• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Afghan forces suffering 'unsustainable' casualties, says top Nato commander

Status
Not open for further replies.
Afghan forces suffering 'unsustainable' casualties, says top Nato commander

Afghan police and army may need west's support for years, says General Dunford, as security forces' weekly death toll tops 100


Afghan-policemen-attend-t-010.jpg

Afghan policemen attend their graduation ceremony in Afghanistan's Jawzjan province.

Afghanistan's police and army are losing too many men in battle, and may need up to five more years of western support before they can fight independently, the top US and Nato commander in the country has told the Guardian.

General Joseph Dunford also said in an interview that it was too early to judge whether Nato had been right to end combat operations in Afghanistan this spring. Western forces have officially offered only training and support to the Afghan army and police during the brutal fighting season of the summer months.

Dunford admitted that Nato and Afghan commanders are concerned about Afghan casualty rates, which have regularly topped more than 100 dead a week. "I view it as serious, and so do all the commanders," Dunford said. "I'm not assuming that those casualties are sustainable."

The rapidly expanded security forces, now 350,000 strong, did not need help in basic battle skills, Dunford told the Guardian. But they still struggle to support themselves in areas varying from logistics and planning to intelligence-gathering and back-up from planes and helicopters in difficult battles.

The west officially stopped fighting in Afghanistan in June, shifting to a "train, advise, assist" role. Asked whether he thought that transfer was premature, given the problems that Afghan forces face, Dunford said it was too early to judge. "I think time is going to tell – I don't think you can tell that today."

Dunford's comments highlighted an apparent rift between western politicians keen to wrap up a messy war that has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and military commanders on the ground who are seeing a newly formed police force and army struggling against a hardened insurgency.

Barack Obama has made it clear that he does not want American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan after 2014, when all Nato combat troops are due to leave. "By the end of next year – in just 17 months – the transition will be complete. Afghans will take full responsibility for their security and our war in Afghanistan will be over," Obama told Marines at their Camp Pendleton base last month. A follow-up Nato training mission, Resolute Support, has been promised, but with a lower profile and far fewer soldiers than the nearly 90,000 still scattered around Afghanistan.

There is no firm end-date for the assistance however, and Dunford said western troops may need to stay in the country until as late as 2018 to tackle problems from the air force to intelligence.

"I look at Afghan security forces development as really kind of three to five years," Dunford said. "That doesn't mean they can't do things today; I'm just talking about before they get to the standard where they may not need assistance and support any more."

Dunford also did not rule out a combat role for Nato troops after 2014, particularly in the form of close air support – the planes and helicopters that aid troops caught in fierce fighting, which is a capacity that Afghanistan is only starting to develop.

"There are three words in the mission: train, advise and assist. In a Nato context 'assist' would include things like providing combat support, which is specifically the aviation piece, and a policy decision would have to be made about that," he said."

The planned Nato mission, however, will founder without backing from the US, currently negotiating a long-term security deal with Kabul to pave the way for wider western co-operation.

The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has said he is in no hurry and an agreement could take months. But Washington has set an informal October deadline and warned that if no pact is signed there is a "zero option" to send all US troops home. Along with the total departure of western military power, that would be likely to bring dramatic cuts in promised funds for police and army salaries, and given the fragile state of both the economy and the security forces, could pave the way for all-out civil war. Dunford said he was confident there would be a western mission, but the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) needed to be signed within months to reassure both Afghans and their neighbours of US commitment to the country.

"We'll have forces here post-2015," he said. "In my mind the BSA is about addressing the environment of uncertainty here in Afghanistan, the fear that people have about 2015 and beyond."

Despite the shortfalls in police and army abilities, heavy security force casualties and a leap of about a quarter in civilian deaths and injuries in the first half of 2013, Dunford said the troops had defied the Taliban, who had started the summer aiming to crush the government's spirit and will. "The Afghans actually have been resilient," he said. "They have prevented the Taliban from accomplishing their goals. If you look at where the violence is occurring, 80% of the population is secured from violence.

"I still believe that we will be able to look back in October … and look at this fighting season as an important fighting season and a foundation for the Afghan forces moving forward."

Progress has come at a heavy cost in lives. The Afghan defence ministry no longer publishes monthly death tolls because of concerns about morale, and the interior ministry said on Monday that 1,792 police officers had been killed since March, Reuters reported. That was equivalent to losses in the 12 preceding months, so in effect a doubling of the death toll.

However, Dunford said Afghan and Nato commanders were determined to make sure next year's battles were less bloody for government forces by focusing on better leadership, planning, equipment and training. "There is a wide range of causes – it's not just enemy activity," he said of the high death rate. "Some of it reflects a very busy summer, but some of it also reflects a force that is still developing capability."

