New orders?

What will the future for the Swedish Armed Forces look like? Well, a lot depends on the success of the current international operations that Sweden has taken or takes part in.

The Air Force has recently pulled out of Libya. The military part of the operation has been a success. Gadaffi is dead an the rebels are in control of most of Libya. However there are a lot of weapons that has not been accounted for. There is a huge risk for a civil war in Libya if the National Transitional Counsil does not take control of the country and disarm the rebel forces. The "Arab Spring" has resulted in the removal of tyrants, but can very well result in the installation of new ones. In Tunisia the islamic party Ennahda has won the election. Hopefully it will not enforce religious laws on the population. In Egypt there are still riots on the streets even after Mubarak was forced to resign. And these were the "peaceful" rebellions. What will happen with Libya?

In Afghanistan the future looks very unclear. ISAF will pull out in 2014. The Swedish troops in Mazar-i Sharif will start to pull out during 2012. This is a decision by the Swedish government supported by he Social Democrats and the Green party. 150 soldiers will leave during 2012 and in May/April 2014 the unit will leave the country. During 2012, three of the provinces will be transferred to ANSF control. The Swedish helicopter unit will stay. Unclear for how long. They have today two HKP 10 Super Puma and will after 2013 replace them with HKP 16 Blackhawk. After 2014 about 200 Swedish personnel will be in the country training Afghan units. But who will ensure their safety? If the security situation in Afghanistan will not be good enough in 2014 I seriously doubt that any Swede will stay in he country. Unfortunately the violence has increased in he northern provinces. If this is due to increased activity in the south and a change of operations in the north is hard to tell.

If the result of these Peace Enforcing missions will be countries left in chaos, then I believe that the Swedish government will change its policy and return to Peace Keeping missions.

But what do the Swedish politicians have to say about the future?

In a recent article in the Swedish paper "Svenska Dagbladet", Peter Hultquist (Socialdemocrat) and chairman of the Defence board of the Swedish national assembly (Riksdagens försvarsutskott) said that the opposition will not see Sweden lead another EU Battlegroup in the future. He also criticize the new logistical organisation and most of all the professional soldier system that last year replaced the conscript system. He stress the importance of supporting the Swedish military industry and in the near future the new A26 submarine.

I agree on the need to cancel Swedish involvement into EU Battlegroups. There is no future in building up the EU military capability as an alternative to NATO. The only countries that realy want this are those outside of NATO, such as Sweden and Finland. The other can not afford even a NATO-membership, even less extra cost for an alternative force structure. If Sweden want to take part in Rapid Reaction Units, then it should be NATO QRF. The Sedish Air Force squadrons are very adapted to this, which clearly the Unified Protector campaign showed. The Gripen Aircraft has NATO IFF, Link 16 and Have Quick radio. The pilots are trained in NATO-tactics and the staff units are used to NATO ATO - Air Task Orders.

I also agree on the need to investigate alternate solutions to the professional army. The recruitment basis for officers and soldiers will be too small. I also fear that the Swedish civilian population will have less understanding of what the Armed Forces are used for. My suggestion is to return to the conscript system, but have a three month training, much like the three month "boot camp", GMU - "Grundläggande Militär Utbildning"/Basic Military Training that is used today. Volunteers can the go on with the rest of the training to become soldiers, NCO:s or officers.

The development of the A26 submarine is also good in order to keep the knowledge of submarines development at Kockums. However Kockums is no longer a Swedish company, but owned by German ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. To say that Swedish military industrial knowledge is preserved is not accurate. The socialdemocrat politicians has also historically has a close connection to the industry. In some cases this has resulted in just developing military material rather than developing military capability.

Well, what is the governmental response on the Socialdemocrat critique?

Ceciilia Wennerström and Hans Wallmark of the Moderat-party response by saying that future Battlegroups will be pulled from regular army and air force units. They also say that the reason that the air force unit could be sent to Libya was due to tha fact that it was part of the Nordic Battlegroup NBG11 in standby alert. They also focus on the need to support EU military capability.

