The Torch: Looking forward in Afstan

It looks likely that the Dutch will extend their commitment until 2010, with a somewhat reduced troop presence. If Canada in the next few months decides essentially to remove all our troops from combat in 2009 we will be the first to bug out, with very negative diplomatic and alliance consequences. Not to mention the consequences for the Afghans--but see below regarding possible replacements for us.

I imagine the Dutch, and NATO, expect it will not be too hard to find replacements--perhaps from smaller/newer NATO members--for their 400 troop reduction suggested in the piece just below (hell, that's only around half a battalion).

Surely by 2009 Canada/NATO should be able to drum up replacements for around a quarter of our combat troops. As far as I can determine from the figures here our battle group at Kandahar actually comprises at most near 1,600 of our current total 2,500 CF personnel commitment to ISAF. So with a quarter drawdown the need would--as with the Dutch--be around 400 troops from other countries (very rough reckoning). Indeed, as more is turned over to the Afghan National Army and Police, one might expect that our combat, and support strength, could be drawn down a fair bit. Such a scenario would enable the government to outline a plan to keep the CF in strength at Kanadahar--but a significantly reduced strength, with more support from NATO, and with less combat. Back to the Dutch:

Dutch military operations in Afghanistan could be extended for two more years after August 2008 but with fewer troops, a Dutch daily reported on Saturday.

Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf quoted sources as saying Chief of Staff Dick Berlijn had advised the government that it could keep a maximum of 1,200 soldiers in southern Afghanistan from about 1,600 now.

A spokesman of the Dutch Ministry of defense declined to comment, saying any advice given to the government was private.

The Dutch government, under NATO pressure to keep its troops in the volatile Uruzgan region, is reviewing its mission amid growing public pressure to withdraw as casualties increase.

A Dutch pull-out could see the Canadians follow suit. They are stationed in Kandahar in the south and must also decide whether to extend their mandate which runs until February 2009.

The issue is likely to feature prominently at an informal NATO meeting in the Dutch town of Noordwijk on October 24-25.

The Netherlands should remain the "lead nation" in Uruzgan but help from other countries was necessary in areas such as defending military camps, transport and air support, the Dutch newspaper reported Berlijn's advice as saying.

Berlijn and Dutch defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop told NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on Friday about Berlijn's ideas, the newspaper said...

In fact, from the above, it would seem the Dutch military envisage many of the replacements being used for support purposes.

Even should Canada basically bug out of combat some at NATO seem confident that we can be replaced:

Important, yes. Irreplaceable, no. That is NATO's candid assessment of Canada's role in the controversial effort to stabilize Afghanistan.

In a surprise admission from NATO headquarters in Brussels, a senior military source estimates the cohesion of the Afghan alliance now is sufficiently stable to withstand a Canadian withdrawal.

"It would be a disaster if Canada withdrew its forces and was not replaced. But would that be the case? Almost certainly not," the NATO source told the Toronto Star on condition of anonymity.

"If Canada needs to withdraw from Kandahar, we will find a way of replacing those capabilities. It might not be easy, but we will find a way. I'm fairly confident we could."..

Thus far, none of the 37 nations contributing militarily to the NATO-led mission has announced any intention to leave. Insiders in Brussels say Canada is highly unlikely to become the first unless Ottawa first engineers a side deal that would see the arrival of replacement troops from other countries to assume the difficult task of securing Kandahar [or maybe only part of it--see above - MC]. In effect, the length of Canada's continued deployment will depend almost entirely on the skill the Harper government applies to persuading others to take its place...

In fact the British may be able to provide more troops as they withdraw from Iraq, as indeed might the Americans. And the Democratic presidential candidates generally seem very supportive of the Afghan mission--notably Sen. Clinton (a fact not often mentioned by our pundits):

The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return with them...

The Aussies might also pitch in, even it the current government loses the Nov. 24 election.

Here's the metaphor for NATO's overall plan: the "two-horses" strategy (which is exactly the "exit strategy" the Canadian government and military have been putting forward for some months--not to give any great credit to us, it's just obvious):

There is a new metaphor making the rounds at NATO headquarters here that rings like simplicity itself. When you think of what Canada and its allies are doing in Afghanistan, think not of the ravages of the opium boom, the complexities of Pashtun tribalism, the elusive battle for hearts and minds or the indefatigable challenge of telling friend from foe.

Think instead of two horses...

"We are at the stage now where, as NATO, we have to ride two horses by simultaneously straddling two very challenging tasks," explains senior NATO spokesperson [Canadian] James Appathurai, speaking on the record amid a series of background briefings at alliance headquarters in Brussels.

"One horse, NATO has been riding since the beginning. That is the task of actual combat, the job of pushing the Taliban off its pedestal, out of its bases and onto its back feet in southern Afghanistan. We have to stay on that horse. For now, NATO must continue fighting to keep the Taliban off-balance.

"The other horse NATO must ride now is to accelerate and expand the training of, equipping of the Afghan army. You are going to see a very big push now on training Afghans to the point where they will be able to fight their own fight. And as they take on that role, NATO will be able to phase down its role in combat, providing the Afghans with embedded trainers, air support and border patrol – but not actually be on the front lines.

"This two-horses moment is the most delicate stage of the mission because we need to ride them simultaneously. It's like being in a circus – but we have to be able to do it. That's where we find the light at the end of the tunnel."

Several NATO sources estimate 2011 as a target date to reasonably expect Afghan army battalions emerging in numbers sufficient to allow for a role reversal, with Afghan army regulars taking the lead against anti-government fighters as NATO troops fall back.

NATO's estimated timeline happens also to coincide precisely with that outlined in Ottawa on Tuesday [emphasis added, nicely convenient], when Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government proposed maintaining a Canadian military presence in Afghanistan until 2011. The Conservative throne speech called for Canadian troops to "shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the Afghan government can defend its sovereignty."..

Now a simple truth that, I think, must be recognized:

Van Kappen [NATO adviser, retired Dutch military commander] suggested such Afghan dialogue could lead eventually to an international reckoning on some more deeply held assumptions about the country's future.

"More and more analysts are beginning to think that a strong central government in Kabul – which absolutely underpins the NATO-led effort – is a bridge too far," he said. "Instead, it may be necessary to achieve stability first in the regions – including an accommodation for the political needs of the Pashtun south –which is something the Afghan people are more familiar with, based on their background and history...

Congratulation to the Star's Mitch Potter for excellent reporting from Brussels in the stories above.

Update: One effort to get newer members to provide vital help:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will ask Ukraine and other eastern European countries this week to send troops to Afghanistan to cover a shortfall in trainers for the Afghan army, a senior U.S. defense official said.

Gates, who landed in Kiev on Sunday to meet Ukraine's government and attend the Southeast Europe Defense Ministerial, has grown increasingly frustrated by the failure of NATO allies to fulfill promises made to Afghanistan, his aides say.

He is particularly worried about a shortfall of more than 3,000 trainers for Afghan security forces -- a need that military commanders voiced a year ago...

Upperdate: A straw in the wind: