You are here

Defence`s Feeds

Jihadi Commuters: How the Taleban cross the Durand Line

The Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN) - Tue, 17/10/2017 - 12:38

The Taleban use Pakistan as a sanctuary: most of the movement’s leaders are settled there and it is the movement’s preferred place for training, meeting and as a rear base. It is also the prime destination for ‘rest and recuperation’ (R&R) and the rehabilitation of wounded fighters. But how do the Taleban move between the battlefields of Afghanistan and their bases in Pakistan? AAN’s Fazal Muzhary and Borhan Osman have been analysing the jihadi ‘commuting routes’ between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The information in this dispatch is largely based on conversations with Taleban fighters, former Taleban officials who have recently quit the movement, local residents and doctors in southern and south-eastern Afghanistan and with Afghans living in Pakistan’s Balochistan province who have contacts with the Taleban. The two authors have been collecting information on this subject since 2014, while doing other research in these areas.

When Mullah Akhtar Mansur was officially taking over the Taleban leadership in 2015, more than 2000 field commanders travelled from across Afghanistan to Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s Balochistan province and the Taleban’s effective headquarters. Responding to an urgent call by the leadership council (also known as the Quetta shura) for a ‘general assembly’ planned for 31 July 2015, they arrived within three days. During that time, according to eyewitnesses, flocks of armed Taleban crossed the Durand Line. Traces of dust followed the convoys, each made up dozens of cars and motorbikes, driving along the dusty, gravel routes which cross the border in southern Afghanistan.

The Taleban did not need to think hard about which crossing points to choose for entering Pakistan. Among the dozens of options available, they were familiar with the crossing points used by their comrades who routinely cross the border. They did not need to worry about anyone intercepting or stopping them on these routes. On the Afghan side, most of the territory they were passing through was already under Taleban control. On the Pakistani side, areas near these crossing points were either lawless or manned by government security forces who did not seem bothered by the movement of militants fighting the Afghan government and its allies.

Such ease of movement between the two countries has made it possible for local Taleban cadre to commute, on a regular basis, from one side of the de facto border to the other. Before going into details about two of the Taleban’s favourite crossing points, it might be useful to have an overview of the general cross-border movements of people between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The border is too long to be sealed

The Durand Line, which serves as the de facto border between the two countries, is about 2,400 kilometres long and passes through a third of Afghanistan’s provinces. It is non-demarcated and extremely porous, arbitrarily dividing communities who continue to maintain relations across the line. According to a former Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan, Rustam Shah Mohmand, there are 235 crossing points along the border, which translates into almost one crossing point per 10 kilometres. Only 20 of them are used frequently and only two of them have all the essential border controls in place, such as immigration, customs and security checkpoints. These are the most frequented: one is the Torkham Gate in eastern Nangarhar province and the other is the Wesh–Chaman Gate in the southern Kandahar province. While these two crossing points are used by people from across Afghanistan, the 18 other frequently used crossings are used mostly by the local population on both sides of the line and are motorable. They are also used by smugglers and traffickers of illicit drugs, as well as by militants fighting in both countries who want to reach major urban centres in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The rest of the crossing points are mostly local trails connecting one community or part of a community to another, but they do not usually lead to major cities in either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The multiplicity of routes along the long, porous Durand Line and the rugged terrain it runs through have long made it, in practice, impossible to completely ‘seal’. Long before the current wave of insurgency, in the 1980s, demands to seal the border were much stronger than they are now. Then, anti-government mujahedin insurgents regularly moved across the Durand Line to launch attacks inside Afghanistan. Like the Taleban, the mujahedin used Pakistan as a sanctuary, training centre and supply base, but in a much more open, public way. The then government in Kabul with support from the Soviet Union tried much harder to stop the cross-border movement of fighters and weapons. They failed. A declassified CIA report from 1981 concluded that closing the border to insurgent infiltration was not feasible unless the Soviets and the government in Kabul conducted massive and long-term operations and put in far greater resources than the Soviets were then doing. Taleban ‘commuting’ is therefore a time-honoured technique and its effectiveness well-proven.

The Taleban’s favourite entryways for infiltration and exfiltration

To illustrate the Taleban’s movement across the Durand Line in some detail, here is a brief description of the two crossing points most frequented by the insurgents along the southern zone, the Baramcha and the Badini crossing points:

  1. The Bahramcha crossing point

Located in Helmand’s remote Dishu district, the Bahramcha crossing point is 300 kilometres south of the provincial capital, Lashkargah. The border passing through Dishu is 163 kilometres long. On the Pakistani side of the border line lies Chaghi, a predominantly Baloch district Chaghi, a district of Balochistan province, with  the Gerdi Jangal (sometimes spelled Jungle) town and refugee camp . The majority of the population on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border used to be Baloch, while, particularly on the Pakistani side, Pashtuns – mainly from the Eshaqzai tribe – have moved south latest since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as refugees. Dishu has been out of the control of the Afghan government since as early as 2003.

The wider area in which the Bahramcha crossing point is located saw some of the earliest signs of insurgency, starting in 2002, a year after the fall of the Taleban, according to the memoirs of one of its participants. Neither the Afghan government, nor the Pakistani authorities have any offices for registering the movement of people and supplies in Bahramcha. It is used both as a foot and motor crossing. It is the most used route for drug trafficking in Afghanistan and the border area hosts one of the biggest networks of heroin labs. The terrain is divided between sandy and mountainous environments.