Well, what to say?

There is a big discrepancy. In the same article they say that the reason to why Sweden succeeded in sending the Air Force unit to Libya was because it was on high alert, but also that in 2014 any unit could be sent abroad without being specifically put on high alert.

Both statements are wrong!

The Swedish Air Force has always been on high alert and taking part in around the clock Combat Patrols over Sweden as part of the Swedish QRA - Quick Readiness Alert. The only difference today is hat the squadrons are trained in NATO-tactics and that the aircraft are NATO-compatible. That the Air Force can respond quickly without being part of a Battlegroup is shown by the change of the uit down in Libya when F17 Wing (that was part of NBG11) was replaced during the summer by F21 Wing that was on ordinary Air Force alert.

To say that any unit could be send abroad as is after 2014 is also not correct. There are no Swedish units that look exactly as needed for international missions. It must be put together specifically. And then it is also a need to train the unit for the mission in order for them to up and running. As best individual platoons or even maybe companies can be sent as is. The rest including civilian doctors, nurses etc has to be recruited. The army units hat are planned to be sent to Afghanistan know exactly what they are preparing for and can be sent for pre-deployment training about half a year in advance. But to say that all units will have this capability at the same ime will never be possible. It is too costly for the Armed Forces. It all depends on the level of training they have received to say that they are on high alert. In the Air Force there are four combat squadrons. One will be on alert. One will be on rest after an alert period. One will perform basic training of new personnel and one will be preparing to be on high alert the next period.

This kind of articles are unfortunately only propaganda. The Swedish minister of defence has not earned his nick-name "Baghdad Bob" for nothing. He and his followers has not changed their opinion even though a lot of officers are complaining that the planned future for the Armed Forces has not received a balanced budget. To have a complete Armed Forces in alert cost a lot of money. Professional soldiers are more expensive than setting up units for international missions when needed.

The focus on EU is also catastrophic. Sweden is today in need of an international ally. EU will never be this ally. The only available ally is NATO. Do Sweden want to continue in this direction which will sooner or later result in he need to join NATO?

The problem with both the Socialdemocrat and the Moderat defence polisy is hat the budget is too small to handle all ideas. The Moderat future will end in that the Armed Forces will strive to keep their personnel due to lack of training and lack of money to pay decent wages to the professional soldiers and NCO. The Socialdemorat future will end in that the Armed Forces can not rain due to much of the economy is lost to "sponsor" the Swedish military industry.

It is fortunate for the Moderate party that I agree on their economical politics that has steered Sweden clear from the economical disasters that has affected the rest of Europe, because I do not agree on much of the current military politics! Unfortunately the Socialdemocrat ideas are not much better financed. And since the rest of their politics is not financed as well I will stay away from voting on them.

SvD1, SvD2, SvD3, SvD4, SvD5

ANSF Taking the Lead

The build-up phase is now over and it is time for ANSF - Afghan National Security Forces to take the lead in protecting the civilian population from the Taliban.

Nato has handed over control of the central Afghan province of Bamiyan to Afghan security forces. It is the first of seven areas to be passed to local forces under a plan announced by President Karzai in March.

Bamiyan is one of the country's most secure provinces but it is a poor region, heavily reliant on foreign aid.

The handover is seen as a critical step in a transition of power before foreign troops end combat operations in 2014.
...
However the quality of Afghan police and soldiers is patchy and correspondents warn of fears that they will be unable to withstand a renewed summer offensive from the Taliban.
...
Analysts say Nato will find it difficult to effect a successful transition without an end to the war and some kind of political settlement with the Taliban.

Bamiyan is the first out of seven regions to be handed over to ANSF. The other six are Kabul province, Panjshir province, Herat city, Mazar-e Sharif city, Lashkar Gah city and Mehtar Lam town. This will affect the Swedish/Finnish PRT in RC North, since Mazar-i Sharif is in the middle of the four provinces (Balkh, Samangan, Jowzjan and Sar-e-Pul) that are part of the PRT. There will be an increased need for cooperation when operations are at the border of the city. There is a risk that Taliban units use the city for protection and hiding if ANSF is not up to the task of keeping the city safe. The Swedish main base is at the edge of the city, but the civilian aid personnel work inside the city.

See this BBC report from Bamiyan. The locals do not seem so sure about ANSF capabilities as NATO is. If Bamiyan is not safe enough, what about the other provinces? In the UK, the Prime Minister receive a lot of warnings regarding the plan to withdraw before 2014.

Pulling British troops out prematurely from Afghanistan could "dangerously weaken" remaining forces, MPs said.

The Commons Defence Committee said David Cameron's plan to withdraw by the end of 2014 could undermine the international coalition's strategy.

And the MPs said they were still not yet convinced the troops now in Afghanistan had sufficient helicopters.

The 2014 timeline now forces all nations to withdraw their troops. maybe the pace is too fast? Are ISAF really following their own Shape, Clear, Hold and Build doctrine? President Obama was very clear in December 2010 that this strategy would be continued. The US and UK forces in the south has focused on the Clear and Hold phases.

The goal of the surge is to "clear" key population centers of insurgents, then "hold" them to prevent insurgents from returning. The next step is to maintain law and order to allow Afghans to "build" normal lives. This is called a "clear, hold, build" strategy, which US forces also used in Iraq.

But has there been enough focus on the Shape and Build? I am afraid that many Taliban fighters have just moved ahead of the coalition forces. It reminds me very much of the US cavalry war against the Apache Indians during the 1850-1900. The big difference is that our troops are not here to stay. Time is on the Taliban side.

My opinion is that more focus should be at the village or Tribal level, not at the national level. But this has not been president Karzais goal, since he risk to loose his power over the population.

The Pentagon has been pushing the small triumphs of its Local Defense Initiative, which attempts to leverage tribal militias into anti-insurgent "neighborhood watches."

But Kabul has pushed back against the initiative, fearing that the arming and promotion of local militias could lead to a civil war similar to the one that engulfed Afghanistan after the Soviets left and which led to the rise of the Taliban.

The problem with the US strategy is that i relies heavily on Pakistan continuing to support ISAF. But after the Usama Bin Laden raid, the US relations with Pakistan has gone sour.

I have seen very few comments in Sweden about when to realistically pull out the Swedish troops. Of course the opposition parties (s), (mp) and (v) all want to pull out the troops as fast as possibly, but no one has any better plan then to start pulling out in 2011 (which has not yet begun) and leave all the provinces to ANSF by 2014. Instead the Swedish unit has been reinforced with MEDEVAC helicopters. HKP 10 Super Puma until 2013. They will then be replaced with HKP 16 Blackhawk. There are also plans to send a UAV unit with the new Shadow 200 that is being delivered from the US.

With a future tactic, starting 2014, to have very few troops on the ground and then support them with UAV and CAS, I would say that the "armed nation building" and Counter Insurgency will soon be back at pure Counter Terrorism. That is if ANSF is not ready to take up the responsibility for security and safety in Afghanistan.

SvD1, SvD2, DN

India Getting Closer to France

Only Eurofighter and Rafale are left in the Indian MMRCA evaluation. Who will win? Who knows, but in the battle-proven aspect, Rafale is clearly in the lead with one tour of duty in Afghanistan and now doing all kind of missions in Libya. The Eurofighter has dropped a few bombs in Libya, but RAF mostly let the Tornado do the mud-moving and leave the Eurofighter to do the top-cover. The Eurofighter is not yet fully ready for air-to-ground missions.

The first part of the MMRCA evaluation was about fulfilling the Indian Air Force technical requirements. To get the best aircraft possible. The second part of the evaluation is about economy and industrial cooperation.

Technically the Rafale may be in lead, but what about the cooperation between French and Indian industries?

France has sold a number of aircraft to India over the years.

Besides the Russian aircraft (Su-30 MKI, Mig-29 and Mig-21), the main fighter aircraft in the Indian Air Force is the 51 x Mirage 2000H, which will now be updated to Mirage 2000-5 standard.

India has approved a $2.4-billion proposal from French defence groups to upgrade its fleet of 51 ageing Mirage fighter jets, a military source said on Thursday.

"The defence secretary has agreed to the proposal put forward by French defence majors Dassault and Thales and (European group) MBDA for the Mirage-2000 retrofit," the source in the Indian Air Force (IAF) told AFP.

The upgrade is expected to include advanced navigation systems, mission computers, electronic warfare systems and radars.

The deal was signed in 2010, but put on hold since France also made some business with Pakistan and were almost on the way to sign a contract to deliver avionics to PAF JF-17. France however decided that the Indian contract, including the chance of selling Rafale, was worth more than the deal with Pakistan.

Note: One very interesting aspect of the Pakistan deal was that the Rafale was out of the MMRCA evaluation for a while, but when France started cooperating with Pakistan they were back in again...

Russia may be the main partner in the Su-30 MKI deal, but there are a number of companies delivering western avionics to the aircraft, many of them French.

- SAGEM Sigma-95 integrated global positioning system and ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system.

- Thales Topsight-I Helmet Mounted Sight is used in Indian Mig-29. A modified version will be integrated in Su-30 MKI by Indian manufacturer SAMTEL and HAL. Thales did also deliver the displays in the SU-30 MKI, but now they are delivered by SAMTEL in cooperation with Thales.

France do have some ongoing business with India. We will soon know if this will be enough to win phase two of the evaluation.

The Rafale has one other big advantage over the Eurofighter and that is the Rafale-M naval version which could come as a bonus for the Indian navys new carriers. This is however a requirement that is not included in the original specification used during phase one. But both Eurofighter and Gripen are looking into developing a naval version of their aircraft.

This review of the Rafale by a British pilot is worth reading.

New Threats

In Afghanistan the Swedish PRT Mazar-i Sharif has become more violent the recent year. The number of attacks has doubled since last year. Now the US and the French troops have starting their withdrawal. All according to Obamas timeplan to start the withdrawal in 2011 and let the ANSF be fully in charge of the security in Afghanistan in 2014.

But the focus seem to be more on the time plan than on actual achievements. Is there an increased security to motivate the withdrawal or is the presidential election in 2012 more important? Obama need to show progress in Afghanistan before the election rally starts. Maybe thee has been improvements in Helmand, but then the Taliban has moved to other regions e.g. RC North. This could be bad news for the Swedes in the so far relatively "calm" PRT Mazar-i Sharif.

Can we protect the civilian population in Afghanistan? This is one of the main reasons for being there. Well, the number of civilians that has been killed due to attacks by ISAF or the Taliban has increased by 15% the last year. Even the most protected afghans have difficulties to avoid being killed by the Talibans, which was clearly shown by the killing of Ahmad Wali Karzai, brother to president Kharzai. If he civilians feel that ISAF can not protect them, then they are more ore less forced to support the Taliban.

There are also new threats that could seriously change the safety of the ISAF troops.

The Taliban has been using IED to attack convoys on the roads and suicide bombers to attack civilians in the cities. All to show that ISAF can not guarantee the safety of the population. But now snipers have appeared. They seem to have been trained outside of Afghanistan.

Toolan, who runs NATO’s Regional Command Southwest, said many of the snipers attacking his troops speak Farsi or Arabic, meaning that the fighters likely come from Iran and other neighboring countries. Other U.S. officials in Afghanistan say Iran has significantly escalated its support for militants there, providing long-range rockets, money, and technical assistance. Tehran denies the charges, but Toolan said some of the snipers appear to have been trained outside of Afghanistan.
...
Snipers have killed approximately 20 troops in Helmand this year, according to a military official at the Pentagon familiar with the data. Coalition forces have lost 84 troops in Helmand in 2011, according to icasualties.org.

