Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - 6:25 AM

By Paula Broadwell
Best Defense guest columnistBeyond the noise emanating from the air strikes and guns that surge forces are firing in Kandahar, another surge has occurred over the past year - a surge in the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).
Total ANSF growth, starting from November 2009 to present increased from 191,969 to 255,506, an increase of 63,537 (33 percent). The Afghan army has grown from 97,011 to 136,164, an increase of 39,153 (40 percent) and the national police from 94,958 to 117,342, an increase of 22,384 (24 percent).
In November 2009, only 35 percent of all soldiers met the minimum qualification standards with their personal weapon. There was an unworkable 1:79 trainers to troop ratio at the firing ranges where Afghan soldiers were attempting to learn. Ten months later, the average unit has a 97 percent qualification rate at the range and the instructor to troop ratio has decreased to 1:29, thanks to increasing support from coalition partners.
The quality of the troops may in some way be reflected through public trust. The Afghan Minister of Defense, Abdul Rahim Wardak, mentioned that the Afghan National Police (ANA) is perceived as the most trusted public institution in Afghanistan during a Rehearsal of Concept drill in Kabul in October. According to the results of an Afghan nation-wide survey (sample 6,700), 71 percent of Afghans feel a favorable impression toward the Afghan National Police (ANP) and 74 percent feel favorably towards the ANA. (By comparison, only 23 percent of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll this month felt favorably towards the U.S. Congress.)
Last fall, the daily ISAF training capacity for the ANA was 6,000 seats, resulting in a backlog of the Afghan troops in the pipeline. Today, the ANA daily training capacity has increased to 20,000 seats (up 233 percent) and the ANP training capacity has increased 38 percent, from 7,740 to 10,661 seats. In 2009, there were zero Afghan trainers. Today, there are 1,800 Afghan trainers in the ANA and 800 in the ANP, and those numbers are growing. A critical assumption here is the continued support of coalition trainers.
In spite of the quantitative and qualitative progress, three significant challenges could impede the professionalization of the Afghan security forces: leader development, low literacy, and losses through attrition. Here are a few things Caldwell's team has initiated to address those issues.
Professionalization of the force requires development of institutions, systems, and enablers to support the infantry and police security forces. "Enablers," for example, are critical to the system's maturation, yet in 2009, there were no branch schools. Today there are nine: Engineer; Legal; MP; Logistics; Religious and Cultural Affairs; Intelligence, Finance, Infantry, and Artillery. Human Resources and Signals schools will open later in 2010, and Armor school in 2011. There were no logistic bases last fall. Today there are four operational regional centers with a national center to be established by the end of 2010.
Education of this force is also critical to professionalization, but it takes time as we can see in western professional development pipelines for NCOs and officers. NTM-A has developed a "backbone" of NCOs, from 1,950 to 9,300, an increase of 7,350 (376 percent). The National Military Academy of Afghanistan had 300 applicants in 2005 for 120 spaces, and 3600 applicants this year for 600 spaces.
These are great programs for Afghans who are already literate, but illiteracy (70 percent of Afghans) remains one of the greatest challenges for the Afghan general purposes forces. Literacy for them is a matter of life and death. If soldiers cannot read a map to call in air support and MEDEVAC helicopters, the minutes lost by using geographic features to talk the aircraft into location translates to lives lost. NTM-A instituted mandatory literacy training for all ANSF a year ago and has since enrolled 27,105 Afghans. After 64 hours of mandatory training, nearly 100 percent of ANSF troopers list "literacy training" as their favorite endeavor. They proudly wear a symbolic pen in their shirts as a sign of literacy.
In the last but not least of the challenges, arresting ANSF attrition is also a serious constraint, averaging 5.39 percent per month over the past 12 months. The issue is not systemic, but specific to those units where fighting is hardest and furthest from home. Increased pay, assisted leave, and a new system of role modeling may help. Time will tell.
Hopefully, the upcoming Lisbon Summit will allow some time for COIN math homework. While they're balancing equations on the chalkboard, attendees there should be sure to note that while the surge of ISAF forces are on the offensive in Kandahar, there is also another important silent surge occurring in the country. Attendees will also hopefully realize that coalition forces must meet their promised trainer contributions for the conditions-based transition process to work and the ANSF to ultimately receive a passing grade on its report card.