Bahramcha is one of the most important crossing points for Taleban fighters, especially those from the south and south-western, as well as western provinces, such as Helmand, Farah, Nimroz, Herat and Ghor. (Kandahari and Uruzgani Taleban mostly use a crossing point in the Registan district in Kandahar province). Bahramcha and the broader Dishu district is lawless in terms of there not being a regular government, leaving the area to be ruled by the shadow government of the Taleban. The insurgent movement is in control of the drug market and its lucrative tax flow. Bahramcha is not only a major hub of drug processing labs, but also home to Taleban training camps and bomb production factories. This infrastructure supplies the Taleban battlefield in Helmand as well as in neighbouring Farah and Nimroz provinces.

The Afghan Taleban use this point for moving their fighters and transferring their wounded for treatment in Pakistan. Wounded fighters are mostly taken to private hospitals in the closest towns on the Pakistani side of the Durand line, namely Dalbandin and Chaghai. Those in need of further or more complicated surgical operations are taken to Quetta or Karachi. The Taleban also use this crossing point to connect to one of the main meeting places of the movement, Gerdi Jangal. Situated 360 kilometres from Quetta and 90 kilometres from the Afghan border, Gerdi Jangal is inhabited mostly by Eshaqzai , the majority of them originally from Helmand. This is the same tribe from which many Taleban leaders are drawn, including the powerful late leader Akhtar Mansur.

Taleban commanders and fighters from the southern, south-western and western provinces use this route for normal movement, between their homes in Pakistan and the battlefield, or if they live in Afghanistan, to visit leaders in Quetta and enjoy some R&R. One south-based Taleban cadre told AAN that some in the ranks move between Gerdi Jangal and Helmand on an almost regular basis, commuting weekly. They ride non-stop in groups of five to 15 on motorbikes from the southern districts of Helmand to Balochistan.

The same route is also the most preferred for high-level Taleban. According to senior Taleban sources, Akhtar Mansur was as familiar with the terrain and people on both sides of the border as any normal local trader. He would frequently move around the areas in and around Bahramcha and had an extensive network of contacts with the local population in the border areas from Bahramcha up to Nimroz, befriending influential figures along the border in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. According to sources familiar with his movements, Bahramcha and surrounding areas were also Mansur’s favourite retreat when he wanted to hide from the Pakistani authorities, when, for example, he came under pressure. Current Taleban leaders, such as key commanders, military chiefs and governors, also use the same route to travel from their homes in Pakistan ‘on mission’ to oversee operations on the ground. Several Taleban sources told AAN that at least six of the most senior military and civilian Taleban leaders have crossed into Helmand province using Bahramcha this year, alone.

When it comes to the experiences of insurgent networks with this border crossing, it was not the Taleban who discovered this route. In the 1980s, the Afghan mujahedin also used Bahramcha in a similar way, to get training and supplies from Pakistan and then move into Afghanistan to fight the Soviet occupation forces and the PDPA regime. Most of the mujahiden fighters who were active in the southern provinces, particularly in Helmand, used it for moving weapons, recruits and injured people. Beside the mujahiden, most Afghans from southern, south-western and western provinces seeking refuge in Pakistan also used this route. When the fight against the Soviets was over and civil war broke out between mujahedin factions, some mujahedin commanders smuggled the Russian military equipment they ‘inherited’ from the Soviets and the Kabul government into Pakistan for sale, using this same crossing point.

  1. The Badini crossing point

Named after the area on the Pakistani side of the border, the Badini crossing point is located in the Shamulzai district of Zabul province. It borders Zhob district of Balochistan province on the Pakistani side and is located about 75 kilometres south of Qalat, the provincial capital of Zabul. According to a former Taleban official who was in charge of customs in Badini during the Taleban regime, this crossing point used to have all the usual border controls. During the Taleban era, he said, it was manned by security posts and goods were checked for customs.

After the fall of the Taleban in 2001, it seems the Afghan government has since tried to maintain active checkpoints here, manned by the Afghan National Border Police (ANBP). However, the number of the forces deployed is limited and does not cover all the motorable trails which travellers could take to cross the de facto border. This crossing serves as the most accessible and favourite entryway for the Taleban of Zabul and Ghazni and parts of Uruzgan, Wardak and Paktika provinces. It connects these provinces directly to a town known for being home to many Taleban in Pakistan, Kuchlak, 25 kilometres north of Quetta. There is a significant overlap in the tribal makeup of the local population on both sides of the line, with Kakar Pashtuns in the majority.

The Taleban have used the Badini crossing point since the insurgency kicked off in nearby provinces, from around 2005. One Taleban fighter, who travelled to Pakistan using this crossing point in 2010, said he did not see the Afghan National Border Police or any other security force at the crossing point. When he got to the Pakistani side, he said there were Pakistani border police, who let him and his comrades continue their trip unhindered. “The Pakistani border police did not stop us,” he said. “They just waved to us as a sign of welcome. We moved on with our motorbikes to reach Quetta. No one stopped us along the way.”

Taleban fighters usually pass the Badini crossing point in convoys of cars or motorbikes. For the wounded, if they can not be treated in local or regional hospitals inside Afghanistan, such as the major hospital hub in the Nawa district of Ghazni province, they are taken to Pakistan using Badini.

Just recently, in summer 2017, Taleban fighters in Ghazni and Zabul reported to AAN that the crossing point was blocked from the Afghan side. The rumour was that US forces were deployed to the border, making it impossible for Taleban to cross. Local officials in Zabul, however, rejected the reports of the deployment of foreign forces along the Durand line. In a couple of instances AAN know of, wounded Taleban fighters who could not be transferred to Pakistan due to the closure of Badini died from their wounds. In September 2017, Taleban fighters said the border crossing was opened for motorbikes and foot traffic only. It still closed to general vehicles.

The wider Badini area has also attracted the attention of government officials in the south because of what they say is the existence of Taleban training camps on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. The police chief of Kandahar, General Abdul Raziq, said in 2011 that the Taleban had training camps on the Pakistani side of the border near Badini. Raziq said that Taleban fighters were getting training not far from the eyes of the Pakistani police, one near the crossing and another nearby in Qamaruddin Karez and then were being sent to Afghanistan to fight.

