7.3 million Afghan police headquarters funded by U.S. sits unused

[BarakzaiAbdali]

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/copping-out

Sopko said it’s becoming a common problem across the country.
“Sometimes we’re turning over bases, or we’re turning over hospitals, or clinics or whatever, and the cost of maintaining them is going to drive the Afghan government bankrupt,” he said

[BarakzaiAbdali]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/wo...anted=all&_r=0

The Americans knew they would be most vulnerable in their final hours after taking down their surveillance and early-warning systems. The Taliban knew it, too, and intelligence reports indicated that they had been working with sympathetic villagers to strike at the departing soldiers. Two days earlier, the militants made a test run against the outpost, taking the rare step of directly engaging it in a firefight, albeit a brief one, soon after the first radio antennas came down.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...1075741&rank=1

Far from home, poorly paid and discriminated against, Mushtaq and Sefadullah are among thousands of Afghans who are deserting the army in a worrying trend two years before NATO troops leave.

Mushtaq, which is a fake name, says he served in the relatively peaceful western province of Herat but was discriminated against for coming from the same ethnic group as the majority of the Taliban.

A Pashtun from Tora Bora -- where Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden hid after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan -- Mushtaq said his officers treated him like a Talib.
"Our commander was Tajik. All the Pashtuns were always blamed. So I left," the 23-year-old told AFP. Today he works at an English language and information centre.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/18/a...s-of-progress/

Thousands of Afghan soldiers are deserting the army in a sign that the US-led effort to train security forces before the 2014 withdrawal date is not the triumph US officials have been trying to claim.

Around 50,000 Afghan soldiers, or about 26 percent, quit the army each year. Additionally, about 8 percent of Afghan police officers quit each year.

[Toramana]

For his highness Amirul Momineen of Akhwan-ul-Muslimin.

U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan declining
As the U.S. withdrawal continues, fewer American troops are dying. But analysts caution that that doesn't necessarily mean the U.S. and its allies are winning the war.

February 14, 2013|By Shashank Bengali, Los Angeles Times

KABUL, Afghanistan — Over the last 25 days, something unusual has happened in Afghanistan: Not one U.S. service member has been killed. The lion's share of the fighting — and dying — is now being done by Afghans.

The last American troop death, from injuries suffered in a December roadside bombing, occurred Jan. 20, marking the longest stretch without a fatality since 2008 and offering a glimmer of evidence that the United States' 11-year war is in its twilight. Deaths among U.S. troops in Afghanistan last year reached a four-year low as commanders hailed a tipping point in a conflict that has claimed more than 2,100 American lives.

With President Obama planning to bring home half the remaining 66,000 troops by next February and the rest by the end of 2014, the shrinking American death toll has bolstered his administration's contention that the Taliban-led insurgency is degraded and that Afghan forces are ready to take charge of their country's security.

American forces continue to carry out ground operations and provide crucial air power, but U.S. and Afghan officials say Afghans now lead well over 80% of combat operations and control areas where more than three-quarters of the population resides. Experts cite other reasons for the reduced U.S. casualties, as well, including new measures to prevent insider attacks, the possibility that insurgents are curtailing attacks during the withdrawal and the usual reduction in fighting during the winter.

But it is also clear that the last American has not yet died in Afghanistan, and analysts caution that fewer fatalities doesn't necessarily indicate that the U.S. and its allies are even winning.

Afghan soldiers and police now number nearly 350,000. Last year was the deadliest so far for the Afghan army, with 473 soldiers killed in the six months ending Jan. 19, according to Defense Ministry statistics. In the same period, 163 coalition soldiers were killed, including 127 Americans, according to icasualties.org, a website that tracks military deaths.

"It's a function of numbers on the Afghans' part and a growing capability and capacity that really has allowed them to shift to the forefront of operations," said Marine Maj. Gen. Joseph L. Osterman, deputy chief of staff for joint operations at the U.S.-led international coalition in Kabul, the capital.

Insurgent attacks nationwide declined by more than a quarter in 2012, according to the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, which advises humanitarian agencies on security trends. But U.S. commanders acknowledge that insurgents may be curtailing attacks in response to the draw down of foreign troops. In 2010, when American forces reached their peak of 100,000, Taliban attacks surged along with the U.S. death toll.

"A lot of low-level insurgents … may have been motivated to fight foreign forces and now may be asking, 'Why am I fighting this?'" Osterman said. "It's where you may start to see a divide between the insurgents and their senior leadership."

Experts say the gains may be short-lived because the U.S. drawdown is taking place in the absence of a credible peace process between the Afghan government and the Taliban, which retains strongholds in some rural areas and along the rugged eastern border with Pakistan.

The NGO Safety Office, in a report issued last month, said that insurgents still were responsible for nearly half of all the bombings, shootings, abductions and other security incidents nationwide in 2012, indicating that coalition forces hadn't decisively tipped the conflict in their favor. The group concluded that the drop in insurgent activity "is a deliberate and reversible choice in response to the [NATO] withdrawal."

Part of the reduction in American deaths, too, is the result of U.S. forces circumscribing their mission in response to the so-called insider attacks by Afghan security forces that killed 61 NATO personnel in 2012, the vast majority of them Americans. The U.S. military built separate compounds at bases they once shared with Afghan soldiers and police and enlisted "guardian angels," armed troops who stand guard when American service members encounter Afghan allies.

With all this, experts say that fewer American deaths doesn't mean that "this is what winning looks like," as Marine Gen. John R. Allen, the former coalition commander, said in his farewell speech last week.

"The U.S. political climate is such that the administration has to show some sort of good news to justify [the troop exit], and that is dictating what is being shown in terms of progress, even if there isn't any," said Daoud Sultanzoy, a political analyst in Kabul and former independent member of the Afghan parliament.

Fighting usually slows in winter, when snow makes Afghanistan's mountainous regions harder to navigate. But amid a relatively mild season this year, significant combat operations have continued in a sign that coalition forces are trying to press an offensive before the U.S. presence shrinks.

U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan declining - Los Angeles Times

[BarakzaiAbdali]

For his highness Amirul Momineen of Akhwan-ul-Muslimin.

U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan declining
As the U.S. withdrawal continues, fewer American troops are dying. But analysts caution that that doesn't necessarily mean the U.S. and its allies are winning the war.

February 14, 2013|By Shashank Bengali, Los Angeles Times

KABUL, Afghanistan — Over the last 25 days, something unusual has happened in Afghanistan: Not one U.S. service member has been killed. The lion's share of the fighting — and dying — is now being done by Afghans.

The last American troop death, from injuries suffered in a December roadside bombing, occurred Jan. 20, marking the longest stretch without a fatality since 2008 and offering a glimmer of evidence that the United States' 11-year war is in its twilight. Deaths among U.S. troops in Afghanistan last year reached a four-year low as commanders hailed a tipping point in a conflict that has claimed more than 2,100 American lives.

With President Obama planning to bring home half the remaining 66,000 troops by next February and the rest by the end of 2014, the shrinking American death toll has bolstered his administration's contention that the Taliban-led insurgency is degraded and that Afghan forces are ready to take charge of their country's security.

American forces continue to carry out ground operations and provide crucial air power, but U.S. and Afghan officials say Afghans now lead well over 80% of combat operations and control areas where more than three-quarters of the population resides. Experts cite other reasons for the reduced U.S. casualties, as well, including new measures to prevent insider attacks, the possibility that insurgents are curtailing attacks during the withdrawal and the usual reduction in fighting during the winter.

But it is also clear that the last American has not yet died in Afghanistan, and analysts caution that fewer fatalities doesn't necessarily indicate that the U.S. and its allies are even winning.

Afghan soldiers and police now number nearly 350,000. Last year was the deadliest so far for the Afghan army, with 473 soldiers killed in the six months ending Jan. 19, according to Defense Ministry statistics. In the same period, 163 coalition soldiers were killed, including 127 Americans, according to icasualties.org, a website that tracks military deaths.

"It's a function of numbers on the Afghans' part and a growing capability and capacity that really has allowed them to shift to the forefront of operations," said Marine Maj. Gen. Joseph L. Osterman, deputy chief of staff for joint operations at the U.S.-led international coalition in Kabul, the capital.

Insurgent attacks nationwide declined by more than a quarter in 2012, according to the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, which advises humanitarian agencies on security trends. But U.S. commanders acknowledge that insurgents may be curtailing attacks in response to the draw down of foreign troops. In 2010, when American forces reached their peak of 100,000, Taliban attacks surged along with the U.S. death toll.

"A lot of low-level insurgents … may have been motivated to fight foreign forces and now may be asking, 'Why am I fighting this?'" Osterman said. "It's where you may start to see a divide between the insurgents and their senior leadership."

Experts say the gains may be short-lived because the U.S. drawdown is taking place in the absence of a credible peace process between the Afghan government and the Taliban, which retains strongholds in some rural areas and along the rugged eastern border with Pakistan.

The NGO Safety Office, in a report issued last month, said that insurgents still were responsible for nearly half of all the bombings, shootings, abductions and other security incidents nationwide in 2012, indicating that coalition forces hadn't decisively tipped the conflict in their favor. The group concluded that the drop in insurgent activity "is a deliberate and reversible choice in response to the [NATO] withdrawal."

Part of the reduction in American deaths, too, is the result of U.S. forces circumscribing their mission in response to the so-called insider attacks by Afghan security forces that killed 61 NATO personnel in 2012, the vast majority of them Americans. The U.S. military built separate compounds at bases they once shared with Afghan soldiers and police and enlisted "guardian angels," armed troops who stand guard when American service members encounter Afghan allies.

With all this, experts say that fewer American deaths doesn't mean that "this is what winning looks like," as Marine Gen. John R. Allen, the former coalition commander, said in his farewell speech last week.

"The U.S. political climate is such that the administration has to show some sort of good news to justify [the troop exit], and that is dictating what is being shown in terms of progress, even if there isn't any," said Daoud Sultanzoy, a political analyst in Kabul and former independent member of the Afghan parliament.

Fighting usually slows in winter, when snow makes Afghanistan's mountainous regions harder to navigate. But amid a relatively mild season this year, significant combat operations have continued in a sign that coalition forces are trying to press an offensive before the U.S. presence shrinks.

U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan declining - Los Angeles Times

Loolllllll,

You missed a key sentence and once again chased illusions.

"Not one U.S. service member has been killed. The lion's share of the fighting — and dying — is now being done by Afghans."

"Experts cite other reasons for the reduced U.S. casualties, as well, including new measures to prevent insider attacks, the possibility that insurgents are curtailing attacks during the withdrawal and the usual reduction in fighting during the winter."

Matt Hoh explained the phenomena years ago in that classic common sense article I always cite:

"And so the cycle began. We add more troops, which strengthens the Taliban and weakens support for the government. Suicide attacks, IEDs, military and civilian dead or wounded—all rise commensuratelywith eachincrease in foreign troop or Afghan government presence. "
http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks#

Its really rather self explanatory and the converse obviously holds equally true.

Remember, Toramana, you understimate history all the time, and ignore its nearly constant lessons. This has been seen before:

Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN)

"Starting in 1969 President Richard Nixon started the process of "Vietnamization", pulling out American forces and rendering the ARVN capable of fighting an effective war against the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) of the North (Also called NVA for North Vietnamese Army) and the ally, the National Liberation Front (NLF or Viet Cong). Slowly, ARVN began to expand from its counter-insurgency role to become the primary ground defense against the NLF and PAVN. From 1969 to 1971 there were about 22,000 ARVN combat deaths per year. Starting in 1968, South Vietnam began calling up every available man for service in the ARVN, reaching a strength of one million soldiers by 1972. In 1970 they performed well in the Cambodian Incursion and were executing three times as many operations as they had during the American war period. However, the ARVN equipment continued to be of lower standards than their American and South Korean allies, even as the U.S. tried to upgrade ARVN technology. However, the officer corps was still the biggest problem. Leaders were too often poorly trained, corrupt, lacking morale and inept."

and what happened subsequently???

"In the fall of 1974, Nixon resigned under the pressure of the Watergate scandal and was succeeded by Gerald Ford. With the war growing incredibly unpopular at home, combined with a severe economic recession and mounting budget deficits, Congress cut funding to South Vietnam for the upcoming fiscal year from 1 billion to 700 million dollars. Historians have attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid along with the growing disenchantment of the South Vietnamese people and the rampant corruption and incompetence of South Vietnam political leaders and ARVN general staff."

And this all was predictable based on the most clarion calls by the smartest people around:

"And when during the presidential debate campaign one heard Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama pledge to send two more US brigades to Afghanistan to 'finish the job' one had to wonder if either man or his senior advisors ever looked up a map of the country. There about 6,000 soldiers in two US combat brigades and probably only half of them ar combatants--shooters if you will. Afghanistan is as big as Texas and shares a 2,600 km border with Pakistan. The Taliban can use about a third of Pakistan's territory--the Pashtun tribal region--for safe haven, training, and launching operations against NATO forces...When then could the two senators have been thinking? Were they both ignorant of geographical facts? ... Or were they simply trying to put off delivering to voters the news that saving Washingtons Afghan nation building project would require 200,000 or more troops and then would still have only the slightest chance of succeeding?

"Then, too, we have conducted the Afghan war with startlingly cavalier disregard for geographic realities. It is a country that is as big as Texas... how many troops do the US and NATO have in Afghanistan to defeat an accelerating insurgency? About fifty thousand at this writing. Yes, no kidding, fifty thousand. And in that total there are contingents-- Germans and Danes, for example-- whose rules of engagement make their primary tasks school-building, police training, and well digging, not combat mean to kill insurgents. Even among the national contingents most aggressively fighting the Taliban... the number of support personal today must be a larger percentage of the total force than was the case with the 120,000 man contingent that the Soviet Union fielded.... It always has surprised me that no one in the US media ever asks the US secretary of defense of charman of the joint chiefs of staff what the 'tooth to nail' ratio is for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, or in Iraq for that matter. I suspect that the actual number of combat troops that can be fielded on any given day is only the fraction of the fifty thousand man total and smaller than the reciprocal total for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their allies."

-Scheuer

[BarakzaiAbdali]

And think about the fact that Dhiem actually had a cohesive nearly single ethnic group to work with. Sorry man, but things are looking bleaker and bleaker. The only difference will be that in the unipolar world, it will take a little longer to happen - but its inevitable.

I do wish you the best though and hope that these people get out on time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/wo...ky-future.html

Interestingly enough, this article provides much of my answer to Comrade regarding how disproportionately unrepresentative this government of Karzai is for the Pashtuns of the southland.

"After the ouster of the Taliban in 2001, thousands of Afghan families returned from abroad, or came in from the countryside, to construct urban and increasingly Westernized lives. They built homes and careers based on an influx of foreign money, expanded bureaucracies and new educational opportunities."

"The new urban elite makes up only a tiny slice of Afghan life — most of the newcomers to Kabul are impoverished migrants who now occupy terraces of rough mud houses that have splashed up onto the rocky hillsides surrounding the city. "

but who is it that is benefiting off trying to "educate" their "little brown brothers" in the most Kiplingesque of ways about how to be egalitarian poor people??? Why it is the sons and daughters of the same people who left their nation high and dry all those years ago and left the mullahocracy and the impoverished to fight their war that they should have led from the front instead of from abroad or Italian mudbathes (Zahir Shah):

"At the private American University of Afghanistan, privileged young adults — some of them the offspring of top officials and businessmen who have minted fortunes in the war economy — stride the five-acre Kabul campus, paying up to $6,000 a year for degrees in law and other subjects. "

"Some Western officials here expect some share of those people who returned from abroad in the past 10 years, from Europe, for example, or the United States, to leave once ministry salaries are reduced and when the economy inevitably slows.

The richest Afghans already have second homes abroad and can leave if security worsens. But others in the middle class and below lack that option. Many families tell stories of a brother or son who has gone to India to find an illicit path abroad or who is trying another escape plan."

Now, Mr. Safiullah and Miss Ishaqzai should be rather careful in their calculations as when black market profiteers start to feel the squeeze - well, you know what usually comes therafter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...e64_story.html

"In a way, the market serves as a microeconomic barometer of the concerns of Afghans across class lines when 2014 ends — and with it, the U.S.-led coalition’s combat mission. President Obama’s announcement in his State of the Union address Tuesday of the accelerated pullout of 34,000 troops in the coming year has only heightened many merchants’ worries about what happens after Western forces finally step on their air hose of cash and material support.
“My business once was good,” lamented a shop owner named Sabor, standing next to a shelf packed with Stridex acne pads and Just for Men hair dye. “But it has become a depression.”

[Toramana]

On thing I should tell you Barakzai---Westerners simply cannot understand Eastern societies. When they see the inherent chaos of Eastern societies and compare it with order in their own society, they think everything is collapsing.

Anyhow, there is no doubt enough depending on foreigners ---Afghans should now integrate into the economic structure of the region. East is emerging from its period of passivity both in terms of economy, education, etc. And Afghans should find their place in it.

Enough of dependence on Western powers.

[faye]

that is easier said than done, toramana. other eastern countries, who look like they are doing well are still on aid from the west. i think the brits have just decided not to continue with aid to india.

[Toramana]

that is easier said than done, toramana. other eastern countries, who look like they are doing well are still on aid from the west. i think the brits have just decided not to continue with aid to india.

faye, I think that is the only way to go....the longer they depend the longer they can't stand up----the sooner the better even if they stay hungry-

[Toramana]

CDF says Afghans able to take on Taliban

Defence force chief General David Hurley has given a Senate committee an upbeat assessment of progress in Afghanistan, declaring local security forces more capable than ever and its people now more concerned about basic services than security.

Based on Australian assessments, transition to Afghan security responsibility in Oruzgan province would be completed and the majority of Australian personnel withdrawn by the end of this year, he said.

"In December I would think," General Hurley told an estimates hearing in Canberra on Wednesday.

The Australian mission had changed but forces remained ready to conduct combat operations if required, while special forces still conducted missions targeting insurgent leaders.

The al-Qaeda threat in Afghanistan had been "confronted, reduced and largely neutralised".

The Taliban remained resilient but their message now had less resonance with Afghan people than ever before, General Hurley said.

"Regular nationwide surveys show the majority of Afghans, including the southern Pashtuns, do not want the Taliban to return to power.

"The Taliban are now increasingly fighting Afghans on Afghan soil and the senior insurgent leadership now operates largely from outside Afghanistan."

Insurgents retained the capacity to conduct occasional spectacular attacks but their military options, beyond terror attacks and use of improvised explosive devices, were limited.

Afghan security forces were now leading more than 80 per cent of operations countrywide.

"The 2013 campaign plan is Afghan-planned and will be Afghan-executed," General Hurley said, adding the Afghan National Security Forces were able to confront and defeat insurgents increasingly in its own right.

Throughout 2012, nationwide surveys identified that security was no longer the average Afghan's primary concern.

Basic services, such as power and roads, employment opportunities and corruption were now the top concerns.

"It is clear that the path ahead will require an Afgan political solution which can only be designed, agreed and implemented by Afghans and on an Afghan timeline," General Hurley said.

CDF says Afghans able to take on Taliban

[BarakzaiAbdali]

On thing I should tell you Barakzai---Westerners simply cannot understand Eastern societies. When they see the inherent chaos of Eastern societies and compare it with order in their own society, they think everything is collapsing.

Anyhow, there is no doubt enough depending on foreigners ---Afghans should now integrate into the economic structure of the region. East is emerging from its period of passivity both in terms of economy, education, etc. And Afghans should find their place in it.

Enough of dependence on Western powers.

Tis not my decision, but their own as to what they want to do.

Why not think big though? Dr. Ernesto Guevara may have been a bit of a dreamer when he thought that extricating Cuba from the Capitalist economies would be an easy job. He and Castro attempted to do so when they kicked Batista's remnants out. The ensuing problem was that Castro decided reliance on the Soviets was an option and Guevara was working with an island nation that could never dream of self sufficiency as opposed to a Pan Latin American Confederation that should have first been built. Perhaps he saw this and that is why he died in Bolivia. The attempt to extricate Cuba from dependence on the world economy failed not because the concept was flawed but because of the fact that variables and the base substrate was aligned against success from the get go.

The True Story of Che Guevara - The Documentary - YouTube[/URL]

Watch starting 43 minutes and 30 seconds.

This is the problem. The IMF, World Bank, and the current economic system ensures perpetual and full spectrum dominance via ensuring the economic nerve center and solar plexus of the world rests in Manhattan and London and Paris - all other nations are perpetual debters.

Each time a nation steps out of line and desires to fully control its resources or develop equal level military and economic power - and especially if its native ideologies conflict with that of the world powers - and even more obviously if the combination of nationalism and ideology run counter or compete with neocolonial interests - a combination of soft and hard power is utilized to attempt and break these countries.

The central asian- Persian and south asian nations need to consider themselves a super block of sorts and pool their resources so that they cannot inflict such injuries on them as they did on Guevara. The Arabs must be quick to do the same or their progression toward decay will continue on this destructive road they are on - thinking that they are the masters with the resource cards whereas they are more reliant than they ever could understand.

Whatever ism or ideology they adopt - in order to be fully autonomous and independent this confederacy must be resource laden and resource rich, with water way access and the wherewithall to withstand economic embargoes.

Ethnic groups that have lived in regions for thousands of years with friction must learn that they will all lose their culture, ideologies, and native resources if they do not learn to tolerate each other and simply agree to disagree for a greater good. They must disobey the Russo Britsh imagined boundaries. The fate of the red man awaits them otherwise.

My thought process on this is that a developing agrarian society with some urbanized centers focused on managing these resources should build together in a way that can withstand the shocks of any and all embargoes.

