Afghan National Army Attrition

[Wowra]

Dear Barakzai Abdali,
Let's not forget that Afghanistan was lacking Afghan National Army, Afghan National police and Afghan National Directorate of Security post 2001. I am certain that most viewers on this forum will agree with me that the backbone of any country is these three forces, without these forces there will be no rule of law and good governance. The United States is committed to help Afghanistan stand on its own feet. The Afghan Army is on track to reach its goal of 352,000. As everyone is aware Afghan national Army is conducting 85 to 95 percent of all missions against Taliban and insurgents in Afghanistan. The United States and the International Community's support for the ANSF remain critical, notably in the provision of key enabling capabilities. This support will remain until such time when the ANSF are fully capable of acting independently. We will not let Afghanistan become a global hub for terrorists again. As our Secretary of State John Kerry said,"I reaffirmed our commitment to the Afghan people and to our determination that Afghanistan will not ever become a haven for terrorists,"
Respectfully,
Hashmat
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

This reads like propaganda. This is entirely anecdotal, but: The ANA is reluctantly accomplishing missions, depending on the unit. Some truly are good - capable of self-support, but many still are not. Even the best units are linchpinned on one good commander or 1SG. In the absence of that key individual(s), the unit falls to the rack and ruin of ineffectiveness. And the ANP and NDS? Don't even get me started on the ALP -They are all self-licking ice cream cones. At best, they invent shadows, safely chase them, then report the imaginary arrests allowing ISAF to log it as a "win." At worst, they create civilian casualties and wrongful arrests. However, back to the title of defectors, at the end of the Soviet Occupation DRA soldiers consistently defected (usually violently) to the winning side (see, Bear Went Over the Mountain and the companion The Otherside of the Mountain). With the so called "green on blues" - we're seeing the same thing.

[khushal]

Seriously Khushal, no one wants corruption but corruption has existed in Afghanistan all long even prior to 1980s.. lol..

People actually in lived peace even with all the corruption...

prior to 1980 the government was not foreign installed

[khushal]

Abdali Saib,

those times are over if they ever existed.

Back in the old days, when an ordinary men´s rifle was comparable to the weaponry of standing armies, ordinary people could withstand invaders.

But Afghans are facing modern enemies today. We aren´t living in the romantic 18 th century when British officers commanding 20.000 Indians would appear at our frontiers.

The downfall of the Afghan Army after the Coup against Daoud Khan untill the complete destruction of the Armed Forces in 1992 which was Pakistan´s major goal is a witness to that.

Nations need intelligence agencies, armed forces, police and border guards, military intelligence, modern weaponry and a doctrine.

We can´t rely on tribes and their leaders.

Example from History:

Mullah-e Lang /Gudd Mullah who was a British spy led the Mangal tribe into a full scale revolt against the Monarchy of Amanullah Khan. The British feared his charisma and his person to be a role model from Egypt to India. (Gamal Nasser mentions his meeting with Amanullah Khan when he was a child in his memoirs and how much he influenced his anti-colonial thinking) Thats why they tasked that guy to get rid of Amanullah Khan through a revolt.

Tribes, normal human beings, peasants, teachers and workers aren´t soldiers.

Afghanistan needs a military deterrence and I prefer the ANA who are called "traitors", "mercenaries" or "drug addicts" over every insurgent because the same words can applied for them, too. Their ultimate goal goes against the vital national interests of the Afghan people.

I guess, your romantic view on those "freedom fighters" who fight for a just cause is by far more "Hollywood" than my words.

Only the afghan people can decide what is in the best interests of the afghan people. not soldiers on the pay roll of foreigners and their commanders ie karzai and other department heads on the pay roll of foreign intelligence agencies. In America if the president or any department head is on the payroll of a foreign intelligence agency that person would be tried for treason. And you believe the ANA soldier should protect such a traitor to his own people.