Like other crossing points, Badini also has a history of cross-border movement from the 1980s, during the mujahiden insurgency against the Soviets. The mujahiden of the southern front, specifically Zabul, Ghazni, Uruzgan and partly Wardak provinces got their supplies from Pakistan and moved their men across the border using Badini. The border area remained out of the control of the then Soviet-backed government. Civilians from the same set of provinces also used this crossing point to flee to Pakistan.

Why do the Taleban find it easy to move across the border?

There are several reasons for the Taleban’s smooth cross-border travels at crossing points such as Bahramcha and Badini. What follows is a closer look at the major reasons, specifically the absence of government, the permissive behaviour of the Pakistani security agencies, the shared communal bonds across the border and the abundance of illegal networks that provide cover for the insurgents.

First, the absence of government security forces along these crossing points means the Taleban can readily travel between the two countries. The de facto border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is long, poorly demarcated and there are a multiplicity of formal and informal border crossings. This means it would need the deployment of a huge force and supporting resources to watch all the crossing points, even just the motorable ones. There has been no serious effort from the Afghan government to deploy troops to all the border points along the Durand Line which are, or could be used, by militants. It has established check points only at a limited number of the crossing points and the Taleban normally avoid these. The problem is that the main entry points used by the Taleban have long been out of the control of the Afghan government, meaning the government cannot deploy a force there.

It has been the Taleban’s well-thought out strategy when initiating its insurgency to threaten the government’s control around these crossing points. That is true for both Bahramcha and Badini. They were some of the earliest areas to slip out of the government’s control as the Taleban stated their comeback from 2003 onwards. It seems this was part of the Taleban’s strategy when planning their return in those early years. According to a former Taleban official who witnessed the initial discussions of comeback in the early years, many of the first-tier commanders of the first military shura that was formed in late spring 2003 started their operations from the areas near the border with Pakistan, in the provinces of Zabul, Kandahar and Helmand. The plan, he said, was to establish a toehold in areas with easy exit routes to Pakistan. Badini and Bahramcha along with the surrounding areas saw some of the highest concentration of commanders in those early years.

The second reason has been the permissive, friendly response that Taleban fighters receive from Pakistani forces. While the Afghan security apparatus has been unable to control the cross-border movement, or the government has been unwilling to allocate sufficient resources, there is apparently no such problem on the Pakistan side. As evidenced by the Taleban fighter’s quote above, the Pakistani forces posted there often greet the Taleban with a welcome, rather than trying to disrupt their movements. The lack of cooperation between Afghan and Pakistani border forces, or to put it more straightforwardly, the Taleban-friendly attitude of the Pakistani forces to the Afghan government’s enemies has encouraged Taleban fighters to travel as often as they want to.

Thirdly, the interwoven network of the tribal communities residing on the two sides of the Durand Line facilitate cross-border movement. In most cases, it is the same community with the same tribal structure divided only by a virtual border line. The communal relationship and the need for daily movement within such communities is the main reason why the Durand Line remains porous. This also allows insurgents who strike a chord with these communities to operate freely, using communal bonds. Initially, it is often insurgents with the same tribal affiliation who serve as trailblazers for such a route. Once the ‘co-tribalist’ Taleban find their way into a community, others follow suit, using the network and sympathy their comrades have made for the movement. Such relationships are enough for the local communities to make it easy and safe for Taleban to navigate the border areas. The Ishaqzais around the Bahramcha crossing point and the Kakars around Badini (but also beyond these areas) have long been key supporters of the Taleban.

Fourthly, there is an abundance of networks of smugglers and drug traffickers who have been using the same border crossings for a long time. The smuggler networks pre-date the current insurgency, and also facilitate it. They provide a cover for the militants, and relations between the two groups are usually cooperative. The Taleban can, therefore, find cover within the trans-border, local communities which are sympathetic to the insurgents and within the networks of illicit traders. In both cases, the Taleban are easily absorbed within the crowds of non-insurgent ‘commuters’.

The Taleban’s increasingly homeward movement

Since early this year, the Taleban have appeared to be suffering new pressure from their hitherto largely friendly host, Pakistan (possibly because Islamabad is under pressure from the United States to rein in the insurgents). With the caveat that this section is an ‘at-first-glance’ impression based on limited accounts from local residents and Taleban along the southern border (the same pressure is reported along the south-eastern border as well, according to local sources in Paktika, although AAN has not dug deeper here), rather than the result of in-depth examination, nevertheless, our interlocutors have said the Taleban are experiencing new pressure from Islamabad. They say the Taleban have been increasingly looking for alternatives to Pakistan inside Afghanistan for various ‘services’.

The trend had started much earlier, after 2014, of trying to rely less on Pakistan and move training camps and medical services inside Afghanistan. In 2015, many Taleban military leaders also moved into southern Afghanistan, using the Bahramcha crossing point, after some members were detained and others threatened after they failed to show up for talks hosted by Pakistan with the Afghan government (read more here). The movement into Afghanistan was also encouraged by the drawdown of international forces at the end of 2014, which, along with a change in targeting (with orders to concentrate on al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Khorasan Province or ISKP) meant a substantial decrease in the air power that had been used to target both Taleban leaders and mid-level commanders. The Taleban started to open local health facilities in the different areas of the south and hire local doctors to treat their wounded. One of the largest such centres, which was developed before 2014, is in Nawa district of Ghazni. However, air strikes by both the United States and Afghan airforces have been intensifying, as reported here, making it difficult for the Taleban to pursue their ‘Afghanisisation’. The insurgents will most likely have to scale back their hopes for coming home.

