Highlights
– The rise in unrest has prompted the coalition to rethink its strategy
– US’s NATO allies unlikely to significantly increase troops levels in the near-term
– Increased focus and emphasis likely to be placed on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities in the long-term
With approximately four months until United States (US) President George W. Bush leaves office, top civilian and military leaders are conducting several major new reviews of the war strategy and overall mission in Afghanistan.
In December 2007, the Bush administration concluded its last major reassessment of Afghanistan policy. However, administration officials claim that earlier adjustments have either failed or have been overtaken by changes on the ground. The fact that violence by militants has risen by 30 percent in 2008 has likely had the greatest effect in prompting a new review of the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) long-term strategy and goals in Afghanistan.
As top US civilian and military leaders assess the strategy in Afghanistan, there is likely to be an increased emphasis on economic development, humanitarian assistance, and encouraging stronger Afghan governance, instead of primarily focusing on a military approach. Despite the reassessment of strategy, there is unlikely to be any major fundamental shifts in direction in the near to mid-term.
Troop Increase
With the 30 percent increase in Taliban-led violence primarily in the southern and eastern parts of the country, there has been an increasing number of civilian and military leaders calling for a troop increase.
In a speech on September 16, 2008 General David D. McKiernan, the top American commander in Afghanistan, stated he needed as many as 15,000 additional combat and support troops, which is beyond the 8,000 troops that President Bush recently approved for deployment in early 2009. However, many NATO members, whose International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is the overall military command of Afghanistan, have largely resisted US calls to contribute more troops.
While the US contemplates whether or not to send additional forces to the country, several NATO allies are much less reluctant and often balk at the idea of deploying more forces. Seen as a victory for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, on September 23, 2008 the French government won parliamentary backing to keep its 3,000-member military contingent among the international forces operating in Afghanistan. However, the level of unpopularity the war has reached in France has ultimately eliminated the idea of the country sending additional forces to the region. Also, the US has placed pressure on the United Kingdom (UK), to augment troop members, however it has stated it has no plans to significantly increase its troop presence.
With the Afghan war highly unpopular throughout Europe, the rising number of casualties and deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan will result in increased public pressure on European governments to abandon their commitments in the country. Because of this, we do not expect any substantial troop increases from the US’s NATO allies in the near-term.
“Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance”
General McKiernan has labeled the adversary in Afghanistan as a “nexus of insurgency,” greatly complicating the nature and targeting of the enemy. The number of civilian deaths as a result of NATO air strikes has reached record highs and has ultimately caused general discontent and animosity among many Afghan’s against NATO forces, hampering coalition attempts to win the “hearts and minds” of the people, something that is paramount in combating an insurgency.
The need for precise targeting, specifically increased emphasis on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), is a tactic supported by the US Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD has increased the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to watch the roads and mountain passes, in an attempt to spot insurgents before they strike. In addition, the new surveillance tools may help identify the networks and individuals that pose the biggest threat, enhancing NATO’s ability to capture or kill specific targets.
There has been a surge in ISR tools in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past year, and despite some opposition in the US Air Force, there will likely be additional emphasis and focus on ISR capabilities in NATO’s military strategy in Afghanistan for the long-term.
Outlook
Afghanistan has been a slow and difficult exercise for nation building, further complicated by the increase in violence from a wide-range of low-intensity actors. Also, the deteriorating situation in Pakistan’s northwest will have to be addressed, as the instability plaguing the tribal regions has a direct effect on violence in Afghanistan.
As the Bush administration enters its final months, many senior national security policy officials and military commanders say there is a new urgency to put the mission in Afghanistan on the right path. However, any changes in strategy being contemplated are not expected to be as substantially or fundamentally different than the approach and changes implemented in Iraq.
In the long-term, we are likely to see increased emphasis on rebuilding the Afghan army, whose numbers are expected to double from 66,000 to 134,000 over the next three years. As Afghanistan is a country that is particularly weary of the presence of foreign troops, it will be the cornerstone of counterinsurgency policy to empower the national army.
With NATO-members unlikely to deploy additional troops in the near to mid-term, there is likely to be more focus placed on ISR tools, specifically increased use of UAV’s. Most notably, the US is expected to put more emphasis on economic development, humanitarian assistance, and encouraging better Afghan governance, tactics all advocated by NATO’s European members.