Up until now there has been very few attacks on ISAF aircraft and helicopters using MANPADS - hand held missiles. A few attacks have been done using RPG volley attacks, but the Stingers and SA-7 that were used during the Afghan-Soviet war are too old and could not be used. But the war in Libya might change that. In the same way as the Iraq war released a lot of former Saddam Husseing government weapons to the black market a lot of Colonel Gadaffis weapon can reach the wrong hands. In Ghadaffis weapon stores that are in the hands of the rebels are among other things fully working SA-7, and there are also rumors about more modern SA-24 in Libya.

On a recent day, 43 emptied wooden crates — long, thin and painted in dark green — had been left behind on the sand inside the entrance. The boxes had not been there during a visit to the same spot a few days before, and the weapons were gone.

The stenciled markings showed each crate had contained a pair of lightweight missiles called SA-7s — early Soviet versions of the same class of weapon as the better known American-made Stingers, which were used by Afghan fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was not clear who had taken them. The rebel guards variously blamed Qaddafi forces and misinformed opposition fighters.

During more than four decades in power, Colonel Qaddafi’s often bellicose government is thought to have acquired as many as 20,000 of these missiles, known as Manpads, for Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems, in arms deals with the former Eastern bloc.

If these missiles reach Afghanistan int would change the threat scenario for ISAF. Helicopters are the prime targets since they are slow and flying at lower altitudes. This could also affect the Swedes since there are Swedish HKP 10 Super Pumas in RC North being used for MEDEVAC. They will be replaced in 2013 by the new HKP 16 Blackhawk.

More Taliban attacks in the north, Taliban snipers and possibly SA-7 in the country. 2011 can be a very tough year for ISAF and the Swedish unit in RC North.

All Means Available

Michael Yon has a post on his Facebook page about "respecting the enemy and then beat them down". Obviously he is talking about the Taliban. He also posted a link to the Youtube video below.

I think it is very interesting to see the responses from Michaels "friends". Some of them believe there is a difference between Kamikaze pilots during WWII and suicide bombers during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Todays suicide cowards have nothing on these guys. Kamikaze pilots went full on after hard, military targets, can't say the same for the suicide cowards."
...
"Kamikaze attacks are a legitimate military tactic. Suicide bombing of civilian targets is a criminal tactic."
...
"If these kamikazes are so "honorable", as so many here claim, then where are the great American suicide warriors? What is the deal w/ our propensity for patronizing certain groups of people who do awful things? The way American blacks have been "compassioned" into functional oblivion comes to mind."

But what is the actual difference between the two ways of waging war? Is there any targets more legitimate than others during a total war? Can a war be kept at a "just" level?

First of all, the Kamikaze pilots were not seen as "honorable" during WWII by the US, but as crazy lunatics in the same way as Taliban suicide bombers are seen today. For the Japanese the Kamikaze was a final drastic tactic to stop the Americans from reaching Japan. The "Divine Wind" was a reference to a legend when the Mongol invasion of Japan in 1274 and 1281 was stopped by typhoons. One reason for the Kamikaze tactics was the lack of trained pilots. Japan could build new aircraft, but could not replace all the pilots that were killed in air battles such as the one during Midway or the "Great Mariana Turkey Shoot". A Kamikaze pilot did only get some very brief lessons on how to start his aircraft, follow his leader, a seasoned pilot who knew how to navigate and then dive onto his target. (Does this reminds anyone about the "pilots" that flew the passenger aircraft into the Twin Towers during 9/11?) The lack of skill resulted in that most pilots missed their targets completely and the Kamikaze tactics was in reality to very little effect. But the US seamen feared the Kamikaze. The psychological effect was much larger than the actual physical effect. This was maybe what the Japanese wanted. One final effort to make the Americans understand how costly it would be to attack the mainland Japan.

For the Taliban, suicide bombings is the only way to engage the US and ISAF troops with any chance at all of winning. Asymmetric warfare per definition. And yes, they are killing more civilian Afghans than western military troops. But their goal is not to kill all ISAF troops, just to spread fear in the same way as the Kamikaze. They do not only want ISAf to fear the Taliban, but also the population at home to fear more killed soldiers (and loose the political will to continue the war) and the local Afghan population to fear supporting ISAF. In a way the are using the "Hearts and Minds" tactic, but not as we in the west are used to.

