In Afghanistan, the NATO-led Force is 'Underresourced' For the Fight Against the Taliban

When it comes to combat, it is a coalition of the willing and not-so-willing

June 5, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)
German troops have been restricted to reconstruction and training projects.

German troops have been restricted to reconstruction and training projects.

KANDAHAR—Ask American troops in Afghanistan what ISAF means, and you are opening the door to a running joke: "I Saw Americans Fight," and "I Suck at Fighting," and "I Sunbathe at FOBs" (a reference to the heavily fortified and largely safe forward operating bases) are among the more popular punch lines. In fact, ISAF is the acronym for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, which is made up of soldiers from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and 35 other nations.

And the U.S. soldiers who offer up the jokes are only half kidding. Their point is a serious one: that troops from the United States—along with just a handful of other countries—do the bulk of the heavy fighting, while a number of other ISAF detachments are limited by their own governments' combat restrictions. These include prohibitions, or "caveats," against, for example, fighting in the snow for troops from some southern European nations. Other soldiers are required to stay in calmer areas of the country or to keep their aircraft grounded at night or to consult their home legislatures before operating near the volatile Pakistani border.

These are handicaps, to be sure, though last week the outgoing head of ISAF took exception to criticism of the coalition. As he prepared to hand over the reins of the command he has held since February 2007, American Gen. Dan McNeill pointed out that the number of international soldiers in Afghanistan has grown from 36,000 troops at the beginning of his tenure to nearly 53,000 today. It is proof, he asserted, of the international alliance's commitment to the country. "That says to me that all the wags who in late 2006 and early 2007 were predicting the failure and fracture of the NATO alliance probably got it wrong," he said.

Troop shortage. But "probably" remains the operative word. And considerable challenges awaited Gen. David McKiernan, the former commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe and former commander of ground forces during the 2003 Iraq invasion, as he took the helm of ISAF June 3. Violence is up 50 percent in eastern Afghanistan compared with 2007, and the drug trade is exploding. Last year, too, there were 140 suicide bombings here, a record number. ISAF fields one third the number of foreign troops in Iraq, yet Afghanistan is 50 percent larger and has some 4 million more people. So, despite the increase in troop numbers, McNeill says the country still needs more. "It's an underresourced force," he said. "That's been a constant theme since I've been here."

It is a theme that has been echoed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as well, who has expressed concern that NATO could become a "two-tiered alliance," with only a handful of countries—namely Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States—willing to "fight and die" against the Taliban. Gates lobbied hard in Europe earlier this year for more troops, writing to every alliance defense minister. France agreed to 700 more soldiers, and Poland 400 plus eight badly needed helicopters. Georgia (which hopes to become a NATO member) is sending 500 soldiers.

But beyond that, there were no big takers among NATO leaders facing their own political pressure on the home front. In the end, the United States upped its own commitment—something the Pentagon initially said it would not do—sending 3,200 marines into Helmand province, the heart of the drug trade and Taliban resistance.

It has been a tough fight for them. Marines are now on Day 30-plus of what was initially expected to be a three-to-five-day campaign, as they live without electricity or running water and face Taliban reinforcements who continue to flow into their territory from neighboring Pakistan. But they are making key strides, military officials say, with a recent operation to block escape routes and cut off Taliban supply lines.

"Mowing the lawn." They are operating in an area that British forces, hobbled by insufficient troop levels, have tried to clear before. One British commander referred to it as "mowing the lawn," since the insurgency seems to just grow back.

The question is, what happens next? Other allies—France, for one—have suggested that Afghanistan's U.S.-backed government will need to hold reconciliation talks with insurgents from the former Taliban regime but not until some level of security is established. Earlier this year, the American ambassador to Afghanistan sought advice from a former Taliban commander, asking what ISAF could do to reduce popular support for the Taliban. Reconciliation steps are important in Afghanistan, note allies, who see the fight here as a classic counterinsurgency struggle.

Such campaigns place a premium on unity of command, which can be tricky to achieve, notes Council on Foreign Relations analyst Stephen Biddle. "You can easily imagine thousands of operations at cross hairs with each other," he says. "It's tremendously easy to let everything splinter, and that's if everyone's from the same country." And here, that's not the case. As a result, there have been some glitches. Most recently, when marines here first arrived, they were in a holding pattern for a month while ISAF's Regional Command South, led by Canada, wrestled with how exactly to use them and what precisely would be their operational goals.

Further, there is what some military officials describe as lingering U.S.-British tension over the handling of operations in Basra, Iraq, earlier this year, when the U.S. military was training Iraqi security forces for a mission that the Iraqis executed prematurely in the area under British security oversight. While British forces were said to feel left out of the loop, their sentiment left some U.S. forces nonplused. "Brits are so enamored with what they did in [Northern] Ireland," says one senior U.S. military official. "They think they have all this great [counterinsurgency] background, but at the highest levels, they are very politically sensitive and not very aggressive. In Afghanistan, I have seen them reach in and say, 'This colonel here has too many casualties.' "

But these are differences among higher-level officials and not among the soldiers in the field. "The Brits are great," says one marine, to widespread nods among comrades in the courtyard around his austere outpost in Helmand. British troops here, for their part, return the sentiment and express wonder at the myriad small restrictions on U.S. troops—such as prohibitions against wearing civilian clothes like jeans or sandals or against having a beer during their downtime, as is permitted soldiers from some other nations.

On a recent evening, down the road from a U.S. Marine outpost in Helmand province, a Scottish soldier played a plaintive sunset serenade, the "Marine Corps Hymn," on his bagpipe. As they settle in for a long, hot summer, these troops are keenly aware that they are fighting a tenacious enemy together.

Tags:
national security terrorism and the military,
NATO,
Taliban,
War in Afghanistan (2001-),
Afghanistan,
military

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Although there is a good relationship between British and American troops there is no doubt that the British army is under funded and under resourced.

This is a point of great shame for our nation(UK). It does not and should not be this way but has been a purposfull spending choice made by our current weak government. What makes it worse is that the UK government had PLENTY of money at the time but thinks the army is a political enemie and so has been undermining them.

I have watched video of British troops fighting and winning in Helmand, Afghanistan only to be told to give up the ground they gained because the UK government was not prepared to allow food or ammo to be sent in greater numbers. These guys were on patrol after patrol taking fire and they had to scavenge for old sweetcorn/maize to survive. People in the villages lost trust eventually and stopped returning home. MAKES ME REALLY ANGERY at TONEY BLAIR AND NOW GORDON BROWN our priminister.

James V 8:35AM July 02, 2009

When I see the response to the lobbying of Gates,it makes me sick to call myself a European and as a Brit,it makes me damn angry to see those countries liberated by the english speaking world,turn their backs on us when their help is required.

May I suggest that America, bans all trade with said countries,removes itself from nato,asks France, Germany,Belgium etc.,to cough up their share of the expenditure incurred protecting them during the cold war,and as a final act accepts the Uk as a 51st State.

A Brit. 3:21PM July 15, 2008

what good is a military aliance with europe? we should withraw from nato and have an aliance with russia. they knew how to deal with chechnia. europe has about 400 milion people .if all they can spare is something like 37 and 1/2 combat soldiers then for what reason are we in this so called military aliance

sam of NY 4:27AM June 23, 2008

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos