Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gates faults NATO force in southern Afghanistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gates faults NATO force in southern Afghanistan

    Gates faults NATO force in southern Afghanistan



    Email PictureAFP / ***** Images
    A British soldier walks in Musa Qala in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan last month. Most of the NATO troops in the south are British, Canadian and Dutch.


    The U.S. Defense secretary says he thinks alliance troops do not know how to fight a guerrilla insurgency

    By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
    January 16, 2008
    WASHINGTON -- In an unusual public criticism, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he believes NATO forces currently deployed in southern Afghanistan do not know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency, a deficiency that could be contributing to the rising violence in the fight against the Taliban.

    "I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Gates said in an interview.

    Related Stories-No troop 'surge' for Afghanistan-Gates takes a hard line on Iran-Gates urges more funds for State Department

    Gates' criticism comes as the Bush administration has decided to send 3,200 U.S. Marines to southern Afghanistan on a temporary mission to help quell the rising number of attacks. It also comes amid growing friction among allied commanders over the Afghan security situation.

    But coming from an administration castigated for its conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, such U.S. criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is controversial. Many NATO officials blame inadequate U.S. troop numbers earlier in the war in part for a Taliban resurgence.

    "It's been very, very difficult to apply the classic counterinsurgency doctrine because you've had to stabilize the situation sufficiently to start even applying it," said one European NATO official, who discussed the issue on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the alliance. "Even in the classic counterinsurgency doctrine, you've still got to get the fighting down to a level where you can apply the rest of the doctrine."

    Gates' views, however, reflect those expressed recently by senior U.S. military officials with responsibility for Afghanistan. Some have said that an overreliance on heavy weaponry, including airstrikes, by NATO forces in the south may unwittingly be contributing to rising violence there.

    "Execution of tasks, in my view, has not been appropriate," said one top U.S. officer directly involved in the Afghan campaign who discussed internal assessments on condition of anonymity. "It's not the way to do business, in my opinion. We've got to wean them of this. If they won't change then we're going to have another solution."

    Gates has publicly criticized European allies in the past for failing to send adequate numbers of troops and helicopters to the Afghan mission. But concerns about strategy and tactics are usually contained within military and diplomatic channels.

    In the interview, Gates compared the troubled experience of the NATO forces in the south -- primarily troops from the closest U.S. allies, Britain and Canada, as well as the Netherlands -- with progress made by American troops in the eastern part of Afghanistan. He traced the failing in part to a Cold War orientation.

    "Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap," Gates said, referring to the German region where a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was deemed most likely.

    Gates said he raised his concerns last month in Scotland at a meeting of NATO countries with troops in southern Afghanistan and suggested additional training.

    But he added that his concerns did not appear to be shared by the NATO allies. "No one at the table stood up and said: 'I agree with that.' "

    The NATO forces are led by a U.S. commander, Army Gen. Dan McNeill, who has called for greater contributions by NATO countries. Some member nations are reluctant to deepen their involvement.

    NATO officials bristled at suggestions that non-U.S. forces have been ineffective in implementing a counterinsurgency campaign. They argued that the south, home to Afghanistan's Pashtun tribal heartland that produced the Taliban movement, has long been the most militarily contested region of the country.

    The European NATO official, who is directly involved in Afghan planning, angrily denounced the American claims, saying much of the violence is a result of the small number of U.S. troops who had patrolled the region before NATO's takeover in mid-2006, a strategy that allowed the Taliban to reconstitute in the region.

    "The reason there is more fighting now is because we've uncovered a very big rock and lots of things are scurrying out," the NATO official said.

    Pentagon concerns have risen as violence in the south has steadily increased, even as other parts of Afghanistan have begun to stabilize.

    Last year was the deadliest for both U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion, according to the website icasualties.org.

    But both U.S. and NATO officials have expressed optimism that eastern Afghanistan, which is under the control of U.S. forces led by Army Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, has substantially improved in recent months.

    Rodriguez implemented a campaign that incorporated many of the same tactics being used in Iraq by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Baghdad who co-wrote the military's new counterinsurgency field manual.

