Afghanistan Security

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY

LAWRENCE B. PEABODY EDITOR

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

Copyright © 2009 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Peabody, Lawrence B. Afghanistan security / Lawrence B. Peabody. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-60741-404-9 (E-book) 1. National security--Afghanistan. 2. Internal security--Afghanistan. 3. Afghanistan--Armed Forces. I. Title. UA853.A3P34 2009 355'.0330581--dc22 2008055764

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.  New York

CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5

Index

vii Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action May Be Needed to Ensure Completion of a Detailed Plan to Develop and Sustain Capable Afghan National Security Forces GAO Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy Kenneth Katzman

1

49

Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan

111

United States Plan for Sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces

179

U.S. Efforts to Develop Capable Afghan Police Forces Face Challenges and Need a Coordinated, Detailed Plan to Help Ensure Accountability Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.

215 231

PREFACE Politically, the Afghan central government is relatively stable. The post-Taliban transition was completed with the convening of a parliament in December 2005; a new constitution was adopted in January 2004, successful presidential elections were held on October 9, 2004, and parliamentary elections took place on September 18, 2005. The parliament has become an arena for factions that have fought each other for nearly three decades to peacefully resolve differences, as well as a center of political pressure on President Hamid Karzai, who is running for reelection in 2009. Major regional strongmen have been marginalized. Afghan citizens are enjoying personal freedoms forbidden by the Taliban, and women are participating in economic and political life. Presidential elections are to be held in the fall of 2009, with parliamentary and provincial elections to follow one year later. To help stabilize Afghanistan, the United States and partner countries are deploying a 53,000 troop NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) that now commands peacekeeping throughout Afghanistan, including the restive south. Of those, over 23,000 of the 34,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan are part of ISAF. The U.S. and partner forces also run regional enclaves to secure reconstruction (Provincial Reconstruction Teams, PRTs), and are building an Afghan National Army and National Police. The United States has given Afghanistan over $23 billion (appropriated, including FY2008 to date) since the fall of the Taliban, including funds to equip and train Afghan security forces.

In: Afghanistan Security Editor: Lawrence B. Peabody, pp. 1-52

ISBN: 978-1-60692-149-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY: FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION MAY BE NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLETION OF A DETAILED PLAN TO DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN CAPABLE AFGHAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCES *

GAO ABBREVIATIONS ANA ANCOP ANP ANSF AWOL CM CSTC-A EU NATO NCO

Afghan National Army Afghan National Civil Order Police Afghan National Police Afghan National Security Forces absent without leave capability milestone Combined Security Transition Command— Afghanistan European Union North Atlantic Treaty Organization non-commissioned officer

June 18, 2008 Congressional Committees Since 2002, the United States, with assistance from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other coalition nations, has worked to develop the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP)—collectively referred to as the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)—to provide security for Afghanistan. The goal of *

Excerpted from GAO Report GAO-08-661, dated June 2008.

2

GAO

these efforts is to transfer responsibilities for the security of Afghanistan from the international community to the Afghan government. From 2002 to 2008, the United States provided about $16.5 billion to train and equip the Afghan army and police forces. In 2005[1] and 2007,[2] we found that the training and equipping of the army and police had made some progress, but that the Department of Defense (Defense) and the Department of State (State), the agencies responsible for implementing these efforts, lacked detailed plans and cost estimates for completing and sustaining the ANSF. We concluded that, without capable and self-sustaining Afghan army and police forces, terrorists could again create a safe haven in Afghanistan and jeopardize efforts by the United States and the international community to develop the country. Since 2005, security in Afghanistan has deteriorated significantly. Attacks by armed opposition groups have grown across Afghanistan, with numerous attacks directly targeting the ANA and ANP. Because of broad congressional interest in this issue, we performed our work under the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States.[3] In this review, we (1) analyzed U.S. plans for developing the ANSF and identified the extent to which these plans contained detailed objectives, milestones, future funding requirements, and sustainability strategies; (2) examined the progress made and challenges faced in developing the capabilities of the ANA; and (3) examined the progress made and challenges faced in developing the capabilities of the ANP. To address the objectives of this engagement, we reviewed Defense and State planning, funding, and evaluation documents related to the U.S. efforts to establish, train, and equip Afghan army and police forces. We discussed these efforts with Defense and State officials in Washington, D.C.; Kabul, Afghanistan; and the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, and with private contractors implementing U.S. programs. In Afghanistan, we viewed Afghan army and police training facilities and equipment warehouses and met with officials from the United States, the Afghan Ministries of Defense and Interior, NATO, and the United Nations. We are currently performing separate reviews on the accountability of equipment provided to the ANSF and U.S. efforts to reform the Afghan Ministry of Interior and National Police. Consequently, we do not assess these issues in depth in this report. See appendix I for a complete description of our scope and methodology. We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 through June 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

RESULTS IN BRIEF The Departments of Defense and State have not yet developed a coordinated, detailed plan for completing and sustaining the ANSF. We recommended in 2005, and reaffirmed in 2007, that the plans should include clearly defined objectives and performance measures, milestones for achieving these objectives, future funding requirements, and a strategy for sustaining the results achieved. Additionally, in 2008, Congress mandated that the Secretary

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

3

of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, provide a long-term strategy and budget for strengthening the ANSF, and a long-term detailed plan for sustaining the ANSF. In 2007, Defense provided GAO a document that, according to Defense officials, met GAO’s 2005 recommendation.[4] However, this 5-page document does not provide sufficient detail for effective planning and oversight. For example, while the document includes some broad objectives and performance measures, it identifies few long-term milestones, no intermediate milestones for judging progress, and no sustainability strategy. Further, even though Defense and State are partners in training the ANP, the Defense document does not describe the role of State or other key stakeholders. Moreover, State did not participate in the development of the Defense document and has not completed a plan of its own. In January 2008, the Combined Security Transition Command—Afghanistan (CSTC-A) completed a field-level plan for ANSF development, which includes force goals, objectives, and performance measures. However, this field-level plan is not a substitute for a coordinated Defense and State plan with near- and long-term resource requirements. Without a coordinated, detailed plan, it is difficult for Congress to assess progress and conduct oversight on the extent and cost of the U.S. commitment needed to develop capable and sustainable ANSF. This is particularly important given the recent calls for further increasing the size of the ANSF and the potential costs, currently estimated at approximately $2 billion per year, of sustaining the ANSF for years into the future. The United States has provided over $10 billion to develop the ANA since 2002; however, less than 2 percent (2 of 105 units) of ANA units are assessed as fully capable of conducting their primary mission. Thirty-six percent (38 of 105) are assessed as capable of conducting their mission, but require routine[5] international assistance, while the remaining ANA units (65 of 105 units) are either planned, in basic training, or assessed as partially able or unable to conduct their primary mission. Building an Afghan army that can lead security operations requires manning,[6] training, and equipping of personnel; however, U.S. efforts to build the ANA have faced challenges in all of these areas. First, while the ANA has grown to approximately 58,000 of an authorized force structure of 80,000—nearly three times the 19,600[7] Defense reported in 2005—the ANA has experienced difficulties finding qualified candidates for leadership positions and retaining its personnel. Second, while trainers or mentors[8] are present in every ANA combat unit, less than half the required number are deployed in the field. Defense officials cited an insufficient number of U.S. trainers and coalition mentors in the field as the major impediment to providing the ANA with the training to establish capabilities, such as advanced combat skills and logistics, necessary to sustain the ANA force in the long term. Finally, ANA combat units report significant shortages in approximately 40 percent of critical equipment items, including vehicles, weapons, and radios. Some of these challenges, such as shortages of U.S. trainers and equipment, are due in part to competing global priorities, according to senior Defense officials. Without resolving these challenges, the ability of the ANA to reach full capability may be delayed. Although the ANP has reportedly grown in number since 2005, after an investment of nearly $6 billion, no Afghan police unit is assessed as fully capable of performing its mission. Similar to the effort to build the ANA, development of a national Afghan police force that is fully capable requires manning, training, and equipping of police personnel—all areas in which the U.S. continues to face challenges. First, less than one-quarter of the ANP has police mentors[9] present to provide training in the field, evaluate police capability, and verify that police are on duty. According to Defense officials leading the effort in Kabul, the shortage of

4

GAO

mentors is the primary obstacle to building a fully capable police force. Second, the ANP has not received about one-third of the equipment items Defense considers critical and continues to face shortages in several types of equipment, including vehicles, radios, and body armor. In addition, Afghanistan’s weak judicial system hinders effective policing and rule of law, and our analysis of status reports from the field indicates that the ANP consistently experiences problems with police pay, corruption, and attacks from insurgents. Recognizing these challenges, Defense began a new effort in November 2007 to train and equip the Afghan police; however, the continuing shortfall in police mentors may put this effort at risk. To help ensure that action is taken to address our recommendation from 2005 and the recently enacted mandate under the 2008 Defense Authorization Act, Congress should consider conditioning a portion of future appropriations for development of the ANSF on the completion of a coordinated, detailed plan, including development of a strategy for sustaining the forces. In commenting on a draft of this report, State expressed concerns about conditioning future appropriations on the completion of a detailed plan and highlighted ongoing coordination efforts with Defense as well as certain operational changes, many of which occurred after the completion of our fieldwork in August 2007. Defense disagreed that Congress should consider conditioning a portion of future appropriations on completion of a coordinated, detailed plan and stated that current guidance provided is sufficient to implement a successful program to train and equip the ANSF. Defense also disagreed with our conclusion that progress is difficult to assess without a detailed plan. While we acknowledge that changes may have occurred since August 2007, Defense and State have yet to develop a coordinated, detailed plan for completing and sustaining the ANSF. Furthermore, while Defense produces various documents that report on the current status of the ANSF, these documents do not contain intermediate milestones or consistent end dates necessary to determine if the program is on track to achieve its desired results within a set time frame. Therefore, we maintain that without a coordinated, detailed plan for the development of the ANSF, ensuring oversight and assessing progress of the program is difficult.

BACKGROUND Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States, several allies, and Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance forcibly removed the Taliban regime from Afghanistan for providing a safe haven to al Qaeda terrorists. After years of conflict and Taliban rule, the new Afghan government inherited a state with limited capacity to govern; an economy dominated by the narcotics trade; constraints on economic development due, in part, to resource limitations and mountainous terrain (see figure 1); a poorly developed infrastructure with few roads and little household access to power and running water; and weak national security forces. In April 2002, the United States and other donor nations met in Geneva, Switzerland, to help Afghanistan address threats to its security. At the Geneva conference, the donors established a security reform strategy for Afghanistan: the United States would lead the training of the Afghan army and Germany would lead the police reconstitution effort. However, due, in part, to Afghanistan’s pressing security needs and concerns that the German

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

5

training program was moving too slowly, the United States expanded its role in the police training effort. As we reported in 2005, according to cognizant German officials, Germany viewed its role in the police sector as one of advising and consulting with donors and the Afghan government rather than as the major implementer or funding source.

Source: GAO. Figure 1. Mountainous Terrain in Afghanistan.

The Role and Development of the Afghan National Army In 2002, the international community endorsed the decision of the Afghan government to create an ethnically balanced and voluntary ANA force of no more than 70,000.[10] In 2006, this vision was reaffirmed by the Afghan government and the international community through its integration into the Afghanistan National Development Strategy[11] and Afghanistan Compact,[12] documents that articulated economic, social, and security priorities for Afghanistan. These documents also set the end of 2010 as the timeline for the establishment of the ANA. In February 2008, citing increased security challenges, the Afghan government and its international partners endorsed a 10,000-person increase in the force structure of the ANA from 70,000 to 80,000.[13] The strategic role of the Afghan Ministry of Defense and the ANA is to defend and deter aggression against Afghanistan, support and defend the Afghan Constitution, defeat the insurgency and terrorism, and support Afghanistan’s reconstruction and reintegration into the regional and international community, among other things. To accomplish this, the army’s current force structure includes (1) Ministry of Defense and general staff personnel, (2)

6

GAO

sustaining institutions, (3) intermediate command staff, (4) combat forces, and (5) Afghan air corps personnel. Combat forces form the basic operational arm of the ANA and are divided into five corps, located in different regions of Afghanistan. A corps contains 1 or more brigades. A typical brigade consists of approximately 2,800 personnel: three light infantry battalions (with approximately 650 personnel each), one combat support battalion (with approximately 500 personnel), and one combat services support battalion (with approximately 350 personnel). (See app. II for additional details on the force structure and functions of the ANA.) U.S. efforts to establish the army are led by Defense, in partnership with the government of Afghanistan. The Defense-staffed CSTC-A oversees the Afghan army’s training, facilities development, assessment, and equipment provision. Under CSTC-A is Task Force Phoenix, a joint coalition task force responsible for training, mentoring, and advising the Afghan army at the Kabul Military Training Center and elsewhere in the country (see figure 2).

Source: GAO. Figure 2. ANA Commando Training Facility Outside of Kabul.

Reconstitution of the Afghan National Police Force The reconstitution of the ANP began in February 2002 when donor nations agreed to establish a multiethnic, sustainable, 62,000-member professional police service committed to the rule of law. In May 2007, the Afghan government and its international partners approved an interim increase in the number of police forces from 62,000 to 82,000, to be reviewed every 6 months. The Afghan government and international community set the end of 2010 as the timeline for the establishment of the ANP force. In addition to enforcing the rule of law, the role of the ANP is to protect the rights of citizens, maintain civil order and public safety, support actions to defeat insurgency, control national borders, and reduce the level of domestic and international organized crime, among other activities. The force structure for the police includes Ministry of Interior headquarters and administrative staff, uniformed police personnel, and several specialized police units.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

7

This report primarily focuses on U.S. efforts to build the uniformed police, the largest component of the Afghan police force. (See app. II for further details on the force structure and functions of the ANP.) U.S. efforts to organize, train, and equip the ANP are directed by Defense, through CSTC-A, with support from State, which provides policy guidance to the effort and oversight of civilian contractors implementing police training courses. The primary U.S. contractor involved in the police training effort is DynCorp International, which provides police training courses in criminal investigation, physical fitness, and weapons and survival skills, and civilian mentors to assist in developing the Afghan Ministry of Interior and the police forces it administers. Germany leads efforts to train commissioned and noncommissioned Afghan police officers at the Kabul Police Academy (see figure 3).

Source: GAO. Figure 3. Trainees Attending a Class at the Kabul Police Academy.

U.S. Support to Train and Equip Afghan National Security Forces The United States provided $16.5 billion from fiscal years 2002 through 2008 to support the training and equipping of the Afghan army and police (see table 1). Slightly over 45 percent (approximately $7.6 billion) of the funding was provided in fiscal year 2007, in an effort to accelerate the training and equipping and enhance the capabilities of the ANSF. These figures do not include certain operational costs, such as the personnel costs for U.S.

8

GAO

servicemembers assigned to the training and equipping mission. (See app. I for further details on our methodology.) Table 1. Defense and State Support to Train and Equip Afghan Army and Police, Fiscal Years 2002-2008 Dollars in millions Assistance program Afghan

FY 2008

FY 2002 $76.9

FY 2003 $362.7

FY 2004 $723.7

FY 2005 $1,736.6

FY 2006 $767.1

FY 2007 $4,884.2

request $1,721.7

Total $10,273.0

25.5

5.0

223.9

837.9

1,299.8

2,701.2

1,105.6

6,198.8

$102.4

$367.7

$947.6

$2,574.5

$2,066.9

$7,585.4

$2,827.3

$16,471.8

a

b

c

Army Afghan Police Total

Source: GAO analysis of Defense and State data. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. a

b

c

Fiscal year 2008 includes approximately $1,450 million that has been appropriated (approximately $1,108 million for the ANA and approximately $342 million for the ANP) and approximately $1,378 million that has been requested (approximately $614 million for the ANA and approximately $764 million for the ANP). Totals include funding from a variety of Defense and State sources. Fiscal years 2007 and 2008 figures include Afghan Security Forces Funding, Defense Counternarcotics funding, International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement counternarcotics funding, and International Military Education and Training funds. Funding for the Afghan Army includes detainee operations.

Other Donor Support More than 40 nations and international organizations have also provided funds, equipment, or personnel to support U.S. efforts to train and equip the ANSF. As of March 2008, non-U.S. donors have provided about $820 million in support of efforts to develop the ANSF: approximately $426 million was provided to supplement efforts to train and equip the Afghan army and about $394 million in support of the Afghan police. Over 15 nations contribute mentors to the army, providing approximately one-third of the personnel who assist in training ANA units in the field. The EU has provided 80 mentors to assist the police at the ministerial, regional, and provincial levels out of approximately 215 pledged. Additionally, the United Nations Development Programme administers the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan, which provides reimbursement to the Afghan government for police salaries. Approximately 80 percent of international donations for the ANP have supported programs through the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (about $311 million of about $394 million).

Prior GAO Recommendations and Congressional Mandate We previously identified the need for detailed plans to complete and sustain the ANSF. In June 2005, GAO reported that the Secretaries of Defense and State should develop detailed plans for completing and sustaining the ANSF that contain clearly defined objectives and performance measures, milestones for achieving stated objectives, future funding

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

9

requirements, and a strategy for sustaining the results achieved. Our report recommended that the Secretaries provide this information to Congress when the executive branch requests funding for the Afghan army or police forces. Although Defense and State generally concurred with this recommendation, both suggested that existing reporting requirements addressed the need to report to Congress their plans for completing and sustaining the Afghan army and police forces. Our analysis of Defense and State reporting to Congress determined that the departments did not have the detailed plans we recommended to guide the development of the ANSF and to facilitate congressional oversight. As a result, in our 2007 report, we reiterated the need for Defense and State to develop such plans. Following our reports, in 2008, Congress mandated that the President, acting through the Secretary of Defense, submit reports to Congress on progress toward security and stability in Afghanistan, including a comprehensive and long-term strategy and budget for strengthening the ANSF. Reports must be submitted every 180 days after that date, through the end of fiscal year 2010.[14] The first such report was due by the end of April 2008, but has yet to be provided to Congress. In addition, Congress also mandated that Defense submit reports on a long-term detailed plan for sustaining the ANSF. Reports must be submitted every 180 days after that date, through the end of fiscal year 2010.[15] The first such report was due by the end of April 2008, but has yet to be provided to Congress.

THE DEPARTMENTS OF DEFENSE AND STATE HAVE NOT DEVELOPED A COORDINATED, DETAILED PLAN FOR COMPLETING AND SUSTAINING THE ANSF Defense and State have not developed a coordinated, detailed plan for completing and sustaining the Afghan army and police forces, despite our recommendation in 2005 and a mandate from Congress in 2008 that such a plan be developed. Defense provided GAO a 5page document in January 2007 that, according to Defense officials, is intended to meet GAO’s recommendation. However, it does not include several of the key elements identified in our recommendation and does not provide a sufficient level of detail for effective interagency planning and congressional oversight. Although CSTC-A has developed a fieldlevel plan in Afghanistan that integrates the Afghan government’s interest, this represents military planning and is not a coordinated Defense and State plan with near- and long-term resource requirements. Without a coordinated, detailed plan containing the elements identified in our 2005 recommendation, as noted earlier, congressional oversight concerning the extent and cost of the U.S. commitment to train and equip the ANSF is difficult, and decision makers may not have sufficient information to assess progress and allocate defense resources among competing priorities.[16]

Defense Document Is Limited in Scope and Detail As of March 2008, neither Defense nor State had developed a coordinated, detailed plan for completing and sustaining the ANSF that includes clearly defined objectives and performance measures, milestones for achieving stated objectives, and a strategy for

10

GAO

sustaining the results achieved, including transitioning program responsibility to Afghanistan. In January 2007, Defense provided us a 5-page document that, according to Defense officials, is intended to meet GAO’s 2005 recommendation for detailed plans to complete and sustain the ANSF. Although Defense and State are partners in training the ANP, the Defense document does not describe the role of State or other key stakeholders. State also did not contribute to the development of this document and has not developed a plan of its own. In addition, U.S. military officials responsible for the effort to build the ANSF were not familiar with the document at the time of our visit to Kabul in August 2007—over 6 months after we received the document from Defense officials in Washington. The 5-page document that Defense developed in response to our 2005 recommendation is limited in scope and detail. For example, although the document provides some broad objectives and performance measures for training and equipping the ANSF, it identifies few milestones. Further, these milestones are not consistent with long-term milestones identified in field documents generated by U.S. military forces operating in Afghanistan and do not include intermediate milestones for judging progress in the medium term. The document provides no mechanism for measuring progress over time against established baselines, other than monthly status reports from the field. These status reports, while useful in identifying month-to-month progress in unit capabilities, use baselines that generally go back no more than 18 months. As such, it is difficult to identify progress since the start of the program and the effect that various factors, such as additional resources, have had on training and equipment availability, as discussed in prior GAO work.[17]

High-Level Plan Lacks Focus on Sustainment Funding Defense’s 5-page document, in response to our 2005 recommendations, does not provide a detailed strategy for sustaining the ANSF. Defense currently estimates that no additional money, beyond the approximately $16.5 billion provided between fiscal years 2002 to 2008, is needed to complete the initial training and equipping of a 70,000-person army force and an 82,000-person police force. If the force structure grows, Defense officials acknowledged that budgetary requirements likely would also increase. In February 2008, the Afghan government and its international partners endorsed an increase in the force structure of the ANA by 10,000. A Defense official stated that increasing the force structure by 10,000 additional army personnel will cost approximately an additional $1 billion. In addition, Defense estimates that approximately $2 billion a year will be needed for the next 5 years to sustain the ANSF—$1 billion for the Afghan army and $1 billion for the police.[18] This is based on a 152,000-person end-strength—70,000 ANA and 82,000 ANP. Defense officials estimate that increasing the ANA force structure by 10,000 will cost about $100 million annually to sustain. By comparison, in 2005, Defense and State estimated the cost to sustain an ANA force of 70,000 and an ANP force of 62,000 would total $600 million per year. This sustainment estimate, however, did not include the cost of sustaining capabilities such as airlift, which is currently being developed for the Afghan army. Defense expects the sustainment transition to begin in fiscal year 2009. According to U.S. military officials in Afghanistan and the recently approved CSTC-A Campaign Plan, U.S. involvement in training and equipping the ANSF may extend beyond a decade. However, neither Defense nor State has identified funding requirements or forecasts beyond 2013.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

11

As noted earlier, the United States has been a major contributor to this mission, providing approximately $16.5 billion between fiscal years 2002 and 2008 to train and equip the forces. At present, Afghanistan is unable to support the recurring costs of its security forces, such as salaries and equipment replacement, without substantial foreign assistance. An international task force studying the effects of increasing the size of the ANP noted that by 2012, if the Afghan Ministry of Finance assumed responsibility for police salaries, the salary costs for an 82,000 police force could total nearly 9 percent of the Afghan government’s budget—a cost that could mean large cuts in other programs, such as education, health, and other social services, according to the task force. U.S. officials stated that until Afghan revenues increase substantially, the international community would likely need to assist in paying sustainability costs, including some salaries. However, despite what U.S. military officials in Afghanistan stated, Defense officials in Washington have not indicated how long and in what ways the U.S. government expects to continue assisting the ANSF. In a briefing on the U.S. approach to sustaining the ANSF, Defense and State officials stated that sustainment costs will be transitioned to the government of Afghanistan commensurate with the nation’s economic capacity, and that the United States and the international community will need to assist Afghanistan in developing revenues and capacity to sustain the army and police. For example, Defense and State officials stated that greater revenues could be obtained by improving border management, noting that customs duties generate more than half of Afghanistan’s revenues. These officials, however, did not identify any other ways to improve revenues for the security sector nor did they identify whether this information is being incorporated into a broader plan for developing and sustaining the ANSF when we inquired about such a plan.

CSTC-A Plan Provides Guidance for Field-Level Operations, but Is Not a Substitute for a Coordinated State and Defense Plan Since GAO reported in 2005, field-level planning for the training and equipping of the ANSF has improved. In January 2008, CSTC-A completed a field-level plan for ANSF development, and an operations order with further detail on the development and execution of the fiscal year 2008 ANSF force generation program. The Campaign Plan for the Development of Afghan National Military and Police Forces (Campaign Plan) is a military plan.[19] It provides field-level goals, objectives, and capability milestones for the development of the Ministries of Defense and Interior, including Afghan army and police forces. With a new emphasis on quality training, the plan extends the time frames for ANSF development beyond those reported in our 2005 report.[20] However, while this military plan provides needed field guidance, it is not a coordinated Defense and State plan with near- and long-term resource requirements. When we last reported in 2005, Defense had not fully implemented or been able to reach agreement on criteria for assessing an Afghan army unit’s readiness to operate without training assistance. Since that time, Defense has developed criteria—called capability milestones (CM)—to assess army and police progress in manning, training, and equipping the forces. Units are assessed against four capability milestones that range from CM1 to CM4. A unit, agency, staff function, or installation rated at CM1 is fully capable of conducting its primary operational mission but may require assistance from the international community in

12

GAO

certain situations. For instance, a combat unit capable of operating at CM1 is fully capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations at the battalion level; however, coalition support may be required for certain capabilities, such as close air support, medical evacuation, or indirect fire support.[21] By contrast, a unit, agency, or staff function rated at CM4 has been established but is not yet capable of conducting its primary operational mission and can only undertake portions of its mission with significant assistance, and reliance on, international support. The table below provides descriptions of the capability milestones, as identified in the CSTC-A Campaign Plan. Table 2. Capability Milestones for Afghan National Security Forces Capability milestone CM1

CM2

CM3

CM4

Description The unit, agency, staff function, or installation is capable of conducting primary operational mission(s). Depending on the situation, units may require specified assistance from the Coalition or international community. The unit, agency, staff function, or installation is capable of conducting primary operational mission(s) with routine assistance from, or reliance on, international community support. The unit, agency, staff function, or installation is capable of partially conducting primary operational mission(s), but still requires assistance from, and is reliant on, international community support. The unit, agency, staff function, or installation is formed but not yet capable of conducting primary operational mission(s). It may be capable, available, or directed to undertake portions of its operational mission but only with significant assistance from, and reliance on, international community support.

Source: Campaign Plan for the Development of Afghan National Military and Police Forces—Interim, January 29, 2008.

The Campaign Plan identifies three key phases in the development of Afghan army and police forces: fielding/generating forces, developing forces, and transitioning to strategic partnership. Table 3 describes these phases and their corresponding milestones. It is not clear from the Campaign Plan whether the milestones are based on an ANA force structure of 70,000 or 80,000. If based on 70,000, the milestones would likely need to be revisited. Table 3. Description of Key Phases in the Training and Equipping of the ANSF Campaign phase Phase 1: Field/Generate Afghan National Security Capability Phase 2: Develop Afghan National Security Capability Phase 3: Transition to Strategic Partnership

Description Army and police forces are manned, have completed individual training, and are equipped to 85 percent or better. Afghan and Coalition forces will jointly plan, coordinate, and conduct operations. Coalition forces will partner with army and police units to assist in the development of capabilities necessary to achieve CM1. The Afghan government will assume the lead responsibility for its own security needs, with continued engagement by the international community. CSTC-A will have completed its current mission and should transition into a security assistance organization.

Milestone date Complete by mid-2010 Complete by the end of 2011 Extends beyond 2019

Source: CSTC-A, Campaign Plan for the Development of Afghan National Military and Police Forces—Interim, January 29, 2008.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

13

Milestone dates for the accomplishment of certain objectives have been extended beyond those reported earlier. For example, our 2005 report states that Defense officials estimated that basic training for 43,000 ground combat troops would be accomplished by the fall of 2007. However, the Campaign Plan extends this date to mid-2010. According to the CSTC-A Commander, given resource constraints and the new emphasis on fielding quality forces, certain deadlines for the fielding, generation, and development of Afghan forces have had to be extended. In addition to capability milestones, personnel and equipment requirements have also been established since our last report. In 2005, we noted that documents identifying personnel and equipment requirements for the Afghan National Security Forces were not complete. However, since that time, the Afghan Ministries of Defense and Interior, assisted by CSTCA, have completed personnel and equipment requirements, known as Tashkils.[22] The Tashkils list in detail the authorized staff positions and equipment items for the ANA and ANP. Moreover, ANA Tashkils have been converted into an electronic force management database by the U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency, which provides standardization and consistency given frequent CSTC-A personnel rotations. Agency officials expect that the ANP Tashkils will also be converted to a similar system.

FEW AFGHAN ARMY UNITS ARE CAPABLE OF LEADING OPERATIONS AND EFFORTS TO DEVELOP THEIR CAPABILITY FACE SEVERAL CHALLENGES The United States has invested over $10 billion to develop the ANA since 2002, but less than 2 percent (2 of 105 ANA units rated) are assessed at CM1—full operational capability. Building an Afghan army that can lead its own operations requires manning, training, and equipping army personnel; however, U.S. efforts to build the Afghan army have faced challenges in all of these areas. First, while the ANA has increased in size and basic recruiting is strong, the ANA has experienced difficulties manning the army, such as finding qualified candidates for leadership positions and retaining personnel. Second, the insufficient number of U.S. trainers and coalition mentors in the field is a major impediment to providing the ANA with the follow-up training, including in areas such as advanced combat skills and logistics, needed to sustain the force in the long term. Finally, ANA combat units report significant shortages in approximately 40 percent of items defined as critical by Defense, including machine guns and vehicles. Some of these challenges, such as shortages of mentors and equipment, are due in part to competing global priorities, according to senior Defense officials. Without resolving these challenges, the ability of the ANA to reach full capability may be delayed.

More Troops Trained, but Very Few ANA Units Rated as Having Capability to Lead Operations Defense planning calls for the development of an 80,000-person ANA force structure that includes Ministry of Defense personnel, sustaining institutions, and infantry forces capable of

14

GAO

accomplishing its mission with limited assistance from the international community. As of April 2008, Defense reports that approximately 58,000 army personnel received training and were assigned to the ANA. The chart below details the number of ANA forces authorized compared with the number currently assigned (see table 4). Table 4. Afghan Ministry of Defense and ANA Force Structure, as of April 2008 Forces Ministry of Defense/ General Staff Sustaining institutionsa Intermediate commandsb Combat troops Afghan Air Corps Total

Authorized 3,185 2,001 16,169 56,127 3,000 80,482c

Trained and assigned 2,596 1,679 13,511 37,866 2,141 57,793

Percent assigned 82 84 84 67 71 72

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense and Afghan Ministry of Defense data. Note: As discussed later in this report, the number of troops trained and assigned is greater than number on-duty due to attrition, absenteeism, leave, and battlefield casualties. a Sustaining institutions include Military Intelligence Regional Offices, Communications Support Element, Acquisition Agency, Installation Management Department, Military Police Company (Kabul Area), and Detainee Operations. b Intermediate commands include Headquarters Support Brigade and the logistics, training, recruiting, and medical commands. c The 482 positions above 80,000 account for the Afghan National Guard Force.

Since we reported in 2005, more personnel have been trained and assigned to the ANA. Specifically focusing on combat troops, Defense reports that 37,866 combat troops have been trained and assigned to the ANA as of April 2008, compared with 18,300 troops in March 2005. Although this represents more than a twofold increase in the amount of combat troops, it is approximately 5,000 forces less than Defense had predicted would be trained by fall 2007. Moreover, new positions have been added to the ANA’s structure since our 2005 report, including an expanded Afghan air corps[23] and the ANA force structure has increased to 80,000. While more troops have received training, as of April 2008, only two ANA units—out of 105 rated—are assessed as CM1—fully capable. Thirty-six percent of ANA units (38 of 105 rated units) are assessed at CM2 and are capable of conducting their primary mission with routine international support. The remaining ANA units are less capable. Thirty-one percent (32 of 105 rated units) are CM3—capable of partially conducting their primary mission, but reliant on international support; 11 percent (11 of 105 rated units) are CM4—formed but not yet capable; and 21 percent (22 of 105 rated units) are not yet formed or not reporting (see table 5).[24] While few ANA units are rated as fully capable, Defense officials stated that ANA troops had performed well in combat situations.[25] Personnel assigned to mentor the ANA that we interviewed in Afghanistan praised the efforts of Afghan troops, and U.S. and Afghan officials stated they were pleased with the development of the army to date. The expected date when the ANA will gain the capability to assume lead responsibility for its own security is unclear. As of April 2008, monthly reports provided by CSTC-A show the expected date of full ANA capability as March 2011.[26] However, this date does not

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

15

account for shortfalls in the required number of mentors and trainers. Thus, Defense officials cautioned that currently predicted dates for the achievement of a fully capable Afghan army are subject to change and may be delayed. Table 5. Defense Assessment of ANA Capabilities, as of April 2008 Army units

CM1Fully Capable

CM2Capable with Support

CM4Not Capable

3

CM3 Partially Capable 1

0

Unit Not Formed or Not Reportinga 0

Corps headquarters (5) Brigade headquarters (14) Combat battalions (49) Combat support and combat services support battalions (33) Air Corps headquarters (1) Air Corps squadrons (3) Number of ANA units (105)

1 0

6

5

1

2

1

18

15

6

9

0

11

8

3

11

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

2 (2%)

38 (36%)

32 (31%)

11 (11%)

22 (21%)

Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. Note: Percentages in the table may not add to 100 due to rounding. a An ANA unit that is categorized as “not formed or not reporting” is either a planned unit or a unit in basic training.

Development of a Capable Army Faces Challenges in Manning, Training, and Equipping the Force U.S. efforts to build the ANA have faced challenges in manning the army, such as recruiting for leadership positions and retaining personnel; shortfalls in the number of U.S. trainers and coalition mentors deployed with ANA units in the field to assist in developing capable ANA forces; and shortages of critical equipment items.

Afghan Army Faces Difficulties Reducing Absenteeism, Recruiting Qualified Candidates for Leadership and Specialist Positions, and Retaining Personnel Although the ANA has grown in numbers, it faces manning challenges, including absenteeism, recruitment of leaders and specialists, and retention of personnel. First, although approximately 32,700[27] combat personnel received training and were assigned to one of the five ANA corps, the number of combat troops on hand is less than those trained and assigned due to attrition, absenteeism, scheduled leave, and battlefield casualties.[28] As of February 2008, Defense reported that about 20 percent of combat personnel assigned were not present for duty (see figure 4).

16

GAO

Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. Note: This figure includes approximately 32,700 ANA combat personnel assigned to the five ANA corps, as well as civilians serving in support roles for the ANA. Figure 4. Comparison of ANA Corps Personnel Assigned to a Unit to the Number On Hand, as of February 2008.

Although some of those absent from the army may have scheduled their absence or been killed in duty, Defense assessment reports from November 2007 to February 2008 show between 8 and 12 percent of combat unit personnel were absent without leave (AWOL), with AWOL rates as high as 17 percent for soldiers in one ANA corps. For the ANA to achieve sustained growth, a senior Defense official stated that AWOL rates should be no higher than 8 percent. Officials attributed these absences to a variety of causes, such as soldiers leaving their units to take their pay home and the lack of significant penalties for such absences. To address these issues, the Afghan Ministry of Defense, assisted by CSTC-A, has initiated programs to allow soldiers to transfer their pay to family members and to facilitate the deposit of ANA salaries directly into soldiers’ bank accounts. CSTC-A officials stated these programs should reduce AWOL rates.[29] Second, although basic recruiting is strong, the ANA is experiencing difficulties finding qualified candidates for leadership and specialist positions. Defense reports that recruiting goals for ANA infantry positions have been met, despite adjustments to increase ANA training output by 6,000 soldiers annually. However, CSTC-A noted shortfalls in the number of candidates available for non-commissioned officer (NCO) and specialty skill positions, such as logistics and medical support. Between November 2007 and February 2008, ANA manning levels for NCOs ranged between 50 to 70 percent of the authorized number. NCOs provide a vital link between senior officers and soldiers and can provide leadership to ANA units in the field, according to a senior Defense official. Officials attributed the shortage to the low level of literacy among ANA recruits. CSTC-A is attempting to address this shortfall by promoting NCOs from within ANA ranks and implementing new programs to target literate recruits. CSTC-A expects to have greater than 90 percent of the ANA’s authorized

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

17

NCOs staffed by summer 2008. The ANA is also experiencing difficulties manning specialist positions such as logistics, medical support, and engineering. Although the ANA has developed courses to train military specialists, the current Afghan army is comprised primarily of infantry forces. This is, in part, because ANA recruits learn basic infantry skills first. However, this focus is also due to difficulties identifying candidates who are suitable for advanced training. According to Defense officials, without suitably trained support personnel, the ANA will need to rely on coalition forces to provide support services. Third, the ANA is facing challenges retaining personnel. A typical ANA contract lasts for 3 years. At the end of a contract, ANA personnel are given the opportunity to re-enlist with the Afghan army. Between March 2006 and February 2008, just over half of those combat personnel eligible to re-enlist opted to do so, as shown in table 6.[30] Table 6. Re-Enlistment Rates for ANA Combat Personnel, March 2006 to February 2008 ANA unit Kabul Military Training Center 201st Corps 203rd Corps 205th Corps 207th Corps 209th Corps Total

Number eligible to re-enlist 474

Number who did not re-enlist 239

Number re-enlisted 235

Percent reenlisted 50

2,554 1,319 963 1,037 730 7,077

731 554 523 864 401 3,312

1,823 765 440 173 329 3,765

71 58 46 17 45 53

Source: GAO analysis of Defense data.

