Michael's Dispatches
Afghanistan: Electrification Effort Loses Spark
21 October 2009
In 2008, I was trekking in the Himalayas in Nepal preparing for a return to Afghanistan. A message came from a British officer suggesting to end the trip and get to Afghanistan. Something was up, and I didn’t bother to ask what. Days of walking were needed to reach the nearest road. After several flights, I landed in Kandahar and eventually Helmand Province at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. The top-secret mission was Oqab Tsuka, involving thousands of ISAF troops who were to deliver turbines to the Kajaki Dam to spearhead a major electrification project. The difficult mission was a great success. That was 2008. During my 2009 embed with British forces, just downstream from Kajaki Dam, it became clear that the initial success had eroded into abject failure. And then the British kicked me out of the embed, for reasons still unclear, giving me time to look further into the Kajaki electrification failure.
After communications with many American and British officers, a sad picture emerged.
The following message was provided by a well-placed officer. The message has been slightly edited by me for clarification.
Michael,
ISAF's initiative [at Kajaki] to light up southern Afghanistan following the successful delivery of a third turbine to the Kajaki hydro-electric dam has run into major problems which could set the project 24 months behind schedule.
Last September, US and British special forces spearheaded a 100 vehicle convoy from Kandahar 180 miles across open desert, much of it owned by the Taliban, to Kajaki. The Operation, codenamed Oqab Tsuka, included 4,000 British, US and Canadian troops in what was hailed as the biggest demonstration since 2006 that ISAF is delivering progress in the south.
The heavily guarded convoy contained what was called T2 (Turbine 2) and was successfully delivered to the US AID built dam after a six-day operation which saw significant fighting by British paratroopers and advance clearance operations by special forces. As it crawled north up the Sangin valley the Brits mounted the biggest deception operation seen since World War Two.
With just one road available which was an obvious target for insurgents' IEDs, special forces located a second, more difficult and remote route. After confirmation that it could be used, a battle group was flown into the area of the main route, giving the enemy the clear perception that the convoy was heading that way. Then a dummy convoy headed up the road, while the Brits used the alternative route out of sight.
But despite last year's success it is now becoming clear that little progress has been made. At the time of the operation a US contractor, known as Kajaki Joe, stated that the turbine would be installed by April 2009 with all three turbines in action by September 2009. However, problems with engineers and missing elements of the turbine have caused significant delays.
When the turbine was delivered only one turbine was in action, another was being overhauled on site with the aim being to install the new one and commission all three into service. Now exactly a year on a report submitted to US AID in Lashkar Gah has suggested that the turbine which was being overhauled needs replacing. Sources in Lashkar Gah say this is a gross overestimate of the situation and that there will be no mission to deliver another turbine.
In 2006 US AID representatives in Lashkar Gah asked the British to play down the project and not to raise people’s expectations about when power would be delivered. The British Foreign Office was quick to try and hijack the public relations spin of last year's success, even though the UK gave no funding to the project.
The overall aim of the turbine mission was to support the power grid in southern Afghanistan. In fact Canada pledged millions of Canadian dollars to the Kandahar economy once the power was plugged into the grid and supplying business in the city. But the Canadians seem doubtful that power will be switched on before 2014—by which time they will have pulled their troops out of Afghanistan.
Comments
Thanks again for your reporting Michael
I look at the situation and am much more optimistic. The current president is preceding at the scheduled pace for troop drawdown in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government. You say he has no plans to win either one, but the situation in Iraq is more or less going to plan. What is your definition of victory in Iraq? As for the current domestic spending, just a few months ago, economic experts of all stripes were worried about the possibility of a massive and sustained depression. Nine months later, the stock market has stabilized and hopefully employment will soon start to pick up. Its a big concern though. As for Afghanistan, I would much prefer a deliberate and thought out strategy. McChrystal has given his military requirements to the president who then has to look at the entire political-econo mic-military situation to determine what is in or country's best strategic interest. Michael on this very site has suggested that any commitme to this region has to be generational and the outcome would still be in doubt. Not many Americans are probably willing to bet our treasure and troops on such a bet. Lets see what the Afghan political situation is before we commit more troops to this difficult situation.
GOD BLESS THEM AND KEEP THEM SAFE.
Michael, thanks for the full disclosure.
I feel like this needs to be a Monty Python moment...Alllll lllll-ways look onnnnnn the bright side of life...do do...da do do do do do...
http://www.thunderrun.us/2009/10/from-front-10212009.html
getting turbines 1 and 3 on line should be another engineering job. Each is an independent unit and can provide power separately. There are plenty of GE engineers out there who can assess the situation rapidly. This sounds like more political BS. Whose engineers are responsible? Who is managing the project? This is where British and American engineers used to kick ass and take names.
Iraq taught us exactly the opposite lesson. The Americans and allies were, for the most part, looked upon as honest brokers in a chaotic and sectarian environment. The Iraqis needed to build organizations that until the rebuilding of the country did not exist. Pan Iraqi, non sectarian police and militay and judicial and development organizations. They are still not there yet but it's better than it was. It could all go south again precisely because there is not a guarantor of the peace involved as we disengage.
So far, we are still not looked upon as invaders by the majority of the people of Afghanistan. Counterinsurgen cy has to help stabilize the country rather than create conflict. The whole peace through strength concept. Half assed measures get half assed results as was demonstrated in Iraq.
While I certainly don't like him, President Obama is putting pressure on Karzai's supporters to keep the election clean. He's basically telling them: if you cheat on this one, you're on your own.
An election with minimal levels of corruption is going to drastically help our troops. If the people believe the government is legitimate, then the mission has a greater chance of success.
While I understand the need to get the 40,000 troops there and in place as soon as we can (although I don't think they really need to be there during the winters when nothing really happens), a clearly legitimate election is going to serve as a dramatic force multiplier. That multiplier should more than make up for any kind of delay.
Openly committing now removes any leverage that we have over keeping Karzai's supporters on the up and up.
If the Afghans in power can't put their nation's interest ahead of their own personal interests even when the result will be us pulling out and their being left on their own, then it's a good sign that those Afghans in power would NEVER have been the partners we needed to make this mission work.
The Obama administration is (rightfully in my opinion) testing the Afghans' mettle. It needs to be done before we double down on an endeavor that has a high risk of failure already.
Michael you do great reporting but you need to find a different area of conflict where something positive can occur. It certainly won't be Afghanistan.
True then true now.
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier."
Would this be the same Iraq where we turned a bad situation around by surging in more troops, so that we could have the manpower for a true COIN campaign? That Iraq?
Am I alone in this thinking? Come on America, Git R Done! This can be a tremendous publicity stunt that can do some reallly GOOD things for their country and get them on OUR SIDE! Thanks Michael for looking back on this project, maybe someone else will see what I see and use this project to boost our reputation in the region. It's only producing bad feelings and bad publicity now.
The Taliban and Alqaeda wants to keep them in the dark, right, so let's give them LIGHT(s)!
In closing I am all for a troop surge IF it gets Kabul to train and put more troops in the field, so our boys can come home sooner, but i suspect it may not. Until Kabul takes responsiblity for its own people and country, no matter how large our forces get we will end up in a terrible long term conflict of attrition - it has already been 8 years. I can't sit in my western office and type 'more troops unconditionally ', I would be letting our boys down.
As for our governments being looked upon as 'honest brokers' in IRAQ? That is ridiculous. We invaded that country for dubious unknown reasons, killed tens of thousands of civies and you describe us as honest brokers?
It appears like we are helping exterminate pests across town, while our own house may be catching fire.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14411.html
talk about those forgetting history being doomed to repeat it.
And for a rather more cynical (paranoid?) view of the whole situation
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14393.html
Hmm..
makes you wonder a bit about what exactly the point is.
If Afghanistan goes, so will Pakistan and Iraq I think. I mean, giving up on Afghanistan is such a demonstration of lack of resolve you're just asking to be tested in other places as well.
In a way it's easy for Obama, the US is far away. Most Europeans adore him, but they don't seem to realize the Middle East is much closer to us then it is to the US. If the Americans pull out and the shit hits the fan, its gonna hit here in Europe.
I think his nobel peace price is going to have a very bitter ring to it in the future.
One of our best serving in Afghanistan has had enough and has decided to resign. Read his Letter of Resignation:
Marine/Foreign Service Officer/State Dept Offical Resigns
As Michael Yon has said in the past, the U.S. and others just don't understand what is going on and that the U.S. selection of a corrupt man for President is destroying what little chance of peace they have and why almost everything good that is worked for in Afghanistan turns out to be an abject failure.
Papa Ray
Central Texas
Marine/Foreign Service Officer/State Dept Official Resigns:
http://tinyurl.com/yg85uog
Please make sure Michael reads this.
Papa Ray
Since Gen. McChrystal is an insurgency expert, I tend to trust his judgment and give him the troop increase he
needs to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is sickening that Mr. Obama is dithering about this as our troops die.
But if we are not going to support their mission to the hilt then we have no right to ask them to risk their lives or
limbs.
Mr. Yon, I admired your coverage of Iraq and have bought several copies of your book for family and friends. I would definitely appreciate your insights into the situation in Afghanistan. Our mission should be to eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and at
the least to prevent them from re-establishing a base in Afghanistan from which they can attack America again. I am not at all sure
that this undeveloped a country can be "won" by the counterinsurgen cy tactics which worked in Iraq, by providing villages
with electrical generators. Do we need to be risking so many GI's lives for this?
http://tinyurl.com/yjfdd9z
So as long as Obama waffles his efforts, many Afghans will be waiting for results.
Obama should not wait for electoaral results. He should be working with McCrystal and Patraeus.
We're all in this together but Canadian voters won't send more troops in A'stan. We can't give any more. Our voters won't do it.
NATO is failing because of ignorant voters at home.
Canada should be helping but we're not. We're barely holding the diike together.
We need your help.
Power transmission has to be the easiest thing to disrupt - anyone with a rifle can plink an insulator and bring down a wire. Anyone with a big wrench can topple a tower.
RSS feed for comments to this post