Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in - United States ...

Figure 17: ANA Operational Effectiveness Ratings from CUAT Cycle 13 (January 2012)
Rating Definition Level
(RDL)
Corps Div BDE Kandak GSU Coy Kandak
Independent w/ Advisors 0 0 1 8 5 1 13 15 7%
Effective w/ Advisors 1 1 14 69 5 11 74 101 46%
Effective w/ Partners 5 0 7 47 8 13 55 80 37%
Developing w/ Partners 0 0 0 8 1 9 9 18 8%
Established 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 1%
Not Assessed 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1%
TOTAL: 6 1 22 135 21 34 156 219 100%
RDLs for "Headquarters" are for Corps, Division, and Brigade headquarters only, not a roll-up.
Kandaks = all w arfighting Kandaks, CS, CSS, and Commando Kandaks; Coys not included.
GSU = General Support Unit (Kandak equivalent).
Coys = Independent Coys; not part of a Kandak.
Total Kandaks = Kandaks plus GSUs.
A Kandak is a battalion-sized unit; a Coy is a company-sized unit.
Source: IJC CTAG ANSF Development - CUAT Cycle 13 (31 January 2012)
ANA units rarely operate completely independently; nevertheless, there are increasing instances
of ANA units operating with limited ISAF support. For example, as of February 2012, 13
kandaks have achieved a rating of “Independent with Advisors,” up from 1 kandak in August
2011, and the number of units rated as “Effective with Advisors” increased from 56 to 74 over in
the same period. Rating increases are attributable in some part to the change in the “Independent
with Advisors” RDL that reduced unit personnel and equipment levels from not less than 85
percent to not less than 75 percent. 19
More importantly, rating increases are attributable to
improved ANA performance and ability to plan and execute missions and maintain command
and control of subordinate units.
The surge recovery is challenging the reporting capabilities of the Regional Commands;
however, increased emphasis on assessments resulted in a decrease in the number of unassessed
units. Decreases in the number of partnered/advised units as a result of the surge recovery will
make completion of CUAT reports increasingly difficult. IJC has therefore implemented
measures to help mitigate effects of force reductions, such as adjusting the CUAT reporting
cycle from 6 weeks to 12 weeks and refining the number and type of priority units requiring
CUAT assessments. The partnering/mentoring coverage requirements were also adjusted,
moving from one-to-one partnering to one-to-many with the Security Force Assessment Team
model, which requires fewer forces with the ANSF unit as the overall effectiveness of the unit
increases.
19 Change effective August 2011.
Headquarters Unit Type Total
42
Total Units
& HQs
Percent
of Total