[More than 400 Afghan soldiers and police officers are dying each
month, and the insurgency remains stronger than many had anticipated. Western
officials have watched the fighting this year closely, considering it a litmus
test for the future of Afghan security.]
By Kevin
Sieff
 |
| SHAH MARAI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES - A newly graduated Afghan National Army (ANA) soldier waves the Afghan flag during a graduation ceremony at the Afghan National Army training centre in Kabul. |
KABUL — For the Afghan army and police, the past few months have brought
record casualties and forced a realization that many commanders once balked at:
Part of Afghanistan will probably remain in the enemy’s hands.
“I cannot cover every inch of the country. The Afghan army isn’t
big enough,” said Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the army’s chief of staff.
After nearly 12 years of war, Afghan forces are doing the bulk of
the fighting and dying here as the U.S. military drawdown accelerates. From 800
bases last year, the U.S.-led NATO coalition is down to about 100. By February,
it will have about 50. Most
bases are not handed to Afghan forces after coalition troops depart.
That shrinking military footprint has transformed the nature of
the war at a critical juncture. Afghan troops in much of the country have gone
on the offensive, conducting operations
to disrupt Taliban havens far from their bases. But when those operations
conclude, the government is often unable to hold key terrain, according to top
U.S. and Afghan commanders.
“Where you have some leadership challenges . . . there
are gaps in layered security,” said Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the top U.S.
commander in Afghanistan. “Where the Afghan forces clear [an enemy stronghold],
there needs to be a second and third step to follow through.”
More than 400 Afghan soldiers and police officers are dying each
month, and the insurgency remains stronger than many had anticipated. Western
officials have watched the fighting this year closely, considering it a litmus
test for the future of Afghan security.
But while Afghan troops have displayed much-improved commitment
and ability, the country’s nascent security forces have in some cases failed to
fill the gap left by the departing foreign troops. Commanders have had to
sketch out new, realistic priorities, accepting that the Taliban will remain
undisturbed in some places.
“If there is a small house or a village at the top of the
mountain, and I know there is Taliban there, I will say: ‘Okay, you can stay
there. As long as you are not making trouble in the big city,’ ” Karimi
said.
U.S. and Afghan officials have conducted a “gap analysis” to gauge
the security holes left where Afghan forces have been unable to take control.
Part of the transition, Dunford said, is attempting to close those gaps.
In the meantime, the Afghan army’s focus is on protecting urban
areas, where the bulk of the population lives, Karimi said, even if far-flung
districts remain out of the military’s reach. The country’s police force is, in
theory, responsible for securing those population centers, but many army
commanders say it has been unable to deliver.
Loss of resources
The U.S. troop drawdown has sometimes left Afghan forces, who are
contending with a sudden surge in responsibility, without
resources they had grown used to, such as medical evacuation and close air
support.
Karimi said he worries about morale as casualties mount and air
evacuation teams sometimes fail to arrive on time.
“It is . . .hurting me, let alone the soldiers,” he said.
U.S. commanders say it has been difficult at times to provide
support because of a lack of communication between Afghan and American
troops now that the units are no longer together.
“We have had some cases where Afghans are in the lead . . . and
many times, we don’t have the details of those operations,” Dunford said. “They
didn’t think through to coordinate with us to let us know what they’re doing so
we’d be in a position to support them.”
That lack of communication left dozens of Afghan troops without
support during a large battle in northeastern Afghanistan in March, he said.
Seventeen Afghan soldiers died.
Dunford said, however, that he is committed to providing
evacuation support to Afghans “where there is a risk of loss of a life, limb or
eyesight.”
According to NATO’s post-2014 plan, that assistance — along with
close air support — would cease at the end of the coalition’s formal mission.
Dunford and other NATO commanders are working to revise the policy so that
critical support would continue beyond 2014.
“That will be a policy decision that hasn’t been made yet by both
NATO and the United States,” Dunford said.
Impact of a peace deal
For years, U.S. and Afghan officials argued that only a political
solution would bring an end to the war in Afghanistan — a prospect that
officials in both governments are clinging to, despite the stalling
of negotiations with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar.
But the top Afghan and U.S. commanders in Afghanistan now
acknowledge that a high-level peace deal would not rid the country of violence.
The insurgency is too varied and localized, Karimi said.
“There are two parties within the Taliban: One is 100 percent in
favor of peace talks. They are moderate. Then there is another group that wants
to fight,” Karimi said.
For his part, Dunford said criminal networks will operate with
impunity, regardless of calls for reconciliation by Taliban leaders.
“A peace deal in Doha won’t stop violence in Afghanistan,” Dunford
said. “Afghan forces will still be dealing with violence associated with crime
and illicit trafficking across the border areas after 2014.”
However, he appeared more optimistic than his Afghan counterpart
about the effect a peace deal could have on the most hardened militants.
Both commanders suggested that there is no easy fix to end the
insurgency before 2014, when the formal conclusion of the war coincides with a
crucial presidential election.
“Timely, inclusive, free and fair elections are absolutely
critical to the transition process,” Dunford said. “I can’t imagine us having
an effective transition in 2015 without the single most important thing that
has happened in the campaign, which is the elections of 2014.”