Restricting the militants’ movement is possible, but not stopping it

If border crossing could be made more difficult, the Taleban would likely look for shelter and bases within the civilian population inside Afghanistan. Increased air strikes would discourage them from building training camps, military bases and their own health facilities in ways visible from the air, but the movement would likely try to adapt, possibly by using civilian population centres and public facilities (for example, existing health centres and schools) as cover. The most important element of the insurgency, aside from the human, weapons, are increasingly available inside Afghanistan. Individual Taleban get arms when they are seized from the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and then split them as ‘war bounty’. Or, they buy them directly from members of the ANSF or from the black market. The exceptions are certain bomb-making explosives and chemicals.

Whether the Taleban’s cross-border infiltration and exfiltration could be made significantly more difficult is another question. The government would need to take control of the border areas where the most commonly used crossing points are located and introduce border controls. Such a concentrated and sustained effort has yet to be tried. Sealing the Durand Line entirely is, in practice, unfeasible without the commitment of a huge force permanently deployed to the 2,400-kilometre long de facto border and/or the solid support of local populations. It would also be politically undesirable: the Afghan government would not want to appear to be recognising the Durand Line by sealing it and dividing the local communities. This means the government is generally in favour of free, cross-border movement. Kabul wants the border to remain porous and with movement unrestricted for everyone, but for the militants. However, at the moment, they do not have the control to be able to pick and choose who moves.

Opting even for the less resource-intensive task of taking control of the main border crossings frequented by the Taleban could have a significant impact on the Taleban’s scale of operations. However, it would be unlikely to be decisive in turning the tide against the insurgents. As long as the insurgency continues to enjoy local support in some areas of Afghanistan, the Taleban could continue to operate within Afghanistan, despite restrictions on their cross-border travel.

Edited by Sari Kouvo and Kate Clark

 

 

 

 

Categories: Defence`s Feeds

Hawkeye

Military-Today.com - Tue, 17/10/2017 - 05:30

American Hawkeye Self-Propelled Howitzer
Categories: Defence`s Feeds

Highlights - SEDE Chair offers condolences following the recent terror attacks in Somalia - Subcommittee on Security and Defence

On 16 October, Ana Fotyga, Chair of the SEDE committee, extended her condolences to the people of Somalia following the massive terror attack in Mogadishu. She said:

"This weekend's terror attack in Mogadishu is an unconscionable atrocity. I condemn the perpetrators in strongest terms and would like to extend my sincerest condolences to the people of Somalia. Terrorism is a threat that affects us all and knows no borders. We will continue to do our utmost to support the Somalis and our international partners including the African Union in their fight against this scourge."
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Video of a committee meeting - Thursday, 12 October 2017 - 09:06 - Subcommittee on Security and Defence

Length of video : 139'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.3Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Boxer RCH 155

Military-Today.com - Mon, 16/10/2017 - 01:55

German Boxer RCH 155 Self-Propelled Howitzer
Categories: Defence`s Feeds

Jaguar

Military-Today.com - Sun, 15/10/2017 - 01:00

French Jaguar Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle
Categories: Defence`s Feeds

EDA call for papers: Maritime Surveillance Capabilities

EDA News - Fri, 13/10/2017 - 17:18

The European Defence Agency (EDA) today published a call for papers on the topic of Maritime Surveillance which is open to defence industry, academia, research institutes and associations or groupings of industrial suppliers. The call is part of EDA’s new approach towards establishing a structured dialogue and enhanced engagement with industry in the context of the ongoing Capability Development Plan (CDP) revision and aims at associating defence industry to an upcoming EDA Maritime Surveillance Workshop with defence planners and relevant experts.

Following a first workshop focusing on Remotely Piloted Air Systems (RPAS) which took place on 12th September 2017, the EDA is now organising a second one-day workshop to be held on 1 February 2018 to explore the mid to long-term (20 years ahead) aspects of Maritime Surveillance.

This workshop will not be a forum for discussing the commercial aspects of current systems, but a dialogue intended to enrich the CDP long-term view with industry inputs on the long term industrial and technological outlook in the specific capability area of Maritime Surveillance.

In this perspective, the EDA is inviting National Defence Industry Associations (NDIAs) and the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) to reach out to their members and encourage them to respond to the call for papers.

Selected industry representatives will be invited to share their views of long-term outlooks focusing on the questions listed in the questionnaire. Speakers will be selected based on this call for papers, which will be evaluated by the EDA.

Submissions are sought from as wide as possible a range of industries involved in aspects of development related to Maritime Surveillance. Though responses to all questions in the questionnaire are encouraged, submitters may develop answers to specific questions in greater detail based on their area of expertise. This will allow thematic discussion panels to be formed.

Submissions will be judged on their innovativeness and relevance as well as ability to stimulate discussion on the future role of Maritime Surveillance. Participation in this call for papers is open to companies of any size as well as academic, semi-governmental research institutes and associations or grouping of industrial suppliers.
 

How to submit :

 

Contact:

Eric Girard
Head of Unit Maritime Domain
Eric.girard@eda.europa.eu
T +32 2 504 28 72

 

More information:
Categories: Defence`s Feeds

Griffon

Military-Today.com - Fri, 13/10/2017 - 01:45

French Griffon Armored Personnel Carrier
Categories: Defence`s Feeds

UNAMA Documents Slight Decrease in Civilian Casualties: Indications of new trends in the Afghan war

The Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN) - Thu, 12/10/2017 - 18:28

There has been a six per cent decrease in the number of civilians killed and wounded in the conflict this year compared to the first nine months of 2016 – a year which saw record highs in civilian harm. The latest UNAMA report on civilian casualties provides, as always, sobering statistics of how Afghan civilians are being killed and injured in the war and by whom. AAN’s Kate Clark has been looking at the figures and assessing what they say about trends in the conflict. She also takes a special look at what the recently announced, intensified air campaign by the United States and Afghan air forces may mean for Afghan civilian casualties.

This latest report from UNAMA covers the first three quarters of this year (1 January to 30 September 2017), comparing them with the same period in 2016. It can be read here.)

There is some good news in UNAMA’s latest report, primarily that civilian casualties have fallen compared to the first nine months of last year. However, it was a slight decrease and masked a one per cent increase in civilian deaths. It was also only a reduction from a record high for civilian casualties in 2016. Such fluctuations in quarterly reporting have been seen before without annual reductions. (The last annual fall was in 2012 compared with 2011 – see AAN analysis here.) Even so, the reduction of six per cent in civilian deaths and injuries is welcome. In total, UNAMA documented 8,019 civilian casualties in the first nine months of the year (2,640 people killed and 5,379 injured).

What UNAMA defines as anti-government elements, ie insurgent groups, (1) were responsible for the bulk of the casualties: 5,167 overall (1,760 deaths and 3,407 injured) or 68 per cent of the total during the first nine months of 2017. They caused one per cent fewer civilian casualties compared to the same period last year. UNAMA attributed 66 per cent to the Taleban, 10 per cent to Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), aka Daesh, and the remainder to “unidentified Anti-Government Elements, including self-proclaimed Daesh/ISKP.” The figure for ISKP is huge, considering their limited territorial footprint, but is a consequence of their willingness to attack unprotected gatherings of civilians for sectarian reasons. (See recent AAN analysis here.)

Civilian casualties attributed to pro-government forces – UNAMA’s term for Afghan government and international forces (primarily the United States, which is now the only country with a combat mission in Afghanistan) and militias under their control (2) – were 19 per cent lower, compared to the first nine months of 2016. Pro-government forces were responsible for 1,578 civilian casualties (560 deaths and 1,018 injured), or 20 per cent of the total. Over half of these occurred during ground fighting.

UNAMA said it could not attribute eleven per cent of civilian casualties to either side, but said they occurred during fighting. (3)

Causes of civilian deaths and injuries 

The fall in civilian casualties so far this year was particularly marked in ground engagements, which is still the largest overall cause of civilian harm. Deaths and injuries here fell by 15 per cent overall and by 37 per cent in those attributed to pro-government forces. UNAMA reported a seven per cent rise in casualties from anti-government elements in ground engagements. Ground engagements caused 35 per cent of civilian casualties in the first nine months this year – 2,807 overall (684 deaths and 2,123 injuries)

UNAMA said the government’s commitment to mitigating civilian casualties had “led to fewer civilian deaths and injuries from their operations.” This was particularly marked in the north-east. (4) This was a change in tone from UNAMA’s 2016 annual report when it called for a cessation in the use of indirect use of mortars, rockets, grenades and other weapons in civilian-populated areas. “[C]lear tactical directives, rules of engagement and other procedures,” it said, needed to be developed for the use of explosive weapons.

The other factor, however, reducing the casualties in ground engagements was that there were less of them this year. Frontlines have been relatively static in the south, (5) unlike last year which saw heavy fighting in both Helmand and Uruzgan provinces, including two attempts by the Taleban to capture Lashkargah in Helmand and insurgent offensives against Tirin Kot in Uruzgan, as well as attacks on many of the districts of those two provinces. In the north, the Taleban also overran most parts of Kunduz city, before being driven back. This year, so far, there have been no major Taleban offensives against any large population centres.

One factor, not mentioned by UNAMA, may be the increased threat to the Taleban from the air, with both the Afghan Air Force (AAF) and US Air Force increasing the numbers of sorties flown and munitions dropped (more on this below). This may be reversing a trend seen from 2014 onwards, when ground engagements became the main cause of civilian casualties (the trend was visible from 2013. This had come about, as international aircraft were withdrawn and the Taleban were able to mass in large numbers and launch ground offensives without fear of being wiped out from the air. Significantly, the increase in the casualties from the Taleban side this year were largely from “small arms fire”, not heavy weapons.

Both the US and Afghan air forces have become more active in 2016 and that is reflected in the civilian casualties resulting from aerial strikes. Although still representing only six per cent of the total number of civilian casualties reported, the increase in the actual numbers was sharp: 52 per cent more civilians were killed and injured from the air in the first nine months of 2017, compared with the same period in 2016, with two thirds of the casualties women and children. 466 civilians were killed and injured in aerial operations in the first nine months of the year (205 deaths and 261 injuries). UNAMA attributed 38 per cent of those casualties to the international military (the remainder would be either from the Afghan Air Force or made up of incidents which could not be attributed to either.) The issue of airstrikes will be analysed in more detail below.

Other trends made evident in UNAMA reporting were a four per cent decrease in casualties from suicide and complex attacks, although that included 13 per cent more deaths. Such attacks result in 20 per cent of total civilian casualties – 1,584 in all (382 deaths and 1,202 injuries).

There was also a reduction in the number of civilian casualties from IEDs. They were responsible for 18 per cent all civilian casualties in the first nine months of the year, a reduction of eight per cent compared to the same period in 2016. There were 1,403 casualties (498 deaths and 905 injuries) from IEDs. The use of indiscriminate and therefore unlawful pressure-plate IEDs on roads used by civilians led to 803 civilian casualties (371 deaths and 432 injured), reflecting an 11 per cent increase in deaths from these devices. A quarter of these fatalities were children.

Many more civilians have been killed and injured in targeted and deliberate killings this year: there was a 13 per cent overall increase in casualties and a 33 per cent spike in civilian deaths. UNAMA said it had documented “disturbing trends of intentional killings targeting religious leaders, civilians perceived to support the Government or Afghan national security forces, and continued attacks against civilian Government workers and judicial and prosecutorial figures.”

Another troubling statistic was the many Shia Muslim Afghans killed and injured in the first nine months of the year. There were 278 civilian casualties (84 deaths and 194 wounded) of worshipers targeted as they attended mosques or religious ceremonies. (See recent AAN reporting here).

Air strikes and Civilian Casualties

Only six per cent of all civilian casualties in the conflict up to 30 September 2017 were a result of air strikes. While bearing this in mind and also the tendency for air strikes, particularly those conducted by the US Air Force, to receive a disproportionate attention in the Afghan and international media, it seemed reasonable to look at this issue in more detail, given the 52 per cent rise in casualties caused by them in the first nine months of the year (a trend continuing from 2016). It is especially relevant given the plans to intensify the US and Afghan air campaign further and, on the US side, the loosening of restrictions on when air strikes can be ordered.

Last year, in its 2016 annual report on the protection of civilians, UNAMA called for “an immediate halt to the use of airstrikes in civilian-populated areas and… greater restraint in the use of airstrikes where civilians are likely to be present.” It also wanted “[C]lear tactical directives, rules of engagement and other procedures” developed and implemented for the use of armed aircraft. In this report, it “reiterated its concern at continued increases in civilian casualties from aerial attacks, particularly among women and children.”

On 10 October 2017, the US and NATO commander in Afghanistan General Nicholson warned the Taleban that “a tidal wave of air power is on the horizon.” Both the US and Afghan air forces are flying more sorties, dropping more munitions and planning further increases in operations. The US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reported a 24 per cent increase in personnel in the Afghan Air Force in the second quarter of 2017, compared to the first quarter and an 83 per cent increase in sorties flown over the same three months. Some of that was due to “a slightly lower tempo of operations in the winter months,” it said, but it was largely due to “a considerable increase in the AAF’s recent operational activity.” It did not report on the number of munitions dropped.

Meanwhile, the US Air Force has also been more active, dropping munitions in quantities not seen since ‘the surge’ – the period 2009 to 2012 when 100,000 US troops came to be deployed to fight the Taleban (NB the first easily available data on US air munitions and sorties is from 2012) (6). The US Airforce has reported that September 2017 “marked a record high month for weapons employed in Afghanistan since 2012, with 751 munitions being delivered against Taliban and ISIS–Khorasan targets; a 50 percent jump from August.” The nearest known comparable months are July and August 2012, with, respectively, 504 and 509 munitions dropped. The comparable yearly figures are 947 munitions delivered by the US Air Force in Afghanistan in 2015, 1,337 in 2016 and, already in the first nine months of this year, 3,238. (Data here)

In testimony to the US Congress on 4 October 2017, Secretary of State for Defence Jim Mattis described how President Trump had made it easier to launch air strikes. (His comments were widely reported, although the transcript of the hearing has yet to be published):

“At one time, sir, we could not help Afghan forces unless they were in extremis” — that is, under direct, urgent threat, Mattis said. “And then eventually that was rescinded, but they still had to be in proximity. They had to be in contact [ie coming under fire from insurgents]. Today, wherever we find them, the terrorists — anyone trying to throw the NATO plan off, trying to attack the Afghan people and the Afghan government — then we can go after them.”

President Obama had already loosened restrictions imposed under the 2014 Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) which had only allowed combat operations against al Qaeda and “its associates”. From June 2016, strikes could also be ordered against the Taleban and for “strategic effects” (for example to prevent a population centre falling to the Taleban) and not just “counter-terrorism” (for more detail, see earlier AAN analysis on the US military strategy. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, who also testified to Congress, gave further details or the changes.

“The conditions aren’t specific to, as Sec. Mattis alluded to, a specific engagement or a specific time,” Dunford added. “So if they’re in an assembly area, a training camp, and we know they’re an enemy and a threat to the Afghan government, our mission or our people, [US and NATO commander in Afghanistan] Gen. Nicholson has the wherewithal and flexibility to make that decision.”

Significantly, the extra 3500 or so US forces, announced on 3 October 2017 as being deployed to Afghanistan are operating at a much lower level. They are operating in battalions, rather than just advising at corps headquarters. Mattis referred to them as combat troops: “The fighting will continue to be carried out by our Afghan partners,” he said, “but our advisers will accompany tactical units to advise and bring NATO fire support to bear when needed… Make no mistake, this is combat duty.” It seems the post-2014 fudge when President Obama wanted to carry on fighting in Afghanistan and insist that the combat mission was over, when it was not clear which US forces were involved in ‘the can be combat’ US Freedom Sentinel’s mission and the non-combat NATO Resolute Support mission is at an end. US forces will now be openly deployed in the field, calling in airstrikes and providing direct tactical advice on the front lines to Afghan forces.

The Afghan Air Force is doing better than it has before – although the historical precedents are very poor. War crimes reporting from before 2002 shows the sustained use of the Afghan Air Force to target civilians, when it was controlled by the PDPA (a junior partner to the Soviet air force which carried out widespread bombing of rural areas in the 1980s) and later by Shura-e Nazar and Jombesh, who got hold of the remnants of the air force after the fall of the PDPA regime in 1992 and used them to bomb civilian areas during the civil war in Kabul (all factions also used artillery indiscriminately in the capital). The Taleban, who seized some of those even fewer remaining air assets also used them to bomb civilians, including the hospital and Oxfam office in Yakowlang, in Bamyan province in 2001, and opposition-held parts of Dara-ye Suf district, in Samangan province in 2000, even bombing people who fled the town and tried to seek shelter in the mountains.

The current Afghan Air Force may not be targeting civilians as its previous incarnations did, but it has to do much more to avoid civilian casualties. UNAMA notes that, in October 2017, the Government formally endorsed the National Policy on Civilian Casualty Prevention and Mitigation, which covers all of the ANSF, not just the air force. The UN Secretary General’s Special Representative in Afghanistan, Tadamichi Yamamoto, said there must be a full implementation of the new policy and in particular: “…ensure the impartial examination and systematic tracking of civilian casualties and is legally obliged to ensure independent investigations into any incidents causing civilian casualties that may amount to serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

It is especially necessary to watch how the Afghan Air Force develops, given that its role is planned to expand markedly in the next five years. This expansion is a key component of the current US/Afghan military strategy (see here and here) and training, hardware and considerable US funding is in the pipeline. (7)

Assessing the plans to intensify the air campaign

That many more Afghan civilians have been killed and injured in air strikes so far this year compared to 2016 is clear. From the data available, though, it is impossible to determine whether, proportionate to the number of strikes, more civilians are being killed and injured (which would indicate poorer efforts to protect civilian casualties) or not. In calculating the overall calculus of civilian harm from air strikes, the decrease in casualties from ground engagements, which may partly be a result of the increased air deterrent on the Taleban, would also need to be factored in. Nevertheless, there are elements of the US and Afghan strategy to increase the use of air strikes which already ring alarm bells.

First, compared to the pre-2014 period, the US military command is far less transparent: in those earlier years, there was a real engagement with national and international organisations (including the UN and concerned NGOs, such as AAN) on how to mitigate civilian casualties. There was also a genuine effort, in training, tactical directives, (8) command and control, reporting and investigating, to minimise the harm to civilians. The US motivation was the realisation of the damage that dead and injured Afghan civilians were doing to its war effort. That emphasis on protecting civilians is no longer evident.

Pre-2014, there was also much more political pressure to avoid civilian casualties: an angry President Karzai and frequently outraged Afghan media has been replaced by the rather silent President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah and a far more subdued media. The current government recognises its dependence on the US and has been far less likely to criticise. If civilian casualties really rise, however, popular discontent may force this onto the political agenda again.

The second question, however, is what is the overall aim of this policy? General Nicholson, delivering Black Hawk helicopters to the Afghan Air Force at what The Washington Post described as an “elaborately staged ceremony at Kandahar Air Base [which] marked the formal launch of an ambitious plan to modernize and expand the Afghan air force over the next five years” (see here), vowed that the escalation of the air campaign would be “the beginning of the end for the Taliban.” His words brought a strong sense of déjà vu, not only claims made during the surge years, but even earlier, to 2001, claims that in the end amounted to nothing.

If the intensified air campaign is just aimed at pushing the Taleban back, although we may see that happen, we would also likely see the insurgents adapting their strategy. They did this before, after suffering huge losses in ground engagements in 2006 and 2007. They also bounced back very rapidly after US surge troops left and then most international forces withdrew in 2014; Afghan forces proved unable to hold the territory that the foreign troops had won. The Afghan insurgency tends to adapt, which means that new strategies and the creation or expansion of forces have not, in the long run, lead to territory being held, civilians protected or there being any decisive reduction in the level of violence: the war continues, in different ways. The US and Afghan strategy only makes sense – unless a forever war is really the preferred option – if any gains against the Taleban are exploited politically and the same energy and commitment is put into finding a political, negotiated end to the war, as has been shown in fighting it.

 

 

 

(1) In UNAMA’s 2016 Protection of Civilians, it wrote:

Anti-Government Elements encompass all individuals and armed groups involved in armed conflict with or armed opposition against the Government of Afghanistan and/or international military forces. They include those who identify as ‘Taliban’ as well as individuals and non-State organized armed groups taking a direct part in hostilities and assuming a variety of labels including the Haqqani Network, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Islamic Jihad Union, Lashkari Tayyiba, Jaysh Muhammed, groups that identify as “Daesh”/Islamic State Khorasan Province and other militia and armed groups pursuing political, ideological or economic objectives including armed criminal groups directly engaged in hostile acts on behalf of a party to the conflict.

(2) UNAMA in its 2016 Protection of Civilians report wrote:

The term “Pro-Government Forces” includes the Afghan Government’s national security forces and other forces and groups that act in military or paramilitary counter-insurgency operations and are directly or indirectly under the control of the Government of Afghanistan. These forces include, but are not limited to, the Afghan National Army (ANA), Afghan National Police (ANP), Afghan National Border Police, National Directorate of Security and Afghan Local Police – which operate under Government legal structures – and pro-Government armed groups and militias that have no basis in Afghan law and do not operate under formal Government structures. This term also includes international military forces and other foreign intelligence and security forces. 

(3) Some will have resulted from ‘explosive remnants of war’ left over from fighting. They killed 134 civilians and injured 378, most of them children. The Afghan government has now formally ratified Protocol V to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons concerning explosive remnants of war. “The implementation of this protocol,” said Danielle Bell, Chief of UNAMA’s Human Rights Service, “which will come into effect in February 2018, will prevent many similar and avoidable casualties from occurring in the future”

(4) UNAMA includes in the northeastern region, Badakhshan, Baghlan, Takhar, and Kunduz provinces.

(5) UNAMA defines the southern region as comprising Helmand, Kandahar, Nimruz, Uruzgan, and Zabul.

(6) Thanks to Jack Serle from the Drone Warfare project at The Bureau of Investigative Journalism for pointing out, after publication, that there is data cached. While the US Air Force has stripped away old numbers, he said, Alexa O’Brian has archived pre-2012 air power summaries here.

