With not the slightest hint of exaggeration, panel chair Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, the Army’s director, Strategy, Plans and Policy, opened this afternoon session of the second day of the 2005 AUSA Annual Meeting by stating, “The topic may well be the most important within the U.S. Army. It’s just simply – probably – the future of the U.S. Army.” And for the next two-and-a-half hours four imminently informed and provocative speakers fulfilled Dayton’s assessment.
Counter Insurgency Warfare in Afghanistan, 2003-2005
“We are operating in a counter insurgency mode [in Afghanistan] that is very different than what we are doing in Iraq,” said Lt. Gen.David Barno, assistant chief of staff, Installation Management. Speaking Oct. 4 in Washington, Barno provided a succinct, albeit troublesome, overview of counterinsurgency efforts versus a terrorist senior leadership, wide reaching networks among the people of Afghanistan, and such “centrifugal forces” as war lords, drugs and factionalism, with the “center of gravity,” being the Afghan people. Within this context he defined specific goals, including denying sanctuary to terrorists, enabling Afghan security structure, sustaining area ownership, enabling reconstruction and good governance, and engaging regional states, e.g., Pakistan, Tagikastan, et. al.
Key to this strategy, Barno said, has been to “give ownership to troops.” That is, by keeping battalions within a specific area for their entire tours of duty troops get to know the Afghan people by way of particular government entities. In effect, troops have learned more about why they are there; thus the mission has taken on greater purpose. In addition, he said, the mission of winning hearts and minds has been a matter of information operations, with strategy affected by acquired knowledge from field operations.
Civilian Emergency Response Capability – How USAID Will Deal with the
Next Crisis
Michael Hess, assistant administrator, DCHA, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) discussed the agency’s newly created Office of Military Affairs noting that the office will: serve as the focal point for USAID interaction with the military; maintain emergency response readiness; forge effective working relationships, including NGO-military interface; develop training and education programs; develop guidelines and SOP consistent with each organization’s mandate. In addition, Hess said that among the agency’s immediate objectives are building reliable civilian leadership, establishing timely and appropriate response, planning for contingencies, and establishing clear objectives.
State Department: Reconstruction and Stabilization
Ambassador Carlos Pascual, coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, Department of State, noted that the challenge to national security is worldwide, from East Timor to Afghanistan. Within this context, he said his mandate is “to create and institutionalize the ability . . . to help put a country on a path to sustainable . . . capacity.” Toward achieving this end, Pascual said that the “budget’s at a critical juncture right now,” and that there is too great a disparity between need and allocation. “If we care about these questions” of national security on a worldwide basis, he said, “we have to address this great disparity.”
Improving the U.S. Government’s Capacity to Execute Stabilization
Michelle Flournoy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) identified problems with U.S. stability and reconstruction operations and suggested potential solutions. In a study of Defense Reform for a New Strategic Era, she identified five problems:
- There is no integrated U.S. approach to stability and reconstruction operations;
- Presidential directives are not always implemented;
- Agencies plan and are run independent of one another;
- Funding is too slow and inflexible; and
- There is little rapidly deployable capacity outside of the Department of Defense.
Toward solving these problems, Flounroy, citing the study, proposed the following:
- Develop common terminology and an interagency concept of operations to determine agency roles and responsibilities;
- Create NSC Senior Director/Office for complex contingency planning;
- Establish planning capacity in key civilian agencies;
- Establish a standard NSC-led approach to interagency planning for complex contingencies;
- Create interagency crisis planning teams chaired by NSC;
- Strengthen integration in the field;
- Provide responsive funding for operations;
- Increase operational capacity in civilian agencies;
- Enhance “jointness” of interagency personnel.
Key to any success, she said, is to insure that civilian agencies, DoD, and Congress work in unison in such a way as to supersede politics. “I really believe that the only way this will happen,” Ms. Flournoy said, “is if the military demands it.”