    "If you believe all the things you hear about Afghanistan, this ought to be real hot," Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, said of eastern Afghanistan. "More than half the border is Pakistan, it's a rough area, historically it's been a hotbed of insurgent activity. It's remarkable in its improvement."

    At the same time, violence has continued to rise in the south, which is controlled by a 11,700-soldier NATO force largely made up of the British, Canadian and Dutch forces. Britain saw 42 soldiers killed last year, almost all in southern Afghanistan, its highest annual fatality count of the war; Canada lost 31, close to the 36 from that country killed in 2006. American forces lost 117 troops in 2007, up from 98 in 2006, but U.S. forces are spread more widely across Afghanistan.

    "Our guys in the east, under Gen. Rodriguez, are doing a terrific job. They've got the [counterinsurgency] thing down pat," Gates said. "But I think our allies over there, this is not something they have any experience with."

    Some U.S. counterinsurgency experts have argued that the backsliding is not the fault of NATO forces alone.

    Some have argued that an effective counterinsurgency campaign implemented by Army Lt. Gen. David W. Barno and Zalmay Khalilzad, who were the U.S. commander in and ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, was largely abandoned by officials who came later.

    Barno retired from the military and heads the Near East South Asia Center at the National Defense University. In an article in the influential Army journal Military Review last fall, he blamed both NATO and U.S. commanders for moving away from the counterinsurgency plan since 2006.

    Barno accused NATO and U.S. forces of ignoring the cornerstone of a counterinsurgency campaign -- protecting the local population -- and said they instead focused on killing enemy forces.

    "We had a fundamentally well-structured, integrated U.S. Embassy and U.S. military unified counterinsurgency campaign plan which we put in place in late '03 that took us all the way through about the middle of 2005," Barno said in an interview. "And then it was really, in many ways, changed very dramatically."

    Currently serving American officers, however, have singled out non-U.S. NATO forces for the bulk of their criticism. Among the concerns is that NATO forces do not actively include Afghan troops in military operations.

    As a result, local forces in the south are now less capable than those in the east, which operate very closely with their American counterparts.

    "Every time you see our guys in the field, you don't have to look very far and you'll see them," said the senior U.S. officer involved in the Afghan campaign. "Getting the Brits to do this and the others is a little more of a problem."

    In addition, U.S. military officials said NATO forces in the south are too quick to rely on high-caliber firepower, such as airstrikes, a practice which alienates the local population.

    "The wide view there, which I hear from Americans, is that the NATO military forces are taking on a Soviet mentality," said one senior U.S. military veteran of Afghanistan. "They're staying in their bases in the south, they're doing very little patrolling, they're trying to avoid casualties, and they're using air power as a substitute for ground infantry operations, because they have so little ground infantry."

    The European NATO official said, however, that alliance data show that all countries, including the U.S., use air power in similar amounts when their troops come in contact with enemy forces.

    "Everyone is grateful for the Americans . . . but this kind of constant denigration of what other people are doing isn't helpful," the official said. "It also makes the situation look worse than it is."
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  • #2
    NATO allies angered by Gates' remarks on soldiers

    Updated Wed. Jan. 16 2008 1:58 PM ET

    The Associated Press

    BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Some of America's closest NATO allies reacted with surprise and disbelief Wednesday to reported comments from U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates suggesting that their troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan are not up to the job.

    The Dutch Defence Ministry summoned the U.S. ambassador for an explanation of a Los Angeles Times article that said Gates complained about soldiers from Canada, Britain and the Netherlands not knowing how to fight a guerrilla insurgency.

    In Ottawa, the Liberal opposition demanded the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper call in the U.S. ambassador to Canada -- or seek direct clarification from Gates himself.

    At the very least the comments smack of insensitivity in light of the death of a Canadian soldier north of Kandahar on Wendnesday, said defence critic Denis Coderre.

    "We are paying the price in lives,'' he said. "Our men and women know how to fight. We need to know who he was talking about; which countries.''

    In Washington, Gates' spokesman Geoff Morrell said the secretary had "read the article and is disturbed by what he read.''

    Morrell did not challenge the accuracy of the quotes in the story, but said he thought it left the wrong impression -- that Gates had singled out a particular country.

    "For the record he did not -- to the L.A. Times or at any time otherwise -- publicly ever criticize any single country for their performance in or commitment to the mission in Afghanistan,'' Morrell told Pentagon reporters in Washington.

    Instead, Morrell said Gates had pointed out that "NATO as an alliance, does not train for counterinsurgency. The alliance has never had to do it before.''

    In Britain, Conservative legislator Patrick Mercer said Gates' reported comments were "bloody outrageous.''

    "I would beg the Americans to understand that we are their closest allies, and our men are bleeding and dying in large numbers,'' Mercer, a former British infantry officer said.

    "These sorts of things are just not helpful among allied nations.''

    The United States has regularly criticized Germany, France, Italy and other allies that refuse to allow their troops in Afghanistan to join U.S. forces on the front line against the Taliban in the insurgents' southern strongholds.

    According to the L.A. Times, Gates raised doubts about countries that have sent significant numbers of combat troops to fight in the south, often in the face of widespread opposition at home.

    "I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations,'' the paper quoted him as saying in an interview. "Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency.''

    NATO's Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer moved quickly to defend the allied troops.

    "All the countries that are in the south do an excellent job. Full stop,'' he told reporters at NATO headquarters.

    Privately, several NATO officials were aghast at Gates' reported comments, fearing they would add to tension within the alliance where Britain, Canada and the Netherlands have generally stood by Washington in urging more reluctant allies to do more in the fight against the Taliban.

    A senior military officer from one country heavily engaged in the southern fighting said Canadians and Europeans had scored major successes against the Taliban. "They have been dealt a severe blow by the very people (Gates) appears to talking about,'' said the officer who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

    Canada has about 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, most of them based in the southern province of Kandahar. Seventy-eight Canadians have died in Afghanistan since 2002 -- the most recent one on Tuesday, when a light armoured vehicle hit a roadside bomb in the Arghandab district, and exploded, killing a 26-year-old soldier.

    The senior military officer acknowledged that some of NATO's smaller and newer members lacked counterinsurgency experience, but said that did not apply to the British and Canadians. The Dutch also defended their record combining counterinsurgency with reconstruction in the volatile southern province of Uruzgan.

    "Our troops, men and women, are well-prepared for the mission,'' said Col. Nico Geerts, the Dutch commander in Uruzgan. "Everyone in the south, the British, the Canadians, the Romanians and our other allies, are working hard here. ... I wouldn't know what the secretary of defence of America is basing this on.''

    Gates reported comments were published the day after U.S. President George W. Bush authorized the deployment of 3,200 U.S. marines to Afghanistan in April.

    Most will be deployed in the south to strengthen NATO troops there ahead of an expected increase of Taliban activity with the spring snow thaw. U.S. officials expressed frustration that they were forced to send troops -- already stretched in Iraq -- because allies failed to offer reinforcements.

    The new deployment will bring the total number of U.S. forces there to around 30,000, the highest level since the 2001 invasion. The U.S. has 14,000 troops with the 42,000-strong NATO-led force, the rest are training Afghan forces and hunting al Qaeda terrorists.

    In Washington, Congressman Duncan Hunter, ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, warned that Congress could restrict access to defence contracts for allies who did not pull their weight.

    However, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands have a bigger proportion of their armed forces serving with the NATO force in Afghanistan than the United States. Britain with 7,753 troops, has four per cent of its military, compared with 1.1 per cent of U.S. armed forces serving with the NATO force.

    British and Dutch officials refused to believe Gates' comment were aimed at them.

    "Our people down there are pretty well trained in counterinsurgency,'' said retired Col. Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan in 2003. "They have been carrying out some pretty intensive offensive operations against the Taliban, and they have been winning over the community. Counterinsurgency is a combination of those two things.''