Unfortunately killing civilians is a reality in war. Accidentally or intentionally. During WWII the allied used terror bombing against Germany. "Bomber" Harris preferred night time bombing since the German fighters were less of a threat at night to his bombers. Unfortunately the only targets that could be hit from high altitude at night was entire cities. The tactics was then changed into "frighten the civilian population and make them want to end the war". Exactly as Douhet had once predicted was the perfect mission for Air Power. Did it work? Maybe in the long term after years of bombing, but it also made the population want to defend their country more. The US dropped not one, but two nuclear bombs over Japan. It was to "save american lives since a invasion of Japan would be very costly". Maybe they were right about that. The invasion of Okinawa showed the Americans how hard the Japanese soldier fought for their home land. The resistance of the Japanese (including Kamikaze tactics) ultimately led to them being hit by atomic bombs. But I doubt the west will see the atomic bomb as the final solution in Afghanistan.

Even with precision weapons a lot of civilians die today in Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Libya. The Taliban are clearly killing more civilians and so are colonel Gadaffis troops. But are we morally any better than them? We have a just cause and therefore it is a just war? Maybe, but we do accept civilian casualties to reach our objectives, even though our politicians will never admit to that. In Sweden we have a saying about this, "the end justifies the means".

One reason to why the Taliban suicide tactics might work in Afghanistan is because every Afghan know that the west will leave them in 2014. President Obamas promise to withdraw his troops by that date has given the Taliban a timeline. A classic saying is that "You (the west) has all the watches, but we (the Taliban) has all the time".

How has fear been used in historical wars?

One example is during the US Civil War, when general Sherman brought havoc to the south during his "March to the Sea". Modern analysts like Liddel Hart states that Sherman was the first modern general who declared total war on the south. The north won the war, but in the south they still remember the torching of Atlanta, known from the movie "Gone with the wind".

Machiavelli once said that "A Prince can choose to be loved or to be feared by his people. But, there will always be another Prince that is more loved and therefore more preferred by the people to be the next leader. However, there will be no other Prince that is more feared and at the same time more preferred by the people. That is why it is wise to use fear to rule the people". Today the west always try to be loved and therefore have a hard time competing with those who rule the population by fear.

One of the very few wars that can be used as a role model for a successful COIN - Counter Insurgency campaign is the one in Malaya 1948-60. The British soldiers gave birth to the tactic known as "Hearts & Minds". Unfortunately too many believe that this means being nice to the population and winning their friendship. In reality, the British soldiers used some very harsh tactics including moving entire villages in order not to be able to support the guerrilla. There is a very fine line between this tactic and the concentration camps used during the Boer War.

What we want in every COIN-campaign is winning the support of the population. But since everyone know that we will be leaving Afghanistan there is no support to win. Everyone know the Taliban will return to power when ISAF leave and they rightfully fear the Taliban more than they love us.

I am not trying to defend the Taliban tactics. It is clearly not morally acceptable from a western point of view. But we need to understand how this type of tactics have been used historically to be able to win the war. The Malayan campaign took 12 years. The British then had the advantage of the colonial background with knowledge of the population and the terrain. This together with a clear goal that the population would be able to build a new free country (the Afghan already have one) and a stable income to the government based upon natural resources (there are none except opium in Afghanistan) made it possible for the British to succeed. It would take many more years to succeed in Afghanistan. Time we clearly do not have and the Taliban can afford to wait.

In Sweden analysts now fear the withdrawal from Afghanistan, "It will be bloody". And the planned future tactics using UCAV to kill leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda will continue to take a toll from the civilian population. Do the western world actually have the guts to use these tactics? Or will the coalition break down and leave the US to continue the fight from outside Afghanistan? Are we prepared to use all means available to win the war or are we crippled by our own moral standards?

Famous Last Words?

I just happened to notice the Air Force Inspector General Anders Silwer speech at the Le Bourget Air Show.

"On 1 April 2013 we will be in Afghanistan [with Black Hawks]; or I won't be here," said Silwer.