[khushal]

Don't even get me started on the ALP -They are all self-licking ice cream cones. At best, they invent shadows, safely chase them, then report the imaginary arrests allowing ISAF to log it as a "win." At worst, they create civilian casualties and wrongful arrests..

not to mention how the ANA who fabricate battles so ISAF can re supply them with ammunition that they(ANA) sell on the black market to who ever wants to buy them including their own enemy the taliban while at the same time more than half the fuel is stolen in paksitan through the southern supply routes through Paksitani territory fleecing the American tax payer.

If the Afghan people fought tooth and nail against these child molesting warlords that the US partnered up with, why would the US tax payers want them as partners?

[MostafaM]

Only the afghan people can decide what is in the best interests of the afghan people. not soldiers on the pay roll of foreigners and their commanders ie karzai and other department heads on the pay roll of foreign intelligence agencies. In America if the president or any department head is on the payroll of a foreign intelligence agency that person would be tried for treason. And you believe the ANA soldier should protect such a traitor to his own people.

That´s true.
Onl Afghans can decide what is in their interest.

To be able to speak out and be heared, the Afghan people need

a) free media and access to information
b) education to be be able to differentiate between "good and bad"
c) an election process where their representatives can make their voices be heared on a political level
d) a pluralistic political system since not every Afghans thinks the same as his neighbour
e) a government that is formed out of the elected representatives of the people

Point a) to e) can´t be achieved with the "Taliban" or the insurgents because dissent will be abolished under their political system (every one-party system is the same). Free media, free speech, elections and pluralism wouldn´t be implented. A free media and access to information will be restricted because "democratic values" go diametrically against what they preach and teach.

Conclusion:
You don´t actually think the stuff through what you say.
Afghanistan´s people need to be placed into the 21st century and not being hold back in past times.
An insurgency of 15,000-20,000 foot soldiers and few ideologues can´t define what 32 Million think, wish and want.

And for the record:
the soldiers don´t define what is the interest of the people. They implement what they are ordered to do.
Common sense defines the interest of the people so far since we all know that a stable, prosper and strong Afghanistan is what it´s neighbours DON´T want. 1+1= 2 aka Afghanistan basic national interest is to push the foreign strategic agendas, that go against it´s own interests, back.

To understand this, we actually don´t need to ask every vegetable seller on Chicken Street what his opinion is.

[MostafaM]

Mr. Sayyaf says:
the only thing Afghans have is "jihad".
Jihad defines what an Afghan is.

Well,
I don´t think that´s true.
Afghans are much more than their religion and resistance against invaders.

"Amyal-e gap-e Jihad ra as tareekh wardared, Afghanistan chie dara?"

TOLOnews 09 September 2012 Abdul Rabb Rasul Sayyaf speech - YouTube

Just to save his own Salafi bum, he rewrites the history of Afghans.

I don´t think we should take pride in always pushing invaders back. Afghanistan has beend torched and invaded 10 times in it´s history.

We should take pride for not being attack- and invadable.
We need that strength so following generations can live in peace and prosperity.

We shouldn´t take pride in killing and getting killed while the widows of this nation have to prostitute themselves on our enemies soil to feed our orphans!!

Ghairat is something else.
Atleast for me.

[khushal]

That´s true.
Onl Afghans can decide what is in their interest.

To be able to speak out and be heared, the Afghan people need

a) free media and access to information
b) education to be be able to differentiate between "good and bad"
c) an election process where their representatives can make their voices be heared on a political level
d) a pluralistic political system since not every Afghans thinks the same as his neighbour
e) a government that is formed out of the elected representatives of the people

Point a) to e) can´t be achieved with the "Taliban" or the insurgents because dissent will be abolished under their political system (every one-party system is the same). Free media, free speech, elections and pluralism wouldn´t be implented. A free media and access to information will be restricted because "democratic values" go diametrically against what they preach and teach.

Conclusion:
You don´t actually think the stuff through what you say.
Afghanistan´s people need to be placed into the 21st century and not being hold back in past times.
An insurgency of 15,000-20,000 foot soldiers and few ideologues can´t define what 32 Million think, wish and want.

