More US troops needed in Kandahar - report

As US commanders consider how they are going to deploy an extra 30,000 troops in Afghanistan in the next few weeks, they may be considering a strategy spelt out in a report from the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War.
Written by Carl Forsberg, who has also worked at the US Marine Corps Intelligence HQ and for the Ugandan State Minister for Disaster Relief and Refugees in Kampala, The Taliban's Campaign for Kandahar argues that The Quetta Shura of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has made the province of Kandahar, including the city itself, a primary objective of its campaign in the south of the country. Since 2004 it has taken control of the districts around the city one-by-one, with the result that by the end of 2008 its forces could use these areas to launch attacks on the provincial capital itself.
In contrast, ISAF has failed to prioritise the province over Helmand and has also failed to position sufficient forces within the city. Due to lack of troops, ISAF has only been able to disrupt the Taliban in Kandahar, but not eradicate it. Forsberg says ISAF should use enough troops to neutralise the Taliban in Kandahar, which is a necessary first step to reversing the Taliban's gains throughout the south of Afghanistan.
The problem with Forsberg's argument is that it cannot show how an increase in troops in the city will defeat the Taliban. The Canadians and the US battalion fighting in Arghandab to the north of the city have both been badly stung by Taliban fighters, who clearly have substantial support in the area. Indeed Forsberg himself points this out, noting "The Taliban’s judicial system, regularized taxation, oversight mechanisms, complaints committees, and protection of opium growers all demonstrate a clear concern with winning local support" and "The Taliban’s desire to win public support in occupied areas through their judicial code is also demonstrated by their willingness to moderate the harsh legal prohibitions on entertainment they had taken during their tenure in power during the 1990s. Radio, television, and the shaving of beards are no longer outlawed by the Taliban in Kandahar, although such activities remained rare in many Taliban-controlled villages due to a reigning conservative social culture."
If only it were possible to compliment the Karzai government in the same way.
The issue today is not military defeat of the Taliban. This is unlikely, even with the extra troops now heading to Afghanistan. A greater troop presence in the crowded confines of the city and surrounding connurbations will only lead to civilian deaths and even greater disenchantment. The only military strategy that makes sense now is one that drives a wedge between Mullah Omar on the one hand and the al-Qaeda-inspired jihadists who are using the Afghans to further their own heretical aims.

Insight into the military campaign in Helmand

Despite the intensity of the fighting in Afghanistan, it is exceptionally hard to find accounts of what is actually happening in areas like the southern province of Helmand. News reports - most of which originate with military press officers - talk about the latest casualties or, occasionally, about a new offensive against a Taliban target. But seldom do you read anything approaching a narrative.
An excellent exception to this state of affairs is a new report from the US-based Institute for the Study of War. Written by Jeffrey A. Dressler, Securing Helmand: Understanding and responding to the enemy explains to the reader the ebbs and flows of attack and counter-attack in this critical region.
Dressler says, for example, that "The enemy system in Helmand is resourced and directed by the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST). The enemy is determined, well-organized, and entrenched in the province. In recent years, the enemy has shown its ability to adapt to the evolving conflict by developing and executing coherent campaign plans." He goes through these campaigns, showing how they evolved and who was behind the decision making.
He divides Helmand into three distinct, but related, areas of southern, central and northern Helmand River Valley, each of which is used in different ways by the Taliban. The southern area facilitates the movement of foreign fighters and weapons to central Helmand, as well as facilitating the refining, storage and eventual movement of narcotics out of Helmand, mainly through the province’s southern border with Pakistan.
Central Helmand is the Taliban’s centre of gravity in the province, particularly the areas west of the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah and around the province’s economic centre of Gereshk in the Nahri Sarraj district.
In northern Helmand the Taliban is entrenched along the Helmand and Musa Qala Rivers, in and around the fertile farmland mainly used for opium cultivation.
Dressler says that the most critical population centres in the province are Lashkar Gah, Gereshk, Nad Ali, Nawa, Garmser, Sangin, Musa Qala, and Kajaki and that these population centres must be the focus of Coalition activity.
British activity in Helmand is carefully analysed by Dressler, who notes that it was, from the beginning in 2006, a comprehensive approach, involving the military, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. The strategy was designed to mirror the British "Malayan inkspot strategy": by focussing on the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah, it was hoped that the perceived benefits in terms of security, social and economic improvement and political stability would spread to outlying towns and villages.
However, says Dressler, the strategy has not worked. He points to differing agendas. The military planners say that you cannot have development without security, while the DFID and FCO staff are under pressure to show signs of development that are not based on "kinetic activity".
He adds that the British effort has also been hampered by misuse of funds and the Taliban's control of the roads surrounding the district. The UK Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee report published in July (see my post on this subject) offers a way forward, with its emphasis on improving security as a way of stabilising the province.
Dressler's report provides a sober assessment of Britain's Panther's Claw offensive this summer. Dressler says the operation was timed to allow some of the 80,000 elegible voters to take part in the Presidential election on 20 August. However only 150 turned out to vote in the town of Babaji, which was the only place thought safe enough to open a polling station.
Overall, says Dressler, "The shortcomings of Panther’s Claw were evident. First, the force failed to comprehensively and methodically clear the green zone. Hence, the transition to the holding phase was premature. An insufficient holding force has been left to oppose an enemy presence that is still quite strong. The poor voter turnout was likely a result of an enemy presence that remains capable of intimidating and coercing the local population. Although the British may hold Babaji district center, the remainder of the green zone is not under their control. Despite the magnitude of Panther’s Claw, the result is likely to be the same as previous operations throughout Helmand."
This report contains much very useful information and is indispensable for anyone who wants to understand how the Taliban fights and organises in its most important battlefield.

Another 40,000 US troops for Afghanistan?

If President Obama eventually agrees to support General Stanley McChrystal's recommendation of more US troops in Afghanistan, just how many troops is that likely to be? No-one outside the Pentagon knows for sure, as the figures are not contained in the General's report.
However, Frederick W. Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute and Kimberly Kagan, President of the Institute for the Study of War, have produced a report that offers some estimates.
A Comprehensive Strategy for Afghanistan: Afghanistan Force Requirements argues that an additional 40-45,000 troops will be necessary in 2010 to add to the 64,000 already there.
(It should be noted that, according to the authors, of the 64,000 troops presently in-country, only 23,000 are available for counter-insurgency operations.
Compare that to Iraq, where before the troop surge the 15 US brigades there could put around 72,000 counter-insurgency troops on the ground and at the height of the surge, the total was more like 105,000. Iraq and Afghanistan have similar populations, although the latter is a much bigger country.)
These troops are in addition to the 20 non-US ISAF battalions that provide another 16,000 counter-insurgency troops and around 50,000 Afghan National Army troops. It will also be necessary to speed up the training of an extra 30,000 Afghan troops by October next year.
The US and ISAF troops should concentrate their efforts in Helmand/Kandahar, Paktia/Paktika and Nangahar and the Konar River Valley, say the authors. Other areas should simply be held or, in some cases, abandoned.
Without the extra troops suggested by Kagan and Kagan, they say the fighting in Helmand will continue to be indecisive, and Kandahar will have to be ceded to the enemy. Alternatively it may become necessary to withdraw completely from Helmand, which would not only humiliate the British Army, but would also lead to a mass slaughter of those who cooperated with the ISAF forces. From a military standpoint at least, President Obama would appear to have very few choices.