Introduction

In November 2002, the US Department of Defence announced its plans to deploy Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) to Afghanistan. The security situation in the country was deteriorating. Afghans, backed by significant voices within the international community, were calling for an expansion of the 5,000 strong peacekeeping force in Kabul. PRTs were seen as a compromise: small teams that could respond flexibly to the security needs of Afghans across the country without the heavy commitment of a full peacekeeping force. The PRTs are mixed teams of military and civilian personnel. They represent an attempt to promote peace and stability in Afghanistan by seeking to comprehensively address the root causes of violence as well as the symptoms. The reception has been mixed. Some are grateful for any attempt to address the deteriorating state of security in Afghanistan. Others are cynical - accusing coalition nations of looking for cheap solutions to complex problems.:p>

In this paper I will examine the work of the PRTs to date and will make an analysis of their contribution to the security situation in Afghanistan. Before looking at the PRTs in any detail, I will begin with a short summary of the historical context of relevance to their operating environment. Chapter 1 will describe the development of Peace Support Operations (PSOs) from the Cold War to the current day, picking out key themes and trends. Chapter 2 will consider the tensions between civil and military actors operating in the same environment and the structures that have evolved to promote cooperation and coordination between the two parties. Chapter 3 begins to set the scene in Afghanistan, by describing events leading up to the launch of the PRTs. Chapter 4 is a review and analysis of the PRT’s work in Afghanistan. It explains the thinking behind the concept, summarises responses from agencies working alongside on the ground, and provides an analysis of the contribution of the PRTs, as an exercise in civil-military engagement, to the security needs of the Afghan population. Finally, in Chapter 5, I will draw out some conclusions on the work of the PRTs, both positive and negative, by setting their work in a broader analytical framework.

The PRTs first came to my attention in April 2003 when I was asked to take part in a joint UK government mission to Afghanistan to explore the possibility of setting up a UK-led PRT in Mazar-e-Sharif. I participated in the visit as a representative of the Department for International Development (DFID) and was joined by colleagues from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The American PRT concept was up and running but still embryonic at that stage. We were able to witness first-hand the problems they were encountering, and observe how they were adapting and responding to their new surroundings. What I saw and heard seemed to me to represent something new and important – an initiative that was likely to impact significantly on the work of humanitarian, human rights and development practitioners, not to mention the lives of the Afghan population. It occurred to me that I should not waste the opportunity that I had been given, but continue to read, talk about and record this new development in the interface between military and civilian actors.

I have used that initial visit as background for this paper. Participation in training courses hosted by both the US and UK military in recent months has also provided me with useful background on the tensions and the possibilities for cooperation between soldiers and civilians. Since then, I have conducted further research and analysis of secondary literature on PSOs generally, on the interface between civilian and military actors, and specifically on the work of the PRTs.   In addition, I have engaged in interviews and e-mail discussions with a range of individuals on the PRTs in Afghanistan.

This paper focuses predominantly on the US model of the PRT, since the overall PRT concept is a US-led initiative. I have also dwelt considerably on the UK-led PRT which is currently operating in northern Afghanistan. This is thanks in part to the large volume of material that the UK government kindly shared with me during my period of research. More importantly, however, I believe that contrasting the two different models of PRT serves to illustrate the possibilities for variation within the overall PRT concept.

Events are fast-moving in the ‘war against terror’ and the picture in Afghanistan is changing rapidly. This paper is an attempt to capture a moment in time – to provide the reader with a snapshot of needs and responses.  Its shelf-life as an up-to-date illustration of the contemporary security situation in Afghanistan is therefore limited.

Lastly, I should like to point out that I have consciously decided not to devote line space in trying to pin down precise definitions for slippery keywords such as ‘development’, ‘humanitarian’, ‘reconstruction’, etc. Nor have I defined what I mean by the term ‘post-conflict’, and have used it in reference to the current situation in Afghanistan when many would in fact argue that the war is far from over. Whilst I recognise the complexities contained within the discourse, for the purposes of this paper I have decided to simplify my use of language rather than distract the reader with lengthy semantic debate.