Coalition, Afghans Now Resourced to Succeed, Mullen Says

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 11, 2010 — After years of under-resourc­ing the war in Afghanistan, the coali­tion has put in place the pieces need­ed to win the coun­terin­sur­gency bat­tle in the coun­try, the chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said here today.
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen made the com­ments as part of the Bernard Brodie Dis­tin­guished Lec­ture Series on the UCLA cam­pus here. Renee Mon­tagne, the daugh­ter of a Marine and co-host of NPR’s Morn­ing Edi­tion, host­ed led con­ver­sa­tion.

Mullen said that while the Unit­ed States has been at war in Afghanistan since 2001, only recent­ly has the con­flict received the atten­tion and resources it requires. The war fol­lowed an arc that was promis­ing in the ear­ly days, but seemed to plateau until 2006, when the Tal­iban came back with a vengeance.

When Mullen became chair­man in 2007, Iraq was the main U.S. con­flict. The surge was in full swing and Amer­i­can forces were spend­ing 15 months at assign­ments in the U.S. Cen­tral Com­mand area of oper­a­tions. There were more than 150,000 Amer­i­cans in Iraq and under 40,000 in Afghanistan. It was a con­ser­va­tion of force mis­sion in Afghanistan, mean­ing the Unit­ed States was send­ing just enough resources to main­tain the com­bat forces there, he said.

The troop lev­el was just one exam­ple of the under-resourc­ing in Afghanistan, which Mullen said was under-resourced “from every dimen­sion.”

“It was strate­gi­cal­ly under-resourced, it was finan­cial­ly under-resourced,” he said. Mil­i­tary oper­a­tors and plan­ners were not focus­ing on or think­ing of Afghanistan. U.S. civil­ian agen­cies also skimped in Afghanistan as did NATO allies, the chair­man said. And it was “bad­ly under-resourced from a mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ty and capac­i­ty stand­point,” he added.

In Feb­ru­ary 2009, Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to the coun­try. In Decem­ber 2009, the Unit­ed States launched a total review of the Afghan sit­u­a­tion, cov­er­ing every­thing from goals to strat­e­gy to logis­tics. Oba­ma announced anoth­er 30,000 U.S. troops would go to Afghanistan, along with 10,000 more NATO allies.

“You can’t just feed some­one who has been starv­ing for a long time a full meal, and expect them to bounce back,” Mullen said. “It’s going to take some time to do this, and I think we have the strat­e­gy right, we have the resources right and we have the lead­er­ship right, but it’s not going to hap­pen overnight.”

The admi­ral is con­cerned about the time it will take to accom­plish the mis­sion of sta­bi­liz­ing the coun­try, and pro­vid­ing secu­ri­ty so Afghan secu­ri­ty forces can take the lead. “The over­all strate­gic view of Afghanistan is, we don’t want the coun­try to return to fer­tile ground for ter­ror­ists,” he said. “There are plen­ty of them around – not that far away. When the Tal­iban ran the coun­try before, they pro­vid­ed that fer­tile ground, from which we were orig­i­nal­ly attacked.”

The past year has been dif­fi­cult for U.S., NATO and Afghan troops. The strug­gle against the Tal­iban and their allies in the south has been par­tic­u­lar­ly bloody. Kan­da­har, Afghanistan’s sec­ond-largest city and spir­i­tu­al home of the Tal­iban, is the key to the strat­e­gy. Coali­tion and Afghan forces have pushed the Tal­iban from their safe havens in the vil­lages and areas around Kan­da­har, Mullen said. Some are attempt­ing to regroup inside Kan­da­har itself, while oth­ers are try­ing to escape to Pak­istan.

Mil­i­tary forces have had a “sig­nif­i­cant effect” on the insur­gency this year, the chair­man said. There have been suc­cess­es in Pan­jwai, Argend­hab, Dawi, Nawa, Mar­ja and oth­er areas. But there is still work that needs to be done in the longer run, he said.

The Unit­ed States will be in the region for a long time, the chair­man said. This does not nec­es­sar­i­ly mean large num­bers of troops. The Unit­ed States is com­mit­ted to long-term rela­tion­ships with Afghanistan and Pak­istan.

Amer­i­cans must remem­ber that the coun­terin­sur­gency effort is not sole­ly mil­i­tary. “We’ve tripled the num­ber of civil­ians there as well, because the gov­er­nance piece – local, provin­cial and fed­er­al – must also improve,” he said. “In fact, it is just now that the strat­e­gy has been ade­quate­ly resourced. Now it is being exe­cut­ed. It is fair­ly chaot­ic in some areas… and yet we’ve start­ed to see some progress.”

Oba­ma has said the Unit­ed States will begin to with­draw troops from Afghanistan in July, begin­ning the process of tran­si­tion to Afghan-led secu­ri­ty. Mullen said some troops will leave, but he does­n’t know how many. It will depend on the con­di­tions on the ground. Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates has said it will like­ly be small, “and we don’t know what part of Afghanistan they will be from,” he said.

There can’t be a seri­ous dis­cus­sion of the future of Afghanistan with­out talk­ing about Pak­istan, the chair­man said. The Unit­ed States needs to engage Pak­istan – a nuclear pow­er with an econ­o­my in sham­bles and its own prob­lem with ter­ror­ism. Mullen has worked to estab­lish a rela­tion­ship with Pak­istani Gen. Ash­faq Kayani, the army chief of staff, meet­ing with him about 30 times in three years. “When I first met him, there was this enor­mous trust gap between us, both as indi­vid­u­als and as coun­tries,” Mullen said. “Both of us are work­ing hard to fill that up as rapid­ly as we can.”

But the break in rela­tions from 1990 to 2002 has left a mark, and the ques­tion Mullen said he is asked most in Pak­istan is, how long are you going to stay this time?

“(Kayani) trusts me to a point now where he tells me what he is going to do long before he does it,” the admi­ral said. “We have to under­stand their chal­lenges. They have to focus on India, but they have rotat­ed some 60,000 to 70,000 troops into the fight on the bor­der [with Afghanistan]. They have lost many sol­diers and civil­ians to ter­ror­ism. Some­times his time­lines does­n’t match my time­lines.”

Amer­i­cans are not a patient peo­ple and “align­ing the patience index­es some­times can be dif­fi­cult,” Mullen said. The Pak­istani army is resource con­strained, but it seems to have the will to take on the Pak­istani Tal­iban.

The Pak­istani army had to change to a coun­terin­sur­gency force for the bat­tles in the trib­al areas along the Afghan bor­der. They pulled troops from Kash­mir, the volatile north­ern ter­ri­to­ry bor­der­ing Pak­istan and India, retrained them and rotat­ed them into the coun­terin­sur­gency fight.

Dur­ing the White House review of actions in Afghanistan, Mullen said he will look close­ly at the growth and train­ing of the Afghan secu­ri­ty forces. “The whole idea of tran­si­tion of putting the Afghan secu­ri­ty forces in the lead is fun­da­men­tal,” he said. “That’s our way home.”

And the process of train­ing Afghan sol­diers and police is improv­ing. “We’ve put in place a struc­ture, which means train­ers, cur­ric­u­la, build­ings where the train­ing takes place, which did­n’t occur before,” he said.

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →