The Nato Effort in Afghanistan

DEVELOPMENTS

Recent months have seen key changes in the leadership of NATO and a renewed public focus on its operation in Afghanistan.  Former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen took over as secretary-general of NATO earlier this month and named Afghanistan as his number one priority, noting his commitment to preventing Afghanistan “from becoming again the Grand Central Station of international terrorism.”  At the military level, U.S. General Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of both the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and of U.S. Forces – Afghanistan (USFOR-A) in June 2009 and has shifted the emphasis of the mission towards protecting the Afghan civilian population.  

This ramped-up effort in Afghanistan coincides with increased violence, particularly as the presidential elections take place. On August 15, 2009, a Taliban suicide attack on the NATO headquarters in Kabul killed 7 and injured nearly 100.  Overall, July 2009 was the deadliest month in Afghanistan for U.S. and coalition troops since the war began.   As well, there is also a renewed focus on the burdens being borne by NATO troop contributors, as casualty numbers increase and public support decreases.  As the war in Afghanistan heats up, NATO’s reputation may hang in the balance.  

BACKGROUND

NATO took control of the UN-mandated ISAF in 2003.  Among its key missions, ISAF provides security, helps build up the Afghan security forces, and assists with development through it provincial reconstruction teams.  Although it originally operated in Kabul, NATO operations have expanded outside of the capital to other parts of the country as well.  

ISAF is composed of nearly 65,000 troops from forty-two nations, including all the members of NATO.  Allies like Britain, Denmark, Canada and the Netherlands are fighting with the U.S. in the southern region whereas other countries, like Germany, are not.  ISAF provides a placemat showing the location and number of its forces here.  

President Obama has already approved sending 21,000 more American troops to Afghanistan as part of his administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which would bring the total U.S. military presence to around 68,000 troops. The U.S. currently has 57,000 troops in Afghanistan, 28,500 of which are operating under ISAF.  According to reports, General McChrystal is not expected to request any additional troops in the upcoming Afghanistan review to be submitted to the administration in coming weeks.

As the U.S. commits more sustained attention and resources to Afghanistan, new changes have been recommended regarding rules of engagement (ROE). General McChrystal, as part of a new “tactical directive,” issued new ROE aimed towards reducing the risk of shooting civilians; in 2006, NATO had adopted more robust ROE allowing troops to preemptively act to threats.  There is also an increased commitment to better coordination in theatre.  NATO recently approved Intermediate Headquarters that will serve to coordinate day-to-day tactical level efforts between the ISAF and American forces.  

For NATO, a lot is riding on the outcome of Afghanistan – including, some say, its future reputation.  A report by the British parliament’s foreign affairs committee issued this month warns that, “There is a real possibility that without a more equitable distribution of responsibility and risk, NATO's effort will be further inhibited and its reputation as a military alliance, capable of undertaking out-of-area operations, seriously damaged."

The inequitable distribution of responsibility has caused strains to develop in the alliance.  Some countries, like Britain, have sent troops to southern Afghanistan, a dangerous region of the country; others, like Germany, have not.  Rising death tolls have turned European public opinion against the effort.  As British troop deaths passed 200, an August poll conducted by YouGov/Sky found that 57 percent of British voters do not think their troops should be in Afghanistan and do not understand the NATO mission.  Reluctance is growing in governments as well.  The German government has refused to send reinforcements, and former Defense Minister Volker Ruhe has called the mission a “disaster.”  Even smaller troop contributors, like Poland, have expressed concern over sending additional forces to the country.  

ANALYSIS

Providing security is a crucial part of stabilizing the country.  Yet the recent suicide attack on the headquarters in Kabul, in which the bomber got past Afghan security and within 30 meters of the building, left some Afghans concerned about the level of security and the ability of Afghan forces to secure their own country.  Increased violence, both during the presidential elections and in its aftermath, will further test Afghan security forces and the ISAF, putting an even greater burden on contributing countries.  

Secretary-General Rasmussen said recently that NATO needs more troops, believing that an increase in troop level would go a long way towards continuing the progress that has been made since the U.S. troop surge. However, with many European nations having reservations about commitments due to their concern about the course of the mission, and with the burden sharing debate likely to become louder as casualties mount, it may make it even harder to convince allied countries to contribute additional troops in the future.  

Moreover, as the U.S. and NATO work to secure the country and evaluate the appropriate troop levels, the allied effort risks a further loss of public support if they remain unconvinced of the importance of the mission in Afghanistan.  Even the U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, told reporters at NATO headquarters in July that he did not think the strategy has been adequately explained.  Though NATO decision-making and planning is difficult with so many countries having a voice and a stake, more effective coordination at the tactical level may allow for a more coherent message to be disseminated at the strategic level, thus helping to build the patience at home needed for effort in Afghanistan to be successful.

Jessie Daniels recently completed her masters degree at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.  Prior to that, she worked as a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate.