Small Wars Journal

NATO Must Increase Assets, Cut Caveats in Afghanistan

Sat, 10/27/2007 - 9:24am

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates speaking at the Conference of European Armies, 26 October 2007.

Gates: NATO Must Increase Assets, Cut Caveats in Afghanistan

By Donna Miles

American Forces Press Service

HEIDELBERG, Germany, Oct. 25, 2007 -- Defense Secretary Robert M Gates urged European military leaders meeting here today to step up their countries' contributions in Afghanistan and eliminate restrictions on their forces that threaten the mission's success.

The NATO alliance has made huge contributions leading the International Security Assistance Force, Gates told officers attending the 15th Conference of European Armies. U.S. Army Europe sponsors the annual ground-forces conference.

He noted that NATO leads 25 provincial reconstruction teams that are helping the Afghans build infrastructure, while some allies are conducting decisive military actions that are thwarting Taliban efforts. Meanwhile, Gates said, NATO is helping to build Afghan security forces. The Afghan army is now 47,000 members strong and represents every major Afghan ethnic group.

However, Gates expressed concern that, without more mentoring and liaison teams and other resources, momentum won't continue. "Our progress in Afghanistan is real, but it is fragile," he told the officers.

The secretary repeated the message he delivered yesterday to NATO ministers during their conference in Noordwijk, Netherlands: NATO needs to commit more resources to ensure the mission succeeds.

"At this time, many allies are un—to share the risks, commit the resources and follow through on collective commitments to this mission and to each other," he said. "As a result, we risk allowing what has been achieved in Afghanistan to slip away."

Another big problem is caveats, restrictions imposed by individual countries on how their forces can be used within NATO. Gates said this problem is "symptomatic of a deeper challenge facing NATO."

He compared the problem to a chess game in which one player enjoys full liberty of motion and another can move only a single space in a single direction. "One player is clearly handicapped," he said. "Similarly, restrictions placed on what a given nation's forces can do and where they can go put this alliance at a sizable disadvantage."

Gates said he recognizes countries' need for political oversight of their deployed ground forces and that each NATO country has a different political and economic landscape.

"While there will be nuances particular to each country's rules of engagement, the 'strings' attached to one nation's forces unfairly burden others and have done real harm in Afghanistan," he said.

Gates urged conference participants to get their governments to take another look at these restrictions. "As you know, better than most people, brothers in arms achieve victory only when all march in step toward the sound of the guns," he said.

"To that end," he said, "I'm asking for your help to make caveats in NATO operations, wherever they are, as benign as possible -- and better yet, to convince your national leaders to lift restrictions on field commanders that impede their ability to succeed in critical missions."

Links:

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Gates Blasts NATO Members' Afghan Policies - Voice of America

Gates Prods NATO States on Deployments to Afghanistan - Associated Press

Gates asks European Armies to Push Politicians on NATO - Reuters

NATO 'Failure' Endangering Australian Forces - The Age

NATO Must Help Diggers in Afghanistan, says PM - Herald Sun

Gates: National Interests Hamper NATO in Afghanistan - AFP

Recipe for Disaster in Afghanistan - Toronto Star

Time for NATO to Step Up, in Afghanistan, Hillier Says - Ottawa Citizen

U.S. Prods NATO Over Afghan Security - Christian Science Monitor

Comments

Sluggo (not verified)

Mon, 10/29/2007 - 3:03am

"Different political" landscapes were a lesson learned during the whole Kosovo debacle. Did it change? No. A couple of examples:
- Countries support ISAF with $$ but specify what it can be spent on so you effectively have to hunt for a project that is palatable for the donor. This makes funding projects needlessly complex.
- Countries deploy their "forces" to theater with caveats that prevent them from helping other countries (or the Afghans) for even simple things like medical evacuation
- Countries deploy their "forces" to theater with caveats that prevent use of force against anyone not actually pulling the trigger against you