Gates: U.S. Must Consider Sustainability of Afghan Forces

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17, 2011 — The Defense Depart­ment has request­ed enough mon­ey to put the Afghan nation­al secu­ri­ty forces in a good posi­tion to defend their own coun­try, but the cur­rent lev­el of fund­ing for the effort is not sus­tain­able in view of bud­getary and oth­er con­cerns, Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates said here today.

Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared before the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee to tes­ti­fy about the department’s fis­cal 2012 bud­get request.

The bud­get request includes $107 bil­lion for con­tin­u­ing oper­a­tions in Afghanistan, down from $113 bil­lion in the fis­cal 2011 bud­get. Of the $107 bil­lion, $12.8 bil­lion is request­ed to grow, train, and equip Afghanistan’s army and its nation­al police force.

The fund­ing would grow the Afghan forces by 70,000 mem­bers to reach a total of about 378,000 mem­bers, Gates and Mullen said. Plans are on track to have 305,000 Afghan forces by the end of this year, they added.

“We’ve all rec­og­nized from the begin­ning that being able to turn secu­ri­ty over to the Afghan forces against a degrad­ed Tal­iban is our tick­et out of Afghanistan,” Gates told the com­mit­tee. “And the way to accom­plish our goal is to make sure we are not attacked out of there again.”

While remov­ing U.S. troops by 2014 would result in sub­stan­tial bud­get sav­ings, Gates said, defense lead­ers are grap­pling with how much it will cost to sus­tain Afghan forces and for how long.

“How big a secu­ri­ty force can we afford?” he asked. “Let’s not kid our­selves. We are the only ones pay­ing for this in any sig­nif­i­cant way. How long can we sus­tain it?” Afghanistan will not be able to sus­tain near­ly the amount of forces it has now, Gates said.

“The Afghan abil­i­ty to sus­tain a force would be a frac­tion of what they already have,” he said. “I think of it more in terms of a surge like ours, so that once we have defeat­ed the Tal­iban or degrad­ed them to a point, then a small­er Afghan force can take con­trol.”

Army Lt. Gen. William B. Cald­well IV, who com­mands NATO Train­ing Mis­sion Afghanistan, has done a remark­able job build­ing up the Afghan forces, improv­ing lit­er­a­cy, and train­ing, Gates and Mullen said. The chair­man not­ed that 24,000 Afghan recruits are in train­ing now.

“That num­ber was in the hun­dreds a year or two ago,” Gates said. “Before, you just recruit­ed and put the sol­dier or police in the field.”

The tran­si­tion of secu­ri­ty respon­si­bil­i­ty to Afghan forces is slat­ed to begin in July and to be com­plete by 2014. Asked about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of the Unit­ed States con­tin­u­ing long-term sup­port by hav­ing joint air bases with the Afghans beyond that tran­si­tion, Gates replied that such an arrange­ment would be “absolute­ly ben­e­fi­cial.”

“There is a big ques­tion in the whole region whether we will stick around,” he said. “A secu­ri­ty agree­ment with the Afghans that pro­vides for a con­tin­u­ing rela­tion­ship and some kind of joint facil­i­ties for train­ing and coun­tert­er­ror­ism beyond 2014 would be very much in our inter­est.” It also would help to sta­bi­lize the region, he added.

A pos­i­tive sign for Afghanistan, Gates said, is that defense min­is­ters of coun­tries that take part in the 50-mem­ber coali­tion of coun­tries in Afghan are more sup­port­ive than ever. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many min­is­ters so opti­mistic about Afghanistan,” he said, recall­ing a defense min­is­ters meet­ing he attend­ed in Decem­ber. “I did­n’t encounter a sin­gle one who was pes­simistic … or thought we were not head­ed in the right direc­tion.”

Gates added that he will attend anoth­er defense min­is­ters meet­ing in March, where he will “ensure that what­ev­er we do in July does not start a rush to the exits among our allies.” The sec­re­tary not­ed that many coun­tries have few mil­i­tary troops in Afghanistan, but con­tribute in oth­er ways, includ­ing pro­vid­ing finan­cial sup­port to the effort. For exam­ple, he said, Japan pays the salaries of all Afghan nation­al police offi­cers.

On Pres­i­dent Barack Obama’s deci­sion to announce a draw­down in Afghanistan when the tran­si­tion to Afghan secu­ri­ty respon­si­bil­i­ty begins, Gates and Mullen acknowl­edged it was one of the hard­est deci­sions about the war, but added that it was one they sup­port.

Though he opposed announc­ing a draw­down timetable in Iraq, Gates said, those were dif­fer­ent cir­cum­stances.

“The Iraqis want us out of their coun­try as soon as pos­si­ble,” he said. “A cer­tain num­ber of Afghans would like us to stay for­ev­er.”

Announc­ing a con­di­tions-based time­line for a U.S. draw­down in Afghanistan let the Afghan gov­ern­ment know it was time to gear up. “It seemed to me we need­ed to do some­thing to grab the atten­tion of the Afghan lead­er­ship and bring a sense of urgency to get them to step up to the plate and take own­er­ship of the war and get their young men to fight,” Gates said. “The Afghans have, in fact, done this in the past year to a sig­nif­i­cant degree.”

The Tal­iban should­n’t inter­pret the draw­down announce­ment as mean­ing all U.S. troops are leav­ing Afghanistan in the sum­mer, the sec­re­tary said.

If they do, the Tal­iban will “be in for a rude awak­en­ing come Sep­tem­ber and Octo­ber,” Gates said.

Pak­istan con­tin­ues to be a con­cern, Gates and Mullen said, and is an exam­ple of why Con­gress should ful­ly fund the Glob­al Secu­ri­ty Con­tin­gency Fund shared by the Defense and State depart­ments to pre­pare for emerg­ing threats or unfore­seen prob­lems. The DOD bud­get requests $50 mil­lion for the fund, with the pos­si­bil­i­ty of appro­pri­at­ing $450 mil­lion, if need­ed. “It buys us an agile and cost-effec­tive way to bud­get for unfore­seen needs, and it lets our part­ners secure their own regions,” Mullen explained.

The chair­man has called the grow­ing U.S. debt the country’s great­est nation­al secu­ri­ty threat. He reit­er­at­ed the point today, but added that while prac­tic­ing fis­cal restraint, “we must get real­is­tic about the world we live in.”

Mullen said he is opti­mistic about Pakistan’s mil­i­tary, but told the com­mit­tee that “on the polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic side, it looks worse than it has in a long time.” The sec­re­tary agreed with the chair­man.

“I wor­ry a lot about Pak­istan,” Gates said. “It has huge eco­nom­ic prob­lems.” He also not­ed that Pak­istan has ter­ror­ist safe havens and that the Unit­ed States “is very unpop­u­lar” there.

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 →