U.S. and Afghan officials attributed these re-enlistment rates to a variety of factors, such as stationing soldiers away from their families, the rapid pace of ANA military operations, and the higher salaries offered by private companies and insurgent groups looking to recruit trained Afghan soldiers. To address these factors, a senior Defense official stated that the Ministry of Defense and CSTC-A are discussing the implementation of several programs such as allowing re-enlisting soldiers greater choice in determining where they will be stationed and increasing re-enlistment bonuses. Without the ability to retain trained personnel, ANA units will continue to lack experience and thus may be delayed in reaching their ability to lead security operations. For instance, in November 2007, the capability assessment of the ANA’s 209th corps in northern Afghanistan lowered the rating of one of its battalions from CM2 to CM3 when the battalion failed to retain approximately half of its NCOs. Further, the assessment noted that progress developing the capability of this battalion could be delayed nearly a year.

Shortage of U.S. Embedded Trainers and Coalition Mentors Delaying Advanced Skill Training for the ANA Although some U.S. embedded trainers or coalition mentors are present in every ANA corps, the ANA is experiencing shortages in the number of these required[31] personnel to assist in its development. According to CSTC-A’s Campaign Plan, after an ANA unit is

18

GAO

fielded, either an embedded training team (comprised of U.S. personnel) or a mentoring team (comprised of coalition personnel) should be assigned to the unit.[32] These teams are responsible for developing the skills of ANA army units from initial fielding until the unit has developed the capability to assume lead responsibility for its security mission. As the ANA unit builds capability, embedded trainers and mentors guide and assess the units and provide them with access to air support and medical evacuation. Shortages exist in the number of embedded trainers and mentors fielded. For instance, as of April 2008, the United States has fielded 46 percent (1,019 of 2,215) of Defense’s required number of embedded trainers. Officials attributed these shortfalls to competing U.S. priorities for Defense personnel, including the war in Iraq. CSTC-A has submitted requests for additional forces to act as embedded trainers to assist the ANA; however, the request has been deferred. As of April 2008, members of the international community assisting in this effort have fielded 32 out of 37 mentor teams promised, although the number of international mentors in the field is smaller than the number of U.S embedded trainers. Approximately onethird of personnel in the field assisting ANA unit development are coalition mentors, while two-thirds are U.S. personnel.[33] Without adequate training or mentoring, the ANA’s ability to take the lead in security operations may be delayed. First, Defense officials have cited an insufficient number of embedded trainers and coalition mentors deployed with units in the field as the major impediment to providing the ANA with the training it needs to establish the capabilities necessary to sustain the force in the long term, such as maneuver skills in battalion-level operations, intelligence collection, and logistics. Without these skills, smaller ANA units cannot operate collectively at the battalion level, must rely on the coalition for support tasks, and cannot assume the lead for their own security. Secondly, as ANA units achieve greater levels of capability, embedded trainers and mentors are responsible for assessing and validating their progress. CSTC-A’s Campaign Plan states that the validation process is intended to improve collective training of ANA units; however, without adequate numbers of U.S. embedded trainers and coalition mentors, this validation will be slowed. CSTC-A officials stated that this delay in validation would lengthen the amount of time it will take the ANA to achieve full capability. Moreover, Defense officials noted that, as the number of ANA units fielded increases, the number of U.S. embedded training and coalition mentoring personnel needed also rises. For instance, when we visited Afghanistan in August 2007, Defense officials stated 73 U.S.-embedded training and coalition mentoring teams were needed to assist the development of the ANA; however, Defense officials projected that by December 2008 103 teams would be needed. Without additional training and mentoring personnel to meet this increased need, delays in ANA development will likely be exacerbated.

Critical Equipment Shortfalls Remain Due to Changing Procurement Plans, Competing Global Priorities, and Production Limitations Since we reported in 2005, new equipment plans for the ANA have been implemented and the ANA has received more equipment items. In 2005, Defense planned to equip the Afghan army with donated and salvaged weapons and armored vehicles. However, much of this equipment proved to be worn out, defective, or incompatible with other equipment. In 2006, Defense began providing some ANA forces with U.S. equipment. Further, as security deteriorated, equipment needs changed and Defense planned to provide more protective

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

19

equipment, such as armored Humvees, and more lethal weapons, such as rocket-propelled grenades. In support of these efforts, approximately $3.7 billion was provided between fiscal years 2005 and 2008 to equip the ANA.[34] As of February 2008, CSTC-A reports that the ANA combat forces are equipped with 60 percent of items defined as critical by Defense, a 7 percentage point increase since August 2007. Despite these advances, shortages exist in a number of equipment items defined as critical by Defense. For instance, of 55 critical equipment items for ANA combat forces, CSTC-A reports having less than half of the required amount on hand for 21 of these items. Types of critical equipment items with significant shortfalls include vehicles, weapons, and communication equipment (see table 7). Although shortfalls exist for certain items defined as critical by Defense, such as NATOstandard machine guns, this does not necessarily mean that the ANA is unequipped. Defense officials stated that while ANA forces wait to receive NATO-standard weapons, Eastern bloc substitutes will be used. However, several ANA combat corps reported shortages in these items as well. For instance, each month between November 2007 and February 2008 at least 2 of 5 ANA corps reported shortages in Eastern bloc anti-tank weapons and 1 of 5 ANA corps reported shortages in Eastern bloc light machine guns. Moreover, shortfalls in items for which no Eastern bloc substitute is being used, such as communication equipment and cargo trucks, were reported in every ANA combat corps in February 2008. Defense officials attribute these shortfalls to a variety of factors, such as competing global priorities for equipment, production delays, and delayed receipt and execution of fiscal year 2007 funding, among other reasons. As equipment orders are filled, ANA units may not be the top priority to receive certain equipment items. CSTC-A officials said that U.S. soldiers currently in combat have first priority to receive some of the equipment that is also requested for the ANA, while security forces in other nations, such as Iraq, may also be higher priority than the Afghan army. When U.S. forces or other nations have higher priority to receive equipment, CSTC-A officials noted that ANA orders are delayed. Officials at the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command also stated that Iraq may be a higher priority than Afghanistan, while a senior official from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) stated that other nations, such as Georgia and Lebanon, may also receive higher priority. Furthermore, production delays for certain equipment items may contribute to equipment shortfalls. For instance, CSTC-A officials stated that due to production delays, certain equipment items, such as NATO-standard heavy machine guns and mortars, were not currently available and would not likely be delivered until 2009 or 2010. Similarly, Defense officials in Washington, D.C., stated that production limitations were responsible for some equipment shortages, particularly in the case of NATO-standard mortars. Additional factors cited as contributing to equipment shortages included delayed receipt and execution of fiscal year 2007 funding, accelerated fielding of ANA units, and difficulties distributing equipment to the field.

20

GAO

Table 7. Critical Equipment Items for ANA Combat Forces with Less Than Half the Required Amount On Hand, as of February 2008

Item Vehicles and generators 15-Kilowatt Generator Excavating Vehicle M872A4 Semi-trailer 30-Kilowatt Generator Armored Humvee Dump Truck Humvee Ambulance Eastern bloca weapons DsHK 12.7 mm Heavy Machine Gun NATO-standardb weapons M500 Shotgun M224 60mm Mortar M203A2 40mm Grenade Launcher M16A2 Semi-automatic Rifle M249 Machine Gun M240B Machine Gun M24 Sniper Rifle M2 .50 cal Heavy Machine Gun M252 81mm Mortar Communications technology High-Frequency Vehicle Mounted Radio Omni-Directional Antenna Mast Very High-Frequency Vehicle Mounted Radio Field Switch Board

Number required

Number on hand

Percent of required on hand

40 120 316 75 4,580 60 710

19 56 82 16 469 5 0

48 47 26 21 10 8 0

576

175

30

525 68 2,851 53,287 3,584 2,013 1,544 576 30

116 15 527 6,018 162 81 12 0 0

22 22 19 11 5 4 1 0 0

1,031

501

49

503 200

180 71

36 36

752

202

27

34 Between fiscal years 2005 and 2008, funds were provided to support the training and equipping of the ANA through a variety of budget accounts, with the majority provided through the Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF). ASFF funding allocations are reported to Congress in four categories: equipment and transportation, infrastructure development, sustainment activities, and training. The $3.7 billion figure represents the amount of ASFF funding directed toward equipment and transportation for the Afghan army. Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. Note: Equip ment requirements are defined in the ANA’s Military Table of Equipment, known as a Tashkil. a Eastern bloc equipment generally refers to equipment developed by the Soviet Union and produced in Eastern bloc countries. b NATO-standard refers to NATO approved standardization processes applied to equipment, which can include production codes and equipment specifications. According to NATO’s Logistics Handbook, the aim of standardization is to enhance the Alliance’s operational effectiveness and to improve the efficient use of available resources.

One method to help address shortages while western equipment is delayed is through increased equipment donations from the international community. CSTC-A is currently seeking additional contributions, particularly of Eastern bloc equipment, such as the basic soldier assault rifle. Between 2002 and March 2008, over 40 non-U.S. donors provided

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

21

approximately $426 million to assist in the training and equipping of the ANA. Eighty-eight percent of this support has been in the area of equipment; however, the value of equipment donations is determined by the donor, according to CSTC-A officials. The quality of this donated equipment has been mixed (see figure 5), and delivery of some donations has been delayed due to limited funds to pay for shipments into Afghanistan.

Figure 5. Rifles of Variable Quality Donated to the ANSF.

To address quality issues, NATO and CSTC-A have established procedures to verify that international donations comply with current needs for the ANA and, if necessary, verify the condition and completeness of equipment. Furthermore, to defray the cost of shipments into Afghanistan, a NATO-administered trust fund has been established to support the transportation of equipment into Afghanistan. However, Defense officials stated that the amount of money in the trust fund, which they estimated to be approximately $1 million, is limited and may not support the transportation of a large number of donations. Additionally, CSTC-A has also set aside funding to transport donated goods when required. The development of capable ANA forces may be delayed by shortages in equipment, as units cannot be certified as fully capable in equipment unless they have 85 percent or more of their critical equipment items. CSTC-A anticipates that all ANA brigades will be equipped to at least 85 percent of requirements for critical equipment items by December 2008; however, according to Defense’s March 2008 monthly status report, expected dates for achieving CM1 in equipment were pushed back for 12 of 14 combat brigades by between 1 to 7 months due, in part, to delayed delivery and distribution of items such as vehicles and weapons. Moreover, shortages in equipment items may hinder training efforts, since having certain equipment

22

GAO

items on hand, such as trucks, may be necessary to teach ANA personnel logistics and maintenance skills.

SEVERAL CHALLENGES IMPEDE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE CAPABILITY OF AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE FORCES Although the ANP has reportedly grown in number since 2005, after an investment of nearly $6 billion, no police unit is assessed as fully capable of performing its mission. Development of an Afghan police force that is fully capable requires manning, training, and equipping of police personnel. However, the United States faces challenges in several areas related to these efforts to build a capable police force. First, less than one-quarter of the ANP has police mentors present to provide training in the field and verify that police are on duty. Second, the Afghan police have not received about one-third of the equipment items Defense considers critical, and continue to face shortages in several categories of equipment, including trucks, radios, and body armor. In addition, Afghanistan’s weak judicial system hinders effective policing, and our analysis of status reports from the field indicates that the ANP consistently experiences problems with police pay, corruption, and attacks, including by insurgents. Recognizing that these challenges hamper ANP development, Defense began a new long-term initiative in November 2007 to reconstitute the uniformed police—the largest component of the Afghan police. However, the continuing shortfall in police mentors may pose a risk to the initiative’s success.

No Police Units Are Rated as Fully Capable of Performing Their Mission Defense defines a fully capable 82,000-person ANP force as one that is able to independently plan, execute, and sustain operations with limited coalition support.[35] However, Defense reporting indicates that, as of April 2008, no police unit was assessed as fully capable of performing its mission (see table 8).[36] Furthermore, among rated units, about 96 percent (296 of 308) of uniformed police districts and all border police battalions (33 of 33), which together comprise about three-fourths of the ANP’s authorized endstrength, were rated at CM4—the lowest capability rating.[37] Six of the remaining 12 uniformed police districts were rated at CM2, and the other 6 at CM3. Overall, Defense assessed approximately 4 percent (18 of 433 units rated) of police units as partially capable and about 3 percent (12 of 433 units rated) as capable of leading operations with coalition support. According to Defense reporting as of April 2008, the expected date for completion of a fully capable Afghan police force is December 2012—a date that conflicts with the Afghan government and international community benchmark of establishing police forces that can effectively meet Afghanistan’s security needs by the end of 2010.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

23

Table 8. Defense Assessment of ANP Capabilities, as of April 2008 Police units

CM1Fully Capable

CM2Capable with Support

Uniformed Police Districts (365) Border Police Battalions (33) Civil Order Police Battalions (20) Counter Narcotics Police Units (15) Number of ANP units (433)

0

CM4Not Capable

6

CM3 Partially Capable 6

296

Unit Not Formed or Not Reportinga 57

0

0

0

33

0

0

6

2

2

10

0

0

10

3

2

0

12 (3%)

18 (4%)

334 (77%)

69 (16%)

Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. a

A uniformed police district that is categorized as “not formed or not reporting” has not been rated by Defense. A civil order police battalion or a counter narcotics police unit that is categorized as “not formed or not reporting” is a planned unit or in training.

Growth of Police Force Is Difficult to Quantify Defense reporting indicates that, as of April 2008, nearly 80,000 police had been assigned out of an end-strength of 82,000 (see table 9).[38] This is an increase of more than double the approximately 35,000 we previously reported as trained as of January 2005. Table 9. Afghan Ministry of Interior Forces, as of April 2008

Ministry of Interior Headquarters Uniformed Police Border Police Auxiliary Police Civil Order Police Criminal Investigative Division Counter Narcotics Police Customs Police Counter Terrorism Police Standby/Highway Police Total

Number authorized 6,015 44,319 17,970 0 5,365 4,148 3,777 0 406 0 82,000

Number assigned 5,237 42,969 12,213 9,318 1,523 2,815 2,265 623 411 2,536 79,910

Percent assigned 87 97 68 N/Aa 28 68 60 N/Aa 101 N/Aa 97

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense and Afghan Ministry of Interior data. a

The auxiliary police, customs police, standby police, and highway police are no longer authorized.

Despite this reported increase in police manning, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the police force has grown. As we noted in May 2007, the Afghan Ministry of Interior produces the number of police assigned and the reliability of these numbers has been questioned. A Defense census undertaken since our May 2007 report raises additional concerns about these manning numbers. Specifically, Defense conducted a census to check the reliability of ministry payroll records and reported in September 2007 that it was unable to verify the physical existence of about 20 percent of the uniformed police and more than 10

24

GAO

percent of the border police listed on the ministry payroll records for the provinces surveyed. Because Defense’s census did not cover all 34 Afghan provinces, these percentages cannot be applied to the entire police force. Nonetheless, the results of Defense’s census raise questions about the extent to which the ANP has grown since our 2005 report.

Shortage of Police Mentors Hinders Training, Evaluation, and Verification of Police on Duty According to Defense officials, the shortage of available police mentors has been a key impediment to U.S. efforts to conduct training and evaluation and verify that police are on duty. Police mentor teams in Afghanistan consist of both civilian mentors, who teach law enforcement and police management, and military mentors, who provide training in basic combat operations and offer force protection for the civilian mentors. As we reported in 2005, international peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor have shown that fieldbased training of local police by international police mentors is critical to the success of similar programs to establish professional police forces. Such training allows mentors to build on classroom instruction and provide a more systematic basis for evaluating police performance. Defense reporting indicates that, as of January 2008, less than one-quarter of the ANP had police mentor teams present. DynCorp, State’s contractor for training and mentoring the police, was able to provide about 98 percent (540 of 551) of the authorized number of civilian mentors as of April 2008. However, as of the same date, only about 32 percent (746 of 2,358) of required military mentors were present in country. Due to this shortage of military mentors to provide force protection, movement of available civilian mentors is constrained—a serious limitation to providing mentor coverage to a police force that is based in more than 900 locations around the country and, unlike the army, generally operates as individuals, not as units.[39] Moreover, a knowledgeable CSTC-A official stated that additional civilian mentors would not help to address the shortfall in military mentors because they could not be deployed to the field without military mentors to provide protection. According to Defense officials, the shortfall in military mentors for the ANP is due to the higher priority assigned to deploying U.S. military personnel elsewhere, particularly Iraq. While the United States and the EU have taken steps to provide additional police mentors, the extent to which these efforts will address current shortfalls is unclear. In January 2008, Defense announced that approximately 1,000 Marines would be sent to Afghanistan in the spring of 2008 on a one-time, 7-month deployment to assist in the training and development of the ANP.[40] However, this temporary deployment will neither fully nor permanently alleviate the underlying shortage of military mentors for the ANP, which stood at over 1,600 as of April 2008. In June 2007, the EU established a police mission in Afghanistan with the objective of providing nearly 200 personnel to mentor, advise, and train the Ministry of Interior and ANP. According to State, the number of EU personnel pledged has subsequently increased to about 215. However, State figures indicate that the EU had staffed about 80 personnel as of February 2008—less than 40 percent of its pledged total. Moreover, State officials said that restrictions in the EU mandate limit the extent to which its personnel are permitted to provide field-based training. Defense, State, and DynCorp officials all identified the continuing shortfall in police mentors as a challenge to U.S. efforts to develop the Afghan police. Specifically, the mentor shortage has impeded U.S. efforts in three areas:

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action… •

•

•

25

Field-based training: Senior Defense officials, including the commanding general of CSTC-A, stated that the ongoing shortfall in police mentors has been the primary obstacle to providing the field-based training necessary to develop a fully capable police force. In addition, State has reported that a significant increase in mentoring coverage is essential to improving the quality of the police through field-based training. DynCorp officials also acknowledged the shortage of mentors to be a challenge to providing necessary training. Evaluation: According to a knowledgeable CSTC-A official, the shortage of police mentors is a serious challenge to evaluating the capability of the police and identifying areas in need of further attention. Defense recently introduced a monthly assessment tool to be used by mentors to evaluate police capability and identify strengths and weaknesses. However, CSTC-A identified extremely limited mentor coverage of the police as a significant challenge to using this tool to generate reliable assessments. As of February 2008, police mentors were able to assess only about 11 percent of uniformed police districts using this new tool. Verification of police on duty: The shortage of available police mentors has impeded U.S. efforts to verify the number of Afghan police on duty. For example, as of April 2008, Defense could not verify whether any police were reporting for duty in 5 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces due to the lack of mentors. Furthermore, although Defense has planned to conduct monthly surveys to determine how many police are reporting for duty in selected districts, a knowledgeable CSTC-A official stated that mentors are not available to conduct surveys. However, a random sample of 15 police districts conducted by the United Nations found fewer than half of authorized police reporting for duty.

Without sufficient police mentors present to conduct field-based training and evaluation and verify police manning, development of fully capable, fully staffed Afghan police forces may continue to be delayed.

Efforts of Civilian Mentors Complicated by Dual Chain of Command Although DynCorp has been able to provide nearly all of the authorized number of civilian mentors, DynCorp stated that the activities of these mentors have been complicated by a dual chain of command between State and Defense.[41] According to a 2005 interagency decision, Defense is responsible for directing the overall U.S. effort to train and equip the Afghan police, while State is responsible for providing policy guidance and management of the DynCorp contract. According to DynCorp, this dual chain of command has affected its efforts in multiple ways, such as by producing conflicting guidance and complicating reporting, placement of personnel, the use of facilities, and training and mentoring activities. Police Continue to Face Difficulties with Equipment Shortages and Quality Between fiscal years 2005 and 2008, Congress made available $5.9 billion to support the training and equipping of the ANP. At least $1.3 billion of that amount, or 22 percent, has been directed toward equipment purchases.[42] Although equipping of the police has improved in recent months, shortages remain in several types of equipment that Defense considers critical.[43] Since our August 2007 visit to Afghanistan, the percentage of critical ANP equipment on hand has grown from 53 to 65 percent as of February 2008. This

26

GAO

improvement includes increased totals of items on hand, such as rifles and grenade launchers. Further, Defense anticipates the ANP will be equipped with 85 percent of critical equipment items by December 2008. However, as of February 2008, shortages remained in several types of critical equipment, such as trucks, radios, and body armor. Defense officials cited several factors that have contributed to these shortages. First, according to CSTC-A officials, equipment shortages are due to competing priorities, particularly the need to equip U.S. forces deployed to operational situations and security forces in Iraq. Second, CSTC-A attributed the specific shortage in body armor to the inability of two supplying contractors to deliver the requested items on schedule. Third, Defense officials cited additional causes of equipment shortages such as delayed receipt and execution of fiscal year 2007 funding and instances where CSTC-A did not provide equipment orders in a timely manner. Defense officials and documentation also indicated that distributing equipment to police in the field once it is procured is challenging due to the unstable security situation, difficult terrain, weather conditions, and the remoteness of some police districts. In addition, Defense officials expressed concerns with the quality and usability of thousands of weapons donated to the police. For example, officials estimated that only about 1 in 5 of the nearly 50,000 AK-47 automatic rifles received through donation was of good quality. Our analysis of weekly progress reports produced in 2007 by DynCorp civilian police mentors provides additional evidence of equipment-related challenges and other logistical difficulties.[44] Specifically, 88 percent (46 of 52) of weekly reports contained instances of police operating with equipment of insufficient quality or quantity or facing problems with facilities or supplies. For example, the reports include several cases where Afghan border police are inadequately equipped to defend their positions on the border or face insurgent forces. Recognizing this shortcoming, CSTC-A has planned to equip the border police with heavy machine guns, which it expects to arrive in the fall of 2008. In addition, 81 percent (42 of 52) of weekly reports contained examples of limited police ability to account for the equipment provided to them.[45] In July 2007, CSTC-A initiated efforts to train the police in basic supply and property accountability procedures.[46] According to CSTC-A, equipment is no longer being issued to police districts unless the districts’ property officers are first trained. For example, more than 1,500 trucks have been on hand and ready for issue since late 2007 (see figure 6), but the Afghan Minister of Interior has delayed distribution of these vehicles until adequate accountability procedures and driver training are established in the target districts. Similarly, as of February 2008, about half of the approximately 17,000 machine guns on hand had not been distributed to the police.

Source: GAO. Figure 6. Trucks Awaiting Distribution to ANP.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

27

Police Face Problems with Weak Judicial Sector, Pay, Corruption, and Attacks Establishing a working judiciary in Afghanistan based on the rule of law is a prerequisite for effective policing. However, in 2005 and 2007, we reported that few linkages existed in Afghanistan between the Afghan judiciary and police, and the police had little ability to enforce judicial rulings. According to State, much of Afghanistan continues to lack a functioning justice system. In addition, according to CSTC-A, the slow rate at which the rule of law is being implemented across Afghanistan inhibits effective community policing. Our analysis of DynCorp’s weekly progress reports from 2007 indicates that police in the field also face persistent problems with pay, corruption, and attacks.[47] •

•

•

Pay problems: 94 percent (49 of 52) of weekly reports contained instances of police experiencing problems with pay. These include numerous examples of police who have not been paid in several months and multiple cases of police who quit their jobs as a result of pay-related problems, thereby potentially leaving their districts more vulnerable to insurgent forces. Our prior work found that one cause for the corrupt practices exhibited by many Afghan police is their low, inconsistently paid salaries. Furthermore, according to State, the Ministry of Interior’s traditional salary distribution process afforded opportunities for police chiefs and other officials to claim a portion of their subordinates’ salaries for themselves. To minimize skimming of salaries, CSTC-A is instituting a three-phase program to pay all salaries into bank accounts via electronic funds transfer by December 2008. According to Defense, electronic funds transfer had been implemented in 12 of 34 provinces as of August 2007. The government of Afghanistan also has decided to increase police salaries to achieve pay parity with the Afghan army. Corruption: 87 percent (45 of 52) of weekly reports contained instances of corruption within the police force or the Ministry of Interior. These include multiple examples of police personnel providing weapons or defecting to the Taliban and several cases of high-ranking officials engaging in bribery or misconduct. Moreover, State documentation notes that one branch of the ANP, the highway police, was disbanded in early 2007 because it was notorious for corruption. However, DynCorp weekly reporting indicates that several thousand highway police were still working and being paid by the Ministry of Interior as of September 2007. The ministry, in conjunction with CSTC-A and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, is currently engaged in an effort to reform and streamline the ANP rank structure according to several criteria, including evidence of previous corruption amongst ANP officers.[48] Attacks: 85 percent (44 of 52) of weekly reports contained instances of attacks against the police. These include numerous cases where police are targeted by suicide bombers or with improvised explosive devices. According to DynCorp, insurgent attacks against the ANP have increased due to greater involvement of the ANP in counterinsurgency operations and the perception that the police are a more vulnerable target than the Afghan army and coalition forces. DynCorp weekly reports do include several instances where police were able to successfully fend off attack; however, they also contain multiple cases of the dangerous working conditions that police face causing difficulties in retaining or recruiting personnel.

28

GAO

New Initiative to Reconstitute Police Has Begun, but Limited Mentor Coverage a Risk Factor Recognizing several of the challenges faced by the ANP, Defense began a new initiative in November 2007 to train and equip the Afghan uniformed police. Defense documentation that outlines this initiative acknowledges that the Afghan police lack capability, have been inadequately trained and equipped, and are beset by corruption. To target these and other challenges, Defense introduced the Focused District Development plan in November 2007 to train and equip the uniformed police—those assigned to police districts throughout the country who comprise over 40 percent of the intended ANP end-strength of 82,000. According to Defense, reforming the uniformed police—the immediate face of the Afghan government to citizens at the local level—is the key to the overall reform of the ANP.[49] Under the Focused District Development model, the entire police force of a district is withdrawn from the district and sent to a regional training center to train together for 8 weeks and receive all authorized equipment while their district is covered by the Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANCOP), a specialized police force trained and equipped to counter civil unrest and lawlessness (see figure 7).[50] The police force then returns to its district, where a dedicated police mentor team provides follow-on training and closely monitors the police for at least 60 days. Defense expects to be able to reconstitute about 5 to 10 districts at a time for the first year of Focused District Development, with each training cycle lasting about 6 to 8 months. Overall, according to State, it will take a minimum of 4 to 5 years to complete the initiative.

Source: GAO. Figure 7. Afghan National Civil Order Police Trainees in Kabul.

State documentation indicates that no districts had completed an entire Focused District Development cycle as of March 2008.[51] Until an entire cycle is completed, it will be difficult to fully assess the initiative. However, limited police mentor coverage may complicate efforts to execute this new program. Defense documentation identifies sufficient police mentor teams as the most important requirement for successful reform. However, according to the commanding general of CSTC-A, the ongoing shortfall in police mentors available to work with newly trained district police will slow implementation of the initiative.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

29

In addition, a senior Defense official stated that unless the mentor shortage is alleviated, the number of police mentor teams available to provide dedicated training and monitoring will eventually be exhausted. Moreover, according to DynCorp, civilian mentors have an important role in Focused District Development—particularly in providing district-level mentoring—but are not accompanying military mentors into districts that are considered unsafe. Given that one selection criterion for districts is location in unstable areas of the country where better policing might improve the security situation, it is unclear how often civilian mentors will be able to participate in district-level mentoring. Defense documentation also identifies sufficient equipment availability as a requirement for successful reform. According to Defense, adequate equipment is currently on hand to support the Focused District Development initiative. However, given current shortfalls in various ANP equipment items, it is unclear if having sufficient equipment on hand for the initiative may lead to increased equipment shortages for elements of the ANP, such as the border police, that are not currently being targeted through the initiative.

CONCLUSION Establishing capable Afghan national security forces is critical to improving security in Afghanistan and the U.S. efforts to assist foreign allies and partners in combating terrorism. To date the U.S. has invested billions of dollars in this effort and estimates that billions more will be required to build and sustain the ANSF beyond the existing forces—few of which have been assessed as fully capable of conducting their primary mission. As such, measuring progress and estimating long-term costs are particularly important given that U.S. officials estimate that this mission could exceed a decade. The recommendations in our 2005 report called for detailed Defense and State plans that include clearly defined objectives and performance measures, milestones for achieving these objectives, future funding requirements, and a strategy for sustaining the results achieved, including plans for transitioning responsibilities to Afghanistan. In 2007, Defense provided a 5-page document in response to our recommendation. However, this document included few long-term milestones, no intermediate milestones for judging progress, and no sustainability strategy. In 2008, Congress mandated that Defense, in coordination with State, submit reports on a comprehensive and long-term strategy and budget for strengthening the ANSF and a longterm detailed plan for sustaining the ANSF. Defense has yet to provide these reports. As such it remains difficult to determine if U.S. efforts are on track and how much more they will cost to complete. Until a coordinated, detailed plan is completed, Congress will continue to lack visibility into the progress made to date and the cost of completing this mission—information that is essential to holding the performing agencies accountable. Consequently, we believe that future U.S. investments should be conditioned on the completion of a coordinated, detailed plan for developing a capable ANSF.

30

GAO

MATTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION To help ensure that action is taken to facilitate accountability and oversight in the development and sustainment of the ANSF, and consistent with our previous 2005 recommendation and the 2008 congressional mandate, Congress should consider conditioning a portion of future appropriations related to training and equipping the ANSF on completion of a coordinated, detailed plan that, among other things, includes clearly defined objectives and performance measures, milestones for achieving these objectives, future funding requirements, and a strategy for sustaining the results achieved, including plans for transitioning responsibilities to Afghanistan; and the timely receipt of the reports mandated by sections 1230 and 1231 of Pub. L. 110-181, the first of which are already late. State and Defense provided written comments on a draft of this report. State’s comments are reproduced in appendix III. Defense’s comments, along with GAO responses to selected issues raised by Defense, are reproduced in appendix IV. The agencies also provided us with technical comments, which we have incorporated throughout the draft as appropriate. State appreciated GAO’s views on how to improve efforts to develop the ANSF, which it considers critical to long-term sustainable success in Afghanistan. State expressed concerns about conditioning future appropriations on the completion of a detailed plan. In addition, State highlighted ongoing coordination efforts with Defense as well as certain other operational changes, many of which occurred after the completion of our fieldwork in August 2007. For example, while we note that civilian mentors are not accompanying military mentors into districts that are considered unsafe, State notes in its comments that civilian police mentors are now deployed with their military counterparts to all ongoing Focused District Development districts and that all efforts are made to enable the deployment of civilian police in support of the program. We acknowledge State’s concerns and appreciate its efforts to coordinate with Defense. However, we believe that a coordinated, detailed plan that clearly identifies the various agencies’ roles would be beneficial, given the continuous turnover of U.S. government staff in Afghanistan. We believe a coordinated, detailed plan with intermediate milestones is also important particularly in light of the new Focused District Development initiative for ANP training, which will entail considerable resources and time to complete. Further, intermediate milestones would provide policymakers with more information regarding the transition to a normalized security assistance relationship, as discussed by State in its comments. Defense disagreed that Congress should consider conditioning a portion of future appropriations on completion of a coordinated, detailed plan to develop the ANSF, and stated that current guidance provided by State and Defense to the field is sufficient to implement a successful program to train and equip the ANSF. Defense noted that the 5-page document it provided to GAO in January 2007 articulated goals for the size, capabilities, and requirements for the ANSF, and reflected an approach approved by multiple agencies—including State. Defense also cited a number of other documents it considers to be part of the effort to develop the ANSF. Furthermore, Defense disagreed with our conclusion that, absent a detailed plan, progress in developing the ANSF is difficult to assess, and stated that monthly progress reports and communication with Congress provide legislators with the information needed to assess the program and allocate resources.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

31

We do not believe that the 5-page document provides a strategic-level plan for the development of the ANSF. The document does not represent a coordinated Defense and State plan for completing and sustaining the ANSF with sufficient detail and transparency for Congress and others to make informed decisions concerning future resources. This 5-page document, which Defense now refers to as a “Strategic Vision” and which CSTC-A officials were unaware of at the time of our review, does not identify or discuss the roles and responsibilities of the Department of State, Defense’s key partner in training the ANP. This is an element that one would expect in a strategic planning document for ANSF development. Furthermore, the document contains just one date--December 2008, by which time the 152,000 person ANSF would be completed. Defense’s document lacks any other intermediate or long-term milestones by which progress could be measured. While the U.S. role in training and equipping the ANSF could exceed a decade, according to CSTC-A representatives, neither the 5-page document nor the documents identified by Defense in its comments to GAO constitute a sustainability strategy. For example, while Defense states that the international community will need to sustain the ANSF for the “near-term” until government revenues increase in Afghanistan, the document lacks further detail regarding the expected time frames for increasing government revenues, as well as a definition of “near-term.” As such, it remains unclear how long Defense and State expect to support the ANSF. Furthermore, we maintain that, without a coordinated, detailed plan, assessing progress in developing the ANSF is difficult. While Defense produces various documents that report in detail on the current status of the ANSF, these documents do not contain intermediate milestones or consistent end dates necessary to determine if the program is on track to achieve its desired results within a set timeframe. For additional details, refer to GAO comments that follow appendix IV.

APPENDIX I: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY To analyze U.S. plans for developing and sustaining the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and identify the extent to which these plans contain detailed objectives, milestones, future funding requirements, and sustainability strategies, we reviewed planning documents from Combined Security Transition Command—Afghanistan (CSTC-A) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including draft and CSTC-A-approved versions of the Campaign Plan for the Development of Afghan National Military and Police Forces (Campaign Plan); a planning document provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense; and a Defense briefing on ANSF sustainment. We evaluated these documents to determine the extent to which they contain the four criteria previously recommended by GAO and discussed them with cognizant Defense officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We also spoke with officials from the U.S. Central Command and State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to discuss their contribution to the Campaign Plan. In addition, while in Kabul, we discussed the Campaign Plan with officials from Embassy Kabul; the commanding general of CSTC-A and other CSTC-A officials; and the Afghan Minister of Defense. Finally, we examined the Afghanistan Compact and Afghanistan National Development Strategy to gain familiarity with documents developed by Afghanistan and the international community. The information on foreign law in this report

32

GAO

does not reflect our independent legal analysis but is based on interviews and secondary sources. To determine the progress made and challenges faced by the United States in building the Afghan National Army (ANA), we reviewed monthly assessment reports produced by Task Force Phoenix and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as documents obtained from several other Defense offices and agencies, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, CSTC-A, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and the U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency. In addition, we met with the following officials to discuss the progress made and challenges faced by the United States in building the ANA: •

•

In the Washington, D.C., area, we met with officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. In Kabul, Afghanistan, we met with personnel mentoring the army; officials from CSTC-A, including its commanding general; Task Force Phoenix; Embassy Kabul; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; MPRI; and the Afghan Ministry of Defense, including the Minister of Defense. We also visited an equipment warehouse and army training facilities. Moreover, we interviewed officials based in Afghanistan by telephone, including several CSTC-A representatives.