    "We assume this was a misunderstanding,'' Dutch Defence Minister Eimert van Middelkoop told the Dutch broadcaster NOS. "This is not the Robert Gates we have come to know. It's also not the manner in which you treat each other when you have to co-operate with each other in the south of Afghanistan.''
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

    Comment


    • #3
      We don't know how to fight insurgency. Not we, Europe, or anyone else. Read the history of the Moro Rebellion after the Spanish-American war -that's how you fight insurgents. Pershing knew how, too bad he's dead. One thing we could do is learn from history for one time in our history.
      "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Comment


      • #4
        Robert M.Gates is a total embarrassment. In my opinion he is a rectal orifice quite unsuited to his elevated position. Does he think his words will strengthen the alliance in Afghanistan?
        Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

        Comment


        • #5
          glyn,

          that probably had something to do with the frustration he feels about NATO countries limiting their troops' freedom of action, their poor funding for the venture, and their refusal to fund their militaries worth a damn.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #6
            ENA,

            Read the history of the Moro Rebellion after the Spanish-American war -that's how you fight insurgents. Pershing knew how, too bad he's dead. One thing we could do is learn from history for one time in our history.
            every insurgency is different. the moro rebellion was crushed ruthlessly before the advent of 24/7 news cycles, CNN, and the internet. plus it helped that their supply lines were limited and they were on an island.

            i'd like to see what happens (rather, i DON'T want to see what happens) if some american general tried to bury insurgents in pig corpses today. how do you think the muslim world is going to react to that one?

            history gives us lessons, but we can't follow it blindly.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              glyn,

              that probably had something to do with the frustration he feels about NATO countries limiting their troops' freedom of action, their poor funding for the venture, and their refusal to fund their militaries worth a damn.
              he can't be, the countries that could be accused of playing safe/cheap aren't operating in the south and therefore fall completely outside the subject of the article. if the comments were about the whole of A'stan then he could be on safer ground, but the only countries that operate in the south are the more traditional allies that not only are taking significant casualties but as a general rule are deploying a greater percentage of their forces to A'stan than the US currently does.

              he's also talking out of his arse. Afghan units that can maintain high-intensity warfare levels (which is what combat in Helmand and Kandahar achieves) are like rocking horse **** - somewhat rare. its therefore of little surprise that British, Dutch and Canadian units aren't working alongside equal or bigger numbers of ANA troops, ANA units are still being 'worked up' in the safer areas of operations and just aren't available to work on large scale ops in the most contested areas.
              before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

              Comment


              • #8
                Patrick Mercer's comments are tame compared to comments made on British Forums. This report will do absolutely NOTHING to boost the publics believe that we should be in Afghanistan. The "Powers that be" in other Countries will not be too pleased about it either no doubt.

                Comment


                • #9
                  This guy is from the planet Uranus , or one of its moons ,,,,, Bumhole

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Overall it is bizzare incident: Basically SecDef Gates and other American officials have thrown right back at NATO everything NATO - particularly British - officials have been throwing at US conduct over last few years. Dig back through the archives here and you will find some NATO official or another complaining about US using too much fire-power, too little infantry or US not being sensitive enough to local situation. The first rebuttals are also the same: the situation hasn't stabilized enough to implement COIN strategy yet. The NATO officials aren't even denying some of the points; they are just falling back to comparing with the US and declaring "equal-equal"! The US officials - at least in these reports - aren't pointing out how US forces have evolved nto better shape since the last round of NATO criticisms either! All-in-all, rather bizzare.