Well I hope that he is right. Right now everything looks as the plan to have HKP 16 Blackhawk operational in Afghanistan in 2013 will work. The first pilots and technicians has started their training. The deliveries should be on schedule since Sweden (contrary to NH-90/HKP 14) are buying a standard helicopter with a lot of experience in the design. The helicopter wing will also have a lot of valuable experiences from the ongoing deployment with HKP 10B Super Puma in Camp Marmal.

But it is always dangerous to promise things in advance. Remember another well known Air Force leader from history.

On 9 August 1939, Göring boasted "The Ruhr will not be subjected to a single bomb. If an enemy bomber reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Hermann Göring: you can call me Meier!"

Avalanche Warning

The Afghan winters can be very cold and normally the Taliban fighters cease fighting during the winter season. Avalanches are a rare thing during the winters and even less this time of the year. But I bet that Mullah Omar can hear the rumbling sound of the avalanche that will start when the US troops start their tactical retreat from Afghanistan.

President Obama plan for removal of the troops has a very tight schedule.

Mr. Obama announced plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. The remaining 20,000 troops from the 2009 “surge” of forces would leave by next summer, amounting to about a third of the 100,000 troops now in the country. He said the drawdown would continue “at a steady pace” until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014.

Slovenia has decided to pull back their troop contribution to ISAF

. When USA leaves, this will also give an official go-ahead for other countries to leave. Countries that were not happy with being in Afghanistan, but needed to show NATO/USA how much they want to cooperate will be the first to leave. The Dutch has already left the country and France will also reduce their troop contribution.

President Karzai was positive to the removal of the US troops. However reading between the lines one can guess that he will start to cooperate with the Taliban in order to stay alive in the future. The afghan people also realizes this.

“During the Taliban regime there were no suicide attacks, but since these people have shown up in our country we have faced lots of adversity,” said Nasrullah, a shopkeeper in Kabul’s dilapidated downtown, who like many Afghans uses only one name. “When they leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will stop fighting; it is only because of these foreigners they are fighting.”
...
“This drawdown will embolden the morale of the Taliban, and actually it has already emboldened them,” the elder said. “The Taliban are saying to the elders not to support Americans or you will be killed, and now they say, ‘The Americans are leaving and your lives will not be spared.’ ”

In the senate the US politicians are talking about all the positive things that have been accomplished during the US/NATO rule. But will it remain so when the foreign troops leave the country? I seriously doubt that.

The war will most probably change from Counter Insurgency to Counter Terrorism. Instead of troops on the ground the US will support the afghan forces with Close Air Support, UCAV attacks on Taliban leaders and UAV and satellite surveillance.

How will Sweden react to the US withdrawal?

- Less troops in the south will give the Taliban the possibility to either take back lost territory in the south or reinforce in the east and the north where there up until now have been a relatively low-intensity war. This can result in heavier fighting in RC North and in the Swedish/Finnish PRT in Mazar-e Sharif. If the Swedish personal losses increase it can end in a public out-cry to pull back the troops ASAP. The Swedes are supporting the war in Afghanistan, but if the cost is to high the support will diminish.

- The Swedish politicians have publicly decided to start pulling back Swedish troops during 2011 in order to have completed the hand-over of the security to Afghan troops in 2014 when most of the Swedish troops will be sent back home. This clearly is a direct copy of president Obama plan. But can Sweden follow their intentions if the security level in PRT MeS is reduced? Or will the Swedish politicians just use the US withdrawal as an excuse to leave Afghanistan in the same way as Slovenia is doing?

Unfortunately, the US plan reminds me of the withdrawal from Vietnam. First a "surge" in 1972 with the Linebacker campaign to bring the north Vietnamese to the negotiating table in Paris. Then a pull-out of US troops and a Vietnamization of the war using South Vietnamese troops to do all the fighting and ensuring the public safety. However the South Vietnamese were not able to stop the north from invading and in 1975 the last US helicopters left the US embassy in Saigon just as the first North Vietnamese tanks entered the city.