The New York Times has a fresh story on the training of Afghan security forces, and despite making claims of training progress in the headline, the story documents, yet again, that US efforts to shape a Western security force in Afghanistan are failing. At the same time, we learn from the ICRC that the offensive in the Kandahar area has doubled the rate of war injured treated at a local hospital.
The military and political career of General David Petraeus has been propelled forward many times on the basis of his ability to spin the same myth over and over. As I pointed out in this diary, Petraeus first burst on the scene by writing an op-ed in the Washington Post just before the 2004 elections. In the op-ed, Petraeus spouted ridiculous claims of "progress" in training Iraqi security forces and perhaps aided Bush’s re-election. Just three years later, all of Washington worshiped at the feet of Petraeus as he laid out his "new" plan for the Iraq surge, with a large reliance on training that started essentially from scratch. There was no reference to his prior claims of success or investigation into why the previous training had failed. That same diary then went on to point out that this second round of training in Iraq has failed, with Iraq’s highest ranking army officer admitting this summer that it would be at least five years before Iraq could provide its own security. That claim is borne out by the ongoing charade of 50,000 US "non-combat" troops remaining in Iraq despite the "end of combat operations" announced by President Obama.
The "success" of training in Afghanistan has been addressed a few times. See, for example, this diary in April or this one in June. Despite these earlier hints in the press that training might not be working as well as claimed, the New York Times insists on using "Gains in Afghan Training" as part of the headline on its current story. Those "gains" are nowhere to be found in this passage:
For that to be the case, the Pentagon must overcome a persistent problem in the Afghan security forces: attrition. Official estimates put attrition across the force at roughly 3 percent each month. Attrition is a powerful drain that makes growth difficult. Police officers and soldiers simply disappear, even as replacements flow in.
For this reason, for the army to grow by 36,000 more soldiers, the government must recruit and train 83,000 Afghans, according to projections released by NATO. Similarly, for the police to reach the hoped-for increase of 14,000, the government must train 50,000 more officers. This drives up costs to Westerners paying the bill.
The training mission in Afghanistan also labors under a legacy of unfulfilled past promises, inadequate training even in basic skills like marksmanship and driving military vehicles, and a pattern of overstating how ready or skilled the forces are.
I suppose it is progress of a sort that the Times will now acknowledge that there is a "legacy of unfilled past promises", but there is still a long way to go before that legacy and the deceit associated with it are tied more directly to Petreaus, who is the leading proponent of these overstatements. The Times touts as an example of the training progress being made the opening of an artillery school. Keeping up its part in this propaganda campaign, ISAFMedia has provided the photo above to document Afghans firing artillery at the school. Their caption reads:
Afghan National Army instructors fire artillery from the 122 milimeter howitzer D-30 Oct. 4, 2010. This demonstation marked the end of the train the trainer course and the opening ceremony for the artillery school where these instructors will teach.
Despite the clear evidence that there will never be a Western-styled security apparatus to take over Afghanistan once NATO "liberates" it, the offensive to oust Taliban forces in the Kandahar area has resulted in a dramatic increase in casualties. From the ICRC:
The number of war casualties taken to Mirwais Regional Hospital in Kandahar for treatment is hitting record highs. The hospital, which is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), registered almost twice as many new patients with weapon-related injuries in August and September 2010 as during the same months last year – close to 1,000 compared with just over 500 during the same period in 2009.
"This is just the tip of the iceberg, as those who suffer other sorts of injuries or contract disease as an indirect result of the conflict far outnumber weapon-wounded patients," said Reto Stocker, head of the ICRC delegation in Kabul. Every day, there are mothers who bring their sick children to hospital too late because they are afraid to travel or are held up by roadblocks, and relatives who take patients home before their treatment is completed. "The result is that children die from tetanus, measles and tuberculosis – easily prevented with vaccines – while women die in childbirth and otherwise strong men succumb to simple infections," added Mr Stocker.
The deteriorating security situation is affecting the Afghan people in many ways. Last week’s bombing that left eight children dead in Kandahar, like other serious recent incidents, is an example of how the conflict keeps on raging in various parts of the country.
The next Afghanistan strategy review is scheduled for December. Now is the time to start increasing the pressure for this review to include an acknowledgment of the abject failure that is called "training", because there simply is no prospect that the type of security force the US wants can ever be produced. Without such a force, the stated mission of "creating space" for the Afghan security force and government to take over becomes meaningless. With a meaningless mission, it is time to simply begin an orderly withdrawal. However, count on Petraeus to once again erase all memory of his failures and to secure more time for the training charade to continue.




22 Comments







What a massive, ugly scam: Klingon Propaganda Official Translation
Fuck Betrayus and Obama.
Sorry Jim that I’m not taking the time to read your entire post right now, as I’ve just finished lunch & need to get back to my outdoor chores.
I just wanted to mention that I’m about 3/4 thru Woodward’s book, and the picture he paints of the whole O ‘review’ process shows a FUBAR, you won’t be surprised to learn if you haven’t already read the book. Petreaus is a congenital liar who hasn’t a clue about what he’s doing. Among other matters, the O meetings started focusing on the fact that the ‘problem’ is in Pak, but 90% of the discussion is on Af, and even Petreaus’s ‘inkblots’ are nowhere near the border.
Obama has told Karzai that he, Obama, supports the idea of Afghanistan taking charge of security by 2014. You know, if conditions permit.
2014. By which time Obama will be depositing the royalty checks on his presidential memoir and cashing in on the lecture circuit.
In other words, Obama’s Afghanistan strategy is “dump the mess on the next guy”.
Don’t we ever learn anything. We are doing nothing but repeating Nixon’s Vietnamization policy in Iraq and Afghanistan 50 years after it’s first failure in Cambodia and Vietnam.
The U.S. ruling elite is just to exceptional to learn anything. They’re making a killing and their sons and daughters are not the ones shedding their blood.
“Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.”
Thomas Jefferson
I guess we’ve lost our way again, somewhere else in the world!
“Deja Vu?”
http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx
Right on, Jim White. Many people don’t know, or don’t remember, or don’t care, how an unknown low-ranking general Petraeus first burst on the scene in the final months of the 2004 election campaign when the president’s challenger was criticizing US performance in Iraq, and Petraeus authored a WaPo Op-Ed which was pure BS.
General Petraeus’s ability to forecast the success of foreign army training is not as great as his ability to pander to presidents.
Petraeus headed the Iraq Security Transition Command Jun 2004–Sep 2005. After he had been in charge of training the Iraqi Army for three months, he famously wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post which was published in September 2004.
During a crucial time in the presidential campaign, when Kerry said Iraq was headed south, Petraeus’s piece was a rosy prediction of things to come. “Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. . .Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. . . Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January”
Nope.
Sep 2005–Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at “Level 1″ readiness than there were a few months ago. . . The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday.
From 21 battalions to one. Quite a drop.
Of course Petraeus had the last laugh when he later replaced Casey and then moved up another notch to CENTCOM, proving that truth has no relevance in warfare, and may even be detrimental.
Now he’s doing it again.
When (or if) we leave Afghanistan, the forces we are training right now will simply join the Taliban or be killed by the Taliban. It’s that simple and our troops are dying.
Sounds like one of those problems that the people in charge will just throw more money at. Again.
We no longer value high-ranking military officers who are brilliant at devising military strategies to enable us to win wars, we now only value the ones who are brilliant at spewing our war propaganda to keep us in a perpetual state of war! General Petraeus is a perfect example of this.
Blue Texan’s regularly scheduled post is up: Obama Lifts Moratorium on Offshore Drilling, Pissing Off Everyone
“Failed War Trainer David Petraeus” has a certain, truth-filled ring to it.
When we take the corporate profit out of our imperial occupations, they will soon end…
As an Afghan analyst who has published several articles pertaining to the ANA, I tried twice today to post a comment on the NYT website, and was censored both times. Apparently the NYT is not a paper to let facts get in the way of a good story.
All I said was, insiders in Washington, from President Obama on down, all know the the real number of ANA soldiers actually “present for duty” is about 55,000 today, and the number touted by the Pentagon (and regurgitated by the NYT) of 136,000 is a myth worthy of the Pentagon Papers. That may be the number “trained and equipped,” a number the Pentagon uses to hide the truth about attrition and desertion, because this refers to the number ever to graduate from training over the last nine years.
But the “present for duty” number is never cited or sought by reporters. Attrition (desertion, KIA, WIA, sick and injured) is compunded by an annual re-enlistment rate below 40 percent for enlisted men. Altogether about 36 percent of the ANA evaporates every 12 months, so if the force were to reach 100,000 men “present for duty” someday, the first 36,000 new recruits each year would simply go to replace the annual losses. They are not currently graduating that many men a year even now, as even the NYT article accidently reveals.
The truth is that the Army conducted a survey at the US Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) at Fort Leavenworth several years ago, and a PhD statistician there determined the ANA could never grow larger than 100,000 men, because at that point the number leaving each month would equal the maximum possible number entering the force. The study was supressed by the Army.
For more on this, see the article in the U.S. Army’s own think-tank magazine, “Military Review,” entitled “Refighting the Last War: Afghanistan and the Vietnam Template” at
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20091231_art004.pdf
Like I said, “Deja effin Vu”
Great read and links Jim, thanks.
Bookmarked and rccd.
The numbers don’t add up.
According to the Oct 4, 2010 Brookings Afghanistan Index, which reports official data:
Afghan National Army (ANA) (Dec strength)
2005 26,000
2009 100,131
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/FP/afghanistan%20index/index.pdf
But on Sep 27 Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, who is in charge of ANA training, said: “From 2005 to November 2009, the average annual growth was around 15,000 personnel in the Afghan National Army” — that’s 60,000, which is less than the 74,000 official growth.
General Caldwell also said: “In fact, this time last year the overall growth of the Afghan National Army had a net loss of 1200… There was no growth.”
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/556-caldwell.pdf
The ANA lost people last year but still increased from 79,068 to 100,000! (Brookings)
The Brookings Report shows the ANA at 134,000 in August 2010. That is a supposed 1/3 increase in ANA strength (34,000) in only eight months after a loss of 1200 last year.
This is incredible. Thus guy Caldwell is a wonder-worker. Caldwell: “The growth has been so dramatic, both the ANA and the ANP have exceeded their 2010 growth goals about three months ahead of schedule. This turnaround is attributable to a dramatically changed approach to training that we’ve taken with the Afghan National Security Force, and a new sense of urgency within the Afghan Ministries of Defense and Interior.”
A dramatically changed approach and a new sense of urgency — thank you, President Obama for setting the transition date which caused all this new sense of urgency and the improved numbers
Oops – wait a minute. They have a slight attrition problem they’re working on. Caldwell, Aug 23: ” Yeah, well, obviously as — you know, as we said a minute ago, our — the endemic enemy, as we call it, of our ability to professionalize this force is, in fact, when we see losses through attrition. And so the desertions is a part of that factor — you know, desertions, those being killed or wounded to where they can no longer perform, and, of course, those who have completed their service and elect not to continue serving. And so we do watch that very carefully. It is a concern to us.”
There were some good reporters at this teleconference news briefing, and they kept pressing Caldwell to quantify attrition until: “As far as the attrition rates go, I can get some numbers for you specifically. But generally in the army today, it was about 23 percent across the Afghan national army, for this last what-we-call solar year, which is a March-to-March time frame. And within the Afghan national police, it was about 16 percent.”
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4675
The New York Times reported 3% a month, or 36%, so the general might be a little low here but he’s going to get some numbers for us.
He’s going to get some attrition numbers for us, but generally in the ANA it is twenty-three (23) percent! Lose almost half the force every two years! That’s about 25,000 a year, with 34,000 coming in annually plus a 9% AWOL rate (Brookings) and casualty losses!
You’re so right they don’t add up!
Remember, “attrition” does NOT/NOT include non-re-enlistment. That’s just the number of non-scheduled losses through desertion, KIA, WIA, sickness and accidental injury.
The ANA soldier’s contract is for three years enlistment. So, every three years, one third of the force is eligible to re-enlist. The current re-enlistment rate is hovering around 40 percent for enlisted soldiers, and about 50 percent for sergeants. (Officer retention is near 100 percent because it’s a great way to generate corruption scams.)
So, if the force were, let’s say, about 60,000 men present for duty (which I am reliably informed the President and senior members of the administration know it to be), then 20,000 are eligible for re-enlistment each year. But only 40 percent, or 8,000 are doing so. So every year, 12,000 more evaporate that way.
So, with 36 percent annual attrition (3 percent per month), of a force of 60,000 present for duty, every year, 21,600 desert and another 12,000 don’t re-enlist, a total annual loss of about 33,600 men. See? It’s a revolving door. Some recruits are reported to have gone through the basic training 5 or 6 times, deserting afterwards and rejoining under a different name (they sell their issue gear at the bazaar for a nice bonus).
The whole thing is smoke and mirrors. There’s no 136,000 guys, and they’re not growing at all.
In re Cynthia @ 11 and “the numbers don’t add up”:
Objective analysis, especially directed toward measuring what one might think of as conventional victory, is no friend to perpetual war. Hard evidence might betray the requisite lies. And this issue with the supposed strength of the ANA just puts a new angle on “We don’t do body counts.” Of course they don’t—not live ones or dead ones. It wouldn’t make any sense. But not for the reasons Franks or Petraeus would have us believe.
The Hashish Army
The Petraeus numbers game reminds me of the “Fourth Largest Army” myth that was attached to Iraq prior to Gulf War Part I. Iraq did not have the fourth largest army in the world at that time, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively. But it was just believable enough to stick to the propaganda narrative. Not many would believe Iraq had the first, second or third largest, as most folks would think those slots belonged to the US, Russia and China. So coming in fourth was possible. When swords were rattling at North Korea a few years back, the “Fourth Largest Army” bit was brought back out and applied to them. The numbers only effectively exist to foster a believable lie.