Cost drives NATO bid for smaller Afghan army
NATO wants Afghan forces to be a third smaller; cost pressures in West driving cutbacks.
BRUSSELS:
Afghanistan could end up fighting Taliban insurgents with a national army and police force two-thirds the size envisaged, if plans discussed on Friday by NATO defence ministers, trying to balance security needs with budget cuts, gain traction.
The Afghan security force is due to grow to a peak of
352,000 by October, part of a hugely expensive drive to beef up
their strength to deal with Taliban insurgents and allow the
bulk of Western combat forces to withdraw by the end of 2014.
The effort is largely funded by the United States, at a cost
of $11.6 billion for this year alone, at a time when the US
Department of Defense is suffering huge cuts to its budget.
While recognising it will be many years before Afghanistan
is able to pay for its own security, NATO states are keen to
avoid recurring costs of such magnitude after 2014, so have been
considering options for a much smaller future force, with the
aim of reaching agreement at a summit in Chicago in May.
NATO diplomats said US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had
suggested a long-term target size for the police and army of
227,000, while French Defence Minister Gerald Longuet told
reporters France would be happy with a figure around 230,000.
A senior US defence official said the plan remained to
build the force up to about 350,000, the size seen as necessary
to give the Afghan military the internal support capabilities it
will need to carry out operations on its own.
"Then there may be a leveling off or a drawing down," the
US official said.
He said experts from the International Security Assistance
Force would travel to NATO soon to brief the allies on the size
and cost options of different force levels.
The official said the final numbers would be based on "both
efficiency - you can't go too low before you begin to take too
high a risk - and the sustainability, the price tag of different
options."
Armed Unemployed
Diplomats and NATO officials said there were concerns about
the dangers of building up such a large force and then cutting
it back.
"The problem is: what are they going do?" said one diplomat.
"You don't want large numbers of armed unemployed."
NATO said it was still some way from a decision.
"We discussed what could be a long-term sustainable size,
but no decision has been made," NATO Secretary-General Anders
Fogh Rasmussen told a news briefing. "We agreed we will engage
in a consultation process leading up the summit in Chicago."
Longuet said the key issues were how to fund the Afghan
security forces and what to do with trained fighters not needed
after cutting back the size of the force. There was a danger
they could turn to crime or insurgency, he said.
NATO's Rasmussen said the alliance was also making new plans
to address possible infiltration of the Afghan Army's ranks by
Taliban insurgents.
"All partners agreed to task our military authorities to
develop a plan to counter, or rather to strengthen countering
such infiltration ... before the end of February" he said.
"We have already taken a lot of steps, but in the light of
recent events we agreed to strengthen those efforts."
Those concerns were highlighted last month after the Afghan
Taliban said it had recruited an Afghan soldier who shot dead
four French soldiers in an incident that prompted France to
decide to pull out its troops early.
Officials say even the smaller Afghan security force could
cost $4-5 billion a year to maintain, including about $1.1
billion from non-US contributors.
The United States alone, which provides the bulk of the
130,000 international troops in Afghanistan, currently spends
$130 billion in Afghanistan annually.
However, many military experts worry that limiting funding
for the Afghan police and army could undercut hard-fought gains
of the 11-year US-led intervention in Afghanistan, and the
Kabul government has warned that outside backers must not force
it to choose between security and development.
Friday's discussion came after Panetta worried many Afghans
and surprised Washington's allies on Wednesday by suggesting the
US combat mission in Afghanistan would end in 2013, the first
time Washington had floated such a deadline.
On Thursday, Panetta stressed US troops in Afghanistan
would remain "combat-ready" as the United States winds down its
longest war. But he said the troops would largely shift to a
train-and-assist role as Afghan forces take responsibility for
security before an end-2014 deadline for full Afghan control.
His comments came soon after British media published
excerpts of a classified US report saying that the Taliban,
backed by Pakistan, remained confident of regaining control in
Afghanistan despite a decade of NATO efforts.
Afghanistan could end up fighting Taliban insurgents with a national army and police force two-thirds the size envisaged, if plans discussed on Friday by NATO defence ministers, trying to balance security needs with budget cuts, gain traction.
The Afghan security force is due to grow to a peak of
352,000 by October, part of a hugely expensive drive to beef up
their strength to deal with Taliban insurgents and allow the
bulk of Western combat forces to withdraw by the end of 2014.
The effort is largely funded by the United States, at a cost
of $11.6 billion for this year alone, at a time when the US
Department of Defense is suffering huge cuts to its budget.
While recognising it will be many years before Afghanistan
is able to pay for its own security, NATO states are keen to
avoid recurring costs of such magnitude after 2014, so have been
considering options for a much smaller future force, with the
aim of reaching agreement at a summit in Chicago in May.
NATO diplomats said US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had
suggested a long-term target size for the police and army of
227,000, while French Defence Minister Gerald Longuet told
reporters France would be happy with a figure around 230,000.
A senior US defence official said the plan remained to
build the force up to about 350,000, the size seen as necessary
to give the Afghan military the internal support capabilities it
will need to carry out operations on its own.
"Then there may be a leveling off or a drawing down," the
US official said.
He said experts from the International Security Assistance
Force would travel to NATO soon to brief the allies on the size
and cost options of different force levels.
The official said the final numbers would be based on "both
efficiency - you can't go too low before you begin to take too
high a risk - and the sustainability, the price tag of different
options."
Armed Unemployed
Diplomats and NATO officials said there were concerns about
the dangers of building up such a large force and then cutting
it back.
"The problem is: what are they going do?" said one diplomat.
"You don't want large numbers of armed unemployed."
NATO said it was still some way from a decision.
"We discussed what could be a long-term sustainable size,
but no decision has been made," NATO Secretary-General Anders
Fogh Rasmussen told a news briefing. "We agreed we will engage
in a consultation process leading up the summit in Chicago."
Longuet said the key issues were how to fund the Afghan
security forces and what to do with trained fighters not needed
after cutting back the size of the force. There was a danger
they could turn to crime or insurgency, he said.
NATO's Rasmussen said the alliance was also making new plans
to address possible infiltration of the Afghan Army's ranks by
Taliban insurgents.
"All partners agreed to task our military authorities to
develop a plan to counter, or rather to strengthen countering
such infiltration ... before the end of February" he said.
"We have already taken a lot of steps, but in the light of
recent events we agreed to strengthen those efforts."
Those concerns were highlighted last month after the Afghan
Taliban said it had recruited an Afghan soldier who shot dead
four French soldiers in an incident that prompted France to
decide to pull out its troops early.
Officials say even the smaller Afghan security force could
cost $4-5 billion a year to maintain, including about $1.1
billion from non-US contributors.
The United States alone, which provides the bulk of the
130,000 international troops in Afghanistan, currently spends
$130 billion in Afghanistan annually.
However, many military experts worry that limiting funding
for the Afghan police and army could undercut hard-fought gains
of the 11-year US-led intervention in Afghanistan, and the
Kabul government has warned that outside backers must not force
it to choose between security and development.
Friday's discussion came after Panetta worried many Afghans
and surprised Washington's allies on Wednesday by suggesting the
US combat mission in Afghanistan would end in 2013, the first
time Washington had floated such a deadline.
On Thursday, Panetta stressed US troops in Afghanistan
would remain "combat-ready" as the United States winds down its
longest war. But he said the troops would largely shift to a
train-and-assist role as Afghan forces take responsibility for
security before an end-2014 deadline for full Afghan control.
His comments came soon after British media published
excerpts of a classified US report saying that the Taliban,
backed by Pakistan, remained confident of regaining control in
Afghanistan despite a decade of NATO efforts.