To determine the progress made and challenges faced by the United States in building the Afghan National Police (ANP), we reviewed monthly assessment reports produced by Task Force Phoenix and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as documents obtained from several other Defense offices and agencies, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, CSTC-A, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and the U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency. In addition, we met with the following officials to discuss the progress made and challenges faced by the United States in building the ANP: •

•

In the Washington, D.C., area, we met with officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, State’s Bureaus of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and Political-Military Affairs, and DynCorp International. In Kabul, Afghanistan, we met with U.S. police mentors; officials from CSTC-A, including its commanding general; Task Force Phoenix; Embassy Kabul; the United Nations; DynCorp International; MPRI; and the Afghan Ministry of Interior, including the Minister of Interior. We also visited an equipment warehouse and police training facilities. Further, we interviewed officials based in Afghanistan by telephone, including representatives of CSTC-A, DynCorp International, and the United Nations Development Programme’s Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan.

Additionally, we asked State to provide weekly progress reports produced by DynCorp International for 2005, 2006, and 2007. To identify challenges faced by the police, we conducted a content analysis to categorize and summarize the observations contained in these

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

33

reports. Specifically, we independently proposed categories, agreed on the relevant categories, reviewed reports, and categorized the observations contained therein. Instances discussed in more than one report were only categorized and counted the first time they appeared. To ensure the validity and reliability of this analysis, we reconciled any differences. Once all differences were reconciled, we analyzed the data to identify the challenges most often discussed. Because State did not provide us a complete set of reports for 2005 or 2006, we were only able to perform this analysis on 2007 reports. To determine the reliability of the data we collected on funding, mentors, equipment, and ANSF personnel numbers and capability, we compared and corroborated information from multiple sources and interviewed cognizant officials regarding the processes they used to compile the data. •

•

•

To determine the completeness and consistency of U.S. and international funding data, we compiled and compared data from Defense, State, and other donor countries with information from cognizant U.S. agency officials in Washington, D.C. We also compared the funding data with appropriations and authorization legislation, congressional budget requests, and reports to Congress to corroborate their accuracy. Additionally, we compared the funding data with our May 2007 Afghanistan report.1 Differences between table 1 in this report and the funding chart presented in our May 2007 report are due to the following factors: Certain funds were removed, such as those provided to support a protective detail for Afghanistan’s President, because agency officials later clarified that these dollars did not support efforts to train and equip the ANSF, while certain funds were added, such as those used to provide support for counter narcotics police, because agency officials later clarified that these dollars supported efforts to train and equip the ANSF. For fiscal years 2007 and 2008, totals printed in May 2007 included budget requests. Subsequently, some of these requested totals changed, such as the allocation of money in Defense’s 2008 Global War on Terror request and Defense’s support of efforts to train and equip Afghan counter narcotics police.

Although we did not audit the funding data and are not expressing an opinion on them, based on our examination of the documents received and our discussions with cognizant agency officials, we concluded that the funding data we obtained were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this engagement. •

To determine the reliability of data on the number of military mentors, we corroborated figures in unclassified progress reports against classified mentor requirements and discussed Defense progress reports with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We checked the reliability of data on the number of civilian mentors by comparing Defense and State figures for consistency and speaking to State officials. Finally, we assessed the reliability of data on European Union police mentors by comparing Defense, State, and European Union data and checking for inconsistencies. Based on these assessments and interviews, we determined that these data on mentors were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this engagement.

34

GAO •

•

To assess the reliability of equipment data, we compared different lists of equipment on hand to corroborate their accuracy and interviewed cognizant officials by telephone to discuss shortages of equipment and procedures for keeping track of equipment provided to the ANA and ANP. Based on these comparisons and discussions, we concluded that the equipment data provided to us were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this engagement. To assess the reliability of ANSF capability figures, we spoke with officials from CSTC-A, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and State to discuss the processes by which these data are generated. Additionally, while in Kabul, we attended the monthly meeting during which Defense officials discuss and determine ANA capability figures. Moreover, we requested after-action reports to evaluate the capability of ANA troops in the field. However, Defense officials were not able to provide us with this documentation. To evaluate the reliability of ANSF personnel numbers, we spoke with officials from CSTC-A and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Overall, based on our discussions with cognizant officials, we concluded that ANSF capability and ANA personnel data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this engagement. However, based on concerns expressed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and highlighted in our prior work, as well as the results of the census conducted by Defense, we note in this report that the number of ANP reported as assigned may not be reliable. Because Defense relies on the number of ANP reported as assigned as a measure of progress in building the ANP, we include this figure in our report as evidence that the ANP appear to have grown in number over the last 3 years. However, we also note that due to concerns about the reliability of the figure, it is difficult to quantify the exact extent to which the ANP has grown.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 through June 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

APPENDIX II. STRUCTURE OF THE AFGHAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCES The Afghan National Security Forces are comprised of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. The structure of these organizations is described below. (See table 10 for the Afghan army and table 11 for the Afghan police.) Combat forces comprise 70 percent of the ANA’s personnel and are divided into five corps, located in different regions of Afghanistan. Each corps contains a number of brigades, most of which consist of five battalions: three light infantry battalions, one combat support battalion, and one combat services support battalion. The exception is the quick reaction force in 201st corps, which is comprised of one infantry battalion, one mechanized infantry

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

35

battalion, and one armored battalion, in place of the three light infantry battalions. Each corps also includes one battalion of the National Commando Brigade (see figure 8). Table 10. Structure of the Ministry of Defense and Afghan National Army Component Ministry of Defense and General Staff

Sustaining Institutions and Intermediate Commands

Combat Forces

Afghan Air Corps

Description Department of the Afghan government responsible for developing, fielding, and ensuring the operational readiness of the ANA. The Ministry of Defense develops strategic plans for the defense of Afghanistan. The General Staff implements Ministry of Defense policies and guidance for the ANA. Sustaining institutions and intermediate commands support the Ministry of Defense at an institutional level and include facilities installation and management, acquisitions, logistics, communications support, regional military intelligence offices, detainee operations, medical command, ANA training and recruiting commands, military police, and the Headquarters Support and Security Brigade, an ANA unit that performs specialist tactical and ceremonial missions. Operational arm of the ANA, comprising about 70 percent of the total personnel. Combat forces are divided into five corps, with responsibility for different regions of Afghanistan. The air corps provides support for Afghan army and police forces. Once trained, it will perform missions such as presidential airlift, medical evacuation, training, and light attack.

Source: GAO analysis of Defense documents.

Table 11. Structure of the Ministry of Interior and Afghan National Police Component Ministry of Interior

Afghan Uniformed Police

Afghan Border Police Afghan National Civil Order Police Criminal Investigative Division

Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan Counter Terrorism Police Standby Police/Highway Police/Auxiliary Police/Customs Police

Description Department of the government of Afghanistan responsible for the protection of the country’s international borders and the enforcement of the rule of law Police assigned to police districts and provincial and regional commands; duties include patrols, crime prevention, traffic duties, and general policing Provide broad law enforcement capability at international borders and entry points Specialized police force trained and equipped to counter civil unrest and lawlessness Lead investigative agency for investigations of national interest, those with international links, and those concerned with organized and white-collar crime Lead law enforcement agency charged with reducing narcotics production and distribution in Afghanistan Lead police and law enforcement efforts to defeat terrorism and insurgency No longer authorized

Source: GAO analysis of Defense documents.

The ANP currently consists of six authorized components under the Ministry of Interior. The uniformed police, the largest of these six components, report to the police commanders of each Afghan province. Provincial commanders report to one of five regional commanders, who report back to the Ministry of Interior. The other five authorized components of the ANP all report directly to the ministry (see figure 9).

36

GAO

Note: The dashed lines in figure 8 depict the organizational relationship between ANA Corps and battalions of the National Commando Brigade. Each ANA Corps contains a battalion of the National Commando Brigade. These battalions are controlled from the Commando Brigade Headquarters. However, each ANA Corps has the responsibility to provide housing and administration to the Commando battalions located within its Corps. Source: GAO analysis of Defense documents. Figure 8. Structure of the ANA Combat Forces.

Source: GAO analysis of Defense and State data. Figure 9. ANP Chain of Command.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

APPENDIX III: COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

37

38

GAO

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

39

40

GAO

APPENDIX IV: COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end of this appendix.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action… See comment 1.

41

42

GAO See comments 2,3,4,5,6.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

43

The following are GAO’s comments on Defense’s written response, dated May 27, 2008, to the draft chapter.

GAO COMMENTS 1. Defense states that its document establishes quantitative and qualitative measures to assess ANSF development. While the 5-page document contains some qualitative measures to assess ANSF development, it contains only one milestone date, December 2008, when, according to the document, the ANSF will have achieved initial independent operating capability. However, this one milestone is not consistent with dates contained in monthly reports that track manning, training, equipment, and capability, which have fluctuated. While the monthly updates are useful in providing the status of ANSF capability, each monthly report is a snapshot in time without consistent baselines that would facilitate an assessment of progress over time. For example, even though the United States began funding and training the ANA in 2002, the February 2007 report that was provided to GAO as an attachment to the 5-page document uses three different baselines for assessing the ANSF—July 2005 for the number of trained and equipped Afghan army and police, June 2006 for the status of the ANA battalion Training and Readiness Assessments, and the first quarter of 2007 for the status of ANA and ANP embedded training teams and mentors. However, the report does not refer back to 2002 in measuring progress. Similarly, the Training and Readiness Assessments that are provided on a quarterly basis to congressional oversight committees are also snapshots in time. 2. Defense maintains that the CSTC-A milestones are consistent with those in the 5-page Defense document. We disagree. The three phases and associated time frames of ANSF development are articulated differently in the 5-page document and the CSTC-A Campaign Plan. For example, Phase III in CSTC-A’s Campaign Plan—Transition to Strategic Partnership—is not identified as a phase in the 5-page document. Defense also contends that differences between the two documents are due to developments in the security environment. While this may be true, absent a detailed plan with specific time frames, it is difficult to assess the extent to which deteriorating security delayed ANSF development. 3. Defense notes that until government revenues increase in Afghanistan, the international community will need to sustain the ANSF and that such international support is required for the “near-term.” Moreover, Defense states that, where appropriate, it supports efforts to increase government revenues in Afghanistan. However, in the absence of further detail regarding the expected timeline for increasing government revenues—or the definition of “near-term”—it remains unclear how long the United States will need to support the ANSF. As we note in our report, the United States has been a major contributor to this mission—investing about $16.5 billion to develop the ANSF. Furthermore, current costs to sustain the force are estimated to be at over $2 billion annually. Given that the Afghan government is currently unable to support the recurring costs of its security forces and that U.S. officials estimate this mission could exceed a decade, additional clarity on the estimated length of time and amount of money needed to complete this mission, and the potential for Afghan financial contributions, could assist in conducting oversight of the program.

44

GAO

4. Defense states that the 5-page document received by GAO was a longer articulation of a plan approved by State. However, although Defense and State are partners in training the ANP, the fact remains State did not participate in the development of the 5-page document Defense provided to GAO, nor has State developed a plan of its own. Defense’s 5-page document does share basic end-strength and capability information with two slides on ANSF development approved by the Principals Committee for ANSF Development. However, these slides do not themselves constitute a coordinated plan and do not contain elements, such as intermediate milestones, identified by GAO in our 2005 recommendation and agreed to by Defense and State as needed. 5. Defense contends that the role of State in ANSF development is articulated in documents other than the 5-page document provided to GAO. However, while State’s role may be discussed elsewhere, the 5-page document provided to us by Defense does not describe the role of State or other key stakeholders. If, as stated, Defense intends this document to provide strategic-level guidance for the development of the ANSF, including in it an articulation of the roles and responsibilities of partners and key stakeholders could assist in implementing and coordinating the program’s efforts. For instance, we note in our report that the dual chain of command between State and Defense has complicated the efforts of civilian mentors assisting with the program. 6. We maintain that, without a detailed plan, assessing progress in developing the ANSF is difficult. While Defense produces various documents that report in detail on the current status of the ANSF, these documents do not contain consistent baseline data, intermediate milestones, or consistent end dates necessary to determine if the program is on track to achieve its desired results within a set time frame. For example, after 6 years and a U.S. investment of about $16.5 billion in the program, Defense status reports show that, as of April 2008, less than 2 percent (2 of 105) ANA units and no ANP units (0 of 433) are rated as fully capable and the estimated completion date of these forces is March 2011 and December 2012, respectively. Defense asserts this is impressive, particularly for the ANA. However, without interim milestones against which to assess the ANSF, it is difficult to know if this status constitutes progress or will allow Defense to meet its currently projected completion dates. Moreover, the completion dates cited by Defense do not constitute firm goals and have shifted numerous times during the course of our review. For instance, in monthly Defense reports dated June 2007, November 2007, and May 2008, completion dates for the ANA fluctuated from December 2008 to September 2010 to March 2011. Likewise, over the same period, completion dates for the ANP fluctuated from December 2008 to March 2009 to December 2012, with a 3-month period when the completion date was reported as “to be determined.” Moreover, as we note in our report, Defense officials stated that completion dates contained in its monthly status reports did not account for shortfalls in the required number of mentors and trainers and, therefore, could be subject to further change. Defense also states that it only began to support independent operations capability for the ANA in 2006. While it is true that planned capability for the ANA was upgraded in 2006, absent a detailed plan, it is unclear the extent to which this planned capability upgrade should be expected to affect the timeline for the development of individual ANA units. Had Defense implemented GAO’s 2005 recommendation to produce such a plan, it might be able to provide more clarity on the relationship between planned capability upgrades and program timelines. Moreover, even though planned ANA capability was upgraded in 2006, prior to that time, the U.S. invested nearly $3 billion to develop the ANA and reported approximately

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

45

20,000 troops trained as of May 2005. Absent a plan with performance measures, such as planned capability, linked to intermediate milestones and end dates, it is difficult to assess the results achieved by this financial investment.

REFERENCES [1]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

[9]

[10] [11]

[12] [13]

[14] [15] [16]

GAO, Afghanistan Security: Efforts to Establish Army and Police Have Made Progress, but Future Plans Need to Be Better Defined, GAO-05-575 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005). GAO, Securing, Stabilizing, and Reconstructing Afghanistan: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, GAO-07-801SP (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007). 31 U.S.C. 712(3). GAO-05-575. International assistance may include logistics support, intelligence collection, or operations planning. In this report, the term manning includes recruitment of personnel, assignment to duty, promotion, and retention. As we reported in 2005, the number 19,600 consisted of 18,300 combat troops and 1,300 personnel assigned to sustaining commands (GAO-05-575). In this report, U.S. military personnel who train Afghan army units in the field are referred to as trainers and coalition personnel who train Afghan army units in the field are referred to as mentors. In this report, personnel who train Afghan police in the field are collectively referred to as mentors. U.S. military personnel who train Afghan police in the field are referred to as military mentors, while contractors who train Afghan police in the field are referred to as civilian mentors. The agreement occurred in December 2002 at the Bonn II donor conference near Bonn, Germany. Afghanistan National Development Strategy: An Interim Strategy for Security, Governance, Economic Growth & Poverty Reduction, Volume One, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 2006. The Afghanistan Compact, The London Conference on Afghanistan, January 31February 1, 2006. Along with increasing the force structure to 80,000 in February 2008, the Afghan government and its international partners also approved an additional 6,000 ANA personnel to account for personnel in training or otherwise not assigned to units. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. 110-181, sec. 1230. Pub. L. 110-181, sec. 1231. GAO has previously reported on the need for agencies to take a more strategic approach to decision making that promotes transparency and ensures that programs and investments are based on sound plans with measurable, realistic goals and time frames, prioritized resource needs, and performance measures to gauge progress. See, for example, GAO, Force Structure: Restructuring and Rebuilding the Army Will Cost Billions of Dollars for Equipment but the Total Cost Is Uncertain, GAO-08-669T

46

[17] [18]

[19] [20]

[21]

[22] [23]

[24] [25]

[26]

[27] [28] [29]

[30] [31]

GAO (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10, 2008). GAO concluded in this report that until the Army provides a comprehensive plan for its modular restructuring and expansion initiatives, which identifies progress and total costs, decision makers may not have sufficient information to assess progress and allocate defense resources among competing priorities. GAO-05-575. Sustainment of the ANSF covers items such as salaries, equipment replacement, operations and maintenance costs, logistics support costs, and training for replacement soldiers and police. The elements of a campaign plan are laid out in Joint Publication 5-0, Joint Operations Planning, December 26, 2006. In 2005, we reported that Afghan combat troops would complete basic training by the fall of 2007. The Campaign Plan has identified mid-2010 as the date when basic training for all ANSF forces would be completed. In previous planning documents, CM1 is known as “independent operating capability.” A senior U.S. military official in Afghanistan stated, however, that “full operational capability” is a more accurate description since Afghan army and police forces may require coalition support under certain circumstances. Afghan Tashkils are similar to the Military Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) found in the U.S. military. When we reported in 2005, the air wing planned for the Afghan army was to provide secure transportation for the President of Afghanistan. The currently planned air corps will provide support such as medical evacuation and light attack, in addition to presidential airlift. As shown in table 5, CSTC-A provided us with the capability rating for 105 army units. ANA units have participated with coalition forces in counterinsurgency operations, assisted in the rescue of hostages, and provided security for peace talks and local events, among other activities. While most of the ANA is projected to reach full capability before March 2011, the Afghan air corps, an important element to providing increased independence to Afghan forces, is not expected to achieve full capability before this date. The 32,700 figure represents the number of ANA combat forces trained and assigned to one of the five ANA Corps as reported by CSTC-A on February 20, 2008. Defense officials said that because the ANA lacks a death benefit system, soldiers who have died may remain on the payroll so that their families receive compensation. Since its implementation, the electronic salary payment program has become more widely used among ANA personnel–increasing from 2 transactions in February 2006 to 4,227 transactions in July 2007. CSTC-A documents place ANA re-enlistment rates into three categories: (1) greater than 65 percent; (2) 50-65 percent; and (3) less than 50 percent. The requirement for the number and types of U.S. embedded trainers needed to assist in the development of the ANA and U.S. military mentors to assist in the development of the ANP is defined in detail by Defense in a classified, formal request for forces submitted to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. GAO did not assess the adequacy of these requirements, but rather focused on whether the U.S. has been able to fill these requirements and the effects, if any, of not being able to do so.

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action…

47

[32] The number of personnel assigned to assist the development of ANA units varies, depending on the type of ANA unit. As of April 2008, the required number of personnel for an embedded training team assisting an ANA maneuver battalion, combat support battalion, or combat services support battalion was 16. [33] Given the current U.S. embedded trainer shortage, Defense officials have advocated that NATO members field greater numbers of mentor teams to meet the rising demand for more trainers and mentors as the number of ANA forces completing basic training rises. Defense officials have cautioned, however, that increased numbers of mentoring teams may not necessarily correspond to decreased requirements for U.S. personnel, especially when mentoring teams operate with restrictions that will not allow them to accompany ANA units into combat operations. [34] Between fiscal years 2005 and 2008, funds were provided to support the training and equipping of the ANA through a variety of budget accounts, with the majority provided through the Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF). ASFF funding allocations are reported to Congress in four categories: equipment and transportation, infrastructure development, sustainment activities, and training. The $3.7 billion figure represents the amount of ASFF funding directed toward equipment and transportation for the Afghan army. [35] The 82,000-person end-strength for the ANP includes over 6,000 authorized positions in the Afghan Ministry of Interior, which oversees the police force. [36] CSTC-A provided us with capability ratings for 433 police units, which include uniformed police districts, civil order and border police battalions, and counter narcotics police units. [37] This does not include 57 uniformed police districts that Defense assessed as not formed or not reporting. [38] According to Defense, the number of police assigned includes personnel who were already employed as police prior to coalition operations in Afghanistan and have not necessarily been trained by coalition forces. By contrast, since Afghanistan’s army had largely dissolved under the Taliban, nearly all army personnel listed as assigned have been trained by coalition forces. [39] Additionally, DynCorp officials stated that moving around Afghanistan to conduct mentoring operations is difficult due to the size of the country and the lack of roads. GAO is currently performing a separate review of U.S. and donor efforts to build roads in Afghanistan. [40] In January 2008, Defense announced the approved deployment of 3,200 additional Marines to Afghanistan—1,000 to assist in training and development of the ANP and 2,200 to conduct security operations in Afghanistan under the command of the NATOled International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission. [41] Prior work by the State and Defense inspectors general highlighted the same challenge over a year ago. [42] The $5.9 billion figure includes approximately $736 million of fiscal year 2008 funding requests. Between fiscal years 2005 and 2008, funds were provided to support the training and equipping of the ANP through a variety of budget accounts, with the majority provided through the Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF). ASFF funding allocations are reported to Congress in four categories: equipment and transportation, infrastructure development, sustainment activities, and training. The $1.3 billion figure

48

[43]

[44]

[45] [46] [47]

[48] [49]

[50]

[51]

GAO represents the amount of ASFF funding allocated toward equipment and transportation of the Afghan police. CSTC-A stated that they worked in conjunction with the Ministry of Interior to develop equipment requirements for the ANP, which are listed in a document referred to as a Tashkil. We limited our analysis to 2007 reporting because State was unable to provide a complete set of weekly reports for prior years. Instances discussed in more than one report were only categorized and counted the first time they appeared. GAO is currently performing a separate review on the accountability of equipment provided to the ANSF. Training in supply and property accountability procedures is being provided to the police by U.S. contractors. The security situation in Afghanistan, police performance, and retaining and recruiting police were other top issues identified in our analysis. These topics are discussed elsewhere in this report. GAO is currently performing a separate review of U.S. efforts to reform the Afghan Ministry of Interior and National Police. Defense documents indicate that the Afghan border police will also eventually be reconstituted through the Focused District Development initiative; however, according to a Defense official, it is uncertain when such efforts will begin. Defense documents indicate that in addition to being trained, a district police force undergoing Focused District Development will also have corrupt leaders replaced by nationally vetted ones, receive new salaries on parity with Afghan army salary rates, and have electronic funds transfer accounts established. Defense has also identified development of the Afghan justice system as a goal of Focused District Development. According to State, the first cycle of training at the regional training centers was completed in February.

In: Afghanistan Security Editor: Lawrence B. Peabody, pp. 53-113

ISBN: 978-1-60692-149-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

AFGHANISTAN: POST-WAR GOVERNANCE, SECURITY, AND U.S. POLICY *

Kenneth Katzman ABSTRACT U.S. and outside assessments of the effort to stabilize Afghanistan are mixed and subject to debate; the Administration notes progress on reconstruction, governance and security in many areas of Afghanistan, particularly the U.S.-led eastern sector of Afghanistan. However, recent outside studies contain relatively pessimistic assessments, emphasizing a growing sense of insecurity in areas previously considered secure, increased numbers of suicide attacks, increasing aggregate poppy cultivation, and growing divisions within the NATO alliance about total troop contributions and the relative share of combat primarily in the south. Both the official U.S. as well as outside assessments are increasingly pointing to Pakistan, and particularly the new Pakistani government, as failing to prevent Taliban infiltration from Pakistan. To try to gain momentum against the insurgency, the Administration is adding U.S. troops to the still combat-intense south, possibly eventually assuming U.S. command of the southern sector. The Administration also has increased direct U.S. action against Taliban concentrations inside Pakistan. Politically, the Afghan central government is relatively stable. The post-Taliban transition was completed with the convening of a parliament in December 2005; a new constitution was adopted in January 2004, successful presidential elections were held on October 9, 2004, and parliamentary elections took place on September 18, 2005. The parliament has become an arena for factions that have fought each other for nearly three decades to peacefully resolve differences, as well as a center of political pressure on President Hamid Karzai, who is running for re-election in 2009. Major regional strongmen have been marginalized. Afghan citizens are enjoying personal freedoms forbidden by the Taliban, and women are participating in economic and political life. Presidential elections are to be held in the fall of 2009, with parliamentary and provincial elections to follow one year later. To help stabilize Afghanistan, the United States and partner countries are deploying a 53,000 troop NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) that now *

Excerpted from CRS Report RL30588, dated June 6, 2008.

50

Kenneth Katzman commands peacekeeping throughout Afghanistan, including the restive south. Of those, over 23,000 of the 34,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan are part of ISAF. The U.S. and partner forces also run regional enclaves to secure reconstruction (Provincial Reconstruction Teams, PRTs), and are building an Afghan National Army and National Police. The United States has given Afghanistan over $23 billion (appropriated, including FY2008 to date) since the fall of the Taliban, including funds to equip and train Afghan security forces. About $2 billion in reconstruction aid is requested for FY2009, including in a FY2009 supplemental appropriations request. Breakdowns are shown in the tables at the end of the chapter.

BACKGROUND TO RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Prior to the founding of a monarchy in 1747 by Ahmad Shah Durrani, Afghanistan was territory inhabited by tribes and tribal confederations linked to neighboring nations, not a distinct entity. King Amanullah Khan (1919-1929) launched attacks on British forces in Afghanistan shortlyafter taking power and won complete independence from Britain as recognized in the Treaty of Rawalpindi (August 8, 1919). He was considered a secular modernizer presiding over a government in which all ethnic minorities participated. He was succeeded by King Mohammad Nadir Shah (1929-1933), and then by King Mohammad Zahir Shah. Zahir Shah’s reign (1933-1973) is remembered fondly by many older Afghans for promulgating a constitution in 1964 that established a national legislature and promoting freedoms for women, including freeing them from coveringtheir face and hair. However, possibly believing that he could limit Soviet support for communist factions in Afghanistan, Zahir Shah also entered into a significant political and arms purchase relationship with the Soviet Union. Afghanistan’s slide into instability began in the 1970s when the diametrically opposed Communist Party and Islamic movements grew in strength. While receiving medical treatment in Italy, Zahir Shah was overthrown by his cousin, Mohammad Daoud, a military leader who established a dictatorship with strong state involvement in the economy. Communists overthrew Daoud in 1978, led by Nur Mohammad Taraki, who was displaced a year later by Hafizullah Amin, leader of a rival faction. They tried to impose radical socialist change on a traditional society, in part by redistributing land and bringingmore women into government, sparking rebellion by Islamic parties opposed to such moves. The Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan on December 27, 1979, to prevent a seizure of power by the Islamic militias, known as the mujahedin (Islamic fighters). Upon their invasion, the Soviets replaced Hafizullah Amin with an ally, Babrak Karmal. Soviet occupation forces were never able to pacify the outlying areas of the country. The mujahedin benefited from U.S. weapons and assistance, provided through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in cooperation with Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence directorate (ISI). That weaponry included portable shoulder-fired anti-aircraft systems called “Stingers,” which proved highly effective against Soviet aircraft. The mujahedin also hid and stored weaponry in a large network of natural and manmade tunnels and caves throughout Afghanistan. The Soviet Union’s losses mounted, and Soviet domestic opinion turned antiwar. In 1986, after the reformist Mikhail Gorbachev became leader, the Soviets replaced Karmal with the director of Afghan intelligence, Najibullah Ahmedzai (known by his first name).

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

51

On April 14, 1988, Gorbachev agreed to a U.N.-brokered accord (the Geneva Accords) requiring it to withdraw. The withdrawal was completed by February 15, 1989, leaving in place the weak Najibullah government. The United States closed its embassy in Kabul in January 1989, as the Soviet Union was completing its pullout. A warming of relations moved the United States and Soviet Union to try for a political settlement to the Afghan conflict, a trend accelerated by the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, which reduced Moscow’s capacity for supporting communist regimes in the Third World. On September 13, 1991, Moscow and Washington agreed to a joint cutoff of military aid to the Afghan combatants. The State Department has said that a total of about $3 billion in economic and covert military assistance was provided by the U.S. to the Afghan mujahedin from 1980 until the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. Press reports say the covert aid program grew from about $20 million per year in FY1980 to about $300 million per year during FY1986-FY1990. The Soviet pullout decreased the perceived strategic value of Afghanistan, causing a reduction in subsequent covert funding.[1] With Soviet backing withdrawn, on March 18, 1992, Najibullah publiclyagreed to step down once an interim government was formed. That announcement set off a wave of rebellions primarily by Uzbek and Tajik militia commanders in northern Afghanistan, who joined prominent mujahedin commander Ahmad Shah Masud of the Islamic Society, a largely Tajik party headed by Burhannudin Rabbani. Masud had earned a reputation as a brilliant strategist by preventing the Soviets from occupying his power base in the Panjshir Valley of northeastern Afghanistan. Najibullah fell, and the mujahedin regime began April 18, 1992.[2] Table 1. Afghanistan Social and Economic Statistics Population: Ethnic Groups: Religions:

31 million Pashtun 42%; Tajik 27%; Uzbek 9%; Hazara 9%; Aimak 4%; Turkmen 3%; Baluch 2%; other 4% Sunni Muslim (Hanafi school) 80%; Shiite Muslim (Hazaras, Qizilbash, and Isma’ilis) 19%; other 1%

Size of Religious

Christians - estimated 500 - 8,000 persons; Sikh and Hindu - 3,000

Minorities

persons; Bahai’s - 400 (declared blasphemous in May 2007); Jews - 1 person; Buddhist - unknown, but small numbers, mostly foreigners. No Christian or Jewish schools. One church, open only to expatriates.

Literacy Rate:

28% of population over 15 years of age

GDP:

$21.5 billion (purchasing power parity). Double the 2002 figure.

GDP Per Capita:

$300/yr; but $800 purchasing power parity

GDP Real Growth:

12% (2007)

Unemployment Rate: Population: Children in School/Schools Built Afghans With Access to Health Coverage

40% 31 million 5.7 million, of which 35% are girls. Up from 900,000 in school during Taliban era. 300,000 children in south cannot attend school due to violence. 8,000 schools built; 140,000 teachers hired since Taliban era. 82% with basic health services access - compared to 8% during Taliban era, although access is more limited in restive areas. Infant mortality has dropped 18% since Taliban to 135 per 1,000 live births. 680 clinics built with U.S. funds since Taliban.

52

Kenneth Katzman Table 1. (Continued). Roads Built Access to Electricity Revenues: Expenditures External Debt: Foreign Exchange Reserves: Foreign Investment Major Exports: Oil Production: Oil Proven Reserves: Major Imports: Import Partners:

About 5,000 miles post-Taliban, including ring road around the country. 20% of the population. $715 million in 2007; $550 million 2006 $1.2 billion in 2007 (est.); 900 million in 2006 $8 billion bilateral, plus $500 million multilateral. U.S. forgave $108 million in debt to U.S. in 2006 $2.5 billion. $500 billion est. for 2007; about $1 billion for 2006 fruits, raisins, nuts, carpets, semi-precious gems, hides, opium Negligible 3.6 billion barrels of oil, 36.5 trillion cubic feet of gas, according to Afghan government on March 15, 2006 food, petroleum, capital goods, textiles Pakistan 38.6%; U.S. 9.5%; Germany 5.5%; India 5.2%; Turkey 4.1%; Turkmenistan 4.1%

Source: CIA World Factbook, January 2008, Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington, DC; President Bush speech on February 15, 2007; International Religious Freedom Report, September 14, 2007; press reports about draft Afghan National Development Strategy.

THE MUJAHEDIN GOVERNMENT AND RISE OF THE TALIBAN The fall of Najibullah exposed the differences among the mujahedin parties. The leader of one of the smaller parties (Afghan National Liberation Front), Islamic scholar Sibghatullah Mojadeddi, was president during April - May 1992. Under an agreement among the major parties, Rabbani became President in June 1992 with agreement that he would serve until December 1994. He refused to step down at that time, saying that political authority would disintegrate without a clear successor. Kabul was subsequently shelled by other mujahedin factions, particularly that of nominal “Prime Minister” Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a Pashtun, who accused Rabbani of monopolizing power. Hikmatyar’s radical Islamist Hizb-e-Islami (Islamic Party) had received a large proportion of the U.S. aid during the anti-Soviet war. Four years of civil war (1992-1996) created popular support for the Taliban as a movement that could deliver Afghanistan from the factional infighting. In 1993-1994, Afghan Islamic clerics and students, mostly of rural, Pashtun origin, many of them former mujahedin who had become disillusioned with continued conflict among mujahedin parties and had moved into Pakistan to study in Islamic seminaries (“madrassas”), formed the Taliban movement. They practiced an orthodox Sunni Islam called “Wahhabism,” akin to that practiced in Saudi Arabia. They viewed the Rabbani government as corrupt, antiPashtun, and responsible for civil war. With the help of defections, the Taliban seized control of the southeastern city of Qandahar in November 1994; by February 1995, it had reached the gates of Kabul, after which an 18-month stalemate around the capital ensued. In September 1995, the Taliban captured Herat province, bordering Iran, and imprisoned its governor, Ismail Khan, ally of Rabbani and Masud, who later escaped and took refuge in Iran. In September 1996, Taliban victories near Kabul led to the withdrawal of Rabbani and Masud to the Panjshir Valley north of Kabul with most of their heavy weapons; the Taliban took

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

53

control of Kabul on September 27, 1996. Taliban gunmen subsequently entered a U.N. facility in Kabul to seize Najibullah, his brother, and aides, and then hanged them.

Taliban Rule The Taliban regime was led by Mullah Muhammad Umar, who lost an eye in the antiSoviet war while fighting under the banner of the Hizb-e-Islam (Islamic Party of Yunis Khalis). Umar held the title of Head of State and “Commander of the Faithful,” but he mostly remained in the Taliban power base in Qandahar, rarely appearing in public. Umar forged a close bond with bin Laden and refused U.S. demands to extradite him. Born in Uruzgan province, Umar is about 64 years old. The Taliban progressively lost international and domestic support as it imposed strict adherence to Islamic customs in areas it controlled and employed harsh punishments, including executions. The Taliban authorized its “Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Suppression of Vice” to use physical punishments to enforce strict Islamic practices, including bans on television, Western music, and dancing. It prohibited women from attending school or working outside the home, except in health care, and it publicly executed some women for adultery. In what many consider its most extreme action, in March 2001 the Taliban blew up two large Buddha statues carved into hills above Bamiyan city as representations of idolatry. (Additional damage to the remaining structure was inflicted in May 2008 from an accidental detonation of explosives near the site.) The Clinton Administration held talks with the Taliban before and after it took power, but relations quickly deteriorated. The United States withheld recognition of Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, formally recognizing no faction as the government. Because of the lack of broad international recognition, the United Nations seated representatives of the ousted Rabbani government, not the Taliban. The State Department ordered the Afghan embassy in Washington, DC, closed in August 1997. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1193 (August 28, 1998) and 1214 (December 8, 1998) urged the Taliban to end discrimination against women. Several U.S.-based women’s rights groups urged the Clinton Administration not to recognize the Taliban government, and in May 1999, the Senate passed a resolution (S.Res. 68) calling on the President not to recognize any Afghan government that discriminates against women. The Taliban’s hosting of Al Qaeda’s leadership gradually became the Clinton Administration’s overriding agenda item with Afghanistan. In April 1998, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson visited Afghanistan and asked the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, but was rebuffed. After the August 7, 1998, Al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Clinton Administration progressively pressured the Taliban, imposing U.S. sanctions and achieving adoption of some U.N. sanctions as well. On August 20, 1998, the United States fired cruise missiles at alleged Al Qaeda training camps in eastern Afghanistan, but bin Laden was not hit. Some observers assert that the Administration missed several other opportunities to strike him. Clinton Administration officials say that they did not try to oust the Taliban from power with U.S. military force because domestic U.S. support for those steps was then lacking and the Taliban’s opponents were too weak and did not necessarily hold U.S. values.