                    One thing about the Taliban though - they are clever fighters by their own rights... if NATO is really taking an unduly higher number of attacks than the US forces that preceded them in the South, it quite probably means that Talibunnies find them to be a "softer target" than the Americans. Is saying it demoralizing? Yeah. But then, so is advocating ban on alcohol in NATO bases... it is demoralizing, yet it can go some way towards winning local respect, acceptance and co-operation from Moslems. At some point of time, it is imperative that you look beyond the morale effects and start considering the value of the criticism.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I read this morning that Mr. Gates is phoning Countries to explain his comments and the "misunderstandings" it has caused. I would like him to visit the Troop to explain it to them. Flak jacket and helmet will be issued

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                        One thing about the Taliban though - they are clever fighters by their own rights... if NATO is really taking an unduly higher number of attacks than the US forces that preceded them in the South, it quite probably means that Talibunnies find them to be a "softer target" than the Americans.
                        No, just a different enemy. The Taliban is just copying what the Iraqis have been doing with some success.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          NATO and The USA should implement a Proxy War strategy against the Taliban with a long term goal of the elimination of Pakistan.

                          The US and NATO should arm the Tajik tribes and Northern Alliance Tribes of Northern Afghanistan and turn them against the Pashtun tribes of southern Afghanistan. Provide them with air support, logistic support and Special Operations team support.

                          Withdraw NATO and US Ground Forces to the cities and bases to build up the Afghan Economy and Afghan military and fight the war against the Taliban by proxy, using the Northern alliance and Tajik tribes to wipe out the Taliban's Pashtun Tribal support base in Afghanistan. Nothing better than having ancient enemies in Afghanistan slaughter each other. After a few years of this type of campaign most of what is left of the Pashtun Population would have fled to Iran and Pakistan. Next, fortify the entire Afghan/Pakistani Border Region.

                          Than concentrate NATO, US, Tajik and Northern Alliance Forces along the Afghan/Pakistani Border and kill anything that tries to cross into Afghanistan. Than, if Pakistan still has not destroyed the Taliban and al Qaeda work to isolate Pakistan with the elimination of all economic and military aid, followed by economic sanctions and a naval blockade to slowly starve and weaken Pakistan.

                          When Pakistan implodes into civil war, use this as a precept for a three prong in invasion of Pakistan. An Indian Army of a million troops invades Pakistan from the East and Southeast, the US Fifth Fleet conducts an amphibious assault on the Pakistani coast and occupies Karachi, the US Air Force supports Army Rangers, Army Airborne Assault Forces to seize Pakistani Nuclear Weapons, Tajik and Northern Alliance Tribes supported by NATO and US Army ground forces seize and block all roads and passes leading into Afghanistan. When Pakistan is occupied, isolate the Baluchistan Region and use the Northern Alliance tribes and the Tajik Tribes to exterminate the remaining Taliban and Al Qaeda.

                          Finally, implement a 20 year "Marshal Plan" for the economic development of Afghanistan and Pakistan, give Kashmir to India and unite Afghanistan and Pakistan into one country and dissolve the British Commonwealth System in Pakistan.
                          Last edited by JMH; 21 Jan 08,, 16:44.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            No, just a different enemy. The Taliban is just copying what the Iraqis have been doing with some success.
                            And what have Iraqis been doing? (Sorry, the tone comes out as challenging, but I really am not following Iraq very closely).

                            The Talibunnies have been using a two-pronged strategy since 2004: Quantity in the South, Quality in the East. The gentle plateau in the south is easier for larger numbers of less-skilled fighters and low-investment suicide bombers to infiltrate; conversely it is also easier for NATO forces to patrol and stop the infiltration. The Hindu Kush in the East is, of course murderous terrain... but it skirts quite close to Kabul; the 'bunnies have been trying to push in their more skilled fighters into the East.

                            Once the 'bunny fighters arrive it becomes one of two questions: Are the allies forces going to hunt them? Or are they going to let the 'bunnies attack? Conversely, from a Talibunny's PoV, should it hide? Or should it attack? In this matter it all comes down to projection of a self-image and perception of the enemy's image: Are you a hard target who hunts, or a soft target who waits to be attacked? Do you see your enemy as prey, or as predator? Yes, it is all very primitive tribal-like... but with constraints imposed by terrain (in the East) and diplo-political considerations (everywhere), IMO it wouldn't be a waste of time figuring out what the 'bunnies think is the power equation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              In Khandahar and Helmand, their strategy is easy to predict. Get their opium crops to market.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X