Our allies need to build capabilities for counter-insurgency
Daniel Korski 4:28pm
Counter-insurgency warfare is meant to be different from traditional war-fighting in one particular way: it recognises the military’s limitations. It accepts that soldiers may be able to fight off insurgents, but only reconstruction in, and outreach to, local communities can stave off renewed conflict. In that way, counter-insurgency is based on getting civilians to play an active role.
But despite this new military orthodoxy, and some four years after the Taliban began its fight-back against NATO’s Afghan mission, the number of civilians deployed into theatre has been disappointingly low. Neither the US nor Europe have dispatched the hundreds of development specialists seen as crucial for success. In Europe, the problem is not only a question of political will and, lately, a worry that the Obama administration has no stomach for a drawn-out fight. It is also down to a severe lack of civilian capacity.
Of the 11,112 people reported by European governments in 2008 as ready for missions, only 1,928 were deployed. From Kosovo to Iraq, ESDP missions struggle to deploy civilian specialists. Diplomats privately admit that the drive to staff the EU’s largest mission, the 1800-strong EULEX in Kosovo, has drained the pool of deployable personnel. This has left other missions, like the EU’s police programme in Kabul, suffering. With the economic crisis putting new pressure on national budgets – Britain, for example, is cutting 30-40 percent of its seconded posts – recruiting civilians is only going to get a lot harder.
In the first-ever assessment of the civilian capabilities of the 27 European states, Richard Gowan and I examined a range of criteria beyond simply the numbers of people being deployed. We concluded that the majority of countries suffer from a "counterinsurgency gap," having failed to put in place bureaucratic systems to recruit, train and deploy civilians into military-run theatres.
Not everyone is bad as each other. Four different categories of countries emerge in the study. Countries that take civilian capacities seriously can all be found in a crescent that arcs across the northern-western part of the continent. This takes in Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Germany. Of these, Britain is probably the European pioneer. The way it recruits civilians and plans missions has been copied by the Netherlands and Denmark.
Below this group of high-achievers are a set of countries that seem keen to build civilian capabilities but have yet to make the necessary investment, such as enhancing civilian rosters, strengthening the recruitment processes and improving training. Together, countries in this group – which includes Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy and Romania – have reported 3,916 civilians and police officers available for European deployments, but deployed only 790.
Many southern and eastern European countries, however, appear unconvinced about the value of civilian deployments. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain all report poor inter-ministerial cooperation, and admit that civilian crisis management does not enjoy a high level of political visibility. Spain has met only 2.8 percent of a deployment pledge it made to its European allies in 2008 to fellow allies – making it the guilty of the biggest broken promise in this area.
If counter-insurgency missions are the way of future warfare – and if they will likely fail without the necessary civilian in-put – then building civilian capacities across the twenty-seven European states should be a security policy priority.



Previous






Chris
October 15th, 2009 5:38pm Report this commentGermany mentioned twice in same list, and although you identify four groups you only discuss three.
Interesting article aside from this as this seems to be a case of people not working well together.
Gareth
October 15th, 2009 6:04pm Report this commentUsing the number of civilians as a metric for COIN effectiveness is a wee bit simplistic. There are civilian contractors who cannot get out and about because it is too dangerous so their vital roles are not getting done. Or if they are able to get out and about it is only after striking deals with militias and paying protection money.
A quick and dirty answer to this conundrum (that civilians don't have the security they need and militaries aren't getting the civilian support on construction and administration) is to deploy military administrators and military engineers. They can both run and build things and protect themselves from attack. It gets the infrastructures up and running, doesn't supply the militias with funding and does allow troops to fight the enemy *if the enemy decides to attack*.
The benefit of this from a NATO perspective would be NATO Governments could sell the strategy of one of school n hospital building, sending more people and equipment into the region without the solely offensive nature of regular combat troops that many Governments seem to find distasteful. That is surely a deft political solution to a failing Afghan adventure.
For whatever reason the modern armies of the world have largely abandoned armed engineers and armed administrations in favour of trying to create secure space for civilian affairs to take the lead.(Except for building their own bases and the like) What is failing in Afghanistan is that the military cannot provide the secure space therefore few advances in administration and infrastructure can be made. The answer is perhaps not simply 'more troops, more fighting' to continue failing to create the secure space but rely more on armed forces to do the roles the civilians can't do because they would be in too much peril.
The army doesn't need to be just be for fighting but the politicians and Top Brass have decided that is all it can do.
Andy
October 15th, 2009 6:23pm Report this commentI see Germany appears twice in your list of countries training counter-insurgents - are they doubly efficient?
Golur
October 15th, 2009 6:47pm Report this commentIf we are talking particularly about Afghanistan then the situation is simply not safe in most of the Country for civilians. I've not long returned from working there, as a civilian, and there are enormous overheads involved - guarding of personnel. secure accommodation, etc. All are very expensive, and take funding away from where it should be spent - i.e. locally. For example, two "Development Advisers" are needed for each location if there is to be one one the ground at a time, as a combination of leave and the lack of transport (Helicopters) mean it can take several days to go a few miles. Add to that the fact that DfID/Stabilisation Unit insists that all DevAds are guarded by civilian contract guards - who do not come cheap - and the costs mount up, even before you step out of the gate (not that we can go out of the gate in many places, of course).
Good idea, but in Southern Afghanistan at least we are a long, long way away from a situation wherein civilian advisers could be of much assistance.
Count Meout
October 15th, 2009 6:58pm Report this commentYou use the first person a great deal - "our", "we", etc. Can you define who you mean by this?
Noa Zrk
October 15th, 2009 10:26pm Report this commentAs a nation we in the UK have yet to deploy our elite forces in this harsh and demanding environment. Why does the core of Equality and Human Rights Commission workers remain here when they are so manifestly needed in Helmand Province to reinforce our hard pressed infantry?
Womens' and Gay rights have been identified as key issues to be addressed here, and even more so there. Discrimination on religious grounds must be promptly and seriously addressed. Equal pay for equal work is such a no no in Sanguin, and we are doing nothing about it! Harriet Harman is my favourite candidate for my bitch of the week hissy fit for her hypocritcal inadequacy on this major issue and I will not rest until we bring equality to this beautiful, benighted but ever so backwardly macho land. "Is it coz they is muslim?"
porkbelly
October 16th, 2009 2:08am Report this commentItaly needs to be recognized for its unique method of ladling out cash to the Taleban in return for leaving its well-coiffed troops alone. They need to expand on this approach by bringing over some of their experienced civilian experts from Naples, Bari and Palermo...once Taleban militants begin disappearing one by one only to be found hanging in a meat locker, buried in a bridge abutment, ground into spicy sausage, etc. we would see real progress on the ground. Surely Berlusconi has some...acquaintances...he could ring up?
davidke
October 16th, 2009 10:07am Report this commentI've been a dev expert for 30 years, but I always turn down Afghan. The pay is miserable, the security provided is a joke, the comms are pathetic. And the dev projects are mostly worthless and doomed to failure.
The Foxhole Atheist
October 16th, 2009 2:51pm Report this comment@porkbelly: An very interesting point: 'How would the mafia do an occupation?' was addressed by William Lind in 2003-04 in his 'Fourth Generation Warfare' seminars in the context of Iraq. As an exercise in the application or threat of force, organised crime might well have some use in Afghanistan.
Back to top