54

Kenneth Katzman

The “Northern Alliance” Congeals The Taliban’s policies caused different Afghan factions to ally with the ousted President Rabbani and Masud and their ally in the Herat area, Ismail Khan — the Tajik core of the antiTaliban opposition — into a broader “Northern Alliance.” In the Alliance were Uzbek, Hazara Shiite, and even some Pashtun Islamist factions discussed in the table at the end of this chapter (Table 17). •

•

•

Uzbeks/General Dostam. One major Alliance faction was the Uzbek militia (the Junbush-Melli, or National Islamic Movement of Afghanistan) of General Abdul Rashid Dostam, who is frequently referred to by some Afghans as one of the “warlords” who gained power during the anti-Soviet war, although Dostam had earlier contributed to efforts to oust Rabbani. Hazara Shiites. Members of Hazara tribes, mostly Shiite Muslims, are prominent in Bamiyan Province (central Afghanistan) and are always wary of repression by Pashtuns and other larger ethnic factions. During the various Afghan wars, the main Hazara Shiite grouping was Hizb-e-Wahdat (Unity Party, an alliance of eight smaller groups). Pashtun Islamists/Sayyaf. Abd-I-Rab Rasul Sayyaf, who is now a parliament committee chairman, headed a Pashtun-dominated mujahedin faction called the Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan. Even though his ideology is similar to that of the Taliban, Sayyaf joined the Northern Alliance.

Bush Administration Policy Pre-September 11, 2001 Prior to the September 11 attacks, Bush Administration policy toward the Taliban resembled Clinton Administration policy — applying economic and political pressure while retaining dialogue with the Taliban, and refraining from providing military assistance to the Northern Alliance. The September 11 Commission report said that, in the months prior to the September 11 attacks, Administration officials leaned toward such a step and that some officials wanted to assist anti-Taliban Pashtun forces. Other covert options were under consideration as well.[3] In a departure from Clinton Administration policy, the Bush Administration stepped up engagement with Pakistan to try to end its support for the Taliban. In accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1333, in February 2001 the State Department ordered the Taliban representative office in New York closed, although the Taliban representative continued to operate informally. In March 2001, Administration officials received a Taliban envoy to discuss bilateral issues. Fighting with some Iranian, Russian, and Indian financial and military support, the Northern Alliance continued to lose ground to the Taliban after it lost Kabul in 1996. By the time of the September 11 attacks, the Taliban controlled at least 75% of the country, including almost all provincial capitals. The Alliance suffered a major setback on September 9, 2001, two days before the September 11 attacks, when Ahmad Shah Masud was assassinated by alleged Al Qaeda suicide bombers posing as journalists. He was succeeded by his intelligence chief, Muhammad Fahim, a veteran figure but who lacked Masud’s undisputed authority.

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

55

September 11 Attacks and Operation Enduring Freedom After the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration decided to militarily overthrow the Taliban when it refused to extradite bin Laden, judging that a friendly regime in Kabul was needed to enable U.S forces to search for Al Qaeda activists there. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368 of September 12, 2001 said that the Security Council “expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond” (implying force) to the September 11 attacks. In Congress, S.J.Res. 23 (passed 98-0 in the Senate and with no objections in the House, P.L. 107-40) authorized:[4] all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons.

Major combat in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF) began on October 7, 2001. The combat consisted primarily of U.S. air-strikes on Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, facilitated bythe cooperation between small numbers (about 1,000) of U.S. special operations forces and the Northern Alliance and Pashtun anti-Taliban forces. Some U.S. ground units (about 1,300 Marines) moved into Afghanistan to pressure the Taliban around Qandahar at the height of the fighting (October-December 2001), but there were few pitched battles between U.S. and Taliban soldiers; most of the ground combat was between Taliban and its Afghan opponents. Some critics believe that U.S. dependence on local Afghan militia forces in the war strengthened the militias in the post-war period. The Taliban regime unraveled rapidly after it lost Mazar-e-Sharif on November 9, 2001. Northern Alliance forces — the commanders of which had initially promised U.S. officials they would not enter Kabul — entered the capital on November 12, 2001, to popular jubilation. The Taliban subsequently lost the south and east to pro-U.S. Pashtun leaders, such as Hamid Karzai. The end of the Taliban regime is generally dated as December 9, 2001, when the Taliban surrendered Qandahar and Mullah Omar fled the city, leaving it under tribal law administered by Pashtun leaders such as the Noorzai clan. Subsequently, U.S. and Afghan forces conducted “Operation Anaconda” in the Shah-i-Kot Valley south of Gardez (Paktia Province) during March 2-19, 2002, against 800 Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. In March 2003, about 1,000 U.S. troops raided suspected Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters in villages around Qandahar. On May 1, 2003, then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announced an end to “major combat operations.”

POST-WAR STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION[5] The war paved the way for the success of a decade-long U.N. effort to form a broadbased Afghan government; the United Nations was viewed as a credible mediator by all sides largely because of its role in ending the Soviet occupation. During the 1990s, proposals from a succession of U.N. mediators incorporated many of former King Zahir Shah’s proposals for a government to be selected by a traditional assembly, or loya jirga. However, U.N.-mediated cease-fires between warring factions always broke down. Non-U.N. initiatives made little progress, particularly the “Six Plus Two” multilateral contact group, which began meeting in 1997 (the United States, Russia, and the six states bordering Afghanistan: Iran, China,

56

Kenneth Katzman

Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan). Other failed efforts included a “Geneva group” (Italy, Germany, Iran, and the United States) formed in 2000; an Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) contact group; and Afghan exile efforts, including one from the Karzai clan (including Hamid Karzai) and one centered on Zahir Shah.

Political Transition Immediately after the September 11 attacks, former U.N. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi was brought back (he had resigned in frustration in October 1999). U.N. Security Council Resolution 1378 was adopted on November 14, 2001, calling for a “central” role for the United Nations in establishing a transitional administration and inviting member states to send peacekeeping forces to promote stability and aid delivery. After the fall of Kabul in November 2001, the United Nations invited major Afghan factions, most prominently the Northern Alliance and that of the former King — but not the Taliban — to a conference in Bonn, Germany.

Bonn Agreement On December 5, 2001, the factions signed the “Bonn Agreement.”[6] It was endorsed by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1385 (December 6, 2001). The agreement, reportedly forged with substantial Iranian diplomatic help because of Iran’s support for the Northern Alliance faction: • •

• •

formed the interim administration headed by Hamid Karzai. authorized an international peace keeping force to maintain security in Kabul, and Northern Alliance forces were directed to withdraw from the capital. Security Council Resolution 1386 (December 20, 2001) gave formal Security Council authorization for the international peacekeeping force. referred to the need to cooperate with the international community on counter narcotics, crime, and terrorism. applied the constitution of 1964 until a permanent constitution could be drafted.[7]

Permanent Constitution A June 2002 “emergency” loya jirga put a representative imprimatur on the transition; it was attended by 1,550 delegates (including about 200 women) from Afghanistan’s 376 districts. Subsequently, a 35-member constitutional commission drafted the permanent constitution, and unveiled in November 2003. It was debated by 502 delegates, selected in U.N.- run caucuses, at a “constitutional loya jirga (CLJ)” during December 13, 2003-January 4, 2004. The CLJ, chaired by Mojadeddi (mentioned above), ended with approval of the constitution with only minor changes. Most significantly, members of the Northern Alliance faction failed to set up a prime minister-ship, but they did achieve limits to presidential powers by having major authorities assigned to an elected parliament, such as the power to veto senior official nominees and to impeach a president. The constitution made former King Zahir Shah honorary “Father of the Nation” - a title that is not heritable. Zahir Shah died on July 23, 2007.[8] The constitution also set out timetables for presidential, provincial, and

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

57

district elections (by June 2004) and stipulated that, if possible, they should be held simultaneously. Hamid Karzai Hamid Karzai, about 56, was selected to lead Afghanistan because he was a credible Pashtun leader who seeks factional compromise rather than intimidation through armed force. On the other hand, some observers believe him too willing to compromise with rather than confront regional and other faction leaders, and to tolerate corruption, resulting in a failure to professionalize government. Others say he seeks to maintain Pashtun predominance in his government. From Karz village in Qandahar Province, Hamid Karzai has led the powerful Popolzai tribe of Durrani Pashtuns since 1999, when his father was assassinated, allegedly by Taliban agents, in Quetta, Pakistan. Karzai attended university in India. He was deputy foreign minister in Rabbani’s government during 1992-1995, but he left the government and supported the Taliban as a Pashtun alternative to Rabbani. He broke with the Taliban as its excesses unfolded and forged alliances with other anti-Taliban factions, including the Northern Alliance. Karzai entered Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks to organize Pashtun resistance to the Taliban, supported by U.S. special forces. He became central to U.S. efforts after Pashtun commander Abdul Haq entered Afghanistan in October 2001 without U.S. support and was captured and hung by the Taliban. Some of his several brothers have lived in the United States, including Qayyum Karzai, who won a parliament seat in the September 2005 election. With heavy protection, he has survived several assassination attempts since taking office, including rocket fire or gunfire at or near his appearances.

National Elections Ultimately, it proved impractical to hold all elections simultaneously. The first election was for president and it was held on October 9, 2004, missing the June deadline. The voting was orderly and turnout heavy (about 80%). On November 3, 2004, Karzai was declared winner (55.4% of the vote) over his seventeen challengers on the first round, avoiding a runoff. Parliamentary and provincial council elections were intended for April-May 2005 but were delayed until September 18, 2005. Because of the difficulty in confirming voter registration rolls and determining district boundaries, elections for the 376 district councils, each of which will have small and likely contentious boundaries, have not been held. For the parliamentary election, voting was conducted for individuals running in each province, not as party slates. (There are now 90 registered political parties in Afghanistan, but parties remain unpopular because of their linkages to outside countries during the anti-Soviet war.) When parliament first convened on December 18, 2005, the Northern Alliance bloc, joined by others, selected a senior Northern Alliance figure, who was Karzai’s main competitor in the presidential election, Yunus Qanooni, for speaker of the lower house. In April 2007, Qanooni and Northern Alliance political leader Rabbani organized this opposition bloc, along with ex-Communists and some royal family members, into a party called the “National Front” that wants increased parliamentary powers and direct elections for the provincial governors. The 102-seat upper house, selected by the provincial councils and

58

Kenneth Katzman

Karzai, consists mainly of older, well known figures, as well as 17 females (half of Karzai’s 34 appointments, as provided for in the constitution). The leader of that body is Sibghatullah Mojadeddi, the pro-Karzai elder statesman.

Next Elections and Candidates The next presidential elections are expected to be held in the fall of 2009. The Wolesi Jirga voted on February 13, 2008 to hold parliamentary and provincial elections in 2010, separate from the 2009 presidential elections, although discussions on combining all the elections are continuing, given the high cost ($100 million per election). The indecision on this question is holding up U.N. and other efforts to help Afghanistan plan the elections and register voters. An election law was submitted for parliamentary approval in November 2007 and is being considered there. Karzai has said, in a Washington Post interview of January 27, 2008, and again in another interview on April 6, 2008, that he would run for re-election. Qanooni might run again but some say that the senior Northern Alliance leader Burhannuddin Rabbani, who is about 75 years old, might run instead. Some Afghans say independent parliamentarian Ramazan Bashardost, a Hazara, might run, as might former Interior Minister Ali Jalali, a Pashtun. There has been speculation in recent press articles that the Afghan-born U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad, who has served as Ambassador to Afghanistan and has been extensively involved in Afghan issues in his U.S. career, might run for President of Afghanistan. Khalilzad has dampened but not outright denied the speculation.

Governance Issues With a permanent national government fully assembled, Karzai and the parliament — relations between which are often contentious — are attempting to improve and expand governance throughout the country. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 28, 2008, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said that the Karzai government controls only 30% of the country, while the Taliban controls 10%, and tribes and local groups control the remainder; U.S. officials in Kabul told CRS in March 2008 they disagree with that assessment as too pessimistic. At the same time, there is a broader debate among Afghans over whether to continue to strengthen central government — the approach favored by Karzai and the United States and most of its partners — or to promote local solutions to security and governance, an approach that some international partners, such as Britain, want to explore. The parliament has asserted itself on several occasions, for example in the process of confirming a post-election cabinet and in forcing Karzai to oust several major conservatives from the Supreme Court in favor of those with more experience in modern jurisprudence. In mid-2007, parliament enacted a law granting amnesty to commanders who fought in the various Afghan wars since the Soviet invasion — some of whom are now members of parliament — in an attempt to put past schisms to rest in building a new Afghanistan. The law was rewritten to give victims the ability to bring accusations of past abuses forward; its status is unclear because Karzai did not veto it but he did not sign it either. In a sign of tension between Karzai and his opposition in parliament, in May 2007, the National Front bloc engineered a vote of no confidence against Foreign Minister Rangeen Spanta and Minister for Refugee Affairs Akbar Akbar for failing to prevent Iran from

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

59

expelling 50,000 Afghan refugees over a one-month period. Karzai accepted in principle the dismissal of Akbar but deferred Spanta’s dismissal because refugee affairs are not his ministry’s prime jurisdiction. The Afghan Supreme Court has sided with Karzai, causing some National Front bloc members to threaten to resign from the parliament, an action they believe would shake confident in Karzai’s leadership. Spanta remains in his position, to date, but the dispute is unresolved. The Front conducted a walkout of parliament on November 26, 2007, to protest what it said was Karzai’s inattention to parliament’s views on whether or not panic by security forces caused additional deaths following the November 6, 2007, suicide bombing in Baghlan Province that killed 6 parliamentarians and about 70 other persons. On the other hand, on some less contentious issues, the executive and the legislature appear to be working well. Since the end of 2007, the Wolesi Jirga has passed and forwarded to the Meshrano Jirga several laws, including a labor law, a mines law, a law on economic cooperatives, and a convention on tobacco control. The Wolesi Jirga also has recently confirmed Karzai nominees for a new Minster of Refugee Affairs, head of the Central Bank, and the final justice to fill out the Supreme Court. (For further information, see CRS Report RS21922, Afghanistan: Government Formation and Performance.)

U.N. Involvement The international community is extensively involved in Afghan stabilization, not only in the security field but in diplomacy and reconstruction assistance. Some of the debate over the growing role of U.S. partners there was represented in a proposal to create a new position of “super envoy” that would represent the United Nations, the European Union, and NATO in Afghanistan. This would subsume the role of the head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). In January 2008, with U.S. support, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon tentatively appointed British diplomat Paddy Ashdown to this “super envoy” position, but President Karzai rejected the appointment reportedly over concerns about the scope of authority of such an envoy, in particular its potential to dilute the U.S. role in Afghanistan. Karzai might have also sought to show a degree of independence from the international community. Ashdown withdrew his name on January 28, 2008. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1806 of March 20, 2008, extends UNAMA’s mandate for another year and expands it to include some of the “super-envoy” concept. UNAMA is cochair of the joint Afghan-international community coordination body called the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board (JCMB), and Resolution 1806 directs UNAMA, in that capacity, to coordinate the work of international donors and strengthen cooperation between the international peacekeeping force (ISAF, see below) and the Afghan government. UNAMA is helping implement the five-year development strategy outlined in a “London Compact,” (now called the Afghanistan Compact) adopted at the January 31-February 1, 2006, London conference on Afghanistan. The priorities developed in that document also comport with current drafts of Afghanistan’s own “National Strategy for Development,” to be presented later in June 2008 in Paris, as discussed further below under “assistance.” The head of UNAMA as of March 2008, and with the expanded powers, is Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide. In speeches in Washington, D.C. in late April 2008, Eide said that additional capacitybuilding resources are needed, and that some efforts by international donors duplicate each other or are tied to purchasing decisions by Western countries.

60

Kenneth Katzman

Expanding Central Government Writ and Curbing “Warlords” U.S. policy believes that stability and countering corruption and narcotics trafficking depends on expanding the capacity, proficiency, and writ of the Afghan central government. A Washington Post report of November 25, 2007, said that the failure to build capacity, as well as government corruption and compromises with local factions, are major contributors to a sense within the Administration of only limited U.S. success in stabilizing Afghanistan. That same report echoed the concerns of U.S. commanders and officials that Taliban militants are able to infiltrate “un-governed space,” contributing to the persistence and in some areas the expansion of the Taliban insurgency. On the other hand, a February 2008 U.N. report on the narcotics situation, discussed below, says that governance is improving and growing in northern and parts of relatively restive eastern Afghanistan, contributing to a reduction of opium cultivation there. U.S. officials continue to try to bolster Karzai through repeated statements of support and top level exchanges, including several visits there by Vice President Cheney and one by President Bush (March 1, 2006). President Karzai has visited the United States repeatedly, including two days of meetings with President Bush at Camp David (August 5 and 6, 2007). They met again on September 26, 2007 in the context of U.N. General Assembly meetings in New York, and again on the sidelines of the April 2008 NATO meeting in Bucharest, Romania. A key part of the U.S. strategy to strengthen the central government is to help Karzai curb key regional strongmen and local militias – who some refer to as “warlords.” Karzai has cited these actors as a major threat to Afghan stability because of their arbitrary administration of justice and generation of popular resentment through their demands for bribes and other favors. Some argue that Afghans have always sought substantial regional autonomy, but others say that easily purchased arms and manpower, funded by narcotics trafficking, sustains local militias as well as the Taliban insurgency. Karzai has, to some extent, marginalized most of the largest regional leaders. •

•

•

Herat governor Ismail Khan was removed in September 2004 and was later appointed Minister of Water and Energy. On the other hand, Khan was tapped by Karzai to help calm Herat after Sunni-Shiite clashes there in February2006, clashes that some believe were stoked by Khan to demonstrate his continued influence in Herat. In April 2005, Dostam was appointed Karzai’s top military advisor, and in April 2005 he “resigned” as head of his Junbush Melli faction. However, in May 2007 his followers in the north were again restive (conducting large demonstrations) in attempting to force out the anti-Dostam governor of Jowzjan Province. In February 2008, Afghan police surrounded Dostam’s home in Kabul, but did not arrest him, in connection with the alleged beating of a political opponent by Dostam supporters. According to observers in Kabul, Karzai continues to weigh arresting him. Another key figure, former Defense Minister Fahim (Northern Alliance) was appointed by Karzai to the upper house of parliament, although he remained in that body only a few months. The appointment was intended to give him a stake in the political process and reduce his potential to activate Northern Alliance militia loyalists. Fahim continues to turn heavy weapons over to U.N. and Afghan forces

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

•

•

61

(including four Scud missiles), although the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) says that large quantities of weapons remain in the Panjshir Valley. In July 2004, Karzai moved charismatic Northern Alliance figure Atta Mohammad Noor from control of a militia in the Mazar-e-Sharif area to governor of Balkh province, although he reportedly remains resistant to central government control. Still, his province is now “cultivation free” of opium, according to the U.N.Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports since August 2007. Two other large militia leaders, Hazrat Ali (Jalalabad area) and Khan Mohammad (Qandahar area) were placed in civilian police chief posts in 2005; Hazrat Ali was subsequently elected to parliament.

Provincial Governorships Karzai has tried to use his power to appoint provincial governors to extend government authority, although some question his choices and others say he has a limited talent pool of corruption free officials to choose from. The key Afghan initiative to improve local governance is the formation in October 2007 of the “Independent Directorate of Local Governance” headed by Jelani Popal and reporting to the presidential office. This represents and attempt to to institute a more effective and systematic process for selecting capable governors by taking the screening function away from the Interior Ministry. The directorate is also selecting police chiefs and other local office holders, and in many cases has already begun removing allegedly corrupt local officials. Forming the directorate represents an attempt by Karzai to build on his efforts since 2005 to appointed some relatively younger technocrats in key governorships: these include Qandahar governor Asadullah Khalid, Paktika governor Muhammad Akram Khapalwak, Khost governor Arsala Jamal, who U.S. commanders say has played a major role in governance progress there, and Paktia governor Abdul Hakim Taniwal. (Taniwal was killed in a suicide bombing on September 10, 2006.) Another key appointee has been Kabul province governor Hajji Din Mohammad, son of the slain “Jalalabad Shura” leader Hajji Abd al-Qadir. In March 2008, Karzai replaced the weak and ineffective Helmand governor Asadullah Wafa with Gulab Mangal. Mangal is considered a competent administrator, but he is from Laghman province, not Helmand, somewhat to the consternation of Helmand residents. Other pro-Karzai governors, such as Nangahar’s Ghul Agha Shirzai, are considered corrupt and politically motivated rather than technically competent, although Shirzai is credited with helping weaken the Taliban in Nangahar. In July 2007, Karzai removed the governor of Kapisa province for saying that Karzai’s government was weak and thereby failing to curb the Taliban insurgency. DDR and DIAG Programs A cornerstone of the effort to strengthen the central government was a program, run by UNAMA, to dismantle identified and illegal militias. The program, which formally concluded on June 30, 2006, was the “DDR” program: Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration. The program was run in partnership with Japan, Britain, and Canada, with participation of the United States. The program had gotten off to a slow start because the Afghan Defense Ministry did not reduce the percentage of Tajiks in senior positions by a July 1, 2003, target date, dampening Pashtun recruitment. In September 2003, Karzai replaced 22

62

Kenneth Katzman

senior Tajik Defense Ministry officials with Pashtuns, Uzbeks, and Hazaras, enabling DDR to proceed. The DDR program had initially been expected to demobilize 100,000 fighters, although that figure was later reduced. Figures for accomplishment of the DDR and DIAG programs are contained in the security indicators table later in this chapter. Of those demobilized, 55,800 former fighters have exercised reintegration options provided by the program: starting small businesses, farming, and other options. U.N. officials say at least 25% of these have thus far found long-term, sustainable jobs. Some studies criticized the DDR program for failing to prevent a certain amount of rearmament of militiamen or stockpiling of weapons and for the rehiring of some militiamen in programs run by the United States and its partners.[9] Part of the DDR program was the collection and cantonment of militia weapons. However, some accounts say that only poor quality weapons were collected. UNAMA officials say that vast quantities of weapons are still kept by the Northern Alliance faction in the Panjshir Valley, although the faction is giving up some weapons to UNAMA slowly, in small weekly shipments. Figures for collected weapons are contained in the table. The total cost of the program was $141 million, funded by Japan and other donors, including the United States. Since June 11, 2005, the disarmament effort has emphasized another program called “DIAG,” Disbandment of Illegal Armed Groups. It is run by the Afghan Disarmament and Reintegration Commission, headed by Vice President Khalili. Under the DIAG, no payments are available to fighters, and the program depends on persuasion rather than use of force against the illegal groups. DIAG has not been as well funded as was DDR: it has received $11 million in operating funds. As an incentive for compliance, Japan and other donors made available $35 million for development projects where illegal groups have disbanded. These incentives were intended to accomplish the disarmament, by December 2007, of a pool of as many as 150,000 members of 1,800 different “illegal armed groups”: militiamen that were not part of recognized local forces (Afghan Military Forces, AMF) and were never on the rolls of the Defense Ministry. These goals have not been met in part because armed groups in the south fear the continued Taliban combat activity and refuse to disarm voluntarily, but UNAMA reports that some progress has been achieved, as shown in the security indicators table.

U.S. Embassy Operations/Budgetary Support to Afghan Government A key component of U.S. efforts to strengthen the Afghan government has been maintaining a large diplomatic presence. Zalmay Khalilzad, an American of Afghan origin, wasambassador during December 2003-August 2005; he reportedly had significant influence on Afghan government decisions.[10] The current ambassador is William Wood, who previously was U.S. Ambassador to Colombia and who has focused on the counter-narcotics issue. As part of a 2003 U.S. push to build government capacity, the Bush Administration formed a 15-person Afghan Reconstruction Group (ARG), placed within the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, to serve as advisors to the Afghan government. The group is now mostly focused on helping Afghanistan attract private investment and develop private industries. The U.S. embassy, housed in a newly constructed building, has progressively expanded its personnel and facilities. The tables at the end of this chapter discuss U.S. funding for Embassy operations, USAID operations, and Karzai protection.

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

63

Although the Afghan government has increased its revenue and is covering a growing proportion of its budget, USAID provides funding to help the Afghan government meet gaps in its budget – both directly and through a U.N.-run multi-donor Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund, ARTF account. Those aid figures, for FY2002-FY2007, are in Table 14 at the end of the chapter.

Human Rights and Democracy The Administration and Afghan government claim progress in building a democratic Afghanistan that adheres to international standards of human rights practices and presumably is able to earn the support of the Afghan people. The State Department report on human rights practices for 2007 (released March 11, 2008)[11] said that Afghanistan’s human rights record remained “poor,” but attributed this primarily to weak governance, corruption, drug trafficking, and the legacy of decades of conflict. Virtually all observers agree that Afghans are freer than they were under the Taliban. The press is relatively free and Afghan political groupings and parties are able to meet and organize freely, but there are also abuses based on ethnicity or political factionalism and arbitrary implementation of justice by local leaders. In debate over a new press law, both houses of parliament have approved a joint version, but Karzai has vetoed it on the grounds that it gives the government too much control over private media. Even in the absence of the law, media policy remains highly conservative; in April 2008 the Ministry of Information and Culture banned five Indian-produced soap operas on the grounds that they are too risque. That came amid a move by conservative parliamentarians to pass legislation to ban loud music, men and women mingling in public, video games, and other behavior common in the West. Since the Taliban era, more than 40 private radio stations, seven television networks, and 350 independent newspapers have opened. The death penalty has been reinstituted, reversing a 2004 moratorium declared by Karzai. Fifteen convicts were executed at once on October 7, 2007. In January 2008, Afghanistan’s “Islamic council,” composed of senior clerics, backed public executions for convicted murderers and urged Karzai to end the activities of foreign organizations that are converting Afghans to Christianity. The State Department International Religious Freedom report for 2007 (released September 14, 2007 says that “there was an increase in the number of reports of problems involving religious freedom compared to previous years.” There continues to be discrimination against the Shiite (Hazara) minority and some other minorities such as Sikhs and Hindus. In May 2007, a directorate under the Supreme Court declared the Baha’i faith to be a form of blasphemy. Others have noted that the government has reimposed some Islamic restrictions that characterized Taliban rule, including the code of criminal punishments stipulated in Islamic law. Other accounts say that alcohol is increasingly difficult to obtain in restaurants and stores. Some government policies reflect the conservative nature of Afghan society; recent indications of that sentiment were the demonstrations in March 2008 in several Afghan cities against Denmark and the Netherlands for Danish cartoons and a Dutch film apparently criticizing aspects of Islam and its key symbols. On January 25, 2008, in a case that has implications for both religious and journalistic freedom, a young reporter, Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, was sentenced to death for distributing a website report to student peers questioning some precepts of Islam. Karzai has said he will allow the appeal process to play out — and the Supreme Court is likely to overturn that

64

Kenneth Katzman

sentence — before considering a pardon for Kambaksh. A previous religious freedom case earned congressional attention in March 2006. An Afghan man, Abd al-Rahman, who had converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working for a Christian aid group in Pakistan, was imprisoned and faced a potential death penalty trial for apostasy — his refusal to convert back to Islam. Facing international pressure, Karzai prevailed on Kabul court authorities to release him on March 29, 2006; he subsequently went to Italy and sought asylum there. His release came the same day the House passed H.Res. 736 calling on the Afghan government to protect Afghan converts from prosecution. Another case was the October 2005 Afghan Supreme Court conviction of a male journalist, Ali Nasab (editor of the monthly “Women’s Rights” magazine), of blasphemy; he was sentenced to two years in prison for articles about apostasy. A Kabul court reduced his sentence to time served and he was freed in December 2005. Afghanistan was again placed in Tier 2 in the State Department report on human trafficking issued in June 2008. The government is assessed as not complying with minimum standards for eliminating trafficking, but making significant efforts to do so. The Trafficking in Persons Report for 2008 says that women (reportedly from China and Central Asia) are being trafficked into Afghanistan for sexual exploitation. Other reports say some are brought to work in night clubs purportedly frequented by members of many international NGOs. An Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) has been formed to monitor government performance and has been credited in State Department reports with successful interventions to curb abuses. Headed by former Women’s Affairs minister Sima Samar, it also conducts surveys of how Afghans view governance and reconstruction efforts. The House-passed Afghan Freedom Support Act (AFSA) re-authorization bill (H.R. 2446) would authorize $10 million per year for this Commission until FY2010.

Funding Issues USAID has spent significant funds on democracy and rule of law programs (support for elections, civil society programs, political party strengthening, media freedom, and local governance) for Afghanistan. Funding for FY2002-FY2007 is shown in Table 14. An additional $100 million was requested in further FY2008 supplemental funding, to help prepare for presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for 2009, and $248 million for these functions is requested for FY2009. Advancement of Women According to State Department human rights report, the Afghan government is promoting the advancement of women, but numerous abuses, such as denial of educational and employment opportunities, continue primarily because of Afghanistan’s conservative traditions. A major development in post-Taliban Afghanistan was the formation of a Ministry of Women’s Affairs dedicated to improving women’s rights, although numerous accounts say the ministry’s influence is limited and it is now headed by a male, although the deputy minister is female. Among other activities, it promotes the involvement of women in business ventures. Three female ministers were in the 2004-2006 cabinet: former presidential candidate Masooda Jalal (Ministry of Women’s Affairs), Sediqa Balkhi (Minister for Martyrs and the Disabled), and Amina Afzali (Minister of Youth). However, Karzai nominated only one (Minister of Women’s Affairs Soraya Sobhrang) in the cabinet that followed the

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

65

parliamentary elections, and she was voted down by opposition from Islamist conservatives in parliament, leaving no women in the cabinet. (The deputy minister is a female.) In March 2005, Karzai appointed a former Minister of Women’s Affairs, Habiba Sohrabi, as governor of Bamiyan province, inhabited mostly by Hazaras. As noted, the constitution reserves for women at least 25% of the seats in the upper house of parliament, and several prominent women have won seats in the new parliament, including some who would have won even if there were no set-asides. However, some NGOs and other groups believe that the women elected by the quota system are not viewed as equally legitimate parliamentarians. More generally, women are performing some jobs, such as construction work, that were rarely held by women even before the Taliban came to power in 1996, including in the new police force. Press reports say Afghan women are increasingly learning how to drive. Under the new government, the wearing of the full body covering called the burqa is no longer obligatory, and fewer women are wearing it than was the case a few years ago. On the other hand, women’s advancement has made women a target of Taliban attacks. Attacks on girls’ schools and athletic facilities have increased in the most restive areas. U.S. officials have had some influence in persuading the government to codify women’s rights. After the Karzai government took office, the United States and the new Afghan government set up a U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council to coordinate the allocation of resources to Afghan women. Empowerment of Afghan women was a major feature of First Lady Laura Bush’s visit to Afghanistan in March 2005. According to the State Department, the United States has implemented over 175 projects directly in support of Afghan women, including women’s empowerment, maternal and child health and nutrition, funding the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, micro-finance projects, and like programs.

Funding Issues The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 (AFSA, P.L.107-327) authorized $15 million per year (FY2003-FY2006) for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. The House-passed AFSA reauthorization (H.R. 2446) would authorize $5 million per year for this Ministry. Appropriations for programs for women and girls, when specified, are contained in the tables at the end of this chapter. Combating Narcotics Trafficking[12] Narcotics trafficking is regarded by some as one of the most significant problems facing Afghanistan, generating about 40% of the Taliban’s funds. The U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported in February 2008 that opium cultivation for 2008 will likely be similar to the 2007 record harvest, which was an increased of 34% over the previous year. The State Department’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, (INCSR) released February 29, 2008, said area under cultivation had increased by 17% in 2007 over 2006 levels. Afghanistan is the source of about 93% of the world’s illicit opium supply, and according to UNODC, “... leaving aside 19th Century China, no country in the world has ever produced narcotics on such a deadly scale.” Narcotics now accounts for about $4 billion in value, about 53% of the value of the legal economy. On the other hand, there are some signs of progress. The February 2008 UNODC report said that the number of “poppy free” provinces is 12, an increase from 6 in 2006, and that cultivation is decreasing in another ten provinces, mostly in the north, where UNODC says governance is increasing. The report said cultivation also decreased sharply in Nangarhar

66

Kenneth Katzman

Province (Jalalabad), a key province near the Pakistan border. The acting Minister of Counter-Narcotics, Gen. Khodaidad, said in late April 2008 that overall cultivation will fall in 2008, and that as many as 20 provinces might soon be declared cultivation free, including Nangarhar and Badakshan. Others attribute the apparent drop in cultivation to the large world increase in prices for legal crops. Much of the cultivation growth in recent years has come from Helmand Province (which now produces about 50% of Afghanistan’s total poppy crop) and other southern provinces where the Taliban insurgency is still consistently active, and the February 2008 UNDOC reports said cultivation is increasing in 7 provinces, mostly in the west and south. In response to congressional calls for an increased U.S. focus on the drug problem, in March 2007 the Administration created a post of coordinator for counter-narcotics and justice reform in Afghanistan, naming Thomas Schweich of the Bureau For a detailed discussion and U.S. funding on the issue, see CRS Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard. of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) to that post. On August 9, 2007, he announced a major new counter-narcotics program and strategy that seeks to better integrate counter-narcotics and counter-insurgency, as well as enhance and encourage alternative livelihoods.[13] Part of the widely acknowledged lack of progress has been attributed to disagreements on a counter-narcotics strategy. The Afghan government wants to focus on funding alternative livelihoods that will dissuade Afghans from growing poppy crop, and on building governance in areas where poppy is grown. The Afghan side, backed by some U.S. experts such as Barnett Rubin, believe that narcotics flourish in areas where there is no security, and not the other way around. U.S. officials emphasize eradication. In concert with interdiction and building up alternative livelihoods, the United States has prevailed on Afghanistan to undertake efforts to eradicate poppy fields by cutting down the crop manually on the ground. However, there appears to be a debate between some in the U.S. government, including Ambassador to Afghanistan William Wood, and the Afghan government over whether to conduct spraying of fields, particularly by air. The Ambassador and others in the Bush Administration feel that aerial spraying is the only effective means to reduce poppy cultivation. President Karzai, most recently in an interview with the Washington Post on January 27, 2008, strongly opposes aerial spraying of poppy fields. He and others say that allowing such activity would cause a backlash among Afghan farmers that could produce more support for the Taliban. Others believe that Karzai feels that acquiescing to a U.S.-designed counter-narcotics program would make him look like a puppet of the international community. NATO commanders, who have taken over securityresponsibilities throughout Afghanistan, are now focusing on interdicting traffickers and raiding drug labs, and outgoing NATO/ISAF commander Gen. Dan McNeill said in February 2008 that his NATO mandate permits him to conduct counter-narcotics combat when it is clearly linked to insurgent activity. Congress appears to be siding with Karzai; the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriation (P.L. 110-161) prohibits U.S. counternarcotics funding from being used for aerial spraying on Afghanistan poppy fields. The U.S. military, in support of the effort, is flying Afghan and U.S. counter-narcotics agents (Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA) on missions and identifying targets; it also evacuates casualties from counter-drug operations. The Department of Defense is also playing the major role in training and equipping specialized Afghan counter-narcotics police, in developing an Afghan intelligence fusion cell, and training Afghan border police, as well as

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

67

assisting an Afghan helicopter squadron to move Afghan counter-narcotics forces around the country. The Bush Administration has taken some legal steps against suspected Afghan drug traffickers;[14] in April 2005, a DEA operation successfully caught the alleged leading Afghan narcotics trafficker, Haji Bashir Noorzai, arresting him after a flight to New York. The United States is funding a new Counternarcotics Justice Center (estimated cost, $8 million) in Kabul to prosecute and incarcerate suspected traffickers.[15] The Bush Administration has repeatedly named Afghanistan (and again in the February 2008 State Department INCSR report discussed above) as a major illicit drug producer and drug transit country, buthas not included Afghanistan on a smaller list of countries that have “failed demonstrably to make substantial efforts” to adhere to international counter-narcotics agreements and take certain counter-narcotics measures set forth in U.S. law.[16] The Administration has exercised waiver provisions (the last was published in the Federal Register in May 2006) to a required certification of full Afghan cooperation that was needed to provide more than $225 million in recent U.S. economic assistance appropriations for Afghanistan. A similar certification requirement (to provide amounts over $300 million) is contained in the House version of the FY2008 appropriation (P.L. 110-161). Other provisions on counter-narcotics, such as recommending a pilot crop substitution program and cutting U.S. aid to any Afghan province whose officials are determined complicit in drug trafficking, are contained in the AFSA reauthorization bill (H.R. 2446). Narcotics trafficking control was perhaps the one issue on which the Taliban, when it was in power, satisfied much of the international community; the Taliban enforced a July 2000 ban on poppy cultivation, which purportedly dramatically decreased cultivation.[17] The Northern Alliance did not issue a similar ban in areas it controlled.

POST-WAR SECURITY OPERATIONS AND FORCE CAPACITY BUILDING The top security priority of theAdministration has been to prevent Al Qaeda and the Taliban from challenging the Afghan government. The pillars of the U.S. security effort are (1) continuing combat operations by U.S. forces and a NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF); (2) U.S. and NATO operation of “provincial reconstruction teams” (PRTs); and (3) the equipping and training of an Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) force.

The Combat Environment, U.S. Operations, and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) U.S. and partner country troop levels (U.S. Central Command, CENTCOM) have increased since 2006 to combat a Taliban resurgence. NATO/ISAF has led peacekeeping operations nationwide since October 5, 2006, and about 65% of U.S. troops in Afghanistan (numbers are in the security indicators table below) are under NATO command. The NATO/ISAF force is headed by U.S. Gen. David McKiernan, who on June 1, 2008 took over from U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill. McNeill in turn had taken over in February 2007 from U.K.

68

Kenneth Katzman

General David Richards. The remainder are under direct U.S. command as part of the ongoing Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Most U.S. forces in Afghanistan, who are primarily in eastern Afghanistan, report, as of May 2008, to Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser as st

head of Combined Joint Task Force 101 (CJTF-101), named after the 101 Airborne Division, and headquartered at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul. Gen. Schloesser commands OEF but is dual-hatted as commander of ISAF Regional Command-East of the NATO/ISAF mission. Incremental costs of U.S. operations in Afghanistan appear to be running about 2 - 3 billion dollars per month. The FY2008 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110-181, Section 1229) requires a quarterly DOD report on the security situation in Afghanistan, along the lines of the similar “Measuring Stability and Security” report required for Iraq. For further information, see CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco. Prior to the transfer to NATO command, 19 coalition countries — primarily Britain, France, Canada, and Italy — were contributing approximately 4,000 combat troops to OEF, but most of these have now been “re-badged” to the expanded NATO-led ISAF mission. A few foreign contingents, such as a small unit from the UAE, remain part of OEF. Until December 2007, 200 South Korean forces at Bagram Air Base (mainly combat engineers) were part of OEF; they left in December 2007 in fulfillment of a July-August 2007, agreement under which Taliban militants released 21 kidnapped South Korean church group visitors in Ghazni province. Two were killed during their captivity. The Taliban kidnappers did not get the demanded release of 23 Taliban prisoners held by the Afghan government. As of April 2008, South Korea is in the process of re-engaging in Afghanistan by planning to take over the Parwan Province PRT based at Bagram Air Base and possibly train Afghan security forces at facilities in Kabul as well. Japan provided naval refueling capabilities in the Arabian sea, but the mission ended in October 2007 following a parliamentary change of majority there in July 2007. The mission was revived in January 2008 when the new government forced through parliament a bill to allow the mission to resume. On June 1, 2008, a senior Japanese official said Japan might expand the mission of its Self Defense Forces to include some reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. As part of OEF, the United States leads a multi-national naval anti-terrorist, anti-smuggling, anti-proliferation interdiction mission in the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea, headquartered in Bahrain. That mission was expanded after the fall of Saddam Hussein to include protecting Iraqi oil platforms in the Gulf. In the four years after the fall of the Taliban, U.S. forces and Afghan troops fought relatively low levels of Taliban insurgent violence. The United States and Afghanistan conducted “Operation Mountain Viper” (August 2003); “Operation Avalanche” (December 2003); “Operation Mountain Storm” (March-July 2004) against Taliban remnants in and around Uruzgan province, home province of Mullah Umar; “Operation Lightning Freedom” (December 2004-February 2005); and “Operation Pil (Elephant)” in Kunar Province in the east (October 2005). By 2005, U.S. commanders had believed that the combat, coupled with overall political and economic reconstruction, had almost ended the insurgency.

The Taliban “Resurgence” An increase in violence beginning in mid-2006 took some U.S. commanders by surprise because the insurgency had been low level for several years, and polls showed that the

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

69

Taliban are politically unpopular, even in the conservative Pashtun areas. Taliban insurgents, increasingly adapting suicide and roadside bombing characteristic of the Iraq insurgency – and enjoying a degree of safehaven in Pakistan – nonetheless have been able to step up attacks, particularly in Uruzgan, Helmand, Qandahar, and Zabol Provinces, areas that NATO/ISAF assumed responsibility for on July 31, 2006. The violence triggered debate about whether the resurgence was driven by popular frustration with the widely perceived corruption within the Karzai government and the slow pace of economic reconstruction. Some believe that Afghans in the restive areas were intimidated by the Taliban into providing food and shelter, while others believe that some villages welcome any form of justice, even if administered by the Taliban. Taliban attacks on schools, teachers, and other civilian infrastructure have reportedly caused popular anger against the movement, but others say they appreciate the Taliban’s reputation for avoiding corruption. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen testified on December 11, 2007, that the Taliban support had tripled to about 20% over the past two years. Other developments in 2007 that the United States found worrisome have been the Taliban’s first use of a surface-to-air missile (SAM-7, shoulder held) against a U.S. C-130 transport aircraft, although it did not hit the aircraft. NATO has countered the violence with repeated offensives, including such major operations as Operation Mountain Lion, Operation Mountain Thrust, and Operation Medusa (August-September 2006). The latter was considered a success in ousting Taliban fighters from the Panjwai district near Qandahar. Operation Medusa also demonstrated that NATO would conduct intensive combat in Afghanistan. In the aftermath of Medusa, British forces — who believe in working more with tribal leaders as part of negotiated local solutions — entered into an agreement with tribal elders in the Musa Qala district of Helmand Province, under which they would secure the main town of the district without an active NATO presence. That strategy failed when the Taliban captured Musa Qala town in February 2007. A NATO offensive in December 2007, approved by President Karzai, retook Musa Qala, although there continue to be recriminations between the Britain, on the one side, and the United States and Karzai, on the other, over the wisdom of the original British deal on Musa Qala. Some Taliban activity continues on the outskirts of the district. During 2007, U.S. and NATO forces, bolstered by the infusion of 3,200 U.S. troops and 3,800 NATO/partner forces, pre-empted an anticipated Taliban “spring offensive.” In a preemptive move, in March 2007, NATO and Afghan troops conducted “Operation Achilles” to expel militants from the Sangin district of northern Helmand Province. One purpose of the operation was to pacify the area around the key Kajaki dam. The Taliban “offensive” largely did not materialize, and U.S. and NATO commanders say their efforts deprived the Taliban of the ability to control substantial swaths of territory. Taliban militants are often killed 50 or 60 at a time by coalition airstrikes because theymove in remote areas where theyare easily located and struck. The NATO operations, and a related offensive in late April 2007 (Operation Silicon), had a major success on May 12, 2007, when the purportedly ruthless leader of the Taliban insurgency in the south, Mullah Dadullah, was killed by U.S. and NATO forces in Helmand Province. His brother, Mansoor, replaced him as leader of that faction but Mansoor was arrested crossing into Pakistan in February 2008 — arrests and deaths such as these are contributing to U.S. command optimism that it will eventually defeat the Taliban outright.[18] A U.S. airstrike in December 2006 killed another prominent commander, Mullah Akhtar Usmani. A key commander in Kunar province, Mullah Ismail, was arrested while crossing over into Pakistan in mid-April 2008.

70

Kenneth Katzman

Despite recent losses, several key Taliban leaders are at large and believed to be workingwith Al Qaeda leaders; some Taliban are able to giveinterviews to Pakistani (Geo television) and other media stations. In addition to Mullah Umar, Jalaludin Haqqani and his son, Siraj, remain at large, leading an insurgent faction operating around Khost. Haqqani is believed to have contact with Al Qaeda leaders in part because one of his wives is purportedly Arab. The Taliban has several official spokespersons, including Qari Yusuf Ahmadi, and it operates a clandestine radio station, “Voice of Shariat,” and publishes videos.

Policy Reviews and Further 2008-2009 U.S. Troop Buildup Despite the offensives, a perception of growing Taliban strength has taken hold among some observers, as evidenced by, among other indicators: (1) 2007 recording the most casualties, including Taliban fighters, of the war so far: (2) numbers of suicide bombings at a post-Taliban high, including such major bombings as one in Kabul on June 17, 2007, which killed about 35 Afghan police recruits on a bus; a suicide bombing in early November 2007 that killed six parliamentarians, as noted above; the suicide bombing near Qandahar on February 17, 2008 that killed 67 civilians and 13 Afghan police - the most lethal attack since 2002; and (3) expanding Taliban operations in provinces where it had not previously been active, including Lowgar and Wardak (close to Kabul), as well as formerly stable Herat, where there are few Pashtuns sympathetic to the Taliban; (4) attacks in Kabul against targets that are either well defended or in highly populated centers, such as the January 14, 2008, attack on the Serena Hotel in Kabul (see below); the January 26, 2008, kidnaping of an American aid worker in Qandahar; and, (5) the April 27, 2008 assassination attempt on Karzai during amilitary parade celebrating the ouster of the Soviet Union. A parliamentarian was killed. This attack, aspects of which were uncovered beforehand, triggered a move by parliament to vote no confidence in the intelligence director, the Defense Minister, and the Interior Minister, but the three remain in their positions as of mid-May 2008. On the other hand, U.S. commanders say that the United States and its allies have made substantial progress reducing Taliban attacks in eastern Afghanistan where U.S. troops mainly operate and are able to achieve significant coverage; one U.S. briefing in January 2008 said that attacks along the eastern Afghan-Pakistan border are 40% lower than they were in December 2006. U.S. commanders say they have continued on the offensive during the winter of 2008 to deny the Taliban the ability to regroup and that the Taliban “spring offensive” has again been weak or non-existent in spring 2008, as it was in 2007. U.S. commanders — and a U.N. Secretary General report of March 6, 2008 — say that 70% of the violence in Afghanistan is now occurring in 10% of Afghanistan’s 376 districts, an area including about 6% of the Afghan population. U.S. commanders say the increase in violence is caused mainly by a higher tempo of U.S./ISAF anti-Taliban operations rather than any increase in Taliban recruitment or capabilities, and attribute the Taliban resilience primarily to the lax border policing of Pakistan. Some NATO commanders go so far as to say that the Taliban is on the brink of defeat – nearly \ decapitated, having lost 7,000 fighters over the past two years, and low on ammunition. Still, to address the widespread perception of deterioration of the U.S. effort, a reported National Security Council review (reported by the Washington Post on November 25, 2007) found that the Taliban has been able to expand its presence, particularly in “un-governed” remote areas. The review also reportedly concluded that the United States needed to focus more attention and resources on the Afghan situation than it had previously. Joint Chiefs

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

71

Chairman Mullen largely confirmed the perception that the Afghan battlefield was “underresourced” in his December 11, 2007 testimony in which he stated that, in Iraq, “the United States does what it must, while in Afghanistan, the United States does what it can.” Other policy reviews have been conducted by the State Department; it evaluated its use of “soft power” to complement the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. Similar findings are emphasized in recent outside assessments of Afghanistan policy, including a report in November 2007 by the Senlis Council;[19] a January 2008 study by the Atlantic Council (“Saving Afghanistan: An Appeal and Plan for Urgent Action”) and a January 30, 2008 study by the Center for the Study of the Presidency (“Afghanistan Study Group Report”), as well as in recent hearings, such as the January 31, 2008 hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“Americanizing” the Southern Front? As a consequence of the policy reviews and public perceptions, the Administration is taking new steps to keep the pressure on the Taliban in the south, where it remains strongest, as well as to ease strains with key NATO partners. Some policy decisions appear to indicate that the United States might assume greater responsibility for the intense combat in the south. On January 14, 2008, Secretary of Defense Gates approved the deployment of an additional 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan (for seven months), of which about 700 will be for training the Afghan security forces, and the remainder will provide more combat capability in the south. They have arrived and begun to engage in combat in Helmand Province; including an operation that began in late April 2008 that expelled Taliban militants from the Garmsar district of Helmand. Still, U.S. and NATO commanders in Afghanistan have decided that they needed about three more brigades (about 10,000) to be able to stabilize the still restive southern sector, particularly all of southern Helmand Province. With NATO countries unlikely to fill that entire need, on April 4, 2008, at the NATO summit in Romania, President Bush pledged to further increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2009, regardless of the change in U.S. Administration at that time. The 2009 addition could be as much as 7,000 U.S. forces, in addition to finding replacements for the 3,200 additional Marines sent on a seven month rotation. On May 22, 2008, the Defense Department confirmed that the United States is likely to take over the command of Regional Command-South in November 2010, after rotations by the Netherlands(2008-2009) and Britain (2009-2010). The issue of NATO/ISAF and the positions of contributing countries is discussed further below. U.S. and NATO commanders are also increasingly sensitive to losing “hearts and minds” because of civilian casualties resulting from U.S. and NATO operations, particularly air strikes. In a joint meeting on May 21, 2007, President Bush and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that U.S. and NATO operations were seeking to avoid civilian casualties but that such results were sometimes inevitable in the course of fighting the Taliban. President Bush and President Karzai said they discussed the issue during their Camp David meetings in August 2007. With Karzai saying in October 2007 that he had asked for a halt to the use of air strikes, NATO is reportedly examining using smaller air force munitions to limit collateral damage from air strikes, or increased use of ground operations. Feelers to the Taliban President Karzai believes that an alternative means of combating Taliban militants is to offer talks with Taliban fighters who want to consider ending their fight. Noted above is the

72

Kenneth Katzman

“Program for Strengthening Peace and Reconciliation” (referred to in Afghanistan by its Pashto acronym “PTS”) headed by Meshrano Jirga speaker Sibghatullah Mojadeddi. The program is credited with persuading numerous Taliban figures andcommanders to renounce violence and joint the political process. Several Taliban figures, including its foreign minister Wakil Mutawwakil, ran in the parliamentary elections. The Taliban official who was governor of Bamiyan Province when the Buddha statues there were blown up, Mohammad Islam Mohammedi — and who was later elected to the post-Taliban parliament from Samangan Province — was assassinated in Kabul in January 2007. In September 2007, Karzai offered to meet with Mullah Umar himself, appearing thereby to backtrack on earlier statements that about 100-150 of the top Taliban leadership would not be eligible for amnesty. The Taliban rejected the offer, saying they would not consider reconciling until (1) all foreign troops leave Afghanistan; (2) a new “Islamic” constitution is adopted; and (3) Islamic law is imposed. In December 2007, other press reports appeared that European or other intermediaries had been holding secret talks with Taliban figures. Even though it is Karzai’s position that talks with the Taliban could be helpful, two European diplomats working for the United Nations and European Union were expelled by the Afghan government in December 2007, possibly because they allegedly provided the Taliban intermediaries with small gifts as gestures of goodwill. As referenced above, there have been reports that, before his capture, Mansoor Dadullah was in talks with British forces about ending his battles, and some recent news stories say that Siraj Haqqani has been in talks with Pakistani intermediaries about possibly ending Taliban activity inside Pakistan. In April 2008, representatives of the minoritydominated National Front bloc (see above) said they have had some peace talks with Taliban representatives.

Whereabouts of Al Qaeda Leaders and Fighters Complicating the U.S. mission has been the difficulty in locating so-called “high value targets” of Al Qaeda: leaders believed to be in Pakistan but who are believed able to direct Al Qaeda fighters to assist the Taliban. The two most notable are Osama bin Laden himself and his close ally, Ayman al-Zawahiri. They reportedly escaped the U.S.-Afghan offensive against the Al Qaeda stronghold of Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan in December 2001.[20] A purported U.S.-led strike reportedly missed Zawahiri by a few hours in the village of Damadola, Pakistan, in January 2006, suggesting that the United States and Pakistan have some intelligence on his movements.[21] A strike in late January 2008, in an area near Damadola, killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a reported senior Al Qaeda figure who purportedly masterminded, among other operations, the bombing at Bagram Air Base in February 2007 when Vice President Cheney was visiting. During a visit to the United States in August 2007, Karzai told journalists that U.S. and Afghan officials are no closer than previously to determining bin Laden’s location. Other reports say there are a growing number of Al Qaeda militants now being identified on the Afghan battlefield,[22] although senior U.S. officials say that these militants may now be focused on sewing instability in Pakistan more so than in Afghanistan. Another “high value target” identified by U.S. commanders is the Hikmatyar faction (Hizb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, HIG) allied with Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents. His fighters are operating in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, northeast of Kabul. On February 19, 2003, the U.S. government formally designated Hikmatyar as a “Specially Designated Global

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

73

Terrorist,” under the authority of Executive Order 13224, subjecting it to financial and other U.S. sanctions. It is not formally designated as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.” On July 19, 2007, Hikmatyar injected some optimism into the U.S. mission in Afghanistan by issuing a statement declaring a willingness to discuss a cease-fire with the Karzai government, although no firm reconciliation talks have been held between HIG and the Karzai government.

U.S. Military Presence/SOFA/Use of Facilities U.S. forces operate in Afghanistan under a “status of forces agreement” (SOFA) between the United States and the interim government of Afghanistan in November 2002; the agreement gives the United States legal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel serving in Afghanistan. Even if the Taliban insurgency ends, Afghan leaders say they want the United States to maintain a long-term presence in Afghanistan. On May 8, 2005, Karzai summoned about 1,000 delegates to a consultative jirga in Kabul on whether to host permanent U.S. bases. They supported an indefinite presence of international forces to maintain security but urged Karzai to delay a decision. On May 23, 2005, Karzai and President Bush issued a “joint declaration”[23] providing for U.S. forces to have access to Afghan military facilities, in order to prosecute “the war against international terror and the struggle against violent extremism.” The joint statement did not give Karzai enhanced control over facilities used by U.S. forces, over U.S. operations, or over prisoners taken during operations. Some of the bases, both in and near Afghanistan, that support combat in Afghanistan, include those in the table. In order to avoid the impression that foreign forces are “occupying”Afghanistan, NATO said on August 15, 2006, that it would negotiate an agreement with Afghanistan to formalize the NATO presence in Afghanistan and stipulate 15 initiatives to secure Afghanistan and rebuild its security forces. Table 2. Afghan and Regional Facilities Used for Operations in Afghanistan Facility Bagram Air Base

Afghans With Access to Health Coverage

Qandahar Air Field

Shindand Air Base

Use 50 miles north of Kabul, the operational hub of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and base for CJTF-82. At least 500 U.S. military personnel are based there, assisted by about 175 South Korean troops. Handles many of the 150 U.S. aircraft (including helicopters) in country. Hospital under construction, one of the first permanent structures there. FY2005 supplemental (P.L. 109-13) provided about $52 million for various projects to upgrade facilities at Bagram, including a control tower and an operations center, and the FY2006 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 109-234) provides $20 million for military construction there. NATO also using the base and sharing operational costs. 82% with basic health services access - compared to 8% during Taliban era, although access is more limited in restive areas. Infant mortality has dropped 18% since Taliban to 135 per 1,000 live births. 680 clinics built with U.S. funds since Taliban. Just outside Qandahar. Turned over from U.S. to NATO/ISAF control in late 2006 in conjunction with NATO assumption of peacekeeping responsibilities. In Farah province, about 20 miles from Iran border. Used by U.S. forces and combat aircraft since October 2004, after the dismissal of Herat governor Ismail Khan, whose militia forces controlled the facility.

74

Kenneth Katzman Table 2. Afghan and Regional Facilities Used for Operations in Afghanistan Facility Peter Ganci Base: Manas, Kyrgyzstan

Incirlik Air Base, Turkey Al Dhafra, UAE

Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar Naval Support Facility, Bahrain

Karsi-Khanabad Air Base, Uzbekistan

Use Used by 1,200 U.S. military personnel as well as refueling and cargo aircraft. Leadership of Kyrgyzstan changed in April 2005 in an uprising against President Askar Akayev, but senior U.S. officials reportedly received assurances about continued U.S. use of the base from his successor, Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Bakiyev demanded a large increase in the $2 million per year U.S. contribution for use of the base; dispute eased in July 2006 with U.S. agreement to give Kyrgyzstan $150 million in assistance and base use payments. About 2,100 U.S. military personnel there; U.S. aircraft supply U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. use repeatedly extended for one year intervals by Turkey. Air base used by about 1,800 U.S. military personnel, to supply U.S. forces and related transport into Iraq and Afghanistan. Largest air facility used by U.S. in region. About 5,000 U.S. personnel in Qatar. Houses central air operations coordination center for U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan; also houses CENTCOM forward headquarters. U.S. naval command headquarters for OEF anti-smuggling, anti-terrorism, and anti-proliferation naval search missions, and Iraq-related naval operations (oil platform protection) in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. About 5,100 U.S. military personnel there. Not used by U.S. since September 2005 following U.S.-Uzbek dispute over May 2005 Uzbek crackdown on unrest in Andijon. Once housed about 1,750 U.S. military personnel (900 Air Force, 400 Army, and 450 civilian) in supply missions to Afghanistan. Uzbekistan allowed German use of the base temporarily in March 2008, indicating possible healing of the rift. Could also represent Uzbek counter to Russian offer to U.S. coalition to allow use of its territory to transport equipment into Afghanistan.

The NATO-Led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)[24] As discussed, the NATO-led “International Security Assistance Force” (ISAF, consisting of all 26 NATO members states plus 14 partner countries), now commands peacekeeping operations throughout Afghanistan. The several tables at the end of this chapter list contributing countries and forces contributed, areas of operations, and Provincial Reconstruction Teams they control. ISAF was created by the Bonn Agreement and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1386 (December 20, 2001),[25] initially limited to Kabul. In October 2003, NATO endorsed expanding its presence to several other cities, contingent on formal U.N. approval. That NATO decision came several weeks after Germany agreed to contribute an additional 450 military personnel to expand ISAF into the city of Konduz. The U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1510 (October 14, 2003) formally authorizing ISAF to deploy outside Kabul. NATO’s takeover of command of ISAF in August 2003 paved the way for the expansion, and NATO/ISAF’s responsibilities broadened significantly in 2004 with NATO/ISAF’s assumption of security responsibility for northern and western Afghanistan (Stage 1, Regional Command North, in 2004 and Stage 2, Regional Command West, in 2005, respectively). The mission was most recently renewed by U.N. Security

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

75

Council Resolution 1776 (September 19, 2007), which also noted U.N. support for the Operation Enduring Freedom mission. The process continued on July 31, 2006, with the formal handover of the security mission in southern Afghanistan to NATO/ISAF control. As part of this “Stage 3,” a British/Canadian/Dutch-led “Regional Command South” (RC-S) was formed. Britain is the lead force in Helmand; Canada is lead in Qandahar, and the Netherlands is lead in Uruzgan; the three rotate the command of RC-S. “Stage 4,” the assumption of NATO/ISAF command of peacekeeping in fourteen provinces of eastern Afghanistan (and thus all of Afghanistan), was completed on October 5, 2006. As part of the completion of the NATO/ISAF takeover of command, the United States put over half the U.S. troops operating in Afghanistan under NATO/ISAF’s “Regional Command East” (RC-E), although still reporting to a U.S. command in country. The April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania resulted in some new pledges for NATO and other partner forces to add troops to Afghanistan to meet the agreed requirement of 10,000 total extra forces deemed needed to stabilize the restive south. As of now, the partner forces that are bearing the brunt of combat in southern Afghanistan are Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia. The need to line up new pledges became acute in February 2008, when Canada said it would extend its 2,500 troop deployment until 2009, but not beyond that, unless other partners contribute 1,000 forces to assist with combat in the Canadian sector (Qandahar province).

New NATO Force Pledges in 2008 and Since At and in conjunction with the NATO summit in Bucharest in early April 2008, twelve countries did indicate new pledges, although some are of reconstruction aid rather than troops, and others were restatements of previous pledges. The following were the major pledges: •

•

•

•

• • •

France announced a deployment of up to 1,000 forces — a battalion of about 700 plus 200 special forces that formerly were part of OEF. The French forces will be deployed mostly in the U.S.-led eastern sector, freeing up U.S. forces to go to the south. Germany turned down a U.S. request to send forces to the combat-heavy south, but it pledged in early 2008 to add 500 forces to its sector in the north, mostly to take over a Norway-led rapid reaction force there. (Despite opposition in Germany to the Afghanistan mission, Germany’s parliament voted by a 453-79 vote margin on October 12, 2007, to maintain German troop levels in Afghanistan.) Britain plans to deploy about 600 more troops to its already significant 7,800 troop commitment to Afghanistan. These forces will serve in Britain’s sector of the south (very high combat Helmand Province). Poland recommitted to its February 2008 announcement that it would add 400 troops to the 1,200 in Afghanistan, but that they would continue to fight alongside U.S. forces as part of RC-E, operating mainly in Ghazni province. Norway plans to add 200 troops but in the largely passive north, where Norway is deployed. Denmark will add about 600 forces to the mission in the south. Georgia pledged 500 additional forces for Afghanistan.

76

Kenneth Katzman • • • • • •

•

Croatia pledged 200 - 300, which would double its existing force. The Czech Republic pledged 120 new forces. Greece and Romania promised to send an unspecified number of additional trainers for the Afghan security forces. New Zealand pledged to increase its contingent at the PRT it runs in Bamiyan province. Azerbaijan pledged an additional 45, more than its existing force there. In February 2008, Australia ruled out sending more forces to supplement its contingent, which operates in combat intense Uruzgan province, but said it would augment civilian assistance such as training Afghan police and judges and build new roads, hospitals, and schools. In May 2008, Italy announced that it was now willing to deploy some of its forces to the combat-intense south.

Among other unfulfilled pledges (in addition to the 3,200 combat forces the United States has now decided to send) are 3,200 additional trainers that are needed for Afghan security forces. About 700 of the 3,200 Marines that will deploy to Afghanistan by April 2008 will be trainers to address that shortage. Another key point of contention has been NATO’s chronic equipment shortages— particularly helicopters, both for transport and attack — for the Afghanistan mission. Secretary Gates has been pressing for NATO countries to contribute an additional 16 helicopters in southern Afghanistan to relieve a U.S. helicopter battalion that Gates said in testimony would not have its deployment there extended again beyond mid-2008. One idea considered at the NATO meeting in Scotland on December 13, 2007, was for U.S. or other donors to pay for the upgrading of helicopters that partner countries might possess but have inadequate resources to adapt to Afghanistan’s harsh flying conditions. Some NATO countries reportedly are considering jointly modernizing about 20 Russian-made transport helicopters that could be used by all participating nations in Afghanistan. In 2007, to try to compensate for the shortage, NATO chartered about 20 commercial helicopters for extra routine supply flights to the south, freeing up Chinooks and Black Hawks for other missions. Some of the extra Polish troops to be deployed in 2008 will operate and maintain eight helicopters. The shortages persist even though several partner nations brought in additional equipment in 2006 in conjunction with the NATO assumption of command of all peacekeeping. At that time, Apache attack helicopters and F-16 aircraft were brought in by some contributors. Italy sent “Predator” unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters, and six AMX fighter-bomber aircraft.[26] Germany notes that it provides six Tornado combat aircraft to assist with strikes in combat situations in the south. NATO/ISAF also coordinates with Afghan security forces and with OEF forces as well, and it assists the Afghan Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism in the operation of Kabul International Airport (where Dutch combat aircraft also are located). In October 2008, Hungary will add 60 troops and take over security at that airport. In an effort to repair divisions withinthe Afghanistan coalition, in his December 11, 2007, testimony, Secretary Gates previewed his presentation, at a NATO meeting in Scotland on December 13, 2007, of a “strategic concept paper” that would help coordinate and guide NATO and other partner contributions and missions over the coming three to five years. This

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

77

is an effort to structure each country’s contribution as appropriate to the politics and resources of that contributor. The concept paper, now titled the “Strategic Vision,” was endorsed by the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania in early April 2008.

National “Caveats” on Combat Operations Some progress has been made in persuading other NATO countries to adopt flexible rules of engagement that allow all contributing forces to perform combat missions, although perhaps not as aggressively as do U.S. forces. At the NATO summit in April 2008, NATO countries pledged to continue to work remove their so-called “national caveats” on their troops’ operations that U.S. commanders say limit operational flexibility. Some nations refuse to conduct night-time combat. Others have refused to carry Afghan National Army or other Afghan personnel on their helicopters. Others do not fight after snowfall. These caveats were troubling to those NATO countries with forces in heavy combat zones, such as Canada, which feel they are bearing the brunt of the fighting and attendant casualties. There has been some criticism of the Dutch approach in Uruzgan, which focuses heavily on building relationships with tribal leaders and identifying reconstruction priorities, and not on actively combating Taliban formations. Some believe this approach allows Taliban fighters to group and expand their influence, although the Netherlands says this approach is key to a long-term pacification of the south. At the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, during November 28-29, 2006, some NATO countries, particularly the Netherlands, Romania, and France, pledged to remove some of these caveats, and some have done so. All agreed that their forces would come to each others’ defense in times of emergency anywhere in Afghanistan. (See CRS Report RL33627, NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance, by Paul Gallis.)

Provincial Reconstruction Teams U.S. and partner officials have generally praised the effectiveness of “provincial reconstruction teams” (PRTs) — enclaves of U.S. or partner forces and civilian officials that provide safe havens for international aid workers to help with reconstruction and to extend the writ of the Kabul government — in accelerating reconstruction and assisting stabilization efforts. The PRTs, a December 2002 U.S. initiative, perform activities ranging from resolving local disputes to coordinating local reconstruction projects, although the U.S.-run PRTs, and most of the PRTs in southern Afghanistan, focus mostly on counter-insurgency. Some aid agencies say they have felt more secure since the PRT program began, fostering reconstruction activity in areas of PRT operations.[27] Other relief groups do not want to associate with military force because doing so might taint their perceived neutrality. Secretary Gates and U.S. commanders have attributed recent successes in stabilizing some areas, such as Ghazni and Khost, to the PRTs’ ability to intensify reconstruction by coordinating many different security and civilian activities. In Ghazni, almost all the schools are now open, whereas one year ago many were closed because of Taliban intimidation. In Khost, according to Secretary Gates on December 11, PRT activities focused on road building and construction of district centers that tie the population to the government have led to a dramatic improvement in security over the past year. Bombings there have fallen from one per week in 2006 to one per month now.

78

Kenneth Katzman

There are 25 PRTs in operation. In conjunction with broadening NATO security responsibilities, the United States turned over several PRTs to partner countries, and virtually all the PRTs are now under ISAF control, but with varying lead nations. The list of PRTs, including lead country, is shown in table 16. Each PRT operated by the United States is composed of U.S. forces (50-100 U.S. military personnel); Defense Department civil affairs officers; representatives of USAID, State Department, and other agencies; and Afghan government (Interior Ministry) personnel. Most PRTs, including those run by partner forces, have personnel to train Afghan security forces. Many U.S. PRTs in restive regions are “colocated” with “forward operating bases” of 300-400 U.S. combat troops. U.S. funds support PRT reconstruction projects, as shown in the tables at the report’s end. According to U.S. officials, 54 PRT development projects have been completed and 199 (valued at $20 million) are ongoing. USAID funds used for PRT programs are in the table on USAID spending at the end of this chapter. In August 2005, in preparation for the establishment of Regional Command South, Canada took over the key U.S.-led PRT in Qandahar. In May 2006, Britain took over the PRT at Lashkar Gah, capital of Helmand Province. The Netherlands took over the PRT at Tarin Kowt, capital of Uruzgan Province. Germany (with Turkey and France) took over the PRTs and the leadership role in the north from Britain and the Netherlands when those countries deployed to the south. Representing evolution of the PRT concept, Turkey opened a PRT, in Wardak Province, on November 25, 2006, to focus on providing health care, education, police training, and agricultural alternatives in that region. As of March 2008, the Czech Republic has established a new PRT in Lowgar Province. As noted above, South Korea is expected to soon take over the U.S.-run PRT at Bagram Air Base. There also has been a move to turn over the lead in the U.S.-run PRTs to civilians rather than military personnel, presumably State Department or USAID officials. That process began in early 2006 with the establishment of a civilian-led U.S.-run PRT in the Panjshir Valley.

Afghan Security Forces U.S. forces (“Combined Security Transition Command- Afghanistan,” CSTC-A, headed as of July 2007 by Gen. Robert Cone), along with partner countries, are training the new Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP).

Afghan National Army U.S. and allied officers say that the ANA, now about 55,000 trained, is becoming a major force in stabilizing the country and a national symbol. Senior U.S. commanders say that some ANA battalions in eastern Afghanistan have progressed to the point where they will be able to conduct operations on their own by spring 2008. The commando forces of the ANA, trained by U.S. Special Operations Forces, are considered well-trained and are taking the lead in some counter-insurgency operations in the U.S.-led eastern sector, particularly against HIG elements in Nuristan province. However, General McNeillll said in April 2008 that it would not be until 2011 that ANA (and ANP) forces would be capable enough – and have sufficient air transport and air support – to allow for a drawdown of international forces. Karzai has

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

79

pledged in April 2008 to take over security of the Kabul regional command from Italy as of July 2008. ANA battalions, or “Kandaks,” have improved and been stiffened by the presence of U.S. and partner embeds, called “Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams” (OMLTs). Each OMLT has about 12-19 personnel, and U.S. commanders say that the ANA will continue to need embeds for the short term, because embeds give the units confidence they will be resupplied, reinforced, and evacuated in the event of wounding. Coalition officers also are conducting heavy weapons training for a heavy brigade as part of the “Kabul Corps,” based in Pol-eCharki, east of Kabul. Among the partner countries contributing OMLTs (all or in part) are Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Britain, and the United States. As noted above, about 700 of the extra 3,200 Marines being sent to Afghanistan in early 2008 will be devoted to training the ANA and ANP. The Indian press reported on April 24, 2007, that a separate team from the Indian Army would help train the ANA.[28] The United States has built four AMA bases (Herat, Gardez, Qandahar, and Mazar-eSharif). The ANA now has at least some presence in most of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces, working with the PRTs and assisted by embedded U.S. trainers (about 10-20 per battalion). The ANA deployed to Herat in March 2004 to help quell factional unrest there and to Meymaneh in April 2004 in response to Dostam’s militia movement into that city. It deployed outside Afghanistan to assist relief efforts for victims of the October 2005 Pakistan earthquake. It is increasingly able to conduct its own battalion-strength operations, according to U.S. officers. In June 2007, the ANA and ANP led “Operation Maiwand” in Ghazni province, intended to open schools and deliver humanitarian aid to people throughout the province. On the other hand, U.S. officers report continuing personnel (desertion, absentee) problems, ill discipline, and drugabuse, although some concerns have been addressed. Some accounts say that a typical ANA unit is only at about 50% of its authorized strength at any given time. At the time the United States first began establishingthe ANA, Northern Alliance figures reportedly weighted recruitment for the national army toward its Tajik ethnic base. Many Pashtuns, in reaction, refused recruitment or left the ANA program. U.S. officials in Afghanistan say this problem has been at least partly alleviated with better pay and more close involvement by U.S. forces, and that the force is ethnically integrated in each unit. The naming of a Pashtun, Abdul Rahim Wardak, as Defense Minister in December 2004 also reduced desertions among Pashtuns (he remains in that position). The chief of staff is Gen. Bismillah Khan, a Tajik who was a Northern Alliance commander. U.S. officers in Afghanistan add that some recruits take long trips to their home towns to remit funds to their families, and often then return to the ANA after a long absence. Others, according to U.S. observers, often refuse to serve far from their home towns. The FY2005 foreign aid appropriation (P.L. 108-447) requires that ANA recruits be vetted for terrorism, human rights violations, and drug trafficking. Equipment, maintenance, and logistical difficulties continue to plague the ANA. Few soldiers have helmets, many have no armored vehicles or armor. The tables below discusses major equipment donations, as well as the new U.S. equipment being delivered in mid-2008. The Afghan Air Force, a carryover from the Afghan Air Force that existed prior to the Soviet invasion, is expanding gradually after its equipment was virtually eliminated in the 2001-2002 U.S. combat against the Taliban regime. It now has about 400 pilots, as well as 22

80

Kenneth Katzman

helicopters and cargo aircraft. Its goal is to have 61 aircraft by 2011. By May 2008, it is expected to receive an additional 25 surplus helicopters from the Czech Republic and the UAE, bought and refurbished with the help of U.S. funds. Afghan pilots are based at Bagram air base. Afghanistan is seeking the return of 26 aircraft, including some MiG-2s that were flown to safety in Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the past conflicts in Afghanistan. U.S. plans do not include supply of fixed-wing combat aircraft such as F-16s, which Afghanistan wants, according to U.S. military officials. Table 3. Recent and Pending Foreign Equipment for ANA Country United States

Hungary Egypt Russia Turkey Bulgaria Czech Republic Estonia Greece Latvia Lithuania Montenegro Poland Switzerland Turkey Croatia UAE

Equipment Major $2 billion value in arms delivered between May 2006-end of 2007. Includes several hundred Humvees, 800 other various armored vehicles. Also includes light weapons. Authorized total drawdown ceiling (un-reimbursed by appropriations) is $550 million; H.R. 2446 - AFSA reauthorization — would increase ceiling to $300 million/year. Afghanistan is eligible to receive grant U.S. Excess Defense Articles (EDA) under Section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act. 20,500 assault rifles 17,000 small arms 4 helicopters and other equipment, part of over $100 million military aid to Afghanistan thus far 24 — 155 mm Howitzers 50 mortars, 500 binoculars 12 helicopters and 20,000 machine guns 4,000 machine guns plus ammunition 300 machine guns 337 rocket-propelled grenades, 8 mortars, 13,000 arms 3.7 million ammunition rounds 1,600 machine guns 110 armored personnel carriers, 4 million ammo rounds 3 fire trucks 2,200 rounds of 155 mm ammo 1,000 machine guns plus ammo 10 Mi-17 helicopters (to be delivered by May 2008)

Afghan National Police/Justice Sector U.S. and Afghan officials believe that building up a credible and capable national police force is at least as important to combating the Taliban insurgency as building the ANA. There is a widespread consensus that this effort lags that of the ANA by about 18 months, although U.S. commanders say that it is increasingly successful in repelling Taliban assaults on villages and that the ANP (now numbering about 75,300 assigned) is experiencing fewer casualties from attacks. To continue the progress, the U.S. military is conducting reforms to take ANP out of the bureaucracy and onto the streets and it is trying to bring ANP pay on par with the ANA. It has also launched a program called “focused district development” to concentrate resources on developing individual police forces in districts, which is the basic geographic area of ANP activity. (There are about ten “districts” in each of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces.) In this program, a district force is taken out and retrained, its duties temporarily performed by more highly trained police, and then reinserted after the training is complete. Gen. Cone said on April 18, 2008 that, thus far, ten districts have undergone this process, which he says will take five years to complete for all of Afghanistan’s districts.

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

81

The U.S. police training effort was first led by State Department/INL, but the Defense Department took over the lead in police training in April 2005. Much of the training is still conducted through contracts with DynCorp. There are currently seven police training centers around Afghanistan. In addition to the U.S. effort, which includes 600 civilian U.S. police trainers (mostly still Dyncorp contractors) in addition to the U.S. military personnel (see table on security indicators), Germany (technically the lead government in Afghan police training) is providing 41 trainers. The European Union has sent an additional 120 police trainers as part of a 190-member “EUPOL” training effort, and 60 other experts to help train the ANP. The EU said in March 2008 the size of the EUPOL training team should be doubled to about 400. To address equipment shortages, in 2007 CSTC-A is providing about 8,000 new vehicles and thousands of new weapons of all types. A report by the Inspectors General of the State and Defense Department, circulated to Congress in December 2006, found that most ANP units have less than 50% of their authorized equipment,[29] among its significant criticisms. Many experts believe that comprehensive police and justice sector reform is vital to Afghan governance. Police training now includes instruction in human rights principles and democratic policing concepts, and the State Department human rights report on Afghanistan, referenced above, says the government and outside observers are increasingly monitoring the police force to prevent abuses. However, some governments criticized Karzai for setting back police reform in June 2006 when he approved a new list of senior police commanders that included 11 (out of 86 total) who had failed merit exams. His approval of the 11 were reportedly to satisfy faction leaders and went against the recommendations of a police reform committee. The ANP work in the communities they come from, often embroiling them in local factional or ethnic disputes. The State Department (INL) has placed 30 U.S. advisors in the Interior Ministry to help it develop the national police force and counter-narcotics capabilities. U.S. trainers are also building Border Police and Highway Patrol forces. U.S. justice sector programs generally focus on building capacity of the judicial system, including police training and court construction; manyof these programs are conducted in partnership with Italy, which is the “lead” coalition country on judicial reform. The United States has trained over 750 judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, according to President Bush on February 15, 2007, and built 40 judicial facilities. USAID also trains court administrators for the Ministry of Justice, the office of the Attorney General, and the Supreme Court. On February 15, 2007, President Bush also praised Karzai’s formation of a Criminal Justice Task Force that is trying to crack down on official corruption, and the United States, Britain, and Norway are providing mentors to the Afghan judicial officials involved in that effort.

Tribal Militias Since June 2006, Karzai has authorized arming some local tribal militias (arbokai) in eastern Afghanistan, building on established tribal structures, to help in local policing. Karzai argues that these militias provide security and are loyal to the nation and central government and that arming them is not inconsistent with the disarmament programs discussed below. Britain favors expanding the arbokai program to the south, but U.S. military commanders say that this program would likely not work in the south because of differing tribal structures there.

82

Kenneth Katzman

U.S. Security Forces Funding/”CERP” U.S. funds appropriated for Peacekeeping Operations (PKO funds) are used to cover ANA salaries. Recent appropriations for the ANA and ANP are contained in the tables at the end of this chapter. In addition to the train and equip funds provided by DoD, the U.S. military in Afghanistan has additional funds to spend on reconstruction projects that build goodwill and presumably reduce the threat to use forces. These are Commanders Emergency Response Program funds, or CERP. The U.S. military spent about $206 million in CERP in FY2007 and expect to spend, subject to FY2008 supplemental appropriations, about $410 million in CERP in FY2008. As noted in the table, the security forces funding has shifted to DOD funds instead of assistance funds controlled by the State Department. Table 4. Major Security-Related Indicators Force Total Foreign Forces in Afghanistan

Current Level About 64,000, of which: 53,000 are NATO/ISAF. (12,000 ISAF in 2005; and 6,000 in 2003.) U.S. forces: 34,500 total, of which 23,500 in NATO/ISAF and 11,000 in OEF. (U.S. total was: 25,000 in 2005; 16,000 in 2003; 5,000 in 2002). U.S. will rise further in 2009, according to President Bush on April 5, 2008, likely by about 7,000. U.S. forces deployed at 88 bases in Afghanistan, and include 1 air wing (40 aircraft) and 1 combat aviation brigade (100 aircraft). About 1,000 coalition partner forces in OEF, but not ISAF.

U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan

443 killed, of which 308 by hostile action. Additional 65 U.S. deaths in other OEF theaters, including the Phillipines and parts of Africa (OEF-Trans Sahara). About 275 partner forces killed. 100+ U.S. killed in 2007, highest yet. 150 U.S. killed from October 2001 - January 2003.

NATO Sectors (Regional CommandsSouth, east, north, west, and central/Kabul) Afghan National Army (ANA)

RC-S - 23,000 (Canada, UK, Netherlands rotate lead); RC-E -16,400 (U.S. lead); RC-N - 4,300; RC-W - 2,500 (Italy lead) RC-Kabul - 5,900 (Italy lead but Afghanistan planning to take lead by July 2008).

Afghan National Police (ANP)

75,300 assigned. Authorized strength: 82,000. Salaries raised to $100 per month in mid-2007 from $70 to counter corruption in the force. 2,600 are counter-narcotics police. 10,000 are border police. About 4,000 U.S. military trainers as Embedded Training Troops and Police Mentoring Teams. Also, 600 civilian U.S. police trainers. Of these, about 900 U.S. military trainers are for ANP. The remaining 3,100 are for ANA training. ANP training assisted by EUPOL (European Union contingent of 190 trainers, organized as OMLTs; see text), and 41 German trainers of senior ANP.

U.S. and Partner Trainers

Legally Armed Fighters disarmed by DDR Armed Groups disbanded by DIAG

55,000 trained, with about 40,000 on duty. 63,000 including civilian support. Organized into 33 battalions. Will add 13,000 soldiers by end of 2008; 80,000 is goal by 2009, endorsed in Afghanistan Compact. Afghanistan proposes raising ceiling to 120,000. About 2,000 trained per month. 4,000 are commando forces, trained by U.S. Special Forces, active in north-east against HIG. ANA private paid about $150 per month; generals receive about $750 per month. ANA now being outfitted with U.S. M16 rifles and 4,000 uparmored Humvees.

63,380; all of the pool identified for the program 161 illegal groups (five or more fighters) disbanded. Goal is to disband 1,800 groups, of which several hundred groups are “significant.” 5,700 weapons confiscated, 1.050 arrested.

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy Force Weapons Collected by DDR Number of Suicide Bombings

Current Level

Afghan Casualties Number of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s)

About 6,000 in 2007 (including Taliban; all types of violence) 500+ in 2007

83

DDR: 36,000 medium and light; 12,250 heavy. 21 in 2005; 123 in 2006; 160 in 2007.

REGIONAL CONTEXT Although most of Afghanistan’s neighbors believe that the fall of the Taliban has stabilized the region, some experts believe that some neighboring governments are attempting to manipulate Afghanistan’s factions to their advantage, even though six of Afghanistan’s neighbors signed a non-interference pledge (Kabul Declaration) on December 23, 2002. In November 2005, Afghanistan joined the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and Afghanistan has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is discussed below.

Pakistan/Pakistan-Afghanistan Border[30] As Pakistan’s government has changed composition over the past year, experts increasingly see Pakistan as unhelpful to U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. During 20012006, the Bush Administration generally refrained from criticism of President Pervez Musharraf, instead praising Pakistani accomplishments against Al Qaeda, including the arrest of over 700 Al Qaeda figures, some of them senior, since the September 11 attacks. After the attacks, Pakistan provided the United States with access to Pakistani airspace, some ports, and some airfields for OEF. Among those captured by Pakistan are top bin Laden aide Abu Zubaydah (captured April 2002); alleged September 11 plotter Ramzi bin Al Shibh (September 11, 2002); top Al Qaeda planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (March 2003); and a top planner, Abu Faraj al-Libbi (May 2005). Others say Musharraf has acted against Al Qaeda only because of its threat to him; for example, he stepped up Pakistani military activities in the tribal areas of Pakistan only after the December 2003 assassination attempts against him by that organization. On the Taliban, Pakistan has consistently faced Afghan criticism. Afghan leaders resent Pakistan as the most public defender of the Taliban movement when it was in power and they suspect it wants to have the option to restore a Taliban-like regime. (Pakistan was one of only three countries to formally recognize it as the legitimate government: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are the others.) Pakistan viewed the Taliban as providingPakistan strategic depth against rival India, and it remains wary that any Afghan government might fall under the influence of India,which Pakistan says is using its diplomatic facilities in Afghanistan to train and recruit anti-Pakistan insurgents, and is using its reconstruction funds to build influence there. Pakistan ended its public support for the Taliban after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Efforts by Afghanistan and Pakistan to build post-Taliban relations never

84

Kenneth Katzman

fully recovered from March 2006, when Afghan leaders stepped up accusations that Pakistan was allowing Taliban remnants, including Mullah Umar, to operating there. In a press interview on February 2, 2007, Musharraf tacitly acknowledged that some senior Taliban leaders might be able to operate from Pakistan but strongly denied that any Pakistani intelligence agencies were deliberately assisting the Taliban. Karzai visited Pakistan on December 27, 2007, to discuss the Taliban safehaven issue and other bilateral issues, and reports said his meeting with Musharraf was highly productive, resulting in re-dedication to joint action against militants. While in Pakistan, Karzai met with Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto just hours before she was assassinated on December 27. The latest phase of U.S. attempts to broker cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan began on September 28, 2006, when President Bush hosted a joint dinner for Karzai and Musharraf. It resulted in the two leaders’ agreeing to gather tribal elders on both sides of their border in a series of “peace jirgas” to persuade them not to host Taliban militants. (The first of them, in which 700 Pakistani and Afghan tribal elders participated, was held in Kabul August 9-10, 2007.[31] Another is planned, but no date has been announced.) In January 2007, Karzai strongly criticized a Pakistani plan to mine and fence their common border in an effort to prevent infiltration of militants to Afghanistan. Karzai said the move would separate tribes and families that straddle the border. Pakistan subsequently dropped the idea of mining the border, but is building some fencing. A U.S. shift toward the Afghan position on Pakistan increased following a New York Times report of February 19, 2007, that Al Qaeda leaders, possibly including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, had re-established some small Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Pakistan, near the Afghan border. The regrouping of militants is said to be an outgrowth of a September 5, 2006, agreement between Pakistan and tribal elders in this region to exchange an end to Pakistani military incursions into the tribal areas for a promise by the tribal elders to expel militants from the border area. In July 2007, U.S. counterterrorism officials publicly deemed the agreement a failure. Despite the widespread assessment that the deals had failed, in April 2008, the new government, dominated by Musharraf’s opponents who prevailed in February 2008 parliamentary elections, began negotiating a similar “understanding” with members of the Mehsud tribe, among which is militant leader Baitullah Mehsud, believed responsible for harboring Afghan Taliban and for growing militant acts inside Pakistan itself, possibly including the Bhutto killing. Outgoing Gen. McNeill blamed the negotiations for an increase in militant infiltration across the border that has undermined some of the progress in pacifying the Regional Command East sector. In addition, Pakistan has stopped attending meetings of the “coordinating commission” under which NATO, Afghan, and Pakistani forces meet regularly on both sides of the border. In April 2008, in an extension of the commission’s work, the three set up six “border coordination centers” to share intelligence on cross-border movement of militants, building on an agreement in May 2007 to share intelligence on extremists’ movements.

Increased Direct U.S. Action Since September 2007, press reports have said that U.S. military planners are proposing increasing U.S. direct action against militants in Pakistan, partly in partnership with Pakistani border and other forces.[32] Responding to the reports, Musharraf — as well as his newly ascendant political opponents in Pakistan — publicly oppose unilateral U.S. action and any presence of U.S. combat forces in Pakistan. In late January 2008, Secretary of Defense Gates

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

85

said that Pakistan had not yet asked for such U.S. help and that any U.S. troops potentially deployed to Pakistan would most likely be assigned solely to train Pakistani border forces, such as the Frontier Corps. However, press reports also say that visits to Pakistan by top U.S. intelligence officials in January 2008 resulted in agreement for more U.S. Predator unmanned aerial vehicle flights over the border regions; the Abu Laith al-Libi strike discussed earlier is believed a product of that enhanced U.S. activity over Pakistan. In addition, U.S. forces in Afghanistan have acknowledged on a few occasion since early 2007 that they have shelled purported Taliban positions inside the Pakistani side of the border, and have done some “hot pursuit” a few kilometers over the border into Pakistan. U.S. commanders said in June 2008 that NATO and U.S. forces had beefed up their numbers on the border to deal with the spike in attacks caused by Pakistan’s relaxation of efforts to prevent militant infiltration. Suggesting that it can act against the Taliban when it intends to, on August 15, 2006, Pakistan announced the arrest of 29 Taliban fighters in a hospital in the Pakistani city of Quetta. On March 1, 2007, Pakistani officials confirmed they had arrested in Quetta Mullah Ubaydallah Akhund, a top aide to Mullah Umar and who had served as defense minister in the Taliban regime. He was later reported released. Pakistan wants the government of Afghanistan to pledge to abide by the “Durand Line,” a border agreement reached between Britain (signed by Sir Henry Mortimer Durand) and then Afghan leader Amir Abdul Rahman Khan in 1893, separating Afghanistan from what was then British-controlled India (later Pakistan after the 1947 partition). It is recognized by the United Nations, but Afghanistan continues to indicate that the border was drawn unfairly to separate Pashtun tribes and should be re-negotiated. As of October 2002, about 1.75 million Afghan refugees have returned from Pakistan since the Taliban fell, but as many as 3 million might still remain in Pakistan, and Pakistan says it plans to expel them back into Afghanistan in the near future.

Iran Iranperceives its keynational interests in Afghanistan as exerting its traditional influence over western Afghanistan, which Iran borders and was once part of the Persian empire, and to protect Afghanistan’s Shiite minority. Iran’s assistance to Afghanistan has totaled about $205 million since the fall of the Taliban, mainly to build roads and schools and provide electricity and shops to Afghan cities and villages near the Iranian border. After the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, President Bush warned Iran against meddling in Afghanistan. Partly in response to the U.S. criticism, in February 2002 Iran expelled Karzai-opponent Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, but it did not arrest him. Iran did not oppose Karzai’s firing of Iran ally Ismail Khan as Herat governor in September 2004, although Iran has opposed the subsequent U.S. use of the Shindand air base.[33] Iran is said to be helping Afghan law enforcement with anti-narcotics along their border. Karzai, who has visited Iran on several occasions says that Iran is an important neighbor of Afghanistan. During his visit to Washington, DC, in August 2007, some differences between Afghanistan and the United States became apparent; Karzai publicly called Iran part of a “solution” for Afghanistan, while President Bush called Iran a “de-stabilizing force” there. Still, Karzai received Ahmadinejad in Kabul in mid-August 2007.

86

Kenneth Katzman

The U.S.-Afghan differences over Iran’s role represent a departure fromthe past five years, when Iran’s influence with political leaders in Afghanistan appeared to wane, and U.S. criticism of Iran’s role in Afghanistan was muted. The State Department report on international terrorism, released April 30, 2008, said Iran continued during 2007 to ship arms to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, including mortars, 107mm rockets, and possibly manportable air defense systems (MANPADS). On April 17, 2007, U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan captured a shipment of Iranian weapons that purportedly was bound for Taliban fighters. On June 6, 2007, NATO officers said they caught Iran “red-handed” shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives, and advanced roadside bombs (“explosively-forcedprojectiles, EFPs, such as those found in Iraq) to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Another such shipment was intercepted in western Afghanistan on September 6, 2007. Gen. McNeill said the convoy was sent with the knowledge of “at least the Iranian military.” Because such shipments would appear to conflict with Iran’s support for Karzai and for non-Pashtun factions in Afghanistan, U.S. military officers did not attribute the shipments to a deliberate Iranian government decision to arm the Taliban. However, some U.S. officials say the shipments are large enough that the Iranian government would have to have known about them. In attempting to explain the shipments, some experts believe Iran’s policy might beshiftingsomewhatto gain leverage against the United States in Afghanistan (and on other issues) by causing U.S. combat deaths. There is little dispute that Iran’s relations with Afghanistan are much improved from the time of the Taliban, which Iran saw as a threat to its interests in Afghanistan, especially after Taliban forces captured Herat (the western province that borders Iran) in September 1995. Iran subsequently drew even closer to the Northern Alliance than previously, providing its groups with fuel, funds, and ammunition.[34] In September 1998, Iranian and Taliban forces nearly came into direct conflict when Iran discovered that nine of its diplomats were killed in the course of the Taliban’s offensive in northern Afghanistan. Iran massed forces at the border and threatened military action, but the crisis cooled without a major clash, possibly out of fear that Pakistan would intervene on behalf of the Taliban. Iran offered search and rescue assistance in Afghanistan during the U.S.-led war to topple the Taliban, and it also allowed U.S. humanitarian aid to the Afghan people to transit Iran. About 300,000 Afghan refugees have returned from Iran since the Taliban fell, but about 1.2 million remain, mostly integrated into Iranian society, and a crisis erupted in May 2007 when Iran expelled about 50,000 into Afghanistan.

India The interests and activities of India in Afghanistan are almost the exact reverse of those of Pakistan. India’s goal is to deny Pakistan “strategic depth” in Afghanistan, and India supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban in the mid-1990s. A possible reflection of these ties is that Tajikistan allows India to use one of its air bases; Tajikistan supports the mostly Tajik Northern Alliance. India saw the Taliban’s hosting of Al Qaeda as a major threat to India itself because of Al Qaeda’s association with radical Islamic organizations in Pakistan dedicated to ending Indian control of parts of Jammu and Kashmir. Some of these groups have committed major acts of terrorism in India. For its part, Pakistan accuses India of using its nine consulates in Afghanistan to spread Indian influence.

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

87

India is becoming a major investor in and donor to Afghanistan. It is co-financing, along with the Asian Development Bank, several power projects in northern Afghanistan. In January 2005, India promised to help Afghanistan’s struggling Ariana national airline and it has begun India Air flights between Delhi and Kabul. It has also renovated the well known Habibia High School in Kabul and committed to a $25 million renovation of Darulaman Palace as the permanent house for Afghanistan’s parliament. Numerous other India-financed reconstruction projects are under way throughout Afghanistan. India, along with the Asian Development Bank, is financing the $300 million project, mentioned above, to bring electricity from Central Asia to Afghanistan. Pakistan is likely to take particular exception to the reported training by India of the ANA, discussed above.

Russia, Central Asian States, and China Some neighboring and nearby states take an active interest not only in Afghan stability, but in the U.S. military posture that supports OEF.

Russia Russia provides some humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, although it keeps a low profile in Afghanistan because it still feels humiliated by its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and senses Afghan resentment of the Soviet occupation. In an effort to try to cooperate more with NATO at least in Afghanistan, in conjunction with the April 2008 NATO summit, Russia agreed to allow NATO to ship non-lethal supplies to coalition forces in Afghanistan by land over Russian territory. During the 1990s, Russia supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban with some military equipment and technical assistance in order to blunt Islamic militancy emanating from Afghanistan.[35] Although Russia supported the U.S. effort against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan out of fear of Islamic (mainly Chechen) radicals, Russia continues to seek to reduce the U.S. military presence in Central Asia. Russian fears of Islamic activism emanating from Afghanistan may have ebbed since 2002 when Russia killed a Chechen of Arab origin known as “Hattab” (full name is Ibn al-Khattab), who led a militant pro-Al Qaeda Chechen faction. The Taliban government was the only one in the world to recognize Chechnya’s independence, and some Chechen fighters fighting alongsideTaliban/Al Qaeda forces have been captured or killed. Central Asian States During Taliban rule, Russian and Central Asian leaders grew increasingly alarmed that radical Islamic movements were receiving safe haven in Afghanistan. Uzbekistan, in particular, has long asserted that the group Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), allegedly responsible for four simultaneous February 1999 bombings in Tashkent that nearly killed President Islam Karimov, is linked to Al Qaeda.[36] One of its leaders, Juma Namangani, reportedly was killed while commanding Taliban/Al Qaeda forces in Konduz in November 2001. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan do not directly border Afghanistan, but IMU guerrillas transited Kyrgyzstan during incursions into Uzbekistan in the late 1990s. During Taliban rule, Uzbekistan supported Uzbek leader Abdul Rashid Dostam, who was part of that Alliance. It allowed use of Karshi-Khanabad air base by OEF forces from October

88

Kenneth Katzman

2001 until a rift emerged in May 2005 over Uzbekistan’s crackdown against riots in Andijon, and U.S.-Uzbek relations remained largely frozen. Uzbekistan’s March 2008 agreement with Germany for it to use Karshi-Khanabad air base temporarily, for the first time since the rift in U.S.-Uzbekrelations developed in 2005, suggests that U.S.-Uzbek cooperation on Afghanistan and other issues might be rebuilt. As a follow-up to this, Uzbekistan at the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, proposed to revive the “6 + 2” process of neighbors of Afghanistan to help its stability, but Karzai reportedly opposes this idea as unwanted Central Asian interference in its affairs. In 1996, several of the Central Asian states banded together with Russia and China into a regional grouping called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to discuss the Taliban threat. It includes China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Reflecting Russian and Chinese efforts to limit U.S. influence in the region, the group has issued statements, most recently in August 2007, that security should be handled by the countries in the Central Asia region. Despite the Shanghai Cooperation Organization statements, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan are all, for now, holding to their pledges of facility support to OEF. (Tajikistan allows access primarily to French combat aircraft, and Kazakhstan allows use of facilities in case of emergency.) Of the Central Asian states that border Afghanistan, only Turkmenistan chose to seek close relations with the Taliban leadership when it was in power, possibly viewing engagement as a more effective means of preventing spillover of radical Islamic activity from Afghanistan. It saw Taliban control as facilitating construction of a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan (see above). The September 11 events stoked Turkmenistan’s fears of the Taliban and its Al Qaeda guests and the country publicly supported the U.S.-led war. No U.S. forces have been based in Turkmenistan.

China A major organizer of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, China has a small border with a sliver of Afghanistan known as the “Wakhan corridor” (see map). China had become increasingly concerned about the potential for Al Qaeda to promote Islamic fundamentalism among Muslims (Uighurs) in northwestern China. A number of Uighurs fought in Taliban and Al Qaeda ranks in the U.S.-led war, according to U.S. military officials. In December 2000, sensing China’s increasing concern about Taliban policies, a Chinese official delegation met with Mullah Umar. China did not enthusiastically support U.S. military action against the Taliban, possibly because China was wary of a U.S. military buildup nearby. In addition, China has been allied to Pakistan in part to pressure India, a rival of China. Still, Chinese delegations are visiting Afghanistan to assess the potential for investments in such sectors as mining and energy,[37] and a deal was signed in November 2007 as discussed above (China Metallurgical Group).

Saudi Arabia During the Soviet occupation, Saudi Arabia channeled hundreds of millions of dollars to the Afghan resistance, primarily the Hikmatyar and Sayyaf factions. Saudi Arabia, a majority of whose citizens practice the strict Wahhabi brand of Islam also practiced by the Taliban, was one of three countries to formally recognize the Taliban government. The Taliban initially served Saudi Arabia as a potential counter to Iran, but Iranian-Saudi relations

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

89

improved after 1997 and balancing Iranian power ebbed as a factor in Saudi policy toward Afghanistan. Drawing on its reputed intelligence ties to Afghanistan during that era, Saudi Arabia worked with Taliban leaders to persuade them to suppress anti-Saudi activities by Al Qaeda. Some press reports indicate that, in late 1998, Saudi and Taliban leaders discussed, but did not agree on, a plan for a panel of Saudi and Afghan Islamic scholars to decide bin Laden’s fate. According to U.S. officials, Saudi Arabia cooperated extensively, if not publicly, with OEF. It broke diplomatic relations with the Taliban in late September 2001 and quietly permitted the United States to use a Saudi base for command of U.S. air operations over Afghanistan, but it did not permit U.S. airstrikes from it

U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL AID TO AFGHANISTAN AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Many experts believe that financial assistance and accelerating reconstruction would do more to improve the security situation than intensified anti-Taliban combat. Afghanistan’s economy and society are still fragile after decades of warfare that left about 2 million dead, 700,000 widows and orphans, and about 1 million Afghan children who were born and raised in refugee camps outside Afghanistan. More than 3.5 million Afghan refugees have since returned, although a comparable number remain outside Afghanistan. The U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) supervises Afghan repatriation and Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan. Still heavily dependent on donors, Karzai has sought to reassure the international donor community by establishing a transparent budget and planning process. Some in Congress want to increase independent oversight of U.S. aid to Afghanistan; the conference report on the FY2008 defense authorization bill (P.L. 110-181) established a “special inspector general” for Afghanistan reconstruction, (SIGAR) modeled on a similar outside auditor for Iraq (“Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction,” SIGIR). The law also authorized $20 million for that purpose, although funds have not yet been provided in DOD appropriations. On May 30, 2008, Maj. Gen. Arnold Fields (Marine, ret.) was named to the position. U.S. and Afghan officials see the growth in narcotics trafficking as a product of an Afghan economy ravaged by war and lack of investment. Efforts to build the legitimate economy are showing some results, by accounts of senior U.S. officials, including expansion of roads and education and health facilities constructed. USAID spending to promote economic growth is shown in Table 14, and U.S. and international assistance to Afghanistan are discussed in the last sections of this chapter. Some international investors areimplementingprojects, and there is substantial new construction, such as the Serena luxury hotel that opened in November 2005 (long considered a priority Taliban target and was attacked by militants on January 14, 2008, killing six) and a $25 million new Coca Cola bottling factory that opened in Kabul on September 11, 2006. Several Afghan companies are growing as well, including Roshan and Afghan Wireless (cell phone service), and Tolo Television. A Gold’s Gym has opened in Kabul as well. The 52year-old national airline, Ariana, is said to be in significant financial trouble due to corruption

90

Kenneth Katzman

that has affected its safety ratings and left it unable to service a heavy debt load, but there are new privately run airlines, such as Pamir Air, Safi Air, and Kam Air. Some Afghan leaders complain that not enough has been done to revive such potentially lucrative industries as minerals mining, such as of copper and lapis lazuli (a stone used in jewelry). However, in November 2007, the Afghan government signed a deal with China Metallurgical Group for the company to invest $2.8 billion to develop Afghanistan’s Aynak copper field in Lowgar Province; the agreement will include construction of a coal-fired electric power plant and a freight railway. The United States is trying to build on Afghanistan’s post-war economic rebound. In September 2004, the United States and Afghanistan signed a bilateral trade and investment framework agreement (TIFA). These agreements are generally seen as a prelude to a broader but more complex bilateral free trade agreement, but negotiations on an FTA have not begun to date. On December 13, 2004, the 148 countries of the World Trade Organization voted to start membership talks with Afghanistan. Another initiative supported by the United States is the establishment of joint Afghan-Pakistani “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” (ROZ’s) which would be modeled after “Qualified Industrial Zones” run by Israel and Jordan in which goods produced in the zones receive duty free treatment for import into the United States. For FY2008, $5 million in supplemental funding is requested to support the zones. A Senate bill, S. 2776, would authorize the President to proclaim duty-free treatment for imports from ROZ’s to be designated by the President. Afghanistan’s prospects also appeared to brighten by the announcement in March 2006 of an estimated 3.6 billion barrels of oil and 36.5 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves. Experts believe these amounts, if proved, could make Afghanistan relatively self-sufficient in energy and possibly able to provided some exports to its neighbors. Afghan officials are said to be optimistic for increased trade with Central Asia now that a new bridge has opened (October 2007) over the Panj River, connecting Afghanistan and Tajikistan. The bridge was built with U.S. assistance. The bridge will further assist what press reports say is robust reconstruction and economic development in the relatively peaceful and ethnically homogenous province of Panjshir, the political base of the Northern Alliance. Another major energy project remains under consideration. During 1996-1998, the Clinton Administration supported proposed natural gas and oil pipelines through western Afghanistan as an incentive for the warring factions to cooperate. A consortium led by Los Angeles-based Unocal Corporation proposed a $2.5 billion Central Asia Gas Pipeline (CentGas), which is now estimated to cost $3.7 billion to construct, that would originate in southern Turkmenistan and pass through Afghanistan to Pakistan, with possible extensions into India.[38] The deterioration in U.S.-Taliban relations after 1998 largely ended hopes for the pipeline projects while the Taliban was in power. Prospects for the project have improved in the post-Taliban period. In a summit meeting in late May 2002 between the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the three countries agreed to revive the gas pipeline project. Sponsors of the project held an inaugural meeting on July 9, 2002 in Turkmenistan, signing a series of preliminary agreements. Turkmenistan’s new leadership (President Gurbanguly Berdimukhamedov, succeeding the late Saparmurad Niyazov) favors the project as well. Some U.S. officials view this project as a superior alternative to a proposed gas pipeline from Iran to India, transiting Pakistan. Some of the more stable provinces, such as Bamiyan, are complaining that international aid is flowing mostly to the restive provinces in an effort to quiet them, and ignoring the

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

91

needs of poor Afghans in peaceful areas. Later in this chapter are tables showing U.S. appropriations of assistance to Afghanistan, including some detail on funds earmarked for categories of civilian reconstruction, and Table 14 lists USAID spending on all of these sectors for FY2002-FY2007. •

•

•

•

•

Roads. Road building is considered a U.S. priority and has been USAID’s largest project category there, taking up about 25% of USAID spending since the fall of the Taliban. An FY2008 supplemental funding requests asks for $50 million more for roads, particularly to rehabilitate a road that would connect northern Afghanistan with Kabul, running through Bamiyan Province. Roads are considered key to enabling Afghan farmers to bring legitimate produce to market in a timely fashion and former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan Gen. Eikenberry said “where the roads end, the Taliban begin.” Among major projects completed: the KabulQandahar roadway project; the Qandahar-Herat roadway, funded by the United States, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, completed by 2006; a road from Qandahar to Tarin Kowt, built by U.S. military personnel, inaugurated in 2005; and a road linking the Panjshir Valley to Kabul. U.S. funds are also building roads connecting remote areas to regional district centers in several provinces in the eastern sector. Education. Despite the success in enrolling Afghan children in school since the Taliban era (see statistics above), setbacks have occurred because of Taliban attacks on schools, causing some to close. Health. The health care sector, as noted by Afghan observers, has made considerable gains in reducing infant mortality and improving Afghans’ access to health professionals. In addition to U.S. assistance to develop the health sector’s capacity, Egypt operates a 65-person field hospital at Bagram Air Base that instructs Afghan physicians. Jordan operates a similar facility in Mazar-e-Sharif. Agriculture. USAID has spent about 5% of its Afghanistan funds on agriculture, and this has helped Afghanistan double its agricultural output over the past five years. Afghan officials say agricultural assistance and development should be a top U.S. priority as part of a strategy of encouraging legitimate alternatives to poppy cultivation. (Another 10% of USAID funds is spent on “alternative livelihoods” to poppy growing, mostly in aid to farmers.) Electricity. About 10% of USAID spending in Afghanistan is on power projects. The Afghanistan Compact states that the goal is for electricity to reach 65% of households in urban areas and 25% in rural areas by 2010. There have been severe power shortages in Kabul, partly because the city population has swelled to nearly 4 million, up from half a million when the Taliban was in power, but power to the capital is more plentiful as of March 2008. An FY2008 supplemental request asks for $115 million more for this sector, particularly to ensure that a 100 Megawatt diesel generator becomes operational for Kabul. The Afghan government, with help from international donors, plans to import electricity from Central Asian and other neighbors beginning in 2009. Another major pending project is the Kajaki Dam, located in unstable Helmand Province. USAID has allocated about $500 million to refurbish the remaining two electricity-generating turbines (one is operating) of the dam (total project estimate, when completed) which, when functional, will provide electricity for 1.7 million Afghans and about 4,000 jobs in the reconstruction.

92

Kenneth Katzman However, progress depends on securing access to the dam; surrounding roads and areas are controlled by or accessible to Taliban insurgents.

National Solidarity Program The United States and the Afghan government are also trying to promote local decisionmaking on reconstruction. The “National Solidarity Program,” largely funded by U.S. and other international donors seeks to create and empower local governing councils to prioritize local reconstruction projects. The assistance, channeled through donors, provides block grants of about $60,000 per project to the councils to implement agreed projects, most of which are water projects. Elections to these local councils have been held in several provinces, and almost 40% of those elected have been women.[39] The U.S. aid to the program is part of the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) account. (Of the supplemental FY2008 ESF funds requested, $40 million is to launch the next phase of the National Solidarity Program, and $25 million is for the budgetary support portion of the ARTF account.)

U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan During the 1990s, the United States became the largest single provider of assistance to the Afghan people. During Taliban rule, no U.S. aid went directly to that government; monies were provided through relief organizations. Between 1985 and 1994, the United States had a cross-border aid program for Afghanistan, implemented by USAID personnel based in Pakistan. Citing the difficulty of administering this program, there was no USAID mission for Afghanistan from the end of FY1994 until the reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan in late 2001.

Post-Taliban U.S. Aid Totals Since FY2002 and including funds already appropriated for FY2008, the United States has provided over $23 billion in reconstruction assistance, including military “train and equip” for the ANA and ANP and counter-narcotics-related assistance. These amounts do not include costs for U.S. combat operations, which are discussed in CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco. The tables below depict the aid.[40] Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 and Amendments A key post-Taliban aid authorization bill, S. 2712, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act (AFSA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-327, December 4, 2002), as amended, authorized about $3.7 billion in U.S. civilian aid for FY2003-FY2006. For the most part, the humanitarian, counternarcotics, and governance assistance targets authorized bythe act were met or exceeded by appropriations. However, no Enterprise Funds have been appropriated, and ISAF expansion was funded by the contributing partner forces. The act authorized the following: •

$60 million in total counter-narcotics assistance ($15 million per year for FY2003FY2006);

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy • •

• • •

•

93

$30 million in assistance for political development, including national, regional, and local elections ($10 million per year for FY2003-FY2005); $80 million total to benefit women and for Afghan human rights oversight ($15 million per year for FY2003-FY2006 for the Afghan Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and $5 million per year for FY2003-FY2006 to the Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan); $1.7 billion in humanitarian and development aid ($425 million per year for FY2003FY2006); $300 million for an Enterprise Fund; $550 million in draw-downs of defense articles and services for Afghanistan and regional militaries. (The original law provided for $300 million in drawdowns. That was increased to $450 million by P.L. 108-106, an FY2004 supplemental appropriations); and $1 billion ($500 million per year for FY2003-FY2004) to expand ISAF if such an expansion takes place.

A subsequent law (P.L. 108-458, December 17, 2004), implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, contained a subtitle called “The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act Amendments of 2004.” The subtitle mandates the appointment of a U.S. coordinator of policy on Afghanistan and requires additional Administration reports to Congress, including (1) on long-term U.S. strategy and progress of reconstruction, an amendment to the report required in the original law; (2) on how U.S. assistance is being used; (3) on U.S. efforts to persuade other countries to participate in Afghan peacekeeping; and (4) a joint State and Defense Department report on U.S. counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan. The law also contains several “sense of Congress” provisions recommending more rapid DDR activities; expansion of ISAF; and counter-narcotics initiatives.

Afghan Freedom Support Act Re-Authorization In the 110th Congress, H.R. 2446, passed by the House on June 6, 2007 (406-10), would reauthorize AFSA through FY2010. Some observers say the Senate might take it up early in 2008. The following are the major provisions of the bill: • •

• •

A total of about $1.7 billion in U.S. economic aid and $320 in military aid (including draw-downs of equipment) per fiscal year would be authorized. a pilot program of crop substitution to encourage legitimate alternatives to poppy cultivation is authorized. Afghan officials support this provision as furthering their goal of combatting narcotics by promoting alternative livelihoods. enhanced anti-corruption and legal reform programs would be provided. a mandated cutoff of U.S. aid to any Afghan province in which the Administration reports that the leadership of the province is complicit in narcotics trafficking. This provision has drawn some criticism from observers who saythatthe most needy in Afghanistan might be deprived of aid based on allegations that are difficult to judge precisely.

94

Kenneth Katzman • • • • • • •

$45 million per year for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, and programs for women and girls is authorized. $75 million per year is authorized specifically for enhanced power generation, a key need in Afghanistan. a coordinator for U.S. assistance to Afghanistan is mandated. military drawdowns for the ANA and ANP valued at $300 million per year (unreimbursed) are authorized (versus the aggregate $550 million allowed currently). authorizes appointment of a special U.S. envoy to promote greater AfghanistanPakistan cooperation. reauthorizes “Radio Free Afghanistan.” establishes a U.S. policy to encourage Pakistan to permit shipments by India of equipment and material to Afghanistan.

FY2007 and FY2008 The tables below show funds appropriated thus far for FY2008, both regular and supplemental. When the supplemental request is factored in, the requests for both FY2007 and FY2008 appear to be somewhat higher than the amounts pledged in a December 2, 2005, U.S.-Afghan agreement under which the United States said it would provide Afghanistan with $5.5 billion in civilian economic aid over the next five years ($1.1 billion per year).[41] International Reconstruction Pledges/Aid/Lending Afghan leaders had said in 2002 that Afghanistan needs $27.5 billion for reconstruction for 2002-2010. Including U.S. pledges, about $30 billion has been pledged at donors conferences in 2002 (Tokyo), Berlin (April 2004), Kabul (April 2005), the London conference (February 2006), and since then. Of that, about half are non-U.S. contributions. However, not all non-U.S. amounts pledged have been received, although implementation appears to have improved over the past few years (amounts received had been running below half of what was pledged). The Afghanistan Compact also leaned toward the view of Afghan leaders that a higher proportion of the aid be channeled through the Afghan government rather than directly by the donor community. Only about $3.8 billion of funds disbursed have been channeled through the Afghan government, according to the Finance Minister in April 2007. The Afghan government is promising greater financial transparency and international (United Nations) oversight to ensure that international contributions are used wisely and effectively. Later in June 2008, when Afghanistan formally presents its Afghan National Development Strategy in Paris, it reportedly will ask for $50.1 billion during 2009-2014 from international donors. Of that, $14 billion will be requested to improve infrastructure, including airports and to construct a railway. Another $14 billion would be to build the ANSF, and about $4.5 billion would be for agriculture and rural development. Among multilateral lendinginstitutions, in May 2002, the World Bank reopened its office in Afghanistan after 20 years. On March 12, 2003, it announced a $108 million loan to Afghanistan, the first since 1979. In August 2003, the World Bank agreed to lend Afghanistan an additional $30 million to rehabilitate the telecommunications system, and $30 million for road and drainage rehabilitation in Kabul. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has also been playing a major role in Afghanistan, loaning (or granting) Afghanistan more than $450 million since December 2002. One of its projects in Afghanistan was funding the paving of a

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

95

road from Qandahar to the border with Pakistan, and as noted above, it is contributing to a project to bring electricity from Central Asia to Afghanistan.

RESIDUAL ISSUES FROM PAST CONFLICTS A few issues remain unresolved from Afghanistan’s many years of conflict, such as Stinger retrieval and mine eradication.

Stinger Retrieval Beginning in late 1985 following internal debate, the Reagan Administration provided about 2,000 man-portable “Stinger” anti-aircraft missiles to the mujahedin for use against Soviet aircraft. Prior to the U.S.-led war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, common estimates suggested that 200-300 Stingers remained at large, although more recent estimates put the number below 100.[42] The Stinger issue resurfaced in conjunction with 2001 U.S. war effort, when U.S. pilots reported that the Taliban fired some Stingers at U.S. aircraft during the war. No hits were reported. Any Stingers that survived the anti-Taliban war are likely controlled by Afghans now allied to the United States and presumably pose less of a threat. However, there are concerns that remaining Stingers could be sold to terrorists for use against civilian aircraft. In February 2002, the Afghan government found and returned to the United States “dozens” of Stingers.[43] In late January 2005, Afghan intelligence began a push to buy remaining Stingers back, at a reported cost of $150,000 each.[44] In 1992, after the fall of the Russian-backed government of Najibullah, the United States reportedly spent about $10 million to buy the Stingers back, at a premium, from individual mujahedin commanders. The New York Times reported on July 24, 1993, that the buy back effort failed because the United States was competing with other buyers, including Iran and North Korea, and that the CIA would spend about $55 million in FY1994 in a renewed Stinger buy-back effort. On March 7, 1994, the Washington Post reported that the CIA had recovered only a fraction (maybe 50 or 100) of the at-large Stingers. The danger of these weapons has become apparent on several occasions. Iran bought 16 of the missiles in 1987 and fired one against U.S. helicopters; some reportedly were transferred to Lebanese Hizballah. India claimed that it was a Stinger, supplied to Islamic rebels in Kashmir probably by sympathizers in Afghanistan, that shot down an Indian helicopter over Kashmir in May 1999.[45] It was a Soviet-made SA-7 “Strella” man-portable launchers that were fired, allegedly by Al Qaeda, against a U.S. military aircraft in Saudi Arabia in June 2002 and against an Israeli passenger aircraft in Kenya on November 30, 2002. Both missed their targets. SA-7s were discovered in Afghanistan by U.S. forces in December 2002.

96

Kenneth Katzman Table 5. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY1978-FY1998 ($ in millions) Fiscal Year

Devel. Assist.

Econ. Supp. (ESF)

P.L. 480 (Title I and II)

Military

Other (Incl. Regional Refugee Aid)

Total

1978

4.989

—

5.742

0.269

0.789

11.789

1979

3.074

—

7.195

—

0.347

10.616

1980

—

(Soviet invasion - December 1979)

—

—

1981

—

—

—

—

—

—

1982

—

—

—

—

—

—

1983

—

—

—

—

—

—

1984

—

—

—

—

—

—

1985

3.369

—

—

—

—

3.369

1986

—

—

8.9

—

—

8.9

1987

17.8

12.1

2.6

—

—

32.5

1988

22.5

22.5

29.9

—

—

74.9

1989

22.5

22.5

32.6

—

—

77.6

1990

35.0

35.0

18.1

—

—

88.1

1991

30.0

30.0

20.1

—

—

80.1

1992

25.0

25.0

31.4

—

—

81.4

1993

10.0

10.0

18.0

—

30.2

68.2

1994

3.4

2.0

9.0

—

27.9

42.3

1995

1.8

—

12.4

—

31.6

45.8

1996

—

—

16.1

—

26.4

42.5

1997

—

—

18.0

—

31.9a

49.9

—

3.6

—

49.14b

52.74

1998

—

Source: Department of State. a. Includes $3 million for demining and $1.2 million for counternarcotics. b . Includes $3.3 million in projects targeted for Afghan women and girls, $7 million in earthquake relief aid, 100,000 tons of 416Bwheat worth about $15 million, $2 million for demining, and $1.54 for counternarcotics.

Mine Eradication Land mines laid during the Soviet occupation constitute one of the principal dangers to the Afghan people. The United Nations estimates that 5 -7 million mines remain scattered throughout the country, although some estimates are lower. U.N. teams have destroyed one million mines and are now focusing on de-mining priority-use, residential and commercial property, including lands around Kabul. As shown in the U.S. aid table for FY1999-FY2002 (Table 6), the U.S. de-mining program was providing about $3 million per year for Afghanistan, and the amount increased to about $7 million in the post-Taliban period. Most of the funds have gone to HALO Trust, a British organization, and the U.N. Mine Action Program for Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Compact adopted in London in February 2006

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

97

states that by 2010, the goal should be to reduce the land area of Afghanistan contaminated by mines by 70%. Table 6. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY1999-FY2002 ($ in millions)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (DOA) and USAID Food For Peace (FFP), via World Food Program(WFP) State/Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) via UNHCR and ICRC

State Department/ Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)

State Department/HDP (Humanitarian Demining Program) Aid to Afghan Refugees in Pakistan (through various NGOs)

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

42.0 worth of wheat (100,000 metric tons under “416(b)” program.) 16.95 for Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and to assist their repatriation 7.0 to various NGOs to aid Afghans inside Afghanistan

68.875 for 165,000 metric tons. (60,000 tons for May 2000 drought relief) 14.03 for the same purposes

131.0 (300,000 metric tons under P.L.480, Title II, and 416(b)) 22.03 for similar purposes

136.54 (to U.N. agencies)

6.68 for drought relief and health, water, and sanitation programs 3.0

18.934 for similar programs

113.36 (to various U.N. agencies and NGOs)

2.8

7.0 to Halo Trust/other demining

6.169, of which $3.82 went to similar purposes

5.31 for similar purposes

2.615

5.44 (2.789 for health, training -Afghan females in Pakistan)

FY2002 (Final) 198.12 (for food commodities)

Counter-Narcotics

1.50

63.0

USAID/ Office of Transition Initiatives

0.45 (Afghan women in Pakistan)

24.35 for broadcasting/ media 50.9 ( 2.4 million rations) 57.0 (for Afghan national army) 36.4

Dept. of Defense

Foreign Military Financing Anti-Terrorism Economic Support Funds (E.S.F) Peacekeeping Totals

105.2 24.0 76.6

113.2

182.6

815.9

98

Kenneth Katzman Table 7. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY2003 ($ in millions, same acronyms as Table 6) FY2003 Foreign Aid Appropriations (P.L. 108-7) Development/Health P.L. 480 Title II (Food Aid) Peacekeeping Disaster Relief ESF Non-Proliferation, De-mining, Anti-Terrorism (NADR) Refugee Relief Afghan National Army (ANA) train and equip (FMF) Total from this law: FY2003 Supplemental (P.L. 108-11) Road Construction (ESF, Kabul-Qandahar road) Provincial Reconstruction Teams (ESF) Afghan government support (ESF) ANA train and equip (FMF) Anti-terrorism/de-mining (NADR, some for Karzai protection) Total from this law: Total for FY2003

90 47 10 94 50 5 55 21 372 100 10 57 170 28 365 737

Table 8. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY2004 ($ in millions, same acronyms as previous tables) FY2004 Supplemental (P.L. 108-106) Disarmament and Demobilization (DDR program) (ESF) Afghan government (ESF) $10 million for customs collection Elections/democracy and governance (ESF) Roads (ESF) Schools/Education (ESF) Health Services/Clinics (ESF) Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) Private Sector/Power sector rehabilitation Water Projects Counter-narcotics/police training/judiciary training (INCLE) Defense Dept. counter-narcotics support operations Afghan National Army (FMF) Anti-Terrorism/Afghan Leadership Protection (NADR) U.S. Embassy expansion and security/AID operations Total from this law: (of which $60 million is to benefit Afghan women and girls) FY2004 Regular Appropriations (P.L. 108-199) Development/Health Disaster Relief FY2004 Supplemental (P.L. 108-106) Refugee Relief Afghan women (ESF) Judicial reform commission (ESF) Reforestation (ESF) Aid to communities and victims of U.S. military operations (ESF) Other reconstruction (ESF). (Total FY2004 funds spent by USAID for PRTrelated reconstruction = $56.4 million) ANA train and equip (FMF) Total from this law: Other: P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid Total for FY2004

30 70 69 181 95 49 58 95 23 170 73 287 35 92 1,327 171 35 72 5 2 2 2 64 50 403 .085 1,727

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

99

Table 9. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY2005 ($ millions) FY2005 Regular Appropriations (P.L. 108-447) Assistance to Afghan governing institutions (ESF) Train and Equip ANA (FMF) Assistance to benefit women and girls Agriculture, private sector investment, environment, primary education, reproductive health, and democracy-building Reforestation Child and maternal health Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission Total from this law Second FY2005 Supplemental (P.L. 109-13) Other ESF: Health programs, PRT programs, agriculture, alternative livelihoods, government capacity building, training for parliamentarians, rule of law programs (ESF). (Total FY2005 funds spent by USAID for PRT-led reconstruction = $87.89 million.) Aid to displaced persons (ESF) Families of civilian victims of U.S. combat ops (ESF) Women-led NGOs (ESF) DOD funds to train and equip Afghan security forces. Of the funds, $34 million may go to Afghan security elements for that purpose. Also, $290 million of the funds is to reimburse the U.S. Army for funds already obligated for this purpose. DOD counter-narcotics support operations Counter-narcotics (INCLE) Training of Afghan police (INCLE) Karzi protection (NADR funds) DEA operations in Afghanistan Operations of U.S. Embassy Kabul Total from this law Other: P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid Total

225 400 50 300 2 6 2 985

1,073.5 5 2.5 5 1,285 242 220 400 17.1 7.7 60 3,317 56.95 4,359

Table 10. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY2006 FY2006 Regular Foreign Aid Appropriations (P.L. 109-102) ESF (ESF over $225 million subject to certification 430 (Mostly for reconstruction, governance, and that Afghanistan is cooperating with U.S. counterdemocracy-building; Includes $20 million for PRTs) narcotics) Peacekeeping (ANA salaries) 18 Counter-narcotics (INCLE) 235 (Includes $60 million to train ANP) Karzai protection (NADR funds)

18

Child Survival and Health (CSH) Reforestation Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission Aid to civilian victims of U.S. combat operations

43 3 2 2

Programs to benefit women and girls

50

Development Assistance

130.4

Total from this law:

931.4

FY2006 Supplemental Appropriation (P.

L. 109-234)

Security Forces Fund

1,908

100

Kenneth Katzman Table 10. (Continued).

FY2006 Regular Foreign Aid Appropriations (P.L. 109-102) ESF 43 (Includes $11 million for debt relief costs, $5 million for agriculture development, and $27 million for Northeast Transmission electricity project) Embassy operations 50.1 DOD Counter-narcotics operations 103 Migration and Refugee aid 3.4 DEA counter-narcotics operations 9.2 Total from this law 2,116.7 Other: P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid 60 Total for FY2006 3,108.1

Table 11. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY2007 Regular Appropriation (In accordance with Continuing Appropriation P.L. 110-5) ESF 479 (USAID plans $42 million for PRTs) Counter-narc (INCLE) 209.7 Child Survival and Health (CSH) 100.77 Development Assistance (DA) 166.8 IMET 1.138 NADR 21.65 Total This Law 979 DOD Appropriati on (P.L. 109-289) Security Forces train and equip 1,500 DOD Counter-narcotics support 100 Total Appropriated for FY2007 to 2,539.77 date FY2007 Suppleme ntal (H.R. 2206/P.L. 110-28) $653 million request/$737 in final law (of which in law: 174 for PRTs; 314 for roads; 40 for power; 155 for rural ESF development; 19 for agriculture (latter two are alternative livelihoods to poppy cultivation); 25 for governance; and 10 for the “civilian assistance program” 30 million also provides $16 million in Migration and Refugee P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid aid for displaced persons near Kabul, and $16 million International Disaster and Famine Assistance U.S. Embassy security 47.2 million requested/79 in final version 5.900 billion requested/5.9064 in final version (includes 3.2 billion for equipment and transportation; 624 million for ANP Security Forces train and equip training; 415 for ANA training; 106 for commanders emergency response, CERP; plus other funds ) no request/47 million in agreement; plus 60 million in DOD INCLE aid to counter-narcotics forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, plus 12 million DEA FY2007 supp. 6.870 billion in final version FY2007 Total 10.388 billion (all programs)

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

101

Table 12. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY2008 Request/Action Regular FY2008 Appropriation (H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161) ESF $543 million total. Of this: $126 million for emergency request (see below); $75 million to benefit women and girls; $20 million for agriculture. $300 million limit subject to counternarcotics cooperation certification. Regular ESF request was for $693 million INCLE 274.8 m., forbids use for aerial spraying IMET 1.7 m. Child Survival and Health (CSH) $65.9 m. (incl. $5.9 million for child and maternal clinics) NADR (Karzai protection) 21.65 Radio Free Afghanistan 3.98 Afghan Security Forces Funding 1,350 (For emergency request below) Total appropriated in P.L. 110161 2,261 Revised FY2008 Supplemental R equest (Global War on Terrorism) ESF 834 m. request (additional 495 beyond 339 original supplemental request) (Of the additional $495, $325 is for provincial governance, National Solidarity program, election support; $170 is for economic growth, including $115 for power. Another $50 for roads, and another $5 is for Reconstruction Opportunity Zones) USAID operations 16 Security Forces equip and train 2,700 ($1.71 billion for ANA/$980 million for ANP) U.S. Embassy security 162.4 U.S. Embassy construction, maintenance 160 NADR 5 Total FY2008 appropriated to date 2.26 b. (Of which $126 million in ESF and $1.35 billion in Security Forces appropriated above) Total FY2008 (if remaining requested 4.323 b. FY2008 supp. funds are appropriated)

Table 13. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY2009 Regular Request ESF Child Survival and Health International Counter-Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INCLE) International Military Education and Training (IMET) Other non-military accounts Afghan National Security Forces Funding (DOD funds) Total Regular Request Supplemental Request ESF INCLE Total Supplemental Request

707 (includes 120 for alternative livelihoods, 248 for democracy and governance, 226 for econ. growth, 74 for PRT programs) 52 (Plus 57 more of ESF for health and education) 250 1.4 44 (incl. 12 m. in non-emergency food aid) 2,000 $3.054 billion 749.9 175 924.9

102

Kenneth Katzman Table 14. USAID Obligations FY2002-FY2007

Sector

FY 2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

Agriculture Alternative Livelihoods Roads Power Water Econ. Growth Education Health Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund Support to Afghan Gov’t Democracy Rule of Law PRT Programs Program Suppt Internally Displaced Persons Food Aid Civilian Assistance Totals

27 3

56 1

50 5

77 185

51 3 2 21 19 8 38

142

354 77 27 84 104 83 67

1 12 21 56 40

3 22 4 5 108

34 8 11 6 23

FY2002FY2007

27 121

FY2 007 (reg. + supp) 61 246

276 286 21 91 86 111 87

250 66 1 46 51 52 45

418 136 1 68 62 72 41

1491 568 52 321 343 381 317

36

31

15

5

90

132 21 56 17 10

88 15 85 16

17 6 20 4

81 13 210 14

374 67 382 63 141

298 561

159

471

51

462

49

1171

57

1510

60

779

-

376

10

10

1436

5830

(As of June 3, 2008, press reports [http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf _placemat.pdf]) (RC=Regional Command).

Table 15. NATO/ISAF Contributing Nations NATO Countries Belgium Bulgaria Canada Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxemburg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia

375 420 2500 370 690 120 1670 3370 150 205 10 2350 75 200 9 1770 580 1140 165 570 70

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy NATO Countries Slovenia Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States Non-NATO Partner Nations Albania Austria Australia Azerbaijan Croatia Finland Ireland Jordan Macedonia New Zealand Singapore Sweden Ukraine Total ISAF force (approx.) 53,000

70 800 760 8530 23250 140 2 1100 45 210 65 7 265 140 160 2 250 3

Table 16. Provincial Reconstruction Teams Location (City) Gardez Ghazni Bagram A.B. Jalalabad Khost Qalat Asadabad Sharana Mehtarlam Jabal o-Saraj Qala Gush Farah PRT Location Qandahar Lashkar Gah Tarin Kowt Herat Qalah-ye Now Mazar-e-Sharif Konduz Faizabad Meymaneh Chaghcharan Pol-e-Khomri Bamiyan Maidan Shahr Pul-i-Alam

Province/Command U.S.-Lead (all under ISAF banner) Paktia Province (RC-East, E) Ghazni (RC-E). with Poland. Parwan (RC-C, Central) Nangarhar (RC-E) Khost (RC-E) Zabol (RC-South, S). with Romania. Kunar (RC-E) Paktika (RC-E). with Poland. Laghman (RC-E) Panjshir Province (RC-E), State Department lead Nuristan (RC-E) Farah (RC-W) Partner Lead (all under ISAF banner) Province Lead Force/Other forces Qandahar (RC-S) Canada Helmand (RC-S) Britain. with Denmark and Estonia Netherlands. with Australia and 40 Singaporean Uruzgan (RC-S) military medics and others Herat (RC-W) Italy Badghis (RC-W) Spain Balkh (RC-N) Sweden Konduz (RC-N) Germany Badakhshan (RC-N) Germany. with Denmark, Czech Rep. Faryab (RC-N) Norway. with Sweden. Ghowr (RC-W) Lithuania. with Denmark, U.S., Iceland Baghlan (RC-N) Hungary Bamiyan (RC-E) New Zealand (not NATO/ISAF). 10 Singaporean engineers Wardak (RC-C) Turkey Lowgar (RC-E) Czech Republic

103

104

Kenneth Katzman Table 17. Major Factions/Leaders in Afghanistan

Party/ Leader Taliban

Islamic Society (leader of “Northern Alliance”)

National Islamic Movement of Afghanistan

Hizb-eWahdat

Pashtun Leaders

Leader Mullah (Islamic cleric) Muhammad Umar (still at large possibly in Afghanistan)/Jalaludin and Siraj Haqqani. Burhannudin Rabbani/ Yunus Qanooni (speaker of lower house)/Muhammad Fahim/Dr. Abdullah Abdullah (Foreign Minister 2001-2006). Ismail Khan, a socalled “warlord,” heads faction of the grouping in Herat area. Khan, now Minister of Energy and Water, visited United States in March 2008 to sign USAID grant for energy projects Abdul Rashid Dostam. Best known for March 1992 break with Najibullah that precipitated his overthrow. Subsequently fought Rabbani government (1992-1995), but later joined Northern Alliance. Commanded about 25,000 troops, armor, combat aircraft, and some Scud missiles, but was unable to hold off Taliban forces that captured his region by August 1998. During OEF, impressed U.S. commanders with horse-mounted assaults on Taliban positions at Shulgara Dam, south of Mazar-e-Sharif, leading to the fall of that city and the Taliban’s subsequent collapse. Karzai rival in October 2004 presidential election, now his top “security adviser.” Karim Khalili is Vice President, but Mohammad Mohaqiq is Karzai rival in presidential election and parliament. Generally pro-Iranian. Was part of Rabbani 1992-1996 government, and fought unsuccessfully with Taliban over Bamiyan city. Various regional governors; central government led by Hamid Karzai.

Hizb-eIslam Gulbuddin (HIG)

Mujahedin party leader Gulbuddin Hikmatyar. Lost power base around Jalalabad to the Taliban in 1994, and fled to Iran before being expelled in 2002. Still allied with Taliban and Al Qaeda in operations east of Kabul, but may be open to ending militant activity. Leader of a rival Hizb-e-Islam faction, Yunus Khalis, the mentor of Mullah Umar, died July 2006.

Islamic Union

Abd-I-Rab Rasul Sayyaf. Islamic conservative, leads a pro-Karzai faction in parliament. Lived many years in and politically close to Saudi Arabia, which shares his “Wahhabi” ideology. During antiSoviet war, Sayyaf’s faction, with Hikmatyar, was a principal recipient of U.S. weaponry. Criticized the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

Ideology/ Ethnicity ultra-orthodox Islamic, Pashtun moderate Islamic, mostly Tajik

Regional Base Insurgent groups, mostly in the south and east, and in Pakistan Much of northern and western Afghanistan, including Kabul

secular, Uzbek

Mazar-e-Sharif, Shebergan, and environs

Shiite, Hazara tribes

Bamiyan province

Moderate Islamic, Pashtun orthodox Islamic, Pashtun

Dominant in southern, eastern Afghanistan

orthodox Islamic, Pashtun

Paghman (west of Kabul)

Small groups around Jalalabad, Nuristan and in southeast

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

105

APPENDIX A. U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS LIFTED Virtually all U.S. and international sanctions on Afghanistan, some imposed during the Soviet occupation era and others on the Taliban regime, have now been lifted. •

•

•

•

•

•

•

On January 10, 2003, President Bush signed a proclamation making Afghanistan a beneficiary of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), eliminating U.S. tariffs on 5,700 Afghan products. Afghanistan was denied GSP on May 2, 1980, under Executive Order 12204 (45 F.R. 20740). This was done under the authority of Section 504 of the Trade Act of 1974 [19 U.S.C. § 2464]. On April 24, 1981, controls on U.S. exports to Afghanistan of agricultural products and phosphates were terminated. Such controls were imposed on June 3, 1980, as part of the sanctions against the Soviet Union for the invasion of Afghanistan, under the authority of Sections 5 and 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 [P.L. 9672; 50 U.S.C. app. 2404, app. 2405]. In mid-1992, the George H.W. Bush Administration determined that Afghanistan no longer had a “Soviet-controlled government.” This opened Afghanistan to the use of U.S. funds made available for the U.S. share of U.N. organizations that provide assistance to Afghanistan. On March 31, 1993, after the fall of Najibullah in 1992, President Clinton, on national interest grounds, waived restrictions provided for in Section 481 (h) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 mandating sanctions on Afghanistan including bilateral aid cuts and suspensions, including denial of Ex-Im Bank credits; the casting of negative U.S. votes for multilateral development bank loans; and a nonallocation of a U.S. sugar quota. Discretionary sanctions included denial of GSP; additional duties on country exports to the United States; and curtailment of air transportation with the United States. Waivers were also granted in 1994 and, after the fall of the Taliban, by President Bush. On May 3, 2002, President Bush restored normal trade treatment to the products of Afghanistan, reversing the February 18, 1986 proclamation by President Reagan (Presidential Proclamation 5437) that suspended most-favored nation (MFN) tariff status for Afghanistan (51 F.R. 4287). The Foreign Assistance Appropriations for FY1986 [Section 552, P.L. 99-190] had authorized the President to deny any U.S. credits or most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff status for Afghanistan. On July 2, 2002, the State Department amended U.S. regulations (22 C.F.R. Part 126) to allow arms sales to the new Afghan government, reversing the June 14, 1996 addition of Afghanistan to the list of countries prohibited from receiving exports or licenses for exports of U.S. defense articles and services. Arms sales to Afghanistan had also been prohibited during 1997-2002 because Afghanistan had been designated under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-132) as a state that is not cooperating with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. On July 2, 2002, President Bush formally revoked the July 4, 1999, declaration by President Clinton of a national emergency with respect to Taliban because of its hosting of bin Laden. The Clinton determination and related Executive Order 13129 had blocked Taliban assets and property in the United States, banned U.S. trade with

106

Kenneth Katzman

•

•

Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan, and applied these sanctions to ArianaAfghanAirlines, triggering a blocking of Ariana assets (about $500,000) in the United States and a ban on U.S. citizens’ flying on the airline. (The ban on trade with Taliban-controlled territory had essentially ended on January 29, 2002 when the State Department determination that the Taliban controls no territory within Afghanistan.) U.N. sanctions on the Taliban imposed by Resolution 1267 (October 15, 1999), Resolution 1333 (December 19, 2000),and Resolution 1363 (July 30, 2001) have now been narrowed to penalize only Al Qaeda (by Resolution 1390, January 17, 2002). Resolution 1267 banned flights outside Afghanistan by its national airline (Ariana), and directed U.N. member states to freeze Taliban assets. Resolution 1333 prohibited the provision of arms or military advice to the Taliban (directed against Pakistan); directing a reduction of Taliban diplomatic representationabroad; and banning foreign travel by senior Taliban officials. Resolution 1363 provided for monitors in Pakistan to ensure that no weapons or military advice was provided to the Taliban. P.L. 108-458 (December 17, 2004, referencing the 9/11 Commission recommendations) repeals bans on aid to Afghanistan outright, completing a preTaliban effort by President George H.W. Bush to restore aid and credits to Afghanistan. On October 7, 1992, he had issued Presidential Determination 93-3 that Afghanistan is no longer a Marxist-Leninist country, but the determination was not implemented before he left office. Had it been implemented, the prohibition on Afghanistan’s receiving Export-Import Bank guarantees, insurance, or credits for purchases under Section 8 of the 1986 Export-Import Bank Act, would have been lifted. In addition, Afghanistan would have been able to receive U.S.assistance because the requirement would have been waived that Afghanistan apologize for the 1979 killing in Kabul of U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph “Spike” Dubs. (Dubs was kidnapped in Kabul in 1979 and killed when Afghan police stormed the hideout where he was held.)

Source: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS. (K.Yancey 11/22/05). Figure 1. Map of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

107

REFERENCES [1]

[2] [3] [4] [5]

[6] [7]

[8] [9]

[10]

[11] [12]

[13] [14] [15] [16]

[17] [18]

For FY1991, Congress reportedly cut covert aid appropriations to the mujahedin from $300 million the previous year to $250 million, with half the aid withheld until the second half of the fiscal year. See “Country Fact Sheet: Afghanistan,” in U.S. Department of State Dispatch, vol. 5, no. 23 (June 6, 1994), p. 377. After failing to flee, Najibullah, his brother, and aides remained at a U.N. facility in Kabul until the Taliban movement seized control in 1996 and hanged them. Drogin, Bob. “U.S. Had Plan for Covert Afghan Options Before 9/11.” Los Angeles Times, May 18, 2002. Another law (P.L. 107-148) established a “Radio Free Afghanistan” under RFE/RL, providing $17 million in funding for it for FY2002. More information on some of the issues in this section can be found in CRS Report RS21922, Afghanistan: Government Formation and Performance, by Kenneth Katzman. Some of the information in this section is derived from author participation on a congressional delegation to Afghanistan in March 2008. Text of Bonn agreement at [http://www.ag-afghanistan.de/files/petersberg.htm]. The last loya jirga that was widely recognized as legitimate was held in 1964 to ratify a constitution. Najibullah convened a loya jirga in 1987 to approve pro-Moscow policies; that gathering was widely viewed by Afghans as illegitimate. Text of constitution: [http://arabic.cnn.com/afghanistan/ConstitutionAfghanistan.pdf]. For an analysis of the DDR program, see Christian Dennys. Disarmament, Demobilization and Rearmament?, June 6, 2005, [http://www.jca.apc.org /~jann/Documents/Disarmament %20demobilization%20 rearmament.pdf]. Waldman, Amy. “In Afghanistan, U.S. Envoy Sits in Seat of Power.” New York Times, April 17, 2004. Afghanistan’s ambassador in Washington is Seyed Jalal Tawwab, formerly a Karzai aide. For text, see [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100611.htm]. For a detailed discussion and U.S. funding on the issue, see CRS Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard. Text of the strategy, see [http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/rpt/90561.htm#section1] Cameron-Moore, Simon. “U.S. to Seek Indictment of Afghan Drug Barons.” Reuters, November 2, 2004. Risen, James. “Poppy Fields Are Now a Front Line in Afghanistan War.” New York Times, May 16, 2007. This is equivalent to the listing by the United States, as Afghanistan has been listed every year since 1987, as a state that is uncooperative with U.S. efforts to eliminate drug trafficking or has failed to take sufficient steps on its own to curb trafficking. Crossette, Barbara. “Taliban Seem to Be Making Good on Opium Ban, U.N. Says.” New York Times, February 7, 2001. Mansoor Dadullah was one of five Taliban leaders released in March 2007 in exchange for the freedom of kidnapped Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo, but there were reports in January 2008 that Mullah Umar Mullah Umar had dismissed Mansoor because of reported talks with British military officers about his possible defection.

108

Kenneth Katzman

[19] Text of the report is at [http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/ publications/ Afghanistan_ on_the_brink/documents/Afghanistan_on_the_brink] [20] For more information on the search for the Al Qaeda leadership, see CRS Report RL33038, Al Qaeda: Profile and Threat Assessment, by Kenneth Katzman. [21] Gall, Carlotta and Ismail Khan. U.S. Drone Attack Missed Zawahiri by Hours. New York Times, November 10, 2006. [22] Shanker, Thom. “U.S. Senses a Rise in Activity By Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.” New York Times, December 4, 2007. [23] See [http://www.mfa.gov.af/Documents/ImportantDoc/US-Afghanistan%20 Strategic% 20 Partnership%20Declaration.pdf]. [24] As noted above, six countries (in addition to the United States) are providing forces to OEF, and twelve countries are providing forces to both OEF and ISAF. [25] Its mandate was extended until October 13, 2006, by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1623 (September 13, 2005); and until October 13, 2007, byResolution 1707 (September 12, 2006). [26] Kington, Tom. Italy Could Send UAVs, Helos to Afghanistan. Defense News, June 19, 2006. [27] Kraul, Chris. “U.S. Aid Effort Wins Over Skeptics in Afghanistan.” Los Angeles Times, April 11, 2003. [28] Indian television news channel NDTV. April 24, 2007. [29] Inspectors General, U.S. Department of State and of Defense. Interagency Assessment of Afghanistan Police Training and Readiness. November 2006. Department of State report No. ISP-IQ0-07-07. [30] For extensive analysis of U.S. policy toward Pakistan, and U.S. assistance to Pakistan in conjunction with its activities against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, see CRS Report RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by K. Alan Kronstadt. [31] Straziuso, Jason. Musharraf Pulls Out of Peace Council. Associated Press, August 8, 2007. [32] Tyson, Ann Scott. “Pakistan Strife Threatens Anti-Insurgent Plan.” Washington Post, November 9, 2007. [33] Rashid, Ahmed. “Afghan Neighbors Show Signs of Aiding in Nation’s Stability.” Wall Street Journal, October 18, 2004. [34] Steele, Jonathon, “America Includes Iran in Talks on Ending War in Afghanistan.” Washington Times, December 15, 1997. [35] Risen, James. “Russians Are Back in Afghanistan, Aiding Rebels.” New York Times, July 27, 1998. [36] The IMU was named a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department in September 2000. [37] CRS Conversations with Chinese officials in Beijing. August 2007. [38] Other participants in the Unocal consortium include Delta of Saudi Arabia, Hyundai of South Korea, Crescent Steel of Pakistan, Itochu Corporation and INPEX of Japan, and the government of Turkmenistan. Some accounts say Russia’s Gazprom would probably receive a stake in the project. Nezavisimaya Gazeta (Moscow), October 30, 1997, p. 3. [39] Khalilzad, Zalmay (Then U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan). “Democracy Bubbles Up.” Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2004.

Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

109

[40] In some cases, aid figures are subject to variation depending on how that aid is measured. The figures cited might not exactly match figures in appropriated legislation; in some, funds were added to specified accounts from monies in the September 11related Emergency Response Fund. [41] Among other forms of post-Taliban assistance, over $350 million in U.S. and allied frozen funds were released to the Afghan government after the fall of the Taliban. The U.S. Treasury Department (Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC) unblocked over $145 million in assets of Afghan government-owned banking entities frozen under 1999 U.S. Taliban-related sanctions, and another $17 million in privately owned Afghan assets. The funds were used for currency stabilization; mostly gold, held in Afghanistan’s name in the United States, that backs up Afghanistan’s currency. Another $20 million in overflight fees)withheld by U.N. Taliban-related sanctions were provided in 2003. The Overseas PrivateInvestment Corporation (OPIC) has made available investment credits as well. [42] Saleem, Farrukh. “Where Are the Missing Stinger Missiles? Pakistan,” Friday Times. August 17-23, 2001. [43] Fullerton, John. “Afghan Authorities Hand in Stinger Missiles to U.S.” Reuters, February 4, 2002. [44] “Afghanistan Report,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. February 4, 2005. [45] “U.S.-Made Stinger Missiles — Mobile and Lethal.” Reuters, May 28, 1999.

In: Afghanistan Security Editor: Lawrence B. Peabody, pp. 115-182

ISBN: 978-1-60692-149-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD SECURITY AND STABILITY IN AFGHANISTAN June 2008 Report to Congress in accordance with the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 1230, Public Law 110-181)

ABSTRACT This report to Congress is submitted consistent with Section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). It includes a description of the comprehensive strategy of the United States for security and stability in Afghanistan. This report is the first in a series of reports required every 180 days through fiscal year 2010 and has been prepared in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, and the Secretary of Agriculture. This assessment complements other reports and information about Afghanistan provided to the Congress; however, it is not intended as a single source of all information about the combined efforts or the future strategy of the United States, its Coalition Partners, or Afghanistan. The information contained in this report is current as of April 10, 2008.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States and our international partners toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, ending years of brutal misrule and denying al Qaeda a safe haven from which to launch its attacks. The United States is committed to helping Afghanistan recover from decades of strife, and preventing it from ever again becoming a safe haven for terrorists. Our strategic goals remain that Afghanistan is: 1) a reliable, stable ally in the War on Terror; 2) moderate and democratic, with a thriving private sector economy; 3) capable of governing its territory and borders; and 4) respectful of the rights of all its citizens. Achieving these goals requires the application of a whole-of-

112

Report to Congress

government approach, along multiple lines of operation, including security, governance, and development. This report describes both the progress we are making in achieving our national objectives, and the challenges we continue to face.

Security Although security remains fragile in many parts of Afghanistan, our counterinsurgency approach demonstrates how a combination of military and non-military resources can be integrated to create a stable and secure environment, and to connect the Afghan people with their government. Khowst Province is an example. Khowst was once considered ungovernable and one of the most dangerous provinces in Afghanistan. Today, tangible improvements in security, governance, reconstruction, and development are being made. These improvements are achieved through the closely coordinated efforts of the local government, the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF), international organizations, as well as U.S. military, diplomatic, and development experts. Importantly, lessons learned from the successes in Khowst are being shared with our partners and applied elsewhere in the country. The increase in U.S. forces in the spring of 2008 reinforced Afghan and international forces’ momentum and is enabling accelerated growth of the ANSF. On February 5, 2008 the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board (JCMB) approved a proposal to expand the authorized end strength of the Afghan National Army (ANA) from 70,000 to 80,000 personnel. The Combined Security Transition Command–Afghanistan (CSTC-A) is scheduled to complete the fielding of 80,000 ANA personnel by the end of 2010. Meanwhile, a U.S. Marine Corps Marine Air Ground Task Force is deploying to bolster NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) maneuver forces in Regional Command– South. The ANA has taken the lead in more than 30 significant operations to date and has demonstrated increasing competence, effectiveness and professionalism. Operation MAIWAND, executed in the summer of 2007 in the Andar District of Ghazni Province, is just one example of the ANA’s progress. Planned, rehearsed, and executed under the direction of the Afghan 203rd Corps Commander, a combined ANA and ISAF task force cleared the entire district and removed a Taliban shadow governor. This well-integrated security operation was quickly exploited with the synchronized application of governance and development efforts consisting of medical treatment for 2,300 citizens, 10 new schools, the delivery of 260 tons of humanitarian aid, and one million dollars committed toward additional development. This operation resulted in the significant disruption to enemy forces in Ghazni Province and is a manifestation of the growth and maturation of ANSF as well as the spread of governance and development. The Afghanistan National Police (ANP) are improving, although at a slower pace than the ANA. Generally, police development has been hindered by a lack of reform, corruption, insufficient U.S. military trainers and advisors, and a lack of unity of effort within the international community. A new CSTC-A-led Focused District Development (FDD) plan, implemented in late 2007, shows promise. This initiative withdraws the locally-based Afghan Uniform Police (AUP) from selected districts, replacing them temporarily with highly trained and effective Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANCOP). The AUP then receive two

Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan

113

months of immersion training and equipping in a concentrated program of instruction by carefully selected civilian police mentors, with the goal of increasing their professional capability and their confidence to conduct law enforcement activities. Following their collective training, the AUP return to their districts with enhanced capabilities and better able to serve their communities. Despite many positive developments, Afghanistan continues to face challenges. The Taliban regrouped after its fall from power and have coalesced into a resilient insurgency. It now poses a challenge to the Afghan Government’s authority in some rural areas. Insurgent violence increased in 2007, most visibly in the form of asymmetric attacks as Afghan and international forces’ relentless pressure forced the insurgents to shift the majority of its effort to targeting police and civilians. More than 6,500 people died as a result of suicide attacks, roadside bombs, and combat-related violence. The 2007 ISAF and ANSF military campaign caused setbacks to the Afghan insurgency, including leadership losses and the loss of some key safe-havens in Afghanistan. Despite these setbacks, the Taliban is likely to maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008. The Taliban will challenge the control of the Afghan government in rural areas, especially in the south and east. The Taliban will also probably attempt to increase its presence in the west and north. Up to the first quarter of 2008, the most significant threat to stability in the north and west of the country has come from warlords, criminals, and drug traffickers. The power of these entities is increasingly challenged by the growing competence of local and national government. Narcotics remain a significant challenge for Afghanistan and the international community. While progress has been made in some areas, overall counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan have not been successful. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated in his testimony to the House Armed Service Committee on December 11, 2007, “[T]he drug trade continues to threaten the foundations of Afghan society and [the] young government [of Afghanistan].” Opium production in Afghanistan increased substantially in 2007. The narcotics trade dissuades work and investment in legitimate activities, provides the insurgents with a lucrative source of funding, and contributes heavily to heroin addiction in Central Asia, Europe and increasingly East Africa. Although counternarcotics (CN) efforts have resulted in gains over the past six years, the battle against drug traffickers is ongoing, and will be for some time. In conjunction with the Afghan Ministry of Defense (MOD), CSTC-A is assisting with the development and fielding of a new CN infantry kandak (battalion) for the purpose of providing force protection to poppy eradicators. This unit will shortly be put into action and will provide protection for eradication teams to complete their mandates.

Governance and Human Rights Afghanistan was the prime example of a failed state in 2001. Aside from the Taliban’s enforcement of its version of sharia law, most functions of government were non-existent. There were few social services and little investment in health, education, roads, power, or water. Afghans were denied participation in their government, enjoyed no civil or political liberties, and were afforded no avenue of dissent. Since 2001, Afghanistan has made significant progress rebuilding its national political institutions. Afghans wrote and passed a new Constitution in 2004; 8.1 million people voted in the nation’s first presidential election; and 6.4 million voters helped reestablish their

114

Report to Congress

National Assembly after 32 years without a legislature. Ministries are increasingly capable of executing their responsibilities, particularly the ministries of Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Finance. Since 2006, the Supreme Court has been headed by an internationally respected and highly capable jurist with a formal legal education. The international community continues to help develop Afghanistan’s justice sector and provincial governments. Progress is slow, in part because of Afghanistan’s human capital shortage. Only three in ten Afghans can read, leaving a very shallow pool of literate citizens to staff the courts, government offices, police, armed forces, or private enterprises. Despite important progress made since 2001, Afghanistan’s human rights record remains poor. Though most human rights violations are perpetrated by the Taliban-led insurgency, weak governmental and traditional institutions, corruption, narcotics trafficking, and the country’s two-and-a-half decades of violent conflict exacerbate the problem. Abuses by security forces continue. However, the government has worked to professionalize its army and police force. Increased oversight of police by internal and external monitors has helped to prevent some abuses, and human rights training has become a regular element for police and army personnel.

Reconstruction and Development Setting the conditions necessary for economic growth is essential to long-term security and stability. Afghanistan has come a long way in seven years. Since 2001, Gross Domestic Product, per capita income, and Foreign Direct Investment are all up. There has been considerable growth in Afghanistan’s domestic revenues as well as international reserves, which have nearly doubled since 2004. However, Afghanistan still faces formidable economic challenges. The Afghan government remains overly dependent on foreign aid, with official revenues covering only 20 percent of recurrent costs. Costs, particularly for food and fuel, are rising, as is inflation. Access to credit is limited, and few Afghans are able to borrow. Four strategic economic priorities support the counterinsurgency effort. These include: 1) embracing free market economic policy at senior levels of government, 2) enhancing government resources, 3) addressing inflation and 4) implementing structural reforms. Commitment to free markets means resisting costly subsidies and price controls that serve to reduce resources for other more constructive expenditures in areas like infrastructure, education, and healthcare. U.S. and international community efforts are assisting the Afghan government in moving towards a sustainable fiscal policy capable of generating revenue, managing resources, and operating without foreign financial support. The international community is also trying to boost economic growth by modernizing the country’s infrastructure, particularly in the areas of electrical power, road construction, water management and agricultural development. Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) are key elements in these endeavors, ensuring that reconstruction and development efforts are coordinated at all levels and responsive to local needs. Finally, trade is benefiting, albeit slowly, from growing regional integration. Afghanistan is scheduled to join the South Asian Free Trade Area, bringing greater access to and integration with six other countries in the region including Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan

115

LOOKING AHEAD The U.S. commitment to Afghanistan is unwavering. Success in Afghanistan is both crucial to global security and is a moral responsibility. Achieving that success will take time, effort, resources, and the sustained interest and commitment of the international community. Moreover, success will never be achieved through military means alone, but through a comprehensive approach that involves all elements of power: military, diplomatic, and economic. Above all, it will require a sustained effort to continue to develop the capacity of the Afghans themselves. Where we have begun to apply such an approach, real progress is being made. It is critical that we continue to build on the momentum that has been achieved.

SECTION 1: SECURITY 1.1. Counterinsurgency Strategy The U.S. operational approach to the security component of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan is to build Afghan security capacity while degrading the capacity of the Taliban. U.S. forces work to root out insurgents while increasing the ability of the Afghans to do so on their own. Throughout Afghanistan, this is achieved through kinetic and non-kinetic efforts to separate the enemy from the local population by partnering with the ANSF and engaging Afghan leaders. Shuras, key leader engagements, medical engagements, humanitarian aid missions, and combined presence patrols provide a venue for ANSF forces to interact with the general population and discuss needs for local improvements. These missions work to create trust between the local populace, Afghan leadership, ANSF, and ISAF forces. As trust increases, support for the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, (GIRoA), the ANP, and the ANA evolves proportionately. Afghan civilians are beginning to report enemy activity including improvised explosive device (IED) emplacements, suspicious activity, and potential future attacks. In an effort to gain the support of the populace and demonstrate the superior governance capabilities of the GIRoA as opposed to the Taliban, ANSF and international forces have increased governance outreach and development activities.

1.2. Nature of the Threat In 2008, there is the potential for two distinct insurgencies in Afghanistan; a Kandaharibased insurgency dominated by the Taliban in the south and a more complex, adaptive insurgency in the east. The eastern insurgency is a loose confederation of affiliates such as the Haqqani Network and like-minded groups that are prepared to cooperate with the Taliban’s Kandahari-based insurgency. These groups include al-Qaeda, Hizb-e Islami Gulbuddin, and Pakistani militant groups Jaish-e Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Tehrik Nefaz-i-Shariat Muhammad. Their shared goals include the expulsion of all foreign military forces from Afghanistan, the elimination of external government influence in their respective areas, and the imposition of a religiously conservative, Pashtun-led government.

116

Report to Congress

A principal strength of the Taliban-led Kandahari insurgency is its ability to regenerate combat power by leveraging tribal networks, exploiting lack of governance and the Afghan peoples’ inherent resistance to change and outside influence. The Taliban’s strategy hinges on their ability to prevent the Afghan government and ISAF from achieving victory, and the international community eventually losing the will to tactically intervene in the counterinsurgency effort. The insurgency’s critical capabilities are its ability to project strength and a mystique of the inevitability of Taliban rule that is constantly sustained through a focused information effort; in other words, not losing is winning. A principal vulnerability of both the Taliban-led Kandarhari and Eastern Insurgencies is that, beyond forcibly imposing Sharia-modeled law and order, they are unable to deliver to the Afghan people sustainable governance or development of commercial infrastructure. Both insurgencies are anticipatory in nature and maximize every opportunity to separate the Afghan population from the GIRoA. The insurgencies are powerless to provide development and they lack the capacity to meet the basic needs of the citizens of Afghanistan; however, it is worth noting that this limitation did not prevent the original Taliban from controlling, through force of arms, the majority of the country in the late 1990s. The preponderance of both insurgencies’ influence stems from the use of fear and intimidation tactics. As a result of these efforts, in the minds of the Afghan people, insurgent forces are cognitively becoming separated from the respected mujahidin fighters that defeated the Soviets and sustained Afghans for decades.

Figure 1. Distribution of Attacks in Afghanistan by Province.

Violence increased in Afghanistan in 2007. A significant factor in the increase in violence was aggressive Afghan and international force tactics combined with insurgent recognition that, while they cannot defeat Afghan and international forces on the battlefield, they can harm political will by increasing casualties. Violence may also have increased because Afghan and international forces are asserting control over a greater area in increased numbers, thus increasing their exposure to insurgent attacks.

Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan

117

Attack levels alone are not always a good indicator of the security situation. Even in areas where insurgent activity is high, Afghan and international forces often have the full support of the local population. Khowst Province again provides a success story. In this eastern province the level enemy activity and attacks remains relatively high, but most of the population lives without fear, trusting the government to keep them safe. The success of Afghan and international forces in military engagements has led insurgents to increase asymmetric attacks. As such, IED attacks are on the rise. IED incidents reached a high of 2,615 incidents in 2007, up from 1,931 in 2006. Counter-IED training is an important part of U.S. and ISAF efforts to improve security in the country. It includes curriculum that the NATO Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) and Embedded Training Teams (ETTs) deliver when training members of the ANA. Although the number of IED attacks increased in 2007 over 2006, so did the number of IEDs that were discovered and pre-detonated, as well as those that were reported by local citizens. The success of the GIRoA in meeting the needs of the population and winning their allegiance has been uneven and sometimes temporary. In many provinces and districts, the government’s failure to connect effectively with the people of the country and provide security and prosperity has provided an opening for the Taliban to successfully install shadow governments that provide basic security against lawlessness. The Taliban is likely to continue efforts to emplace shadow governments in order to enhance local control by insurgent forces, undermine the authority of district and provincial level officials appointed by Kabul, and present a locally acceptable alternative to the Karzai government. Due to the nature of insurgencies, estimates of their numbers are inherently unreliable and there is no agreed-upon figure from the Intelligence Community. Therefore, no estimate is included in this report.1

1.3. North Atlantic Treaty Organization International Security Assistance Force The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has overall command of the battlespace in Afghanistan. Commanded by a 4-star U.S. Army officer, all military guidance for ISAF forces is communicated from Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and the Joint Forces Command (JFC) Brunssum. The international strategic direction has been approved by the North Atlantic Council (NAC). U.S. forces assigned to ISAF operate in support of ISAF plans and operations, and are under the operational control of Commander, International Security Assistance Force (COMISAF). The bulk of U.S. forces assigned to ISAF operate in Regional Command (RC) East. The United States contributes approximately 19,000 of the 47,000 personnel in ISAF. An assessment of United States Military requirements, including planned force rotation for the three-month period following the date of the report can be found in the monthly “Boots-on-the-Ground” Reports submitted to Congress in accordance with Public Law 110-116. Force rotations beyond the three-month period following April 2008 will be conditions-based and hence cannot be provided with reasonable accuracy.

1

An assessment of the elements of the insurgency are available in a classified format (see National Intelligence Council report #ICB 2008 19).

118

Report to Congress

1.3.1. Efforts to Encourage NATO ISAF Countries to Fulfill Commitments A top U.S. government priority is to ensure that ISAF countries provide all required forces as determined by NATO military authorities in the agreed Combined Joint Statement of Requirements (CJSOR). The ISAF commander must have the forces and flexibility necessary to accomplish the mission of assisting the GIRoA in the establishment and maintenance of a safe and secure environment and the extension of its authority in order to facilitate reconstruction and development. Although CJSOR shortfalls remain, especially for maneuver battalions, helicopters, and OMLTs, all 26 Allies and 14 non-NATO partners are contributing in important ways to the ISAF mission. ISAF has increased from approximately 31,000 personnel in November 2006, to approximately 47,000 personnel today. This number is expected to increase in 2008. In order to help Allies shore up domestic political support for increased resources in Afghanistan, the U.S. focused efforts on the development of a Comprehensive Political Military Strategic Plan for ISAF to explain how Allied security is directly linked to stability in Afghanistan and to lay out a vision to guide ISAF’s role in Afghanistan over the next five years. This Comprehensive Political Military Strategic Plan was agreed to by the Heads of State and Government from Allied and other troop-contributing nations at Bucharest in March 2008. In the Comprehensive Political Military Strategic Plan, Allies agreed that Afghanistan is the Alliance’s key priority. The Comprehensive Political Military Strategic Plan incorporates four guiding principles: • • • •

a firm and shared long-term commitment; support for enhanced Afghan leadership and responsibility; a comprehensive approach by the international community, bringing together civilian and military efforts; and increased cooperation and engagement with Afghanistan’s neighbors, especially Pakistan.

Among the pledges of support at the Bucharest Summit, France announced that it will send approximately 700 additional troops to eastern Afghanistan. This will permit the U.S. to assign more troops to the south where Canadian forces have been engaged in combat operations against Taliban forces. Also at Bucharest, Russia agreed to permit ISAF nations to transit through Russia to resupply ISAF forces in Afghanistan. Since the Bucharest Summit, a number of other countries have pledged additional resources to ISAF. For example, Poland has agreed to send 400 additional troops and eight helicopters. Several nations, such as Romania, Italy, and Greece, have agreed to provide additional OMLTs. A key component of ISAF operations is assisting in the training and equipping the ANA. The ANA has approximately 52,000 troops engaged in or leading major operations alongside ISAF forces. ISAF partners have fielded or pledged 36 OMLTs to help build a more effective ANA. However, this still falls short of the total OMLTs required. Thirteen ISAF nations have donated equipment to the ANA through NATO, and a trust fund has been established to cover transportation and installation costs for the donated equipment. An indication of the increasing professionalism and capabilities of the ANA, President Karzai announced at Bucharest that the ANA plans to assume security responsibility for Kabul in August 2008.

Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan

119

1.3.2. National Caveats on NATO/ISAF Forces The U.S. government has consistently emphasized the importance of giving commanders in the field the maximum possible flexibility to ensure that they can accomplish their mission in the fastest possible timeframe, while minimizing risk and loss of life. Just over half of the Allies in ISAF have some form of caveats on the geographical and/or functional deployment of their forces. Some Allies have no written caveats on their forces, but operate with de facto restrictions that can be even more severe than caveats. Therefore, rather than focus exclusively on caveats, the U.S. has pressed all Allies and partners to provide commanders on the ground with the maximum possible flexibility in terms of when, where, and how they utilize forces under their command. The most significant and commonly cited caveats are restrictions that keep some troops currently in the north, west, and in Kabul from moving to Regional Command-South without prior approval from their respective nations’ capitals. The United States takes advantage of every opportunity to urge Allies to lift these restrictions.

1.4. Operations Within the primary operational area for U.S. forces – Regional Command East – operational tempo and the ability to extend the reach of ISAF forces increased two-fold with the addition of a second Brigade Combat Team in early 2007. U.S. forces took part in fullspectrum operations, often with ANSF in the lead. Keeping in line with the overall strategy of clear, hold, and build, the increased security paved the way for improved local government and economic growth. Additionally, CJTF-822 established Border Security Posts, Combat Out-Posts, and Forward Operating Bases along known insurgent routes and support areas. This expanded ISAF and ANSF presence probably contributed to the increase in enemy attacks from 2006 to 2007.

1.4.1. Civilian Casualties The increase in civilian casualties is largely due to a shift in insurgent focus to operations in populated areas, and the use of indiscriminant asymmetric attacks. A series of wellpublicized events during the spring and summer of 2007 highlighted the negative consequences of civilian casualties caused by combat operations in Afghanistan. The willingness of the Afghan populace to support international forces and the GIRoA is directly proportional to their trust and confidence in those forces. The support of the Afghan people is essential to the security, reconstruction, and governance of the country. In response to increasing civilian casualties in the country Admiral Fallon, former Commander of U.S. Central Command; General McNeill, COMISAF; and General Ramms (Commander, Joint Forces Command–Brunssum) published a series of complementary guidance outlining the problems, challenges, and unintended consequences of civilian casualties, and provided explicit direction to all commanders and the Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen under their command on how to limit those casualties. The published guidance directed that, while not limiting the right of self defense, responses to enemy actions

2

On April 10, 2008 the 101st Airborne Division assumed command of Regional Command East from the 82nd Airborne Division. CJTF-101 also serves as the U.S. national command element in Afghanistan.

120

Report to Congress

must clearly demonstrate proportionality, requisite restraint, and the utmost discrimination in the application of firepower.

1.5. Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) The long-term goal for the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) is to build and develop a force that is nationally respected; professional; ethnically balanced; democratically accountable; organized, trained, and equipped to meet the security needs of the country; and funded from the GIRoA budget. Security is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving economic and social development in Afghanistan. The ANA and the ANP represent two critical elements for establishing that security. The mission of the Combined Security Transition Command–Afghanistan (CSTC-A) is to plan, program and implement structural, organizational, institutional, and management reforms of the ANSF in order to develop a stable Afghanistan, strengthen the rule of law, and deter and defeat terrorism within its borders. CSTC-A receives funding through the Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) to equip, train, and sustain the ANSF. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 budget request delineates the program objectives aimed at enabling ANSF independent operations. These objectives include improved enablers, logistics operations, infrastructure, training, pay programs, medical facilities, and equipment. The FY 2008 ASFF request totaled $2.7 billion, including $1,711 billion for the ANA, $980 million for the ANP, and $9.6 million for detainee operations. For the ANA, these funds will equip and sustain the 70,000-person 14 brigade force in 2008; upgrade garrisons and support facilities; enhance ANA intelligence capabilities; and expand education and training, including the National Military Academy, counter-improvised explosive device (CIED) training, mobile training teams, branch qualification courses, and literacy and English language programs. For the ANP, these funds will increase CIED, communications, intelligence training; purchase additional equipment, weapons, and ammunition to respond to insurgent threats; enhance ANP intelligence capabilities; set conditions for interoperability with ANA to respond to events; enhance border surveillance; add basic health clinics in select provinces to improve casualty treatment; and expand field medic and combat life support training. Because the operational and security realities in Afghanistan are constantly changing, it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the long-term costs and budget requirements for developing the ANSF.

1.5.1. ANSF Desired End-Strength Despite achievements in Afghanistan, security threats and corruption remain a major impediment to overall development. The security environment continues to be fluid, demanding continual reexamination and assessment of requirements for the end-strength of the ANSF. The 2001 Bonn Agreement established the goal of a 70,000-person ANA and 62,000-person ANP. The Afghanistan Compact in January 2006 confirmed those target endstrengths. Security conditions necessitated a reexamination of ANSF end-strength. Consequently, in May 2007, the international community’s Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board (JCMB) endorsed an increase to 82,000 authorized ANP. Similarly, with the endorsement of the JCMB on February 5, 2008, the authorized ANA force structure

Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan

121

increased to 80,000 personnel, with an additional 6,000 allotted for the trainee, transient, hospitalized, and student account. We are currently examining whether this new end-state is adequate for Afghanistan’s needs. The long-term ANSF posture may also include a more robust Afghan National Army Air Corps (ANAAC) capability and a larger army. However, additional analysis, study, and consideration must be given to the sustainability and available financial support for such efforts.

1.5.2. ANSF Recruiting and Retention Actions to improve ANSF’s national recruiting system and the Afghan vetting process continue. The current procedures for processing applications and conducting cursory background checks for the ANSF are explained for the ANA and ANP in their respective sections. However, additional measures and more sophisticated processes are currently being pursued. The ANSF is working to implement identification (ID) cards and biometrics. A national ID program will incorporate equipment issue, pay, promotion and tracking and accountability from accession to attrition using an accurate record management system for the ANP force structure. Current efforts include integration of the ID card’s barcode system into the pay system of the ANP. The ANA implemented an ID card system and an automated database in April 2006. Similarly, the ANSF are embarking on a long-term, state-of-the-art biometric collection and database program that will provide both the Ministry of Defense (MoD) and Ministry of Interior (MoI) a capability to positively identify all Afghan soldiers and police. The integrated database of fingerprints, iris scan, and facial photos will be jointly maintained by ANA and ANP biometric analysts that are currently being identified and trained over the next three years. Another group of ANA and ANP officers are being trained as collectors who will be positioned at ANSF initial entry sites across Afghanistan. The biometric technology is scalable and will allow the GIRoA to expand the program to other segments of the government should Afghan leaders choose to do so. CSTC-A’s leadership is involved in efforts towards developing overall awareness of current retention rates and programs to offer re-contracting options. CSTC-A has enlisted the help of key MoI staff members to promote re-contracting of separating personnel. Measures taken with the MoD include staff assistance visits to the Corps and training by the MoD Recontracting Officer. In January 2008, the Assistant Minister of Defense for Personnel and Education revised the re-contracting regulation to require Company to Corps-level Commanders to project separation dates at least 12 months out and perform regular career counseling with all soldiers and NCOs. The ANSF has pursued monetary bonuses to incentivize enlistment and re-enlistment, specifically directed at the Commandos in the ANA and Afghan Border Police (ABP) in the ANP. Commandos currently receive an additional $30/month incentive pay. Additional proposed initiatives are under financial review for the ABP including a sign-on bonus, retention bonus, and hostile fire or imminent danger pay. More detailed efforts regarding recruiting and retention in the ANA and ANP are described in the relevant sections that follow.

122

Report to Congress

1.5.3. Afghan National Army (ANA) The ANA is subordinate to the Ministry of Defense (MoD), and is divided into five regional corps and an emerging air corps. The 201st Corps operates in RC Central. The 203rd Corps operates in RC-East. The 205th Corps operates in RC-South. The 207th Corps operates in RC-West. The 209th Corps operates in RC-North. Currently, the army serves as an infantry force operating alongside international forces under the command of the Chief of the General Staff, General Bismullah Khan. Each corps is divided into brigades comprising three infantry kandaks (battalions), one combat support kandak, and one combat service support kandak. Additionally, commando kandaks are in the process of being formed. These elite units are currently attached to regional corps, pending establishment of a commando brigade headquarters.

Figure 2. Alignment of ANSF Regional Commands.

1.5.3.1. ANA Desired End-Strength By the end of 2008, the GIRoA plans to field a total of 70,000 ANA personnel. An additional 10,000 personnel are expected to be fielded by the end of 2009. Continued training, mentoring, and development will be required beyond this timeframe. As stated above, the long-term ANA posture potentially may include a more robust ANAAC capability and a larger force; however, additional analysis, study, and consideration must be given to the security environment, sustainability, and available financial support. The current program calls for a light infantry force of 15 brigades, including artillery, armor, commando, combat support, combat service support, an air corps, and the requisite intermediate commands and sustaining institutions.

Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan

123

1.5.3.2. ANA Training and Mentoring Efforts Training the ANA begins with individual training. The soldier training process begins with careful, needs-based recruiting followed by initial entry training (IET) at the Basic Warrior Training Course (BWT), supervised by international trainers. ANA basics are taught to an objective standard uniformly applied throughout the force. The BWT provides the foundation, but the individual soldier’s capabilities are strengthened through branch-specific Advanced Combat Training. Although the priority of fielding a viable force has necessitated training initially focused on infantry and other combat-specific branches, training for support specialties has also developed. Immediately following a new unit’s fielding and arrival at its Corps and brigade area, it undergoes a 60-day period of individual and collective training before being put into the rotation for combat operations. Combat and security operations continue to round out ANA development. Each ANA combat unit is accompanied by either a U.S. Embedded Training Team (ETT) or a NATO ISAF OMLT. These teams provide comprehensive mentoring across the full spectrum of operations. Specifically, the teams provide the ANA unit leadership with advisory support on all unit functions and direct access to U.S. and ISAF resources and enablers to enhance the ability of the ANA to operate effectively and independently. They also serve as role models and key liaisons between ANA and international forces. The OMLTs and ETTs coach unit staffs and commanders and assist them in the development of their training programs, logistics and administrative systems, planning, and employment in operations. ETTs and OMLTs also facilitate the assessment of ANA units, helping the ANA identify strengths, shortfalls, and opportunities for improvement. As of March 2008, U.S. ETTs require a total of 2,391 personnel; however, only 1,062 are currently assigned (44 percent fill). The low fill-rate is due to the additional requirement to provide support to the ANP though Police Mentor Teams (PMTs). Full PMT manning requires 2,358 total military personnel. Currently, 921 personnel are assigned (39 percent fill). Sourcing solutions are being worked to address the shortfall of personnel across the ETT and PMT requirements. Afghanistan deployment requirements are being weighed against other global manning priorities. When additional forces become available to fill these critical personnel requirements, they will be resourced against the ETT/PMT requirements. For now, the Focused District Development (FDD) program, described below, aims to help mitigate the shortages of the mentors for the ANP. In addition, more than 3,400 Marines are deploying to Afghanistan. Of these, approximately 1,200 Marines will conduct ANP training missions in nine Afghanistan districts. These Marines are deploying as a temporary risk mitigation measure due to the global shortage of military trainers. Since the need for continued ANP mentorship in those districts will remain following the Marine redeployment in the fall, the enduring requirement for 1,400 additional ANP mentors remains. In addition to the ETTs and PMTs, NATO OMLTs are also providing critical guidance and mentorship to the ANA. As of March 2008, there are a total of 31 validated OMLTs out of a NATO commitment to provide 71. In many instances, ANA combat units are assigned an ISAF partner unit during combat operations. In general, those ANA units with international partner units have shown a marked increase in their capability to provide security in their areas. However, it should be noted that some Afghan commanders have shown great initiative and improvement without the benefit of an international partner.

124

Report to Congress

1.5.3.3 ANA Recruiting and Retention The ANA continues to make significant progress in recruiting and retention and all indicators point to decreasing rates of absence without leave (AWOL) and an increased ability to curb absenteeism. The past year has surpassed the previous four years in ANA recruitment. The ANA recruited 32,135 soldiers in the year leading up to March 2008. Annual recruitment numbers for the previous four years, beginning with the most recent, are: 21,287; 11,845; 15,790; and 9,671. The year-to-date re-enlistment average in the fielded ANA is 50 percent for soldiers and 56 percent for NCOs. Factors that challenge re-enlistment include the desire for larger salaries, better leadership, and to be stationed closer to family. In February 2008, the ANA had an 8.4 percent absentee rate. This is down from 12 percent at the height of summer. The three corps most consistently in contact with insurgents and anti-government elements had the highest AWOL rates, but on average they experienced less than 10 percent AWOL over the past year. This decrease in AWOL rates has contributed directly to an increase of 20,000 in ANA end-strength since January 2007. This increase in end strength coupled with a deliberate effort to staff combat units fully and overfill entrylevel soldier authorizations should further mitigate problems of absenteeism. During the past year, overall AWOL rates in ANA combat forces have decreased three percent as compared to the previous year. With increasing emphasis on pay and incentives, better facilities and training, better leadership, and more robustly manned units, AWOL trends can be expected to continue to decrease in the coming year. The personnel accession and vetting process is the same for both ANA and ANP and follows the 3-step process described below. All vetting of candidates to serve in the ANSF meets the requirements of the law prohibiting military assistance to units or individuals known to have committed human rights abuses. The ANA commissar at the National Army Volunteer Center (NAVC) is the approval authority for both the ANA and ANP. Step 1: The applicant provides 12 passport photos and secures a national identification card from the district. This is verified by the Governor or another designated individual. Recruits must be between 18 and 35 years-old. Age waivers are considered based on the applicant’s qualification. Step 2: The applicant sees a recruiter at Provincial HQ and completes a contract. An escort guides them through the screening process which examines health and criminal records, as well as other relevant background information. The applicant must get two village elders to sign the form vouching for the recruit’s character. The form must also be signed by an official at the district center. All documents are then taken by the escort to the ANA Commissar HQ for verification and signature. Step 3: Medical screening is conducted at the commissar’s office. All documents go back to the sub-governor for signature. Ultimately, the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Defense reviews all the documentation and then notifies the Provincial authorities of acceptance by issuing the directive to commence training.

The ANA has also implemented an additional level of review for potential ANA recruits. An Afghan who requests to join the Army is given a form to complete at the recruiting center. The recruit’s name is then added to a list that is circulated among various MoD offices, including the ANA General Staff G2, for a rudimentary background check.

Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan

125

1.5.3.4. ANA Salary and Pay Recruiting and retention initiatives have been boosted by steps taken to standardize and institute a competitive pay scale. The following chart depicts the current monthly, 25-year base salary plan for members of the ANA. Table 1. 25-Year Base Pay Plan (ANA) RANK

GRADE

>3

>6

>9

>12

>15

>18

>21

>24

O-10