The country's leaders were also doing more to show families of the dead and injured that their sacrifices were valued, he said. Other senior western commanders had warned that the security forces needed to feel stronger backing from the people they were risking their lives to defend.

"They are now as gripped with casualties as we are," Dunford said. "What I have seen increasingly is Afghan leaders actually having the same appreciation we have for a need to take care of their people and the families of the fallen."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/afghan-forces
 
I've seen about 5 documentary's following our soldiers trying to train the Afghans.

Everyone has the same story.

Usrless, corrupt, drug taking, backstabbing, lazy and incompetent. Everytime someone stands out, goes above and beyond. They always end up dead.

Same story, every time.
 
I've seen about 5 documentary's following our soldiers trying to train the Afghans.

Everyone has the same story.

Usrless, corrupt, drug taking, backstabbing, lazy and incompetent. Everytime someone stands out, goes above and beyond. They always end up dead.

Same story, every time.

Shouldn't have invaded then.
 
So basically the war is a complete and utter failure

Depends on how you look at it.
If you think wars should bring peace, yes, its a failure. If you think wars should bring death and destruction it has been a moderate success.
 
I've seen about 5 documentary's following our soldiers trying to train the Afghans.

Everyone has the same story.

Usrless, corrupt, drug taking, backstabbing, lazy and incompetent. Everytime someone stands out, goes above and beyond. They always end up dead.

And usually from one of their own.

Oh well. Afganistan is gonna Afganistan. What's for dinner?
 
Afghan forces are doomed to failure. The culture they fight to protect is not one that will allow them to operate fairly and legally. Bribes are all too common and corruption is allowed to pass unchallenged because Afghan police are paid in peanuts.
 
I've seen about 5 documentary's following our soldiers trying to train the Afghans.

Everyone has the same story.

Usrless, corrupt, drug taking, backstabbing, lazy and incompetent. Everytime someone stands out, goes above and beyond. They always end up dead.

Same story, every time.

Yup, pretty sad.

100 a week, fucking hell. Imagine if that was the rate of the western soldiers..
 
Most of the issues seem to be related to technology and organization, which are not as easy to teach as combat skills.

Can't we just give em some xbones and call of duty. I bet that stuff prepares the shit out of our soldiers.
 
Feel sympathy for any cops over there who dont take bribes and want to actually help maintain order. Its probably a tougher position than even being a legit cop in Mexico.
 
Somewhere the Taliban are laughing right now.

What a pointless war!!!

Yep, they drove them out from the government but anyone with eyes can see what will happen: they'll be back as soon as the last soldier leaves.

In the end, all of this just to kill Osama? Pointless if you ask me.
 
I've seen about 5 documentary's following our soldiers trying to train the Afghans.

Everyone has the same story.

Usrless, corrupt, drug taking, backstabbing, lazy and incompetent. Everytime someone stands out, goes above and beyond. They always end up dead.

Same story, every time.

Don't forget about child molestation.
 
But they still struggle to support themselves in areas varying from logistics and planning to intelligence-gathering and back-up from planes and helicopters in difficult battles.

do they even have helicopters?

"I still believe that we will be able to look back in October … and look at this fighting season as an important fighting season and a foundation for the Afghan forces moving forward."

I find that so bizarre, to refer to a war as a season like it's Football or Baseball season.
 
What is the solution?

For Afghanistan? They've been asking that question since the 1840s.

I find that so bizarre, to refer to a war as a season like it's Football or Baseball season.

Conversely, how do you feel about football/baseball/other sports being referred to with terminology normally reserved for wars and battles?

The desensitisation of the USA and UK to war in the last decade is quite something.
 
I find that so bizarre, to refer to a war as a season like it's Football or Baseball season.

If you read about wars in the past you'll find that it was fairly normal to have "campaign seasons" that had favorable weather for marching and fighting, then you'd send your soldiers home in the off season. In other instances the Soldiers needed to get home to help harvest crops so it wasn't really feasible to keep large armies in the field year round.
 
Refrain from meddling in other peoples' affairs (Especially in the Middle-East).

excuse me if i'm wrong, but wasn't afghanistan supporting osama bin laden the very definition of "our affair"?


also, the Taliban were no saints either. they were killing people left and right and destroying historic monuments anyway
 
If you read about wars in the past you'll find that it was fairly normal to have "campaign seasons" that had favorable weather for marching and fighting, then you'd send your soldiers home in the off season. In other instances the Soldiers needed to get home to help harvest crops so it wasn't really feasible to keep large armies in the field year round.

Again, same as baseball.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom