capabilities from Department of Defence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and from several other US governments which provided timely outcomes. The initial phase of the conflict in Afghanistan was described by General Franks as an ‘unqualified and complete success’ . The United States won its war to defeat terrorism and deny sanctuary with operations Enduring Freedom and Anaconda in Afghanistan. These efforts had a major impact on the organisational ability of both the Taliban and al-Qaeda to inflict there fundamentalist theocracy upon the people of Afghanistan. The US victory in this phase of the war was achieved through a unity of command that allowed the concentrated use of overwhelming force. The defeat of the Taliban’s conventional force was so efficient that Marston points out that it, ‘left a political vacuum’ which was to have enormous ‘significant consequences’.
The context of the War in Afghanistan changed significantly with NATO taking over control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) form the US The handover of control of military forces to NATO control saw a change in the nature of the intervention from a militaristic seek and destroy mission to political mission of security and stability mission. To achieve this goal it was decided in August 2003 that ISAF should extend its influence outside of Kabul through the creation of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT’s). As ISAF forces started to move out into the regions what they faced was not a conventional war but a low level insurgency against a reorganised Taliban groups comprising of less than one hundred men.
As NATO’s ability to rebuild rural Afghanistan was floundering, the reformed Taliban forces with the support of Pakistan and Iran started to up efforts utilising insurgent tactics to force ISAF out of Pashtun tribal areas. The over militarisation of NATO’s approach through PRT’s and the failure to adequately deal with the origins of the Afghan problem, which are according to Saikal are, ‘political, economic and regional’ led to the disenfranchisement of Pashtun’s in the new Afghan government. As Petraeus & Amos point out, ‘the primary struggle in an internal war is to mobilise people in a struggle for political control and legitimacy.’ As around 42% Afghanistan’s population are of Pashtun origin it is essential for any potential government in Afghanistan to gain the support of Pashtun tribes.
During late 2005 many US and NATO commanders believed that the war had been won due to a combination of military and political responses and that these had defeated the low-level insurgency. They were sadly mistaken and as a result NATO assumed responsibility for all security in Afghanistan by early 2006. As McCrystal stated in his Commanders Initial Assessment, ‘ISAF is a conventional force that is poorly configured for COIN, inexperienced in local languages and culture, and struggling with challenges inherent to coalition warfare.’ The failure of defeating a low-level insurgency combined with the absolute failure of ISAF’s PRT’s to win the support and trust of the Pashtun tribes in RC SOUTH and EAST saw the low level violence of Taliban remnants develop into a full blown insurgency by 2005-06.
The failure of NATO and US efforts in the second phase of the Afghan War between 2003-06 can be seen as a failure to sustain area ownership of rural Afghanistan. As NATO and the US attempted to extend its mandate outside of Kabul from September 2003 the approach was one of clear and retreat and not one of Thompson’s clear, build and hold strategy which created enormous power vacuums which according to Petraeus & Amos ‘breed insurgencies’. NATO political efforts with their takeover of ISAF in 2003 were a complete failure and as a result in the summer of 2005-06 the low intensity insurgency being conducted by Taliban and Islamic remnants of previous Afghan governments was transformed into a full scale insurgency. A conflict that has the potential to not only bring down the Kazai regime but also to propel the whole region into a greater conflict.
Full report see
http://www.indymedia.org.au/2012/08/31/why-the-us-and-nato-are-losing-the-war-in-afghanistan-leaked-defence-report
ANON