Afghan Army bigger, better than advertised
posted at 3:17 pm on March 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Michael Yon has been following testimony by British military leadership on the status of the Af-Pak war, as Michael calls it, but discovers that some estimations of Afghan capability are outdated. The prevailing view of native Afghan security forces is that they are few in number, lack capability, and at least in the police forces, hopelessly corrupt. One of Michael’s correspondents from the theater says that none of that is true:
The assertions on ANA unit independence are incorrect. As well, the ANA is larger than stated in the article, but was only recently authorized by the Bonn Accord constituted Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board to grow beyond 80,000 to 122,000 in structure and 134,000 in end strength. Even with that increase, neither the ANA nor the ANP are adequate in size, fully equipped, or have enough advisor teams. However, while far from perfect, they fight, are capable and can operate effectively. …
75% of the brigade headquarters and 50% of the infantry battalions in the south of Afghanistan are capable of independent action within their organic capabilities. The combat support and service support battalions are lagging for a variety of reasons, including an absence of branch schools [much of their training comes from the advisor teams embedded with them, on the job training, and mobile training and regional training teams] and the propensity of commanders to use them as infantry due in part to over tasking and inadequate numbers mentioned above. …
With the exception of one very tough district, every district where the Police have undergone the Focused District Development reform program has seen dramatic drops in civilian casualties and significant drops in police casualties. Moreover, despite our constant recriminations and obvious shortcomings, including continued corruption, the police poll very highly with the Afghan people and they do fight to protect their people, suffering 3 times the casualties seen by either the ANA or ISAF.
As Colonel Bill Hix says, the level of forces is still far from adequate, and we’ve been at it longer in Afghanistan than in Iraq. In Iraq, we managed to work through the somewhat less complex tribal politics to get recruits, succeeding where and when we won hearts and minds. We haven’t done that yet in Afghanistan, and the conflict there is much more of a tribal and civil war than in Iraq. Recruitment is necessarily more difficult, and apparently NATO artficially capped the numbers until recently.
With what they have, though, it sounds as though they’re doing a credible job. They may not be up to the Iraqi Army’s level of capability, but Hix reports that they can fight and win, and that they can hold and police vital territory. That gives Afghanistan a good core on which to build their security systems. But it has to go faster than this. We’ve been in Afghanistan for over seven years now, and one would expect that NATO would have focused on building security infrastructure.
Be sure to read all of Michael’s post, and don’t forget to support his indispensable free-lance work by donating to his tip jar.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The Afghans are starting from zero…nada, nothing, and are building at a pretty good clip.
They’ve a long way to go, but for the first time ever they have a national army.
A long way to go…but they got the right idea.
coldwarrior on March 12, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Did Obama say the Afghan Army is performing better?
Until he does, and the MSM blushes over his omnipotence, how can I begin to believe this is true?
fogw on March 12, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Negative comments about this from non combat experienced threaders, much less served….. in 3….2….1
MNDavenotPC on March 12, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Most people do not understand enough of the picture. Very few, if any, of the rank and file Afghan army can do things like read a technical manual. Most of the population in Afghanistan are illiterate. Before you can build a military force, you need to give them the skills they need to even be able to be trained. Currently they have to memorize practically everything. They don’t know how to take notes, study, research, etc. Training must consist of a lot of pictures, lots of showing people how to do things, but there aren’t a lot of notes being taken.
Even if they are literate, they might not be literate in the language they are being taught in. Pashto or Dari (Afgan Farsi) might be their second language. And that sucks because Pashto is the “offical” language but business and government traditionally operate in Dari.
So you have 30 percent native Pashto speakers, 50 percent native Dari speakers, 11 percent native Turkic speakers (Uzbek and Turkmen, mainly). So what language is today’s class handout going to be in? But it wouldn’t matter because they can’t read it anyway.
We need to set our expectations correctly. We are not going to be able to build what we would recognize as a modern military force until that country develops what we would call an identity of a modern nation state.
I predict that take about 40 years.
crosspatch on March 12, 2009 at 3:55 PM
A very interesting post. But why are so many Afghans illiterate? Because the Taliban (which ironically means “students”) only let people read the Koran, and “dumbed down” the population. Which is why NATO needs to build lots of schools in Afghanistan. If the schools are built quickly and teachers can be found, a generation of literate soldiers could be fielded within 15 or 20 years.
Steve Z on March 12, 2009 at 4:17 PM
If you know anything about the history and conditions in Afghanistan, this is remarkable progress really. And I agree it will take years .. and 40 might be enough because those in their 20′s now will be in their 60′s then and be in the leadership roles in all of society including the military. Expectations need to be realistic and calls for leaving Afghanistan should not even be seriously entertained.
If there was ever a reason for NATO to be expanded to the Eastern European nations regardless whether Russia agrees or likes it, is that we are going to need the manpower and the presence that the expansion will bring to this mission over the long hard decades it is going to take.
Texas Gal on March 12, 2009 at 4:22 PM
A bit more to it than just the Taliban. Having illiterate soldiers, an illiterate population, makes totalitarian rule so much easier. The governments prior to the Taliban did the same. Besides, when you are a goat-herder family living in Ghazni, or Badgah, or Shindad, what is there to read, or why read at all?
Yes, build schools, and make sure all Afghan kids get to them safely and are able to learn. And it will take at least one generation. Had a college professor who lives down the street last year actually say “Why are we wasting money building schools in Iraq and Afghanistan?”
There is illiteracy…and there is just plain ignorant. My neighbor down the street is very literate…but is godawful stupid.
coldwarrior on March 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I would expect that the slow advancement of the ANA is substantially due to the low literacy rate and other backwardness of Afghanistan.
burt on March 12, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Patience and persistence.
Tony737 on March 12, 2009 at 5:16 PM
“But why are so many Afghans illiterate? Because the Taliban (which ironically means “students”) only let people read the Koran, and “dumbed down” the population.”
To some extent this is true but remember that the Taliban were in power for only a few years. The people were illiterate when the Taliban took power. There are many reasons for this, most of them cultural. For example, the illiteracy rate among women is fairly close to 100%, or was. The Taliban didn’t suddenly make all these women forget how to read. They were illiterate when the Taliban arrived.
It is the women who have the greatest impact on children and their early learning. Educating women is a great “knowledge multiplier” and acts to bring up the level of knowledge of the entire population.
Until there is:
1. An educated population taught in a national language where people from all parts of the country can understand each other
2. Common cultural heritage among the regions where people across the country share common things as they grow up
3. Easy communications and travel between all parts of the country
there will be no national identity and people will still identify as primarily Pashtun, Uzbek, Turkmen, etc. as those are the people who share their common cultural heritage. Have a common language and a common tv and radio network broadcasting news and popular shows across the country, and children will grow into adults who have more in common culturally.
There will be resistance from the local tribal lords who currently run things, though.
crosspatch on March 12, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I remember thinking that the new Iraqi Army actually looked like a real, modern army for a change once the Americans had trained them and they got some decent equipment.
The Communist Afghan Army under Moscow was pretty horrid, but there again, the Soviets sent in mostly their third string from the surrounding ‘Stans as the bulk of their ground forces.
The South Vietnamese Army often got (sometimes deserved) bad rap, but there again they only buckled when U.S. air support was denied to them and their U.S. military materiel was cut off.
My point is that traditionally the U.S. trains other armies very well.
The old Soviet model was too dependent on mass and too willing to treat stalled units as expendable. Can’t do that with smaller, shakier armies and get away with it.
Dr. ZhivBlago on March 12, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Obama to shall pass.
BHO Jonestown on March 12, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Steve Z on March 12, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Close, but not quite accurate. The Taliban didn’t even allow people to read the Koran, because the Taliban, like most orthodox Muslims, believe the Koran must be read exclusively in Arabic, and few Afghans speak, much less read, Arabic. They can’t even read their own languages.
Most madrasas force students to memorize the Koran by repeating what the teacher reads. The students may or may not understand what they’re repeating.
I’ve traveled to Ethiopia and Sudan as a civilian, and Iraq and Afghanistan as a Soldier. Afghanistan is by far the most primitive, backward country I’ve ever seen. It makes Ethiopia look like Switzerland. When we invaded Afghanistan and committed to nation building there, we committed ourselves to a long, long struggle. I didn’t understand that until I saw it for myself, and I doubt the majority of Americans did, or do. I still believe the struggle is worth it – as long as we fight intelligently – but I wonder if the rest of the American public will be as patient.
OscarSchneegans on March 13, 2009 at 7:13 AM