Posted on Dec 15, 2015
Is the US Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan?
12.2K
25
16
0
0
0
Today DoD provided Congress with a report on “Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan” in accordance with Section 1225 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). This report addresses developments from June 1- Nov. 30.
The Taliban-led insurgency continue to present a formidable threat, as seen in both Helmand and Kunduz provinces, but the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) have proven their willingness to fight and their ability to thwart the insurgency’s efforts to achieve its strategic objectives. During the reporting period, the RS mission helped the ANDSF improve their capabilities in key areas such as intelligence, aviation, and sustainment.
In order to preserve hard-fought gains and help the ANDSF continue to develop, on Oct. 15 President Obama announced that U.S. forces will maintain their current posture of up to 9,800 military personnel through most of 2016. By the end of 2016, rather than drawdown to a Kabul-only presence, the United States will maintain 5,500 military personnel in Kabul and Bagram, in addition to a limited presence in the south and east. At the Dec. 1 NATO Foreign Ministers meeting, NATO allies and Resolute Support operational partners agreed to sustain the Resolute Support presence, in Afghanistan for 2016.
Although considerable challenges remain, the Department of Defense remains committed to the ANDSF and confident that the ANDSF has the capabilities, capacities, and morale to set the conditions for a secure Afghanistan.
The report is posted at http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/1225_Report_Dec_2015_-_Final_20151210.pdf
The Taliban-led insurgency continue to present a formidable threat, as seen in both Helmand and Kunduz provinces, but the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) have proven their willingness to fight and their ability to thwart the insurgency’s efforts to achieve its strategic objectives. During the reporting period, the RS mission helped the ANDSF improve their capabilities in key areas such as intelligence, aviation, and sustainment.
In order to preserve hard-fought gains and help the ANDSF continue to develop, on Oct. 15 President Obama announced that U.S. forces will maintain their current posture of up to 9,800 military personnel through most of 2016. By the end of 2016, rather than drawdown to a Kabul-only presence, the United States will maintain 5,500 military personnel in Kabul and Bagram, in addition to a limited presence in the south and east. At the Dec. 1 NATO Foreign Ministers meeting, NATO allies and Resolute Support operational partners agreed to sustain the Resolute Support presence, in Afghanistan for 2016.
Although considerable challenges remain, the Department of Defense remains committed to the ANDSF and confident that the ANDSF has the capabilities, capacities, and morale to set the conditions for a secure Afghanistan.
The report is posted at http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/1225_Report_Dec_2015_-_Final_20151210.pdf
Afghanistan
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) - Afghanistan
Strategy
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
I served three deployments in Afghanistan 04-06 and 08, during these deployments one of the key things that I heard a lot from Afghans was that they needed to to step up and take a greater lead in their fight, but corruption and greed was their greatest enemy.
(4)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Corruption IS their greatest enemy. And it's seen as normal day to day conduct. Get a Afghan contractor to bid on work, he has to raise the price so he can pay the local warlord, the police, the terp, and THEN he gets what he has left. Heaven help them if they are trying to come to the US. I remember my Terps telling me it was a minimum of 3k US to get the paperwork processed even when they had all the US paperwork in order. If they won't come to grips with greed, nothing we can ever do will help them in the long run.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
How can we when we've all but pulled out? I'd say we were being very effective after being there both in 2002 and 2013-14. Their infrastructure improved, technology, and then some. Still they are extremely challenged when it comes to their education levels. The best thing they had going for them was their younger generations. These are the ones who best worked with us and were willing to work with us and learn the skills they need to secure and protect their country. The older generations are where the corruption comes from and the refusal to stray away from Soviet influenced methodologies.
(3)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Maj Kevin McLaughlin all what you say is true, and that is were we failed by not supporting and returning King Mohammad Zahir Shah to power, because he had greater loyalty from most Afghans.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
IMHO: For the moment it appears we are helping to stabilize the situation, enhancing is debatable at this point. We have not achieved a sufficiently secure environment to enable withdrawal of US and/or NATO forces. The long term ability of the Afghan forces to protect and defend their own territory (Nation) is still a question mark, as tribal loyalties still tend to take precedence over nation-state perspectives and requirements.
(2)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
It is our failure not to understand their tribal ways that has created this slow progress; worst we did was not put the exiled Afghan King in power.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Alvin B.
It is an ongoing challenge for us (Americans) to work with entities that do not fit the classic concept of the nation-state. Afghanistan is essentially a feudal tribal state with limited interest in the central authority. Without a unifying idea or force, it will remain a challenge to engender a sense of national identify which surpasses the tribal identity.
There are parallels in our own history. The American sense of national identity as we know it today did not truly exist until after the Civil War. Prior to that time within the country we tended to identify ourselves as being from a state, territory or region.
There are parallels in our own history. The American sense of national identity as we know it today did not truly exist until after the Civil War. Prior to that time within the country we tended to identify ourselves as being from a state, territory or region.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google