(7) SIGAR’s most recent report, to the end of June 2017, reported that:

As of May 18, 2017, the United States has appropriated approximately: $5.2 billion to support and develop the AAF since FY [financial year] 2010, with roughly $1.5 billion of it requested in FY 2017. Of the total amount since 2010, $2.2 billion was spent on the Special Mission Wing, the special operations branch of the AAF. CSTC-A [Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistan] noted that the FY 2017 figure includes DOD’s recent request to Congress for $814.5 million to fund the Afghan Aviation Transition Plan (AATP), which will replace the AAF’s aging, Russian-made Mi-17 fleet with refurbished, U.S.-made UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters obtained from U.S. Army stocks. 

It added:

The AAF’s current inventory of aircraft includes:

  • 4 Mi-35 helicopters
  • 46 Mi-17 helicopters (19 unusable)
  • 27 MD-530 helicopters (one unusable, two combat losses)
  • 24 C-208 utility airplanes
  • 4 C-130 transport airplanes (one unusable)
  • 19 A-29 light attack airplanes (12 are currently in Afghanistan and seven are in the United States supporting AAF pilot training)

SIGAR also said that:

As part of the AATP, over the next several years, the AAF will receive a significant number of new or refurbished airframes to grow the AAF’s inventory. According to USFOR-A, in FY 2017, two more A-29 aircraft have been purchased, but not yet fielded. In order to replace the AAF’s aging Mi-17s, the United States has also procured 53 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters as well as 30 MD-530s, three AC-208s, and four additional A-29 aircraft (for a total of six) using FY 2017 funds.289 While the delivery timelines and training requirements are still being determined, by the end of the AATP in 2023, the AAF will have a total of 61 UH-60s, 58 Fixed Forward Firing UH-60, 54 MD-530s, 24 C-208s, 32 AC-208s, 4 C-130 aircraft, and 25 A-29s.

(8)  In 2012, the then commander of US and NATO forces, General John Allen issued a new ‘fragmentary order’ altering the tactical directives outlining offensive fires could be delivered. Civilian residences could no longer be targeted unless, as Allen said, “my troops are pinned down, can’t move, and the only option they have is to deliver fires on these structures, or I decide, the senior leader out here, I decide to deliver fires on these structures.” The result, he of the new order, he said, was that civilian causalities as a result of air fires, “plummeted immediately.” Before then, air fire had been the main way in which civilians were killed by ‘pro-government forces’ (international military and ANSF together), killing four times as many civilians as any other tactic.

 

 

Categories: Defence`s Feeds

Latest news - The next SEDE meeting - Subcommittee on Security and Defence

will take place on Wednesday 22 November, 9:00-12:30 and 14:30-18:30 and Thursday 23 November, 9:00-12:30 in Brussels.


Organisations or interest groups who wish to apply for access to the European Parliament will find the relevant information below.


Further information
watch the meeting live
Access rights for interest group representatives
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

EDA workshop helps defence clusters access EU funding

EDA News - Thu, 12/10/2017 - 10:38

On 10 October, the European Defence Agency (EDA) held a workshop and networking event aimed at facilitating transnational cluster partnerships among European defence stakeholders (industry, research organisations, academia, etc.). The aim was to help interested parties benefit from EU funding opportunities and participate in relevant calls for proposals, in particular the ongoing COSME-funded call for proposals for defence-related clusters.

This the second time that the EDA organized such a workshop this year. The events were attended by 20 defence-related clusters from 13 EU Member States, representing over 1,000 defence stakeholders (SMEs and larger enterprises, academia, research and technology organisations, etc.).

During both workshops, European Commission representatives presented their activities in defence-related domains while EDA’s experts brought forward Agency’s recent work on R&T+I prioritisation, the Preparatory Action on Defence Research (PADR), industry engagement and the wide spectrum of EU programmes able to fund Key Strategic Activities (KSA) and EDA’s Overarching Strategic Research Agenda priorities.

Some 30 cluster-to-cluster (C2C) meetings took place during the two EDA workshops, either building new partnerships or enhancing existing ones, a practical example of the EDA’s role as an interface between Member States’ Defence ministries and industry, on the one hand, and the European Commission and other EU institutions, on the other.

 

Testimonials from participants:

 

  • Eduards Filippovs (Coordinator for International Relations of Cluster of Security and Defence of Latvia): “EDA is fulfilling a very important mission: bringing together public officials, industry and professional by encouraging to make new partnerships and cooperation, as well use of new instruments we have never had before in the defence sector”.
  • Eugenio Fontán (General Manager of Madrid Aerospace Cluster): “EDA is developing a set of concrete actions to implement the political strategy of Innovation in Defence”.
  • Klaus Bolving (CEO, Center for Defence, Space & Security, DK): ”The workshop provided participants with high-value information on new business and investment opportunities within the dual-use and defence areas in a very comprehensive and clear way. Moreover, the much appreciated C2C session led to new opportunities, which look promising with regard to closer collaboration between the European defence-related clusters. I look forward to following EDA and the European Commission’s continued work on facilitating European growth, jobs and capabilities for the benefit of a greater and more secure Europe”.
  • Tomas Žalandauskas (Director of the Baltic Institute of Advanced Technology and Vice-president of NGPA, clustering national defence industry in Lithuania): “It is hard to overestimate the value of direct contacts in such a conservative field like defense industry. We are grateful for EDA for excellent opportunity to find future partners and relevant information on funding possibilities for Europe wide initiatives”.
  • Ziga Valic (Head of European & International Affairs at the French Cluster Optitec): “EDA workshop for defence-related clusters is a welcome initiative offering a thorough overview of funding opportunities on European level and an excellent transnational networking opportunity benefiting clusters from all over the Europe. We hope this event will be organised on annual basis as it is a real value-added”.

 

More information and useful links:

 

Categories: Defence`s Feeds

Pages