A "Comprehensive Civilian/Military Effort" in Afghanistan? Hardly.

Last week I wrote about the fanciful "progress" talk about Afghanistan coming out of General Petraeus' shop, showing that the security situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate even in areas held up by the military as positive examples. One of the facets of this drivel with which I took particular issue was the assertion of a "comprehensive civil and military effort" in Kandahar. A new report (.pdf) out today by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) further deflates that false narrative.

Recall that in Carlotta Gall's NYT piece, she wrote:

"Unlike the Marja operation, [military and other administration officials] say, the one in Kandahar is a comprehensive civil and military effort that is changing the public mood as well as improving security."

As I pointed out last week, military officials repeatedly described Marjah (yes, that Marjah) as a "comprehensive civil-military campaign," so it's laughable that we should buy that kind of description as an assurance that the push into Kandahar won't a) fail spectacularly, or b) turn out like Marjah. But the association of the phrase "comprehensive civil and military effort" with Marjah isn't the only reason we should be really, really worried.

SIGAR's latest report audits the implementation of the "civilian surge" meant to accompany the military troop increase. The report raises several concerns about the civilian side of the "civil and military effort," including:

• the effectiveness and quality of training for field personnel;
• the level of agency guidance for field work;
• the application of models for civilian-military integration;
• civilians' ability to oversee implementing partners;
• the civilian surge's long-term sustainability; and
• the Embassy's lack of a formal and systematic mechanism for collecting and implementing best practices and lessons learned.

Reading between the lines of report, we can also see that the civil/military partnership is, shall we say, a bit rocky (emphasis mine):

"improvements were needed in such areas as agency-specific procedures, working within an interagency setting, field conditions, and civilian-military dynamics."

"Both civilian and military personnel have stated that they would benefit from further training on the precise dynamics and best practices of the civilian-military relationship, as well as more integrated civilian-military training. For example, one official stated that training should include more exercises and scenarios requiring conflict resolution between civilian and military personnel."

"...an IPA summary of conclusions reached from interviews with approximately 50 State, USAID, and USDA personnel stationed throughout Afghanistan concluded that civilian-military integration is occurring because of personal tenacity rather than institutional planning. The summary added that there are no clear lines of communication for civilians in the field on how to act with the military portion of their PRTs, or how to delineate "taskings" from their military partners."

This audit is just the latest in a string of reports indicating real trouble not just with the relationship between the civilian and military personnel but with the entire civilian "uplift" itself.

Remember that the U.S.'s idea of a "comprehensive" civilian/military effort is a ratio slightly above one civilian for every 100 military personnel. SIGAR says that the January 2012 personnel target for this uplift is 1,500 personnel. That's fewer people than live in my little hometown in Texas, and it's expected to be a "comprehensive" partner for a 100,000+ military force in a country larger than California. Those 1,500 people will face a "lack of clarity from their agencies on various aspects of their work in the field," unrealistic training for their partnership, and massive logistical challenges. And, as the SIGAR report makes clear, they will also face a lack of respect from military colleagues who deride them as unreliable and ineffective because the arrangement of the civilian presence leaves them out of the information loop even when it comes to civilian-led projects happening in their area of responsibility. This is not a recipe for success, and it certainly cannot be described as a "comprehensive civilian and military campaign." It's a military campaign with a civilian fig leaf.

"Comprehensive civilian and military effort" is the new "government in a box."

We should replace these and other junk phrases with a new counterinsurgency motto: "Over-promise, under-deliver."

The Afghanistan War isn't making us safer, and it's not worth the cost. If you're tired of the spin, join the tens of thousands of others working to end the war at Rethink Afghanistan on Facebook and Twitter.

 

Follow Derrick Crowe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/derrickcrowe

Comments

[Fein]

12:59 PM on 10/27/2010

Our inability to reign in the MIC/Pentagon in this age is due to the fact that the MIC has increased it's footprint by employing American citizens and making them dependent on 'the defense industry' and who'll vote for their $ interests over those of the country.

[General Armchair]

05:17 AM on 10/27/2010

Governmen- in-a-box already exists for Kandahar.

It's called Ahmed Wali Karzai. An everything-for-expediency guy like General P will have no problem continuing our alliance with Wali Karzai. In the short run, some modest security gain. In the even moderately long run, more disaster as the moral underpinnings of the intervention wash away.

The villas in Dubai are not just a spin problem for General P. They undercut everything he and the West attempt in Afghanistan.

[topguide]

02:11 AM on 10/27/2010

History will not be kind to Bush and the neoconnedservatives. We will never win this war. No one in the history of nations has any nation successfully invaded Afghanistan. The Persians got kicked out several times. The Greeks came and were gone within a decade. The Mongols failed. The Ming empire took one look and ran away. The Indians were subjugated by the Afghans for 7 centuries. The British succeeded in conquering the Afghan rulers of India, but lost valuable resources trying to subjugate the Afghanistan itself. the USSR's collapse was hastened by it's invasion of Afghanistan.

The Russians and the British did horrendous acts of savagery that we could never do. We could spend Trillions and we'll never get anywhere. It's a worse quagmire than Vietnam.

[huffpo313]

04:26 AM on 10/27/2010

I do agree that history will not be kind to Bush. However, the rest of your comment isn't a good analogy to what we're doing, because there's just one difference -- we are not invading Afghanistan. Unlike all those invaders, we are not there to destroy, to take it over, to subjugate, or to terrorize the people. Unlike Vietnam, we are not trying to quell a popular, homegrown independence movement. If anything, the "invaders" are the Pakistani, Saudi, and Arab extremists that brought foreign customs and a foreign extremist ideology to Afghanistan and terrorized the Afghan people for so long. Those extremists number in the thousands -- they are not the Afghan population. They are not popular with the people, they are just feared.

How can America not defend itself and do nothing after we were bombed? Was World War II just a selfish invasion of Japan and Germany?

[Julie Zhou]

05:12 AM on 10/27/2010

Mind can be twisted so badly...

[topguide]

07:40 AM on 10/27/2010

The 9/11 perps were all Saudis funded by Wahabis with ties to the royal family. We ended up invading the wrong country because of the long history of Wahabi oil money that has propped up all the business failures of the bush family. Even our soldiers who have served there privately state we have no business being there.

[rmwarnick]

01:44 AM on 10/27/2010

The problem is that even if you manage to secure all the urban areas in Afghanistan (probably doable with 100,000 troops), that's just 25 percent of the population. The Taliban will rule the rest. Unless the U.S. and NATO are prepared to deploy and supply half a million soldiers halfway around the world for a generation, counterinsurgency is a non-starter. That's half the problem. As General Petraeus must know, a successful counterinsurgency ALSO requires a government with a reasonable claim to legitimacy. Where can we get one of those? Hint: it's not in a box.

[IfIonlyknew]

01:41 AM on 10/27/2010

It really looks like the military leaders have completely forgotten that war is not used for peace.

[PatrickforO]

12:40 AM on 10/27/2010

The war in Afghanistan really, really needs to end. We need to bring our people home, and then focus with single minded intensity on energy independence. Then, the goings on in the Mid-East won't affect us so much, and our Republican colleagues won't feel as if we need to invade another country every other day over oil. Wouldn't that be dandy?

[oxygen]

12:17 AM on 10/27/2010

already been following them on there and they are doing a pretty good job of letting us know the real story thanks great points also here by you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSeuLsNV4CA&feature=related

[AmericCanuck]

12:06 AM on 10/27/2010

Here's a thought.

Get the f//u//jk out of the Middle East

[bccmeteorites]

10:00 AM on 10/27/2010

Yes, and we need to quit using Israel as an excuse to invade Arab countries.