US to integrate command of its forces in Afstan, assist major increase in Afghan Army size

Sectretary of Defense Gates is making some decisions. But no significant US troop increase until next year--so when will that American battalion be deployed to Kandahar? Will it still come from US forces in the east as was originally surmised?

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will endorse a $20 billion plan to substantially increase the size of Afghanistan’s army and will also restructure the military command of American and NATO forces in response to the growing Taliban threat, senior Pentagon and military officials said Thursday.

Taken together, the two decisions are an acknowledgment of shortcomings that continue to hinder NATO- and American-led operations in Afghanistan. With the war in Iraq still an obstacle to any immediate American troop increase in Afghanistan, the plan was described by officials as an attempt to increase allied and Afghan capabilities in advance of deploying the additional American brigades that Mr. Gates and his commanders agree are necessary.

The additional American troops are unlikely to be available until next year [emphasis added].

Under a plan initially proposed by the Afghan government and now endorsed by Mr. Gates, the Afghan National Army will nearly double in size over the next five years, to more than 120,000 active-duty troops.

Such a large increase would not be possible without American funds, which will pay for trainers and for equipment, food and housing for Afghan forces. But Pentagon officials said that Mr. Gates would seek contributions from allies to help
underwrite the $20 billion cost over five years.

In a closely related decision, Mr. Gates plans to reshape a command structure that has divided the NATO and American missions in Afghanistan, a system now viewed as unwieldy in the face of increasing insurgent violence, senior Pentagon and military oficials said. Under an order expected to be signed by Mr. Gates before the end of August, Gen. David D. McKiernan, the four-star Army officer who leads the 45,000-member NATO force, would be given command of most of the 19,000 American troops who have operated separately. (The NATO force already includes about 15,000 other Americans.)..

In the months ahead, NATO and the United tates will nevertheless continue to pursue somewhat different missions in Afghanistan, Pentagon officials said, and the new command structure will not result in a merger of the two missions [emphasis added].

NATO took command of the nationwide mission to stabilize Afghanistan in 2006. The allies expected to face little combat and to focus on reconstruction and on maintaining security in reas that were relatively calm.

In contrast, the American-led mission in Afghanistan has focused from the start of the war on combat operations to capture or kill insurgents and terrorists, as well as on training Afghan security forces, counter-insurgency and reconstruction.

Although the situation has significantly changed, some allied units operate under strict constraints placed by their home governments that prevent them from participating in certain kinds of combat missions, which American officials have said is a major obstacle to beating back the Taliban.

Pentagon policy makers said one goal of the command restructuring would be to allow the movement of American and allied troops — including the British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers who participate in a full range of combat missions — to support one another in a more seamless fashion [emphasis added]. It remains unclear if the change will persuade the militaries operating under restrictions to take on additional battlefield responsibilities...

The command reorganization implies that an American officer will be in charge of the NATO and American missions for the foreseeable future [emphasis added].

The restructuring would also be intended to streamline the American-led training mission [Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan], which to a large extent has been outside the NATO structure.

But Pentagon and military officials said the new approach was crafted with attention to the sensitivities of NATO allies, and Mr. Gates and other officials consulted with the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, and with the governments that have the largest number of troops in Afghanistan [emphasis added].

Mr. Gates has pledged that the United States will work to send up to two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan next year, a force that would number 6,000 to 10,000 troops.

Previously, the goal had been to expand the Afghan Army to 80,000 from 63,000 troops, and funds had already been allocated for that. The $20 billion will pay for the additional increase in soldiers.

Pentagon officials expect that they will need an estimated $5 billion per year for the first three years of the expansion, and then about $3 billion for each of the final two years of the expansion.

Some more details:

...
The NATO and OEF missions would remain separate, but that the switch would minimize confusion within the U.S. command ahead of expected troop deployments, possibly next year, officials said.

"The number of our troops in Afghanistan is only going up, and so we want to make sure that as we're growing, that we have the most efficient and effective command structure in place," said Geoff Morrell, Gates' press secretary.

Gates is discussing the change with his NATO counterparts and could order the command change before Aug. 31, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity...

The force expansion, which has already been proposed by the Afghan government, would create an active-duty Afghan National Army of 122,000 troops between 2010 to 2014 [emphasis added], up from a current 65,000 troops. An additional pool of 12,000 Afghan trainees would boost the overall size of the army to 134,000...

The expansion would also require more U.S. trainers for the Afghan military. About 15,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan are currently devoted to training Afghan forces [emphasis added].

More:

...
"The main additional responsibility he [Gen.McKiernan] is assuming is for the training mission [emphasis added], which is just an essential mission for the Afghans and for us," Morrell said.

"The sooner they are a capable fighting force and can assume responsibility for protecting their own people and their borders, the sooner US forces and the world's forces can come out," he said

McKiernan currently controls the 15,000 US troops in ISAF but not another 19,000 US troops who are engaged in counter-terrorism operations, the training of Afghan security forces and detention operations. They report to the US Central Command.

Only a small number of US forces engaged in counter-terrorism operations and detention operations would continue to report [directly, I assume] to the US Central Command under the new scheme.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, however, said US forces assigned to ISAF would continue to have a "separate and distinct" mission from those currently assigned to training and counter-terrorism.

So it would seem Gen. McKiernan, in addition to reporting to NATO HQ for ISAF, will now personally also be reporting to Central Command for the training mission. It also means I suppose he will take over, under Centcom, as "National Command Element for U.S. forces in Afghanistan", a role previously held by Combined Joint Task Force - 101. Not that big a deal. Moreover, the US has achieved little that it wanted [more here] in the way of ISAF command changes. And I really don't see how the US command rearrangement will, in itself, have any direct effect on ISAF forces such as ours, the British and Dutch.

Anyone else have any thoughts? Doubting Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star is already in a bit of a tizzy (along with, gasp, Steve Staples and Prof. Michael Byers--more on the pernicious professor here; who'd a thunk it?), but the rest of the Canadian media don't seem to have noticed.

It seems to me that in fact the real news is the plan to very greatly increase the size of the Afghan Army--crucial for an Afstan "exit strategy".

As for American troops in eastern Afghanistan:

War in Afghanistan: a tour of hell

Does this bring something to mind? I wonder what company is providing the helicopters:

...with military helicopters and jets stretched to the limit on other operations, support is not guaranteed. Margha is resupplied by private contractors using civilian aircraft. Supplies are parachuted into the base by light aircraft or dropped off by a Ukrainian crew using an old Russian helicopter, flying at high altitude to avoid enemy fire...

Update: Progress:

Afghanistan's army takes shape
Today's military looks very different from the ragged force of three years ago

Upperdate: It would seem I got the proposed US command structure change right.