Background — the failure of Afghan security forces

In 30 days, the $90 billion enterprise of some 50 countries for over two decades, melted away


Inam Ul Haque April 06, 2023
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@hotmail.com and tweets @20_Inam

print-news

Last week, based upon February 2023 report by SIGAR (US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction), reasons for failure of Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF) against the Islamic Emirate (IEA) were pointed out, highlighting the US perspective. This piece follows on.

The decision to raise an internationally trained and professional ANDSF from scratch was taken by the US and its Coalition partners in 2002. The US took the lead to raise ANA, whereas ANP (Police) reform was entrusted to Germany; counternarcotics was assigned to Britain; judicial reform went to Italy; and Japan had to deal with ‘disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration’.

Initially, the US Special Forces undertook raising and training of ANA, however, raising and training a national army was considered beyond the ‘core competency of the Special Forces’. So, in May 2002, Army’s 10th Mountain Division was deployed to Afghanistan to expand ANA training effort from small units to larger formations, besides developing competencies like logistics etc. However, once this Division was moved to Iraq in 2003, the project was relegated to Army National Guard units on rotational basis.

In 2005, after realizing that division of responsibilities was not yielding, the US assumed lead role for both ANA and ANP, and set up CSTC-A (Combined Security Transition Command- Afghanistan) in 2006 to train, advise, assist and equip ANDSF. Under worsening insecurity, the US/NATO resorted to unrealistic training end-states and timelines under political compulsions. For example, basic training was curtailed from 14 to 10 weeks in 2007, and Kabul Military Training Center, an ANA’s training facility, increased its output from two to five kandaks (Army battalions).

For ANP a similar compressed schedule was adopted. In 2005, only 3,900 of the 34,000 “trained” ANP personnel had undergone 8-week basic training. The remainder were put through just a 2-week crash programme. A police recruit in America and most other countries, by contrast, undergoes an average basic training of around 21 weeks, followed by weeks in field training and mentoring.

On the equipment side, some ANP units had just around 15% weapons and communications equipment. ANA was ‘under-resourced causing low morale’. Yet expansion continued unabated. American officials warned their Afghan interlocutors of withholding funding, if ANP was not expanded from 60,000 to 82,000. In 2008, ANA expansion was agreed from 75,000 to 134,000, including the Afghan Air Force (AAF) with little or no regard to the associated fiscal and resource limitations.

ANA transited from a light-infantry army to a combined armed force comprising army, air force and special forces, mirror-imaging the American Military. This subsequently became ANDSF’s own undoing as the required peripherals were limited or non-existent. Despite cultural impediments like religion, lack of trust, sociology and demography, Afghan specialized units came up well following the train, advise, and assist (TAA) programmes under the US Special Operations Command and USAF.

In 2009, deteriorating security led to President Barack Obama authorizing a surge in US combat troops, besides increasing the ANDSF’s strength, capping it at 352,000 soldiers and police. He also announced a withdrawal date for US combat forces, and ANDSF was to take over security responsibility beginning mid-2011. US Military (USMIL) was now pursuing a two-track strategy of rapidly improving security, besides raising and supporting a struggling ANDSF. The US augmented critical gaps in ANDSF capability by providing ‘enablers’ like ‘close air support, airlift, medical evacuation, logistics, and leadership’. During ‘partnered’ operations, ANDSF was encouraged to model their fighting on the USMIL. This ultimately led to ANDSF’s over-reliance on USMIL especially for ‘advanced military capabilities and air support’.

So, when in 2012, the US/NATO started to withdraw, ‘ANDSF struggled to succeed on its own’. Various commanders like General Joseph Dunford, then the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) commander, anticipated and feared deterioration. On December 31, 2014, ISAF transitioned to ‘Resolute Support mission’, stipulating support to ANDSF at regional corps level.

Sequel to the above transition, Taliban increased operational tempo and captured Kunduz, the first provincial capital in 2015, besides gains in Helmand Province, as ANA’s Helmand-based 215th Corps collapsed. Obama Administration came to rescue by deploying Special Forces and air to capture the lost territory. He authorized Marines redeployment in Helmand Province, loosened restrictions on targeting Taliban and pushed back the planned US withdrawal date.

Military operations escalated under Trump’s South Asia Strategy. However, it was after the 2020 Doha Agreement, stipulating withdrawal of all US military personnel and contractors, that the USMIL support to the ANDSF came to a sudden halt, ostensibly under Taliban commitment of no further attacks on the US/NATO troops. Taliban attacks concentrated instead against ANDSF, testing the limits of the Agreement. General Scott Miller, the then “Resolute Support” Commander, warned of ANDSF’s vulnerability, without vital USMIL support.

In March 2021, the incoming Biden administration took a review of its Afghanistan policy. Taliban had threatened to resume attacks on the US/Coalition Forces if America failed to withdraw by the May 1, 2021, deadline set in the Agreement. The US unilaterally shifted the deadline to September 11, 2021. In April 2021, the US intelligence community had provided a dismal assessment of ANDSF against a resurgent Taliban, ‘confident of achieving a military victory’.

In May 2021, Taliban overran six ANA bases in Baghlan Province, with at least 200 soldiers surrendering. Another 26 outposts and bases in four provinces laid down their arms after Taliban’s successful tasleem (surrender) strategy. Killing of about two dozen Afghan Special Forces soldiers in Faryab Province on June 16, 2021 prompted President Ghani to raise “public uprising forces” or pro-government local militias to confront Taliban. The USMIL evacuated Bagram Air Base on July 2, 2021 in the middle of the night with no prior coordination with ANDSF. During July after seizing numerous districts, Taliban expanded their war effort towards smaller cities and attacked Kandahar and Herat airports.

In early August 2021, Taliban captured seven provinces in northern Afghanistan, an area traditionally hostile to them. Local militia leaders like Atta Mohammad Noor and Abdul Rashid Dostum ultimately fled. President Ghani boasted on August 1 of a “new plan” to ‘mobilizing public uprising forces and more than doubling the elite commando forces’. However, by mid-August Taliban had captured the remaining Afghanistan.

Hence, in 30 days, ANDSF, the $90 billion enterprise of some 50 countries for over two decades, melted away offering little or no resistance to the advancing Taliban.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 6th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (4)

Saleem Akhtar Malik | 1 year ago | Reply The article written by Major General Inam ul Haq is the sequel to his article Afghanistan-why Afghan army collapsed . In his previous article the writer had done a critique of the report by SIGAR Special Inspector General for Afghanistan . SIGAR was created by the U.S. Congress to provide independent and objective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction projects and activities. It is a U.S Government watchdog that conducts audits and investigations to 1 promote the efficiency and effectiveness of reconstruction programs and 2 detect and prevent waste fraud and abuse. SIGAR was mandated by the U.S. Government to investigate why the U.S. military planners failed despite the nearly 90 billion in security assistance to ANDSF since 2002 to raise a self-sustaining capable and independent force to combat internal and external threats to Afghanistan. The force was trained mentored and employed in joint operations by the US NATO forces over two decades. Analyzing the SIGAR Report General Inam highlighted three major conclusions 1 The ANA melted against the Taliban forces due to the Taliban s commitment resolve and clarity about their objectives. ANA on the other hand was plagued by low morale and corruption 2 Well-trained and bright Afghan officers with professional credentials were sidelined 3 The U.S. military planners obsession with designing ANSDF as a mirror image of the US Military USMIL with heavy reliance on firepower and combat air support. Mirror-imaging increased ANSDF long-term dependencies. In the current article the writer re-emphasizes the findings of the SIGAR report. He also highlights certain systemic failures that played a critical role in the collapse of the ANSDF. These were 1 The US time commitment to raise the ANSDF was non-realistic 2 The project s overall ownership by Coalition Forces was awkward as no single agency and country were responsible for it. 3 Trainers and advisers were themselves poorly trained and ill-equipped for their mission and tasks 4 Lack of an effective assessment system and oversight caused an unclear picture of reality on the ground 5 The endemic corruption in the Afghan society. While pondering over the corruption in Afghan society one is transported over time to another war in Afghanistan almost half a century ago. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the operations undertaken by the Mujahideen outfits were cumbersome and slow-moving at times taking more than two months to accomplish an assigned task. Out of the funds and materiel provided by ISI the warlord would pay his operators transporters and fighters bribe the Afghan Army officials and also give the local Communist Party apparatchik his cut. The firing team or raid ambush party would in turn arrange for the logistics transport the free-flying rockets and their launchers or explosives in the vicinity of the intended target in case it was a bombing sabotage operation or move the fighters to the likely concentration area and execute the operation. The entire chain of operation starting from the receiving of money by the warlord and his tasking by the ISI operative to the actual execution had that many beneficiaries. This was the modus operandi of Mujahideen operations fueled by the Afghan War economy during the Soviet occupation Yousaf Adkin 1992 . How little Afghan society has changed One major conclusion arrived at by reading the analyses penned by General Inam is how doggedly the Americans follow their ambition to play God while creating the armies of their client countries in their image. In their obsession to mirror the ANSDF in the image of the US military they were exactly repeating the same blunders they had committed in Vietnam almost half a century ago. On March 29 1973 two months after the signing of the Vietnam peace agreement the last U.S. combat troops left South Vietnam as Hanoi freed many of the remaining American prisoners of war held in North Vietnam. America s direct eight-year intervention in the Vietnam War was at an end. Five years before in March 1969 Admiral John S. McCain Jr. Commander U.S. Pacific Command gave an interview to Reader s Digest John. G. Hubble. Replying to Hubble s question - How effective are South Vietnam s armed forces now The admiral replied They have come a long way. In recent months they have been displaying increased morale proficiency and dedication. The main reason is that they are receiving much better training and are being led by a growing number of competent combat-experienced men. Also they are equipped with the M-16 rifle replacing the M-1 which increases their firepower by 50 percent. And there have been intangible factors including the increased support of the South Vietnamese people and an awareness that the war is being won. There is still a lot of room for improvement of course but in one recent week we got a good look at what the South Vietnamese can do. First South Vietnamese Marines and regional-force soldiers took on the enemy at the Phuc Tan outpost in Tay Ninh province killed 148 and inflicted a casualty ratio of 20 to 1. Four days later a Civilian Irregular force at the Katum outpost in Tay Ninh province met the enemy killed 135 inflicted a casualty ratio of 13 to 1 and captured a large number of arms and munitions. Two days after that the enemy launched simultaneous attacks on the Phouc Tan and Thien Ngon outposts in Tay Ninh province. Both attacks were beaten off the enemy lost 27 6killed the South Vietnamese only 11. Significantly these battles were fought close to the enemy s Cambodian sanctuaries where he is supposed to have an advantage. Just as happened with South Korea s armed forces I believe it is entirely reasonable to assume that South Vietnam will come out of this war with a sufficiently strong military posture to face up to communist aggression in future years. I think too however that as in Korea some sort of American military presence will be required in South Vietnam for several years Hubble 1969 Strangely the SIGAR report offers no recommendations in case Uncle Sam decides upon a similar overseas adventure thousands of miles away from the American shores in yet another jinxed Third or Fourth world country. Saleem Akhtar Malik
MSA | 1 year ago | Reply Strategic mismanagement leading to failure
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