This will take time and patience - and steely will and agreements between folks with disparate ideologies.

An example of such back up and contingency planning is shown here:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/program...spr/index.html

One can see with Iran and North Korea what the stakes are of trying to walk the route of engaging the G8 nations and letting them "plug" you in to their matrix.

economic independence + land mass and resources + a developing agrarian society + a willingness to tolerate multiple cultures/ideologies to a reasonable extent + talent may be the formula for success

[BarakzaiAbdali]

CDF says Afghans able to take on Taliban

Defence force chief General David Hurley has given a Senate committee an upbeat assessment of progress in Afghanistan, declaring local security forces more capable than ever and its people now more concerned about basic services than security.

Based on Australian assessments, transition to Afghan security responsibility in Oruzgan province would be completed and the majority of Australian personnel withdrawn by the end of this year, he said.

"In December I would think," General Hurley told an estimates hearing in Canberra on Wednesday.

The Australian mission had changed but forces remained ready to conduct combat operations if required, while special forces still conducted missions targeting insurgent leaders.

The al-Qaeda threat in Afghanistan had been "confronted, reduced and largely neutralised".

The Taliban remained resilient but their message now had less resonance with Afghan people than ever before, General Hurley said.

"Regular nationwide surveys show the majority of Afghans, including the southern Pashtuns, do not want the Taliban to return to power.

"The Taliban are now increasingly fighting Afghans on Afghan soil and the senior insurgent leadership now operates largely from outside Afghanistan."

Insurgents retained the capacity to conduct occasional spectacular attacks but their military options, beyond terror attacks and use of improvised explosive devices, were limited.

Afghan security forces were now leading more than 80 per cent of operations countrywide.

"The 2013 campaign plan is Afghan-planned and will be Afghan-executed," General Hurley said, adding the Afghan National Security Forces were able to confront and defeat insurgents increasingly in its own right.

Throughout 2012, nationwide surveys identified that security was no longer the average Afghan's primary concern.

Basic services, such as power and roads, employment opportunities and corruption were now the top concerns.

"It is clear that the path ahead will require an Afgan political solution which can only be designed, agreed and implemented by Afghans and on an Afghan timeline," General Hurley said.

CDF says Afghans able to take on Taliban

Refer to the reference above regarding Dhiems Vietnemese legions and their initial ability to "take on their insurgency" or to the Najibullah period where the same false hope was dashed.

Most important when interpreting this is that the CDF will of course paint a rosy picture to ensure its ability to both disengage and or continue to shore up support for its own agenda.

Refer to that other article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/wo...anted=all&_r=1&

"There are some things the Americans have to do solo because the Afghans cannot do them, nor will they be able to anytime soon, commanders say. One example is using high-tech surveillance — blimps, drones, cameras mounted on towers at every base — to help spot militants before they attack, and to direct airstrikes against them. They have launched numerous such attacks in the past month alone.
The Afghans send out regular patrols on their own, and conduct a growing number of small, independent operations. Their fighting ability is getting close to where it needs to be, but the crucial back end of the army — the logistics and supply teams that get bullets, fuel, food and water to where they need to be — is woefully unready, American and even some Afghan officers say."

And it goes on to note:

"The Afghan force at the base, now down to 16 soldiers, watched warily, telling the Americans that they had to stay. The morning of the Americans’ departure, the Afghan commander, Lt. Muhammad Mohsen, said in an interview that he believed they would come back. If not, he said grimly, the villagers would soon want them back."

And if you want to talk about how Karzai's goons are inflicting savagery on the natives why not refer to the ANA Lieutenant's own quote:

“We’ll have the freedom to do what we want,” Lieutenant Mohsen said. Those villagers who desired peace would get it. Those who did not, “maybe we can destroy their homes.”

Now that is interesting since one of the main criticisms of Pakistan's policy in FATA, by Pashtun nationalists and militants alike, is that its savage army utilizes an old British law that permitted collective punishment and destruction of property - an approach that is condemned by most international standards.

Yet, as I have always warned about, the activities of the elite emigre laden and infested Afghan government are becoming very close to that of its Pakistan so that a new Pakistan is being built right next door to the original corrupt one. Karzai's military is doing the exact same thing to villagers with impugnity.

Karzai himself finds new pressure internally from the tribes people to limit these incursions or else:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/wo...irstrikes.html

Folks should have surmised that Mr. Karzai's karakul hat was very symbolic and ominous as another past "founding father" of a neighbor country was also very fond of karakul hats.

Be careful what you ask for...