And for the record:
the soldiers don´t define what is the interest of the people. They implement what they are ordered to do.
Common sense defines the interest of the people so far since we all know that a stable, prosper and strong Afghanistan is what it´s neighbours DON´T want. 1+1= 2 aka Afghanistan basic national interest is to push the foreign strategic agendas, that go against it´s own interests, back.

To understand this, we actually don´t need to ask every vegetable seller on Chicken Street what his opinion is.

Your falling into the trap mostafa. just because I disagree with you does no mean I want the taliban to come back. That is far from reality. My criticism comes from failed policy that is shedding afghan and american lives not to mention money and resources wasted. The policy is a failure so lets stop or or try something else.

The rest of what you said sounds good on paper but its not practical in afghanistan.
you keep talking about foreign strategic interest are pushing back national afghan interest which is true, so what is NATO doing building up an Army, do the afghans that are fighting think that NATO is building that army for afghan interest and if they should believe that then why shouldn't the paksitani or iranians build an afghan army for afghan interests.
I know what your thinking and if you can transfer that thinking process to the average afghan on the ground than you know what i'm talking about.

The average afghan on the ground dont want a foreign built army just like you would not want a pakistani built afghan army or just like an american would not want a chinese built american army. Welcome to reality.

[Admin Khan]

Your falling into the trap mostafa. just because I disagree with you does no mean I want the taliban to come back. That is far from reality. My criticism comes from failed policy that is shedding afghan and american lives not to mention money and resources wasted. The policy is a failure so lets stop or or try something else.
.

This sounds better than your previous tone, now tell me grana Kushala, what alternative do you have, and how can Afghanistan achieve it in a feasible manner. I am all ears graana. Where should we begin? Do we begin calling the vast majority of the soldiers infidels? Do we begin allowing foreigners to embezzle on Afghan land, like I said, I am all ears.

[MostafaM]

You should be able to answer your question yoursel, Khushal Khan:

Afghanistan failed as a state, it´s military and institution vanished after 1992 when the unjust Communist regime in Kabul fell.
Afghanistan became a battlefield for others and like a cadaver is home to parasites, bacterial growth and insects, Afghanistan was that kinda cadaver because it couldn´t defend itself properly. Terrorist groups from Indonesia to Mauretania had a place to stay, traine and leave for their countries.

It´s obvious that failed states like Afghanistan or Somalia are used and misused by everyone who comes along the way.

The Americans want an Afghan National Army so that it´s soil wont become a battlefield for regional and international powers.

Why the hell should Pakistan or Iran build up Afghanistans Army if it´s in their interest to secure that piece of land as their own sphere of interest?

The American policy doesn´t work because they are not as intelligent as the British are. They lack cultural, religious and historical knowledge. The other thing is: Afghanistan lacks alot, too. It´s entire elite has left the country.
We should acknowledge that the people who are left, who have gone through war and destruction, are understandably selfish and think about their own interests first. That´s what war teaches you. Corruption is an outcome of instability. It can be dealt with when stability strenghtens state institutions.

Thanks for welcomin me to reality, wrora.
Another reality is this:
does anyone pay taxes to the state except for the state employees?
No!
How should a standing army that can defend it´s territory be financed then?
How do you wanna finance, equip and maintaine an army that can defend Afghanistan against foreign aggression and secure its national interests?

Afghans don´t want foreigners to built their army?
Well, man up and build it if you can.
If you CURRENTLY cannot do that job, shut up and accept help to be able to do the job tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.
That´s my answer to the "average Afghan"!

[Admin Khan]

You should be able to answer your question yoursel, Khushal Khan:

Afghanistan failed as a state, it´s military and institution vanished after 1992 when the unjust Communist regime in Kabul fell.
Afghanistan became a battlefield for others and like a cadaver is home to parasites, bacterial growth and insects, Afghanistan was that kinda cadaver because it couldn´t defend itself properly. Terrorist groups from Indonesia to Mauretania had a place to stay, traine and leave for their countries.

It´s obvious that failed states like Afghanistan or Somalia are used and misused by everyone who comes along the way.

The Americans want an Afghan National Army so that it´s soil wont become a battlefield for regional and international powers.

