战略与国际研究中心-Telling-the-Truth-About-the-War-in-Afghanistan_151页_8mb

Summary of Afghanistan's Uncertain Conflict Metrics (2017-2018)

Core Content

This document provides an overview of the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan from 2017 to 2018, emphasizing a shift from a time-based to a conditions-based approach. It also outlines the evolving situation in terms of conflict metrics, troop levels, Taliban control, and casualties. The report includes data from various sources such as the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), and the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), highlighting the complexity of assessing control and progress in the region.

U.S. Military Strategy

• The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan underlines a conditions-based commitment, meaning support is contingent on Afghan partners fulfilling their obligations.
• The strategy combines Counterterrorism (CT) and Training and Advisory (TAA) missions, with a focus on enhancing the capabilities of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF).
• The U.S. military mission is divided into:
  • CT mission: Targeting groups such as al-Qa'ida, ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K), and the Taliban.
  • TAA mission: Advising and assisting the ANDSF at various levels, including corps, zone, and tactical.
• The U.S. and coalition forces conduct security force assistance (SFA) as part of the NATO-led Resolute Support (RS) mission.
• The U.S. military's operational authorities include the ability to provide close air support and combat enabler support, which has been expanded under the new strategy.

Troop Contributions and Levels

• As of March 1, 2018, the publicly releasable U.S. troop level was 14,000.
• The NATO Resolute Support Mission saw 27 allies and partners collectively increase their personnel contributions.
• The total number of troops contributing to the RS mission in November 2017 was 15,046, with the U.S. contributing 8,475 troops.
• The U.S. military presence is primarily focused on supporting the ANDSF rather than conducting major ground combat operations.

Conflict Metrics

• Three primary metrics are used to assess control in Afghanistan:
  • District Control: Whether the Afghan government has effective control over a district.
  • Population Control: The percentage of the population under government or insurgent influence.
  • Area Control: The percentage of land area controlled or contested by the government or insurgents.
• According to SIGAR data as of February 20, 2017:
  • 57.2% of districts were under government control or influence.
  • 11.1% of districts were under insurgent control or influence.
  • 29.2% of districts were contested.
• By February 20, 2017, 56% of districts were under government control, with 64% of the population living in these areas.
• The Taliban claimed to control 10% of districts, contest 48%, and have 15% influence, according to their own assessment.

U.S. Air Strikes in Pakistan

• The U.S. conducted 12 counterterrorism strikes in Pakistan since December 2016, with seven in Kurram.
• Kurram became a key area for U.S. strikes due to the Haqqani Network's relocation there in 2014.
• Drone strikes in Pakistan decreased significantly after 2010, with only 11 strikes in 2015 and 3 in 2016.
• The number of strikes increased to 8 in 2017 following President Trump's administration.

Conflict Trends and Civilian Impact

• There was a decline in U.S. aid to Afghanistan, while casualties and conflict areas increased.
• High conflict districts saw a rise in security incidents, indicating continued instability.
• The Taliban's control and influence over districts and population areas remained a significant threat, with civilian casualties increasing.

Challenges and Outlook

• The Afghan government faces political instability, weak leadership, and deficiencies in the ANSF, which hampers its ability to maintain control.
• The Taliban continues to consolidate control in rural areas and pressure provincial capitals.
• ISIS-K remains a low-level threat to Afghan and Western stability.
• Regional interference, particularly from Pakistan, continues to pose a challenge, with terrorist groups like TTP, Jamaat ul-Ahrar, and ISIS-K being a major concern.
• The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is seen as a potential new target for militants.
• The potential use of tactical nuclear weapons by Pakistan increases the risk of nuclear proliferation and use by non-state actors.

Conclusion

The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is evolving toward a more conditions-based approach, focusing on capacity building and advisory roles rather than direct combat. Despite this shift, the conflict remains unstable, with Taliban control and insurgent activity still posing a significant threat. Civilian casualties and conflict areas have increased, and U.S. aid has declined. The complexity of assessing control is evident through the divergent metrics provided by different organizations, underscoring the need for a nuanced understanding of the situation on the ground.