Afganistan

defence and security
143 DSC 12 E
Original: English


[pic]
NATO Parliamentary Assembly










afghanistan: towards 2014 and beyond




Draft General Report


Sven MIKSER (Estonia)
General Rapporteur*








International Secretariat 12 September 2012


* Until this document has been approved by the Defence and Security Committee, it represents only theviews of the Rapporteur.

Assembly documents are available on its website, http://www.nato-pa.int
TABLE OF CONTENTS




I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. ASSESSING TRANSITION PLANS AND PROGRESS 4
A. ENDING ISAF’S COMBAT ROLE 4
B. ANSF CAPACITY AND NEEDS 7
C. NEGOTIATION AND RECONCILIATION WITH THE TALIBAN? 8
D. OTHER CHALLENGES 10

III. TOWARDS 2014 AND BEYOND 11
A. DECLARATION ONENDURING PARTNERSHIP 11
B. A SUSTAINED SECURITY SUPPORT ROLE? 11
C. PROVINCIAL RECONSTRUCTION TEAM EVOLUTION TO AND AFTER 2014 12
D. MITIGATING THE IMPACT OF WITHDRAWAL ON THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY
OF THE AFGHAN STATE 12

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF THE CHICAGO SUMMIT 14

Bibliography 15

“United States goal in Afghanistan is to deny safe haven to al Qaeda and to deny the Taliban the ability tooverthrow the Afghan government. The strategic concept for the United States, along with our international partners and the Afghans, is to degrade the Taliban insurgency while building sufficient Afghan capacity to secure and govern their country, creating conditions for the United States to begin reducing its forces by July 2011 […] This approach is not fully resourced counterinsurgency or nationbuilding, but a narrower approach tied more tightly to the core goal of disrupting, dismantling and eventually defeating al Qaeda and preventing al Qaeda’s return to safe haven in Afghanistan or Pakistan” (White House “Terms Sheet” for Afghanistan Pakistan Strategy, 29 November 2009; Woodward, 2010).

“Throughout history, insurgencies have seldom been defeated by foreign forces. Indeed, they havebeen ultimately beaten by indigenous forces. In the long run our goals can only be achieved and then secured by Afghan forces. Transition then is the linchpin of our strategy, not merely the way out” (Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, Commander of ISAF, Testimony to House Armed Services Committee, 20 March 2012).

“We are on track to complete the transition to full Afghan security responsibilityby the end of 2014, as we agreed at our Lisbon summit. Our goal remains unchanged.” (NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, 2 April 2012).

“We are determined that all our sacrifices will be justified by our strong long-term partnership, which will contribute to a better future for the people of Afghanistan” (Chicago Summit Declaration on Afghanistan, 21 May 2012).


INTRODUCTIONEleven winters since the fall of the Taliban and nine since NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Afghanistan remains a difficult and challenging operation for the Alliance and its partners. Real improvements have been made in the security of some areas since the “surge” of 2010 and 2011. However, while the United States, NATO and other partners havesignificantly degraded the ability of Afghanistan and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda to conduct terrorist attacks, the insurgent forces and resurgent Taliban are far from defeat. With the security situation still fragile and reversible, transition of security responsibilities to Afghan control continues and ISAF troop numbers will drop below 2009 levels by the end of 2012.

2. Operationally, there are reasonsfor optimism. ISAF has been effective in targeting enemy combatants and violence is down in Helmand and Kandahar, traditionally the Taliban’s heartland and the most deadly provinces over the last decade. There has been less military progress in the eastern provinces bordering Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the heartland of the Haqqani Network. And although it is essential to...