Afghan National Security Force

Post-2014 NATO Mission in Afghanistan Has a Name, But No Enabling Agreement

[youtuber youtube='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSlwYESlvqs']

 

In a complete repeat of the process the Obama administration used to get NATO to be the entity to propose extending the mythical 352,000 Afghan National Security Force size through 2018 instead of letting it drop by a third in 2015, yesterday saw NATO “announcing” that the training of ANSF would extend post-2014 and that Germany and Italy would participate in this training. This mission is clearly guaranteed to succeed because it has the nifty new name of “Resolute Support” and is even the subject of the slick video above that NATO released for the roll-out of the surrounding propaganda campaign:

The United States has agreed to lead a training mission in Afghanistan after 2014 that will include troops from Germany and Italy and will operate under a new NATO mandate, officials announced Wednesday.

U.S. troops would be based in hubs in the east and south, Taliban strongholds where the Afghan army is likely to face a deadly insurgency for years to come. Germany has pledged to keep troops in the north and Italy in the west, an arrangement that would mark a continuation of the current force structure, albeit with far fewer troops.

However, there still is no underlying agreement that will authorize US trainers to be in Afghanistan after 2014 with full criminal immunity:

Officials did not specify how many troops the mission, called Resolute Support, would include. They declined to say whether it would include a counterterrorism mission, one of the capabilities that the Obama administration has expressed interest in keeping after the mandate of NATO’s current troop contingent, the International Security Assistance Force, expires.

“The new mission will not be ISAF by another name,” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said. “It will be significantly smaller.”

/snip/

The White House has been reluctant to specify how many troops it would be willing to keep in the country because it has yet to sign a security cooperation agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That has made U.S. allies reluctant to make their own commitments to continue pouring money and troops into a deeply unpopular conflict.

It’s nice to know that we have the toughest detail of naming the mission out the way so that we can now get down to the minor details of criminal immunity, force size and full combat activity for US troops under the rubric of “counterterrorism”. What could possibly go wrong with this terrific new effort?

It might also be noted in parting that Rasmussen claimed Afghan Special Forces as the “bedrock” of the post-2014 effort. From what I have been able to find, those “special forces” have a whopping twelve weeks of extra training, compared to 14-18 months of extra training for US Special Forces.

NATO Wants US to Buy $22 Billion SOFA in Afghanistan

Both Reuters and the New York Times carry stories this morning reporting that NATO has floated the idea of extending the 352,000 Afghan National Security Force size for a number of years beyond the current plan that calls for it to fall significantly after the US completes its withdrawal. There are a number of problems with this idea. The first is that the 352,000 number bears little relation to reality at this point, since the ongoing high attrition rate for Afghan forces continued during the prolonged disruption in training due to green on blue attacks. Although ISAF continues to claim that recruiting and initial training goals to support the 352,000 level were met, the likelihood that this level of troops still exists and is integrated into ANSF is very low. (See this post for just one example of the deployment deficit at an Afghan National Border Police facility.) Second, the US bears the bulk of the budgetary load for maintaining ANSF, so extending the commitment to the increased troop level is asking for a large financial commitment from the US at a time when budget deficits are the panic du jour in Washington. Finally, because only one Afghan National Army unit now is reported to be able to function without any advisor input, a large number of US advisors is required to achieve the required ANSF force size and there is not yet a negotiated Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that grants immunity to US troops remaining in Afghanistan after the planned withdrawal at the end of 2014. The lack of such an agreement in Iraq resulted in our rapid withdrawal of advisors there.

Here is how the Times described the proposal:

NATO defense ministers are seriously considering a new proposal to sustain Afghanistan’s security forces at 352,000 troops through 2018, senior alliance officials said Thursday. The expensive effort is viewed as a way to help guarantee the country’s stability — and, just as much, to illustrate continued foreign support after the NATO allies end their combat mission in Afghanistan next year.

The fiscal package that NATO leaders endorsed last spring would have reduced the Afghan National Security Forces to fewer than 240,000 troops after December 2014, when the NATO mission expires. That reduction was based on planning work indicating that the larger current force level was too expensive for Afghanistan and the allies to keep up, and might not be required. Some specialists even argued that the foreign money pouring into Afghanistan to support so large a force was helping fuel rampant official corruption.

Recall that the Obama administration managed to quash the semi-annual report on “progress” in Afghanistan that was due in October until after the November elections, but once it finally came out, the New York Times reported:

As President Obama considers how quickly to withdraw the remaining 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan and turn over the war to Afghan security forces, a bleak new Pentagon report has found that only one of the Afghan National Army’s 23 brigades is able to operate independently without air or other military support from the United States and NATO partners.

So we see that there is a huge dependence on “advisors” (=US troops) who are required for there to be any semblance of function for the ANSF. And yet, as I discussed back in November, there is not yet a SOFA in place that provides full criminal immunity to US forces who are in Afghanistan posing as advisors after 2014. Is NATO floating the idea of extending the large force size myth as an enticement to Afghan officials to keep their corruption dollars coming in by approving US troop immunity in the new SOFA? Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz Really, this is a critical article by @emptywheel on the duplicitous shell game frustrating proper surf. oversight. http://t.co/lI7Xs9vZ3i
30mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz So, when Obama+his DOJ claim "it's lawful because oversight!" they are lying out their ass. As usual on surveillance. http://t.co/lI7Xs9vZ3i
31mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Not only is DEA using parallel construction to mask improper use of tainted evidence, they're frustrating oversight http://t.co/lI7Xs9vZ3i
32mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz DOJ Inspector General Investigating DEA’s Use of Parallel Construction under Hemisphere http://t.co/lI7Xs9vZ3i
34mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz @stewartbaker @JesselynRadack @trevortimm @DanNovack Man, I should have come over for that. Sounds like a good gig.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MarkSZaidEsq @BradMossEsq @Thomas_Drake1 But don't really care what their charges are as a rule.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MarkSZaidEsq @BradMossEsq @Thomas_Drake1 And in fairness, there are clients I won't do because they are a pain in the ass.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MarkSZaidEsq @BradMossEsq @Thomas_Drake1 Meh, facts win cases more than attys. Didn't say did as to you, just curious where draw the line.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MarkSZaidEsq @BradMossEsq @Thomas_Drake1 It is a theoretical discussion, and I realize mostly civil attys look at it differently.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MarkSZaidEsq @BradMossEsq @Thomas_Drake1 That is why there is a presumption of innocence and a right to counsel.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MarkSZaidEsq @BradMossEsq @Thomas_Drake1 Lawful is in eyes of trier of fact. Some of my clients (but not all!) have been found "lawful"
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @thepoettrap What the hell are you talking about asshole? I didn't delete squat. Fuck off @JbJabroni10
1hreplyretweetfavorite
April 2014
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930