A Couple of Items

I follow the milblogs closely and noticed a couple of items concerning Afghanistan in the last week that gave me pause and a bit of concern. Separately, neither is cause for alarm but together they seem to highlight an unexpected level of amateurishness and inexperience where one would least expect to find it.

The first involved the heightened security state at Kandahar and a subsequent memo from the contracting office on the base requiring all personnel including contractors to wear body armor and carry their helmets at all times while they are outside of hardened structures. Summer is coming and the temperatures are rising. As one contractor noted, "How can you pour (concrete) slabs in 45C (113F) heat with body armour?” That's an excellent question. He then continued,
“I just cannot believe the incompetence of those coming in this new surge. You would have thought that after almost 8 years, someone would know something about the place." A reasonable assumption in my opinion.

The order was amended the next day to correct the situation but you still have to wonder how something like this could happen. I'm inclined to cut the contracting officer a bit of a break on this, he's tasked with overseeing contracts worth millions and is responsible to not only protect the government's interests on the contract but to also ensure the safety and welfare of the contractor's deployed personnel. It is definitely not an easy job. But still, before issuing a memo such as this I would think a contracting officer inexperienced with local conditions would check with someone more familiar with the environment. That they did not lends a lot of credence to the contractor's assessment of incompetence.

The other item I noted is a little more serious. A National Guard Embedded Training Team (ETT) has found out that it is close to rotation. The current ETT is led by a senior Major and is composed of a Captain and several Senior NCOs. They have discovered that they will be replaced by a team from the Georgia National Guard headed by a Second Lieutenant and staffed with several mid-level NCOs. That's all well and good, but this ETT is attached to an Afghan National Army (ANA) battalion which calls the experience level of the replacements into serious question.

Now don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with a 2LT and a bunch of E-5s composing an ETT. But instead of advising a battalion, wouldn't it be more appropriate for them to be working at the platoon and/or company level? These guys just don't have the training and experience needed to advise an ANA battalion commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel and his staff. And what about the implied insult to the ANA LtCol? Are we telling him that we don't think his command merits the assignment of a field grade officer instead of a relatively new company grade 2LT? And it surely sends a derogatory message to his staff since we're only giving them a handful of potential platoon sergeants to advise them instead of the experienced former company commanders they deserve.

Hopefully these two situations are just the normal abberations that pop up in any armed conflict. But it is a bit disconcerting that they showed up so close together and at the same time we are ramping up for a "surge" in Afghanistan. Let's hope that there are no more abberations.