Why have Senior Advisor Meetings in Afghanistan been held without their Afghan counter parts? Is this providing an American solution?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 12:57:27 -0400

While part of a MTT team in Kabul, I attended alot of Senior Advisor meetings with Nato allies who spoke on behalf of their Afghan Counter parts. Implementing policy and procedure as long as that deployment lasts for OER/NCOER/Award purposes. In my belief if you hold discussions about day to day operations of a countries future, in these meetings your Afgan Partners have to be present and allow them to develop their leadership skills

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made May 10 at 2016 1:04 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Tue, 10 May 2016 13:04:26 -0400

I agree, however, we may question the operational security and incompetence of the Afghan military.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made May 10 at 2016 1:10 PM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Tue, 10 May 2016 13:10:01 -0400

Not sure I have all the context to speak to this. As a former Air Advisor in Afghanistan, I would normally present our plan to senior advisors first before we brought the Afghan leaders in and informed them of our plan to train their personnel. To prepare for these briefings I would first work with my counterparts to discuss the plan before taking it to my leadership. Once approved, I would then meet with my counterparts again to inform them of what the larger leadership and I will be briefing their leadership.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 1:10 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 13:10:34 -0400

I could see this with selected individuals, but the vast majority of them suck and would leak the information out to the Taliban, costing more American lives.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 1:11 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 13:11:00 -0400

It depends on the intent of the meeting. Afghan culture dictates a different setting and goal regarding meetings. We are less personal and more goal-oriented/get to it quickly type of mindset, whereas Afghans are more into building a personal relationship with you first before moving to operational requirements thus they move much slower than western allies. This is why we do meetings without them, which in the end, it's counterproductive because we end up doing it all, leaving them in the dark.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 2:08 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 14:08:00 -0400

Q: Why have Senior Advisor Meetings in Afghanistan been held without their Afghan counter parts?
A: Because inviting friends to a meeting is a sure way of making them our enemy.
Sorry ... I couldn't control my inner Specialist.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 2:19 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 14:19:41 -0400

Great Post SSG-A topic of military relevancy.

When I was advising the ANA, we kept them in the loop...sometimes, they may have even dragged us along by the nose a bit. Everything changed around '07, and I hear it changed more. I'm not the State Department, but I think three factors began to challenge the ETT mission-1) Lack of defined point of completion, but constant need for updated status (TRAT)...2) Increased vulnerability of ETT personnel forward with ANA leading to blue on blue...3) Valid arguments that the ANA leadership was on the take.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 2:41 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 14:41:25 -0400

As an advisor to the ANP I was able to see this first hand. I would have almost daily meetings with my counterparts and then we would have evening meetings where we would get guidance from our team lead, which was a LTC and received his guidance daily from the CG. We would report up what the Afghans were doing and normally that would be good enough for the CG to say they were executing the desired effect.

Every now and then we would be asked to try something but it was always told to us that we could only suggest and we were not authorized to dictate what the Afghans did. We, the NATO advisors, had to find a way to try to suggest things to them in a way that made them feel like they came up with the idea. The team leader worked with the chief of police for the region and did a phenomenal job at assisting him with tactical planning.

At the end of the day you tell your counterparts everything that you can and invite them to any meetings that they would be allowed to hear without possibly endangering NATO forces. That is just my take on it though, I am sure a field grade could shed a lot more light on the reasoning.