CGSC C308A: Multinational Capabilities and Considerations Paper

At the start of the new millennium, China became rapidly known as the fastest growing economy sparking the greatest shift of relative power in history. Coincidence, or not, Afghanistan’s narrow border with China made it a perfect strategic target to presume military presence within the Asian region. Arguably, the invasion of Afghanistan lays largely on a tactical plan designed by the US to resist

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on December 1979, the goal was to help Afghan communist forces set up a communist government. The Soviet Union felt Afghanistan had key resources and a foothold in the Middle East to spread communist ideas. The result would be a war that the Soviet Union wishes it never got involved in and likened to their “Vietnam War”, meaning winning a number of battles but not the war like what happened to the U.S. in Vietnam. The background of the war, outcome of the war, and impact on the United States are key to understanding the Soviet-Afghan War.

For over 2 centuries, Afghanistan has known virtually no time without war. Beginning around 326 B.C. with the conquests of Alexander the Great, to the Persians, British, Russians and most recently, America and our NATO allies, Afghanistan has been cultivated into the country that it is today through a trial by fire. Regardless of this relentless onslaught of foreign military power, the Afghan people have tirelessly defended their homeland with no outside power ever being able to subdue them completely. Following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 1989, the country fell into civil war, torn even further apart by fiercely dedicated tribal warlords. This power vacuum led to the rise of a group called the Taliban. Led by a one eyed man

1. In President Obama’s speech at West Point, he announced that 30,000 additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan. He made this decision because he said it was vital to the United States’ national interest. The vital national interest at risk in President Obama’s address is the security and safety of the American people as well as the “security of our allies and the common security of the world.” By involving the military and increasing the troop strength, President Obama can achieve the objectives of his strategy. His objectives are to keep the Taliban from becoming powerful, prevent them from government rule, improve Afghanistan security forces and government so they can manage their own country and prevent Al Qaeda from

Progress has also been made in repairing and improving the infrastructure of corrections and training facilities” {Security- Canada’s Mentoring Role}. The Canadian forces provide Afghanistan with decisive and influential training to most, if not all Afghanistan National Army (ANA) personnel for them to become more capable and self sufficient when managing its populace. This concept shall assist the Afghanistan economy because if the Afghan Army were finally trained to proficiently secure its people and the nation as a whole, it will cultivate the government to become more effective hitherto, “turn and pave the way for economic development and reconstruction” {Security- Canada’s Mentoring Role}. In addition to the ongoing efforts by the Canadian Forces to mentor and equip the Afghan National Army, “Canada is also providing up to $99 million over three years towards: training, mentoring and equipping the ANA and the ANP; building capacity in administration and logistical support; and complementary initiatives in the justice and correctional systems to support activities of the ANP” {Canada’s Engagement in Afghanistan}. In order for the Canadian military to be able to maneuver themselves in the struggling nation of Afghanistan, it is obligatory that these armed forces be provided with the necessary weaponry and arsenal to cope through with their

ISIS being defeated is a sufficient condition for Pakistan’s winning the war on terror only if Afghanistan’s securing its borders is a necessary condition for the UN’s stopping the opium trade.

As America find herself in today’s “War on Terrorism,” one can easily find a number of similarities between today’s situation and the war in Vietnam. As the Taliban steadily loses control and power over Afghanistan, it becomes exceedingly important to discuss potential replacement governments. Afghanistan is, like Vietnam in the 50’s and 60’s, a very volatile country full of a variety of people speaking different dialects and practicing different religions. It is very important, then, that the government that is installed is one that is capable of maintaining some type of control or authority over its diverse people.

The Special Inspector-General for Afghanistan Reconstruction’s (SIGAR) quarterly report for January is a bleak read. At close to 30%, not only do the Taliban hold more Afghan territory than any time after the 2001 invasion, but "The insurgency is spreading (Afghan forces) thin, threatening rural districts in one area while carrying out ambitious attacks in more populated centers." The Taliban trifecta of high-stakes attacks in late 2015 adds weight to SIGAR’s assessment. Moreover, even before militants briefly overran Kunduz, Kandahar airport and besieged Sangin district, UN figures revealed a 19% increase in “security incidents” between August and October.

This paper will be explaining the similarities, and differences, between the Vietnam War and the War in Afghanistan. There are many topics that bring these two wars together. However, I am only going to be talking about public support, policy objectives, military strategy, weapons, fighting spirit, links to home, and death totals. These topics have a lot of information about them, but there is too much to write about every little detail, so I will cover the broad overview of them. Each paragraph will be about one of the topics. There will also be a discussion about insurgencies and counter insurgency operations. These are two big topics in Vietnam and Afghanistan since almost all of the enemy in both wars were, and are, comprised of insurgents and different types of militia groups.

447). This only goes on to administer Gorbachev’s ongoing practice of openness, as he further explains that the only ones that gain from the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan are those expecting to exploit the misfortunes of others. By ridding Soviet support of the Afghan war, it also helps support the ideals of the disarmament and negotiations related to the elimination of intermediate and short range missiles. He closes by saying that states have sufficient reserves of responsibility, political will and determination to put an end to regional conflict (Doc 82, pg. 448). Outlining the importance of reform within the afghan war, it shows strong similarities of the changing reform that has now been an ongoing implementation within the Soviet Union as

In an age when mankind has the ability to completely annihilate itself through nuclear combat, war can be a more terrifying and powerful thought than ever before. Unfortunately, because of the extent of the actions that the Taliban has committed against both America and its own followers, the United States’ war against terrorism seems to be a necessity. I do feel, however, as if there are many things that can be done by the American government in the near future to peacefully approach a more civil and politically involved Afghanistan. Although my feelings on a war against terrorism are mixed, I do feel that significant actions must be taken in order to restrict the spread of

NATO has a number of bodies with different functions such as the North Atlantic Council (NAC), the NATO Headquarters, the Military Committee, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the Secretary General, and other institutional frameworks for the relations with the partner states. NATO’s institutional designs are characterized by a mid-low degree of delegation, high member state control, and low agent autonomy. In NATO, both International Staff and International Military Staff work for the institution rather than their respective states from which they are delegated, and they do not possess any treaty-based formal competencies. These design features are best explained by realism. The United States, the hegemonic power in NATO, essentially seeks

Most of the fight that NATO has staged against terrorism has come in the form of the war in Afghanistan, where NATO has been fighting the Taliban in an attempt to stabilize the reason. The fighting started shortly after the U.S.’s call to arms after the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers that changed the way America thought about domestic security and terrorism.

The first tenet of COIN aligns with the first two statements of COMISAF’s Counterinsurgency Guidance. The primary focus is on the people and earning their trust. The people function as the internal intelligence for the government and support the goal of eliminating, harboring and providing safe havens for the enemy. This effort is supported by the United States Soldiers and its allies taking up residence in the community with the Afghanistan people. This also reinforces President Obama core element of a civilian surge to reinforce positive action. It is imperative to get the people out in the public view and not living in fear. Constant and daily interaction is essential in gathering local intelligence on what is going in the government in hopes of understanding how the people feel and think about their leadership. Communication is helpful but being a good listener is an invaluable asset to information gathering. Secondly, the United States military goal is to support the fostering of renewed trust of the Afghanistan people in their government and security forces. The ultimate goal is that the Afghanistan people reject the insurgents and stop them from infiltrating their infrastructure. This approach was taught by

Dollar, and Wolff, (1988, p.551) states that Finland and Sweden are EU member states with advanced and high performing economies. Their military forces were not subordinated to the Warsaw Pact and they have accumulated considerable experience in overseeing peacekeeping military action. Their regional security involvement is relatively stable when compared with the Balkans and South Caucasus. This will make them not to see joining NATO as an urgent strategy.