Operation_in_Afghanistan

DISCUSSION PAPER SUBJECT: Operation in Afghanistan ISSUE: The state of multinational operations in Afghanistan (AFG) after 2014. After 2014 will NATO continue in AFG or is it more likely to shift to a coalition of the willing and why' Most members of NATO have vital interests to continue their presence in Afghanistan well beyond 2014 if conditions on the ground are not secure and the capabilities of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is defeated. The creditability and the future of NATOs involvements in future operations could face challenges if members of NATO decide to leave before the Afghanistan forces are able to provide reasonable security. The initial NATO forces in Afghanistan in 2003 was originally 5,000 troops but eventually grew to 130,000 troops after political pressure and promises of financial support by the United States and other members of NATO. Even those increase political pressure and guaranteed financial aid led to some nations willingness to provide troops, one underlining factor was the type of missions those nations were willing to perform. Most apprehensive nations normally executed medical assistance missions, security missions and/or training the Afghan Security Forces because they saw these as safe missions. Although these missions are considers somewhat safer than conventional war, however, when executing a war against terrorism nothing is safe. As we approach 2014, you will see those nations who were apprehensive at first to commit troops; start to withdraw because of increase casualties to include other factors. These nations will not abandon their committed to NATO, but they will seek more supporting roles. There are several examples of nation shifting to supporting roles and I will highlight are Spain, Denmark and Canada. The Spanish Soldiers involved in Afghanistan were constrained by limitation. A mandate issued by the Spanish Parliament does not allow Spanish forces neither to engage Taliban insurgents unless being directly attacked first, nor to move into the south and east of Afghanistan. Just recently, the President of Spain announced that all Spanish troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Another country that has reconsidered their level of involved to this NATO mission is Denmark. Denmark has recorded the highest count of casualties relative to population. This has sparked controversy whether Denmark should withdraw troops to more safe regions in Afghanistan. Lastly, faces with political pressure from members of its government, Canada withdrawal all of its combat forces in July 2011 and only leaving military trainers. As this war drags on, the level of commitment from the members NATO will continue to be reduced to the nations of the willing as political pressure increase, mounting casualties continues and the fear of being attack within their own boarders; i.e. the Madrid train bombings in Spain. These withdrawals will cause NATO to readjust its current command structure and possibly fill gaps with non-NATO members currently operating in Afghanistan. What multinational C2 relationship would best suit your chosen scenario and why' Recommendation: I recommend that NATO use the Lead Nation Command Structure with a few adjustments. As some NATO members begin to leave Afghanistan in 2014, they can adjust the command structure to cover down on gaps that may arise. The remaining members of NATO can expand their areas of responsibilities and allow non-NATO countries currently in Afghanistan to fill gaps and expand their role. As the Afghan Security forces improve their combat proficiency, they can assume responsibility in some regions. a. Advantages: The advantage of the proposed command structure is that it allows CJTF Commander the ability to achieve unity of effort and one over C2. Furthermore, it allows the political agendas of each participating nation to be met, while providing synchronization and integration of all forces into the overall operation. An integrated staff will allows the commander to draw upon the expertise of an allied or coalition partners in areas where the lead nation may have less experiences. In addition, integrated staff allows the understanding of each nation’s capabilities, weapons systems, logistics, communications systems, and planning methods. b. Disadvantages: Nations may be reluctant to grant this degree of control to another nation. Another disadvantage to lead nation command structure is that it requires detail planning and coordination to be effective. Rotating the lead nation every twelve months may disrupt the overall strategy. Different rules of engagement (ROE) maybe exist among nations. c. Justification: Lead nation structure bringing together a multinational staff that can resolve issues that may arise from several different viewpoints. Bring an understanding and wealth of expertise to the combine staff. Countries can easily rotate in and out of this structure. Lastly, it provides one central point for C2. Bibliography JP3-16, Joint Doctrine for Multinational Operations March 2007. FM 3-0 Operations June 2001. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm