Provincial Reconstruction Teams: How Do We Know They Work?
Authored by Dr. Carter Malkasian, Dr. Gerald Meyerle.
March 2009
62 Pages
Brief Synopsis
Over the past 6 years, provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) have played a growing role in the U.S. counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan. PRTs are one of several organizations working on reconstruction there, along with civilian development agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, numerous nongovernmental organizations, and the Afghan government’s National Solidarity Program. Perhaps unsurprisingly, something of a debate has emerged over whether PRTs are needed. The authors argue that civilian reconstruction agencies cannot do the same job as the PRTs. While these agencies remain essential for long-term economic and political development, the PRTs conduct reconstruction in ways that help create stability in the short term. Absent the PRTs, the “build” in clear-hold-build efforts deemed essential to effective counterinsurgency would fall flat. Based on over 2 months of field research in 2007 and 2 months in 2008 by a CNA team with 4 different PRTs—Khost, Kunar, Ghazni, and Nuristan—plus interviews with the leadership of 10 others, the authors recommend that the United States give the PRTs the lead role in reconstruction activities that accompany any surge of military forces into Afghanistan.
Summary
The first provincial reconstruction team (PRT) stood up in January 2003 in the city of Gardez. A novel concept, PRTs combined civilian and military personnel into a single entity with the purpose of improving security, governance, and economic development. The idea was that PRTs would be able to get into areas where there was little or no presence on the part of the Afghan government or the development community and jumpstart reconstruction. In short order, the PRTs blossomed: seven more were established in 2003 and 11 were added to the list in 2004. Today there are 26 in Afghanistan: 12 under U.S. commanders and 14 under commanders from another country within the Coalition.
In the meantime, the PRTs evolved into much more than an agency with guns that could go to areas too dangerous for civilians and jumpstart development. No longer do they simply pave the way for civilian agencies to step in and do the real reconstruction work. Instead, the PRTs have become America’s primary tool for using large-scale reconstruction to improve security in Afghanistan; the executors of the softer side of counterinsurgency.
Yet questions remain. It is not clear that PRTs should be filling such a large role. Do they really make a difference, particularly in terms of improving security or the capacity of the Afghan government to govern? Even if they do, could not another organization, like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) or the Afghan government itself, do the job just as well, if not better?
The PRTs hardly stand alone. In addition, USAID, the Afghan government, and even U.S. battalions do reconstruction work in Afghanistan’s provinces. USAID has been conducting projects in Afghanistan since 2002. Few provinces have not benefited from their work. The Afghan government has the National Solidarity Program, which attempts to connect local villages and shuras with the central government. These are just the most prominent development players. Numerous nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) plus the United Nations (UN) do a wide range of reconstruction work as well.
The answers to the questions about the usefulness of PRTs affect U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Any surge of U.S. forces could be accompanied by an increase in reconstruction funding. If the PRTs make a difference and are unique, then arguably a large share of new reconstruction activities should be handled by them. If, on the other hand, PRTs do not make a difference and are not unique, then new reconstruction should be handled by other organizations.
We conducted field research for over two months in 2007 and two months in 2008 with four different PRTs—Khost, Kunar, Ghazni, and Nuristan. We then augmented that field research with interviews with the leadership of 10 other PRTs. That research suggests PRTs do make a difference, at least in three provinces— Khost, Kunar, and Ghazni. In Khost, an aggressive project “blitz” corresponded with fewer attacks and the emergence of a real partnership between tribes and the government. In Kunar, road projects in two major river valleys led to a rise in local community political participation and local resistance to insurgent activity. Tribes in at least five different districts responded to attacks on projects—roads, bridges, and schools—by coming out of their homes and shooting at insurgents. In Ghazni, PRT projects appear to have helped counter rising violence, and the PRT’s focus on reducing corruption and improving Afghan public health capacity can be said to have improved governance. Though we have not reviewed the history of the other PRTs in detail, our interviews with commanders and civilian representatives from PRTs in the east, south, and west do not disprove what we found and, in some cases, even support it.
Furthermore, our research suggests no other organization can fill the PRTs’ shoes. Civilian development agencies—USAID, NGOs, the UN, the Afghan government’s National Solidarity Program— cannot do the same job as the PRTs. Each plays a role in reconstruction, but none match the PRTs’ capacity to complete projects in contested areas. This is something PRTs do regularly, working side by side with U.S. combat units in the field. While other agencies remain needed for long-term economic and political development, the PRTs are best suited to conduct reconstruction in ways that create stability in the short term.
This is not to disregard other organizations. They are needed. USAID’s large-scale reconstruction projects and training programs build up the economy and governance in a manner and scale far beyond the PRTs’ capabilities. And the National Solidarity Program is an ingenious tool for strengthening local governance and expanding the reach of the Afghan government. Both the National Solidarity Program and USAID are better for nation-building and long-term economic development than the PRTs. A strong argument can be made that PRT projects are not needed in safe areas like Jalalabad, Panjshir, or Kabul. USAID, NGOs, and the National Solidarity Program can do the work in these secured areas.
For counterinsurgency operations in dangerous areas, though, PRTs are the name of the game. Accordingly, the United States should give the PRTs a major role in reconstruction activities that accompany any surge of military forces into Afghanistan. As much as possible, new funds meant to back up the counterinsurgency campaign should be funneled through the PRTs.
That is not all. Counterinsurgency objectives can be better met if decisionmaking for all U.S. projects in contested areas is delegated to the PRTs. The USAID representative at the PRT should be in charge of approval and monitoring for USAID projects in their province (excluding large cross-province projects). To do so, Congress will need to lessen the accountability required for USAID funds, and the USAID billets in all PRTs will need to be filled.
Additionally, to complete the added duty of monitoring and executing a greater number of projects, each PRT should be given additional security personnel and additional civil engineers.
These recommendations may not be the best over the long term. Over that period, it would be better for USAID, with its proven expertise and bags of money, to handle the softer side of counterinsurgency. By giving the PRTs, and hence the U.S. military, the lead in surge reconstruction, the United States would be foregoing the creation of a real counterinsurgency capability in USAID. Unfortunately, doing otherwise would take time. With a surge around the corner, the United States has little choice but to reinforce what has worked best to this point—the PRTs.
Access Full Report [PDF]: Provincial Reconstruction Teams: How Do We Know They Work?
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