Paula Broadwell is a Research Associate at the Harvard University Center for Public Leadership. She is the author of the forthcoming book, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus (Penguin Press, 2011).
In what capacity does Dr Broadwell write?
In what capacity does Dr Broadwell write these pieces?
As a reporter, as a PAO officer, as an analyst/scholar, or some combination of all three?
I will be interested to read the criticism she applies to her main topic in her upcoming book.
gian
I'd like to ask you the same question
I am honestly not trying to be adversarial when I pose that question COL Gentile. In what capacity do you write the pieces that you submit for publication? Officer, scholar, Asst Dept Head....etc. I know you use the title COL. I think you sometimes use a disclaimer (i.e. "my views not those of the DoD, Army" etc.)
I ask not because I want to poke a stick, but because I am about to publish something and am struggling with my own "approach." I am trying to cross some lines, and perhaps offend a few people but I don't want to be unprofessional/inappropriate about it. (LOL)
Look none of these guys numbers match. I mean their rifles don't match their helmets....and don't get me started on the fact that there are three Things 2s in a row there.
One no-bid contract to me for several million dollars and I promise I will sort the rest of this out for you guys....
http://despair.com/consulting.html
Thanks for that link. I got a good laugh and figured out a few Xmas presents too.
I have the Coffee mug on my desk - Headline: GET TO WORK, subtitle: "You're not being paid to believe in the power of your dreams."
I may have spoken incorrectly about her title
Don:
I may have assumed incorrectly that she has already completed the PhD since as I understand her dissertation topic is on the leadership of General Petraeus and as the author blurb at the bottom of the piece says she has a book due out soon with Penguin Press. So I immagine that she is close to finishing the thing if she has not already done so. If not, then my mistake and appolgies for innacuracy but almost for certain she will wear that sobriquet in the next year or so.
gian
to answer your question, Hunter
Hunter:
Yup, that is a fair question, an absolutely fair question.
I write as a historian and a serving army officer with recent deployment experience to Iraq. Both, I have to say are inextricably bound up in the things I write, whether it be history or contemporary criticism of a combination of both.
Technically when I publish something I never (unless the publisher blew off my request which I think has happened only once or twice) use my rank in the title. Instead in the author byline goes something like "the author is a serving army colonel and has had recent deployments to Iraq and he holds a PhD in history from Stanford University," or something like that. For some policy-technical reasons if I publsih an oped in a newspaper I usually wont associate myself with West Point. But if the publication is in a scholarly or professional journal I usually will.
Best guidance on these matters Hunter since as I understand it you are still a serving military officer (yes?) is to ask your command PAO how to characterize yourself in the published piece.
I think it is great that you intend to write and publish. After all as historian Harold Winton once said in an excellent set of essays on change in military organizations titled "The Challenge of Change" a military organization has to walk a fine line between embracing dissent and debate along with good order and discipline.
You know, though, what is one man's helpful dissent intended for innovation is another man's indiscipline and lack of professionalism. It is a tough line to walk, but it is also certainly worth the attempt for the health and intellectual rigor of our military.
gian
I've made mention of it here that this "psychology" journal article is focused on proactively mitigating the PTSD and suicide problems in the force. If you are familiar with the CEP in your own backyard you can tell where I am headed with it. It's in edit right now but I full expect it to be published in the Spring.
It's a bit "emperor has no clothes" in its approach so I am certain it won't be universally welcomed. Actually in all likelihood, given the tiny nature of this particular journal, it may go unread! But I am a Guardsman so the worst thing they can probably do is kick me out - which my wife would welcome. (joking)
That said I appreciate your response and I will ensure that my rank is not in the title, and use a byline/disclaimer similar to your own.
As a sideline note...I am finding this exercise quite enlightening because writing for journals has to be very streamlined, and that can be challenging.
Hmm - yet more unbearded Afghans. Remind me again why the SF guys are so hung up on growing shaggy beards?
Because SF know Afghans are Afghans and have their own way of doing things, like wearing beards and traditional clothing that their fathers and uncles defeated the Soviets in fine fashion with, as part and full time Mujahideen.
Instead of capitalizing on that, we emasculate them. . . .and now we’re giving them older M-16’s, instead of what they know well, and will be better able to function with long term when the trainers are gone. . . .just f**k’en wonderful.
(10)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE