The capability of Afghan forces is considered the single biggest indicator of whether the war is going well and is seen as the linchpin in the US strategy since the war began more than eight years ago.
Lawmakers are likely to use the latest findings to question President Obama’s handling of the war. Democrats say they are frustrated that Obama is sending more US troops into combat without assurances that Afghan forces are close behind.
“I think the worst nightmare for the Taliban is an Afghan army in charge,’’ said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee.
The United States has spent $27 billion on the effort — about half of the money it has poured into rebuilding Afghanistan. But the program has been hobbled by a shortage of trainers and available Afghans, and by spikes in violence.
“The bottom line to this is that the system . . . is flawed, it’s unreliable, and it’s inconsistent,’’ said Arnold Fields, who led the study as the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction.
General Stanley McChrystal, who was fired last week as the top US general in the Afghanistan war, told the Army yesterday that he will retire.
Colonel Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, said McChrystal, 55, notified the service of his plans but has not yet submitted formal retirement papers. It is not clear when he will leave the service, but the process usually take a few months.
The Army has been McChrystal’s only career. He was promoted to the coveted rank of four-star general last year
Two weeks before he was fired by Obama, McChrystal told reporters that the Afghan forces’ “growth is on track’’ and “we’re ahead of the plan.’’ But the report found that the system used to judge that success was deeply flawed.
In some cases, units with the same rating would have different abilities. Also, highly rated units often regressed as soon as US mentors withdrew.
