wikileaks ico  Home papers ico  Cables mirror and Afghan War Diary privacy policy Privacy
Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07USNATO610
2007-11-19 13:53:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Mission USNATO
Cable title:  

NATO-AFGHANISTAN: PRESSING ALLIES ON ISAF FORCE

Tags:   NATO  PREL  MOPS  MARR  AF 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNO #0610/01 3231353
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 191353Z NOV 07
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1392
INFO RUEHXP/ALL NATO POST COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHKB/AMEMBASSY BAKU IMMEDIATE 0060
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA IMMEDIATE 0212
RUEHDL/AMEMBASSY DUBLIN IMMEDIATE 0282
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI IMMEDIATE 0874
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 0395
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL IMMEDIATE 0736
RUEHNC/AMEMBASSY NICOSIA IMMEDIATE 0076
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL IMMEDIATE 0225
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE IMMEDIATE 0021
RUEHSQ/AMEMBASSY SKOPJE IMMEDIATE 3312
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM IMMEDIATE 0764
RUEHSI/AMEMBASSY TBILISI IMMEDIATE 5522
RUEHTI/AMEMBASSY TIRANA IMMEDIATE 4439
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 0527
RUEHVT/AMEMBASSY VALLETTA IMMEDIATE 0388
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA IMMEDIATE 0369
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON IMMEDIATE 0064
RUEHYE/AMEMBASSY YEREVAN IMMEDIATE 0055
RUEHVB/AMEMBASSY ZAGREB IMMEDIATE 5418
RHMFISS/USNMR SHAPE BE IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL IMMEDIATE
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE IMMEDIATE
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0509
						C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000610 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/19/2017
TAGS: NATO PREL MOPS MARR AF
SUBJECT: NATO-AFGHANISTAN: PRESSING ALLIES ON ISAF FORCE
GENERATION

REF: USNATO 572 (NOTAL)

Classified By: Ambassador Victoria Nuland, for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000610

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/19/2017
TAGS: NATO PREL MOPS MARR AF
SUBJECT: NATO-AFGHANISTAN: PRESSING ALLIES ON ISAF FORCE
GENERATION

REF: USNATO 572 (NOTAL)

Classified By: Ambassador Victoria Nuland, for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) SUMMARY. Given the disappointing results during
NATO's November 6-8 Global Force Generation Conference
(GFGC), Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) joins me in
asking Washington to turn up the political heat on those
Allies whom we believe could do more to help fill the
International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Afghanistan's Combined Joint Statement of Requirements
(CJSOR) -- the mission's minimum military requirement. Our
goal should be to get commanders the forces, capabilities,
training and equipment they need for an effective ANA-ISAF
spring offensive and to demonstrate Alliance solidarity and
effectiveness by the April 2-4 Bucharest NATO Summit. As we
did before Riga, we should push all Allies to do more before
or by Bucharest with special emphasis on underperformers.
The assessment below (para 5) -- validated by SACEUR --
identifies the NATO Allies with military capabilities and
available resources to fill critical ISAF shortfalls. We
offer Washington and addressee posts the list at paragraph 5
for appropriate diplomatic follow-up to turn these realistic
military requests into political deliverables by Bucharest.
END SUMMARY.

-------------- --------------
Allied Force Contributions--more rhetoric than action
-------------- --------------


2. (C) Despite progress in force generation following the
November 2006 Riga Summit - over 7,000 soldiers added to the
ISAF rolls (though half of those were American) - ISAF's
CJSOR remains unfilled in such key areas as Regional Command
South (RC-S) and Regional Command West (RC-W). Important
capability gaps, such as strategic and operational reserve
forces, maneuver battalions, rotary- and fixed-wing airlift
(including medevac), counter-IED capabilities, and PRTs
(especially Nimroz province, between Helmand province and
Iran) remain. Major underperforming NATO Allies include

France, Norway, Greece, Turkey, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and
Germany.

--------------
OMLTs: Key to success and yet undermanned
--------------


3. (C/REL TO NATO) The increasing Allied rhetoric about
Afghan leadership and "Afghanization" of the mission is
beginning to ring hollow. In addition to the lagging force
contributions, the continued failure by Allies to meet the
need to replace U.S. embedded Afghan army training teams
(ETTs) with NATO OMLTs, is hampering both the development of
the Afghan army and police forces. Each U.S. ETT currently
filling a NATO OMLT shortfall is an asset unable to be
applied against existing Afghan police training needs. As
the ANA grows to its authorized strength of 70,000 in 2008,
NATO's OMLT requirement will increase from a requirement
today for 49 OMLTs to 64 OMLTs by July 2008. If no new
offers are received, NATO will have fielded less than half of
its needed training teams. We need to push all Allies to

double their commitment to Afghan National Security Force
(ANSF) training by the Bucharest Summit.

-------------- --------------
Equipment: Mission essential equipment / funding required
-------------- --------------


4. (C/REL TO NATO) Equipment or equipment transport trust
fund donations to the ANA before the fighting resumes in the
spring 2008 are also critical to building the capacity of the
ANSF. To date, Allies have contributed more than 30,000
rifles, millions of rounds of ammunition, and howitzers, with
more materiel in the pipeline. However, NATO's support has
hit a wall; ten donations are waiting to be shipped to
Afghanistan, but lack transport. The estimated cost for
contracting lift for these donations is $5,778,878 (4M Euros)
while the ANA trust fund currently contains only $462,292
(320K Euros). Allies must do more; our goal is either a
financial or material donation of consequence from each Ally.
Standing needs for the ANA from all Allies include night
vision goggles, optical sights, organizational clothing, and
body armor. Additionally, the ANA suffers a crippling
shortfall of light armored vehicles (need at least 100 M113
type vehicles), trucks (both fuel and medium tactical), heavy
engineering equipment such as bulldozers, and both attack and
transport helicopters. Nations should be encouraged to work
through their National Military Representatives at SHAPE for
specific ANA equipment needs in light of ongoing Combined
Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) efforts, and
to identify the niches that they could fill.

-------------- --------------
GFGC Offers -- CJSOR Requests -- Operational Caveat
Reduction
-------------- --------------


5. (C/REL TO NATO) The following assessment has been
validated by SACEUR. Offers made by each country at the GFGC
are listed first. Next, based on the current CJSOR and GFGC
offers, we identify critical shortfalls we should seek to see
filled immediately and not later than Bucharest. Lastly, it
is noted which nations need to lift caveats based on SHAPE's
recently released "Prioritized List of Operationally
Restrictive Caveats."

BELGIUM: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- confirmation of Kabul
International Airport (KAIA) lead nation rotation (Apr-Oct
08); renew C-130 support; provide KAIA force protection
capability; provide F-16 close air support (CAS); provide one
(1) OMLT; provide a PRT and associated enablers in Dai Kundi
Province by the second half of 2008.

BULGARIA: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide Role 2 Medical
Treatment Facility (MTF); provide two (2) OMLTs. Lift
operationally restrictive caveats. (Note: Bulgaria is one of
six ISAF nations on SHAPE's prioritized list of operationally
restrictive caveats that should be lifted quickly in order to
give COMISAF maximum flexibility. Caveats list has been
emailed to Embassy Sofia.)

CANADA: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide four (4)

additional OMLTs.

CZECH REPUBLIC: GFGC Offer -- Base force protection for
Uruzgan. REQUEST -- Provide Transport and Attack Rotary Wing
(RW) Aviation for RC-S; provide an OMLT for 1 BDE/203 Corps.

DENMARK: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide F-16 CAS for
RC-S; provide one (1) OMLT.

ESTONIA: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide one (1) OMLT.

FRANCE: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide Transport /
Attack RW Aviation for RC-S; provide Special Operations Task
Group (SOTG); provide a PRT by in the second half of 2008 for
Nimroz Province; provide a Maneuver Battalion for Nimroz
Province by the second half of 2008; provide two (2)
additional (Kandak) battalion level OMLTs (offered one
additional OMLT during Noordwijk) by the NATO Defense
Ministerial in Vilnius in February 08.

GERMANY: GFGC Offer -- Fixed Wing airlift and 4 OMLTs for
RC-N. REQUEST -- Provide the Operational Reserve Force (ORF)
battalion for ISAF; provide a Special Operations Task Group
(SOTG); provide three (3) additional OMLTs by the Bucharest
Summit.


GREECE: GFGC Offer -- Corps level OMLT for RC-C and Kabul
Intl Airport lead nation in April 08 or April 10. REQUEST --
Provide a Maneuver Battalion for RC-S or ISAF Operational
Reserve Force (ORF) Battalion; provide Transport / Attack RW
Aviation for RC-S; provide contributions to two (2) OMLTs
(above what they have already pledged); consider establishing
a PRT not later than April 2009. Lift operationally
restrictive caveat. (Note: Greece is one of six ISAF nations
on SHAPE's prioritized list of operationally restrictive
caveats that should be lifted quickly in order to give
COMISAF maximum flexibility. Caveat list has been emailed to
Embassy Athens.)

HUNGARY: GFGC Offer -- OMLT offer with Slovakia
contributions for Uruzgan. REQUEST -- Retain Pol-e Kohmeri
PRT; provide one (1) OMLT and contributions to one (1) OMLT
by the Bucharest Summit.

ICELAND: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide generous
financial support for ANA trust fund to help move others'
equipment donations to Afghanistan.

ITALY: GFGC Offer -- Strategic Reserve Force Battalion for 6
months. REQUEST -- Provide additional RW Attack Aviation for
RC-W; provide two (2) additional OMLTs by the Bucharest
Summit. Lift operationally restrictive caveats. (Note:
Italy is one of six ISAF nations on SHAPE's prioritized list
of operationally restrictive caveats that should be lifted
quickly in order to give COMISAF maximum flexibility. Caveat
list has been emailed to Embassy Rome)

LATVIA: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Increase contribution
for Maimana PRT; provide one (1) additional OMLT (above what
they have already pledged).

LITHUANIA: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide one (1)
additional OMLT (above what they have already pledged).

LUXEMBOURG: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide one (1) OMLT
or significant financial support for ANA Trust Fund.

THE NETHERLANDS: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Retain Task
Foce Uruzgan (including RW Transport / Attack Helicopters)
and the PRT in Tarin Kowt in RC-S; provide two (2) additional
OMLTs for 4 BDE/205 Corps by the NATO Foreign Ministerial.

NORWAY: GFGC Offer -- Reinforce Maimana PRT including Rotary
Wing MEDEVAC, an OMLT contribution for RC-N or Kabul, and a
Special Operations Task Group for 18 months operating in
Kabul region. REQUEST -- Provide one (1) additional OMLT
(above what they have already pledged); deploy the Telemark
Battalion to RC-S by summer 2008.

POLAND: GFGC Offer -- 4x MI-17s and 4x MI-24s in support of
Polish Battle Group and assume responsibility of PRT Paktika.
REQUEST -- Provide one (1) additional OMLT (above what they
have already pledged).

PORTUGAL: No GFGC offers. GFGC statement -- Announced troop
drawdown from 165 commandos to 1 C-130 and one Garrison level
OMLT (approximately 15 soldiers) for RC-C. REQUEST --
Provide Maneuver Battalion for Border Security in RC-S or
Nimroz / Dai Kundi Provinces; provide support for additional
two (2) OMLTs by the Bucharest Summit. Lift operationally
restrictive caveat. (Note: Portugal is one of six ISAF
nations on SHAPE's prioritized list of operationally
restrictive caveats that should be lifted quickly in order to
give COMISAF maximum flexibility. Caveats list has been
emailed to Embassy Lisbon.)

