Pentagon report questions quality of Afghan army

The US-led occupation of Afghanistan is justified publicly by official statements from the US government and military that the US occupation will end, or largely end, when two objectives are achieved: (1) a "democratic" government of some sort is established, and (2) an Afghan military force, capable of providing "security" to the country is created. There are a host of reports that find the Afghan central government in Kabul has little influence in the country as a whole, is filled with corruption, and is dependent on warlords.

The following article reports on a new Pentagon report and related interviews that strongly indicate that there is too little progress in creating an effective Afghan army. There is another relevant point, made by Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC program last night. Rachel said that the cost of the US training programs is currently 9 billion, rising an additional billion a year over the next two years (or more). If the US were to withdraw its troops, the Afghan government would not have the financial ability to maintain an Afghan army of any sufficient size, let alone an army like the one now being trained or in the field.

The implication is that the US is on a fool's errand.

Here is a quote from an article by correspondent Tim McGirk in Time magazine online, June 14, 2010 (http://www.time.com/). The title of the article: "Will Afghanistan's Military Ever Be Fit to Fight?" McGirk reports in the quote on just the US support payments for the Afghan army and refers to the relatively paltry Afghan government's annual tax revenues.

"It will require loads of money to stave off the ANA's collapse. Not counting training costs, the price tag for just keeping the Afghan army fed, paid, clothed and ready for combat is estimated at more than $6 billion a year, far beyond the Kabul government's yearly earnings of $1 billion in tax revenue, as calculated by the presidential office. This guarantees that the U.S. and its NATO allies will be footing the bill for many years to come." Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1993886-2,00.html#ixzz0to9uiRoB


Quality of Afghan Army Questioned by Pentagon
Ben Farmer and James Kirkup, The Daily Telegraph, with files from Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News · Wednesday, Jul. 14, 2010

Source: National Post.com (see full URL at end of article); also can be found at Antiwar.org, July 15-2010

Raising the competence of the Afghan army is central to the entire NATO strategy for Afghanistan, but a recent Pentagon report questions the quality and reliability of the force.
With the Afghan National Police widely regarded as corrupt and unreliable, even greater importance rests on the Afghan National Army (ANA). Western nations have said they will only withdraw their forces when the Afghans can secure the country themselves.

NATO leaders have repeatedly claimed that the ANA is making excellent progress, but those claims have been questioned by a U.S. government audit.

Arnold Fields, the U.S. Defense Department's inspector general for Afghanistan, concluded that the capabilities of many "top-rated" ANA units had been "overstated" by NATO commanders.
Several ANA units officially passed as able to operate without international support or guidance have not proved they are capable of independent operations, the auditor found in a report last month.

NATO admits that Afghan forces remain totally reliant on NATO for air support and artillery, for medical evacuation from the battlefield and often for supplies.

The audit's findings are echoed by NATO commanders in the field.

Many NATO troops have hair-raising stories of careless young Afghan soldiers accidentally firing their weapons, including rocket launchers.

Commanders in the field have also occasionally questioned the Afghans' commitment.

On a recent visit to the Babaji area of Helmand, where yesterday's shooting took place, The Daily Telegraph saw Afghan troops refuse to carry their own food or water on patrol and demanded that Gurkhas supply them instead.

Some Afghan soldiers also refuse to patrol at night or in the heat of midday. One British officer said, "The Afghan soldiers and police like to have fresh food. They are fixed to their meal times. Sometimes they have been out on patrol and said 'It's lunchtime, it's over'."

NATO commanders almost always describe operations as Afghan-led, although it is not always obvious that is the case. For example, when an important bridge near Kandahar City was blown up by insurgents several months ago, NATO said the operation to fix it was led by Afghan troops.

In fact, virtually all the work was done by Canadian and U.S. navy Seabee engineers while the few Afghan soldiers at the site rested in the shade.

There are about 119,000 members of the ANA. To allow the transfer of security duties, NATO has set a target of 171,000, due to be reached by 2014. That means an accelerated process that sees new recruits given two months' basic training before being assigned to units, often formed from scratch.

Professor Michael Clarke of the Royal United Services Institute said a few units are of good quality but, because of the short training period for rank-and-file soldiers, "the quality is always going to be patchy".

There are questions about the commitment of the ANA and Prof. Clarke estimated that one in ten newly trained ANA soldiers go absent without leave.

British officers training the ANA say that there is a particular shortage of noncommissioned officers, the sergeants and sergeants-major who are the backbone of any modern army.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Quality+Afghan+army+questioned+Pentagon/3273913/story.html#ixzz0tnaie8sW