ROMANIA: GFGC Offer -- Fixed Wing airlift and increasing
Task Force Zabul up to 800 troops. REQUEST -- provide an
OMLT for 2 BDE/205 Corps by the Bucharest Summit.

SLOVAKIA: GFGC Offer -- Base force protection for Uruzgan.
REQUEST -- Provide a Maneuver Battalion or ISAF Operational
Reserve Force (ORF); provide one (1) additional OMLT (above
what they have already pledged).

SLOVENIA: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide a Maneuver
Company for RC-W (for increase to a Maneuver Battalion in
RC-W); provide one (1) additional OMLT (above what they have
already pledged).

SPAIN: GFGC Offer -- confirmed Standing HQ contribution in
2011 (looking for earlier deployment if possible). REQUEST
-- Provide Transport / Attack RW Aviation for RC-W; provide
at least one (1) additional OMLT (in addition to the two (2)
OMLTs already contributed). Lift operationally restrictive
caveat. (Note: Spain is one of six ISAF nations on SHAPE's
prioritized list of operationally restrictive caveats that
should be lifted quickly in order to give COMISAF maximum
flexibility. Caveats list has been emailed to Embassy
Madrid.)

TURKEY: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide an additional

Maneuver Battalion or the ISAF Operational Reserve Force
(ORF); provide Transport / Attack RW Aviation for RC-S;
provide two (2) OMLTs. Lift operationally restrictive
caveats. (Note: Turkey is one of six ISAF nations on SHAPE's
prioritized list of operationally restrictive caveats that
should be lifted quickly in order to give COMISAF maximum
flexibility. Caveats list has been emailed to Embassy
Ankara.)

UNITED KINGDOM: No GFGC offers. REQUEST -- Provide an
additional Maneuver Battalion in RC-S by the second half of
2008, linked to Iraq reduction; provide one (1) additional
OMLT (above what they have already pledged).


6. (C/REL TO NATO) USNATO has used the following general
points with Allies, which we encourage others to use in
ongoing engagement with Allies on force generation, and ANA
training and equipping.

Begin Points:

--At the Riga Summit (November 2006) our heads of state
recommitted themselves to the ISAF Mission. At the Defense
Ministerial in Noordwijk (October 2007) our ministers agreed
to fill critical ISAF shortfalls, reduce caveats, and enhance
contributions to ANA mentoring, training, and equipping.

--Allies have unsuccessfully addressed critical ISAF
shortfalls for over a year. The absence of these forces and
enablers will prolong the mission and increases the risks to
our troops already deployed.

-- Overall the GFGC made limited progress in filling the ISAF
CJSOR shortfalls. No offers were made against the 3 maneuver
battalion shortfall in RC-South (Border Security Battalion,
Nimroz, and Dai Kundi), the Rotary Wing Aviation Bridging
Force in RC-South, and theatre ISR assets (full motion video).

--At the 159th Meeting of the Military Committee in Chiefs of
Staff session, SACEUR requested that each Allied nation
(except Iceland and perhaps Luxembourg) provide one more OMLT
(above what they have already pledged). If provided, the
shortfall in OMLTs would be almost resolved.

--ISAF is an Alliance commitment and every Ally must do more
to fulfill the CJSOR. Our assessment--validated by
SACEUR--is that most NATO countries have the capability and
should be able to muster the political will to do more.

--We know that it is sometimes politically difficult to
deploy resources in support of NATO missions, especially
those far from home. But it is the responsibility of each
government not only to marshal the resources but also the
public support to fulfill its NATO commitments.

--NATO must fill these significant gaps in ISAF forces and
trainers in order to ensure a strong Afghan and ISAF spring
offensive next year and continued mission success in the
run-up to Bucharest. Your added effort is essential to
ensure Alliance solidarity - backed up by actions -- at the
Bucharest Summit.


End points.
NULAND