Why the hell should Pakistan or Iran build up Afghanistans Army if it´s in their interest to secure that piece of land as their own sphere of interest?

The American policy doesn´t work because they are not as intelligent as the British are. They lack cultural, religious and historical knowledge. The other thing is: Afghanistan lacks alot, too. It´s entire elite has left the country.
We should acknowledge that the people who are left, who have gone through war and destruction, are understandably selfish and think about their own interests first. That´s what war teaches you. Corruption is an outcome of instability. It can be dealt with when stability strenghtens state institutions.

Thanks for welcomin me to reality, wrora.
Another reality is this:
does anyone pay taxes to the state except for the state employees?
No!
How should a standing army that can defend it´s territory be financed then?
How do you wanna finance, equip and maintaine an army that can defend Afghanistan against foreign aggression and secure its national interests?

Afghans don´t want foreigners to built their army?
Well, man up and built it if you can.
If you CURRENTLY cannot do that job, shut up and accept help to be able to do the job tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.
That´s my answer to the "average Afghan"!

Sad but true, unfortunately talk is easy, it's easy to condemn every single soldier of Afghanistan, as we live in a first-class European countries, it's also easy to associate a label on a country, without realizing the obvious -- the intellectual diaspora is out. It's easy to condemn foreign aid, yet not a single human has yet to offer me a solution, what can Afghanistan do? It has a neighbor on one side that wishes to treat it as a 5th province, a neighbor on the other side that still wishes to include Herat and the gang in its country, and a populace that is amongst the least educated on earth.

I don't suggest Afghans to become foreign mercenaries, I don't suggest Afghanistan to become an 'occupied' state by the USA, but explain to me what the other option is. Present the alternative so me and Mostafa can look at it, rally around it, and perhaps work on implementing to change the lives of Afghans. Believe me, it is much easier for I, Mostafa, BA, to simply turn our backs on the nation and continue living great lives that we are, but no -- we want Afghans to live the same way, back home, and wish to see alternatives. Baseless condemnations, destroying the morale of the nation with useless criticism without alternatives, is not going to work. Often times, in politics, you have to bite the bullet in certain categories.

One can NOT deny that Afghanistan has progressed, and is progressing with it's 8-9% economic growth. Is most of it because of foreign funded aid? True, but now that Afghanistan has schools, lets work on action plans to hire great teachers, before we didn't even have proper schools. Now that we have universities, lets focus on devising great medical and Engineering curriculas, now that we have an Armed Force, lets focus on REDUCING self-reliance, resolving neighborly disputes, and eradicating corruption. It's easy to pull out articles and news websites highlighting corruption, I don't think anyone denies that, or supports the current regime, but we can not deny that Afghanistan, as a nation, has progressed and continues to progress on a yearly basis, although there is a ton of room for improvement, given the amount which is invested in it.

There is not just two solutions to the situation, stop with the either A)Going with Taliban B)Supporting the current Government. Currently, the international community is providing $6-7 billion dollars per year to ANA, there is no need for parallel institutions, focus on building and improving what the nation has as of now, unless you think Afghanistan does NOT need a military force?

[MostafaM]

I agree with you, Admin Khan.

It seems that thinking positivly or finding solution for problems is something that engineers are taught from day one.
That can be helpfull when complex and multi-level problems have to be fixed.

Solving existing problems, adjusting the weak points, optimizing.....we need to look at the current situation from a emotionless point of view and keep in mind that the fate of millions are at stake.

More engineers for Afghanistan, please.
We had our share of Doctors like Najib, Poets like Seleiman Layeq, Lawyers like Karmal or Teachers like Amin. We had our Architects like Daoud Khan and career officers like Zaher Shah and Shah Wali Khan, too. They messed it up big time because they couldn´t adjust themselves to the problems they met.

I wish politics could be dealt with like sparse matrices, too. lol

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Abdali Saib,

those times are over if they ever existed.

Back in the old days, when an ordinary men´s rifle was comparable to the weaponry of standing armies, ordinary people could withstand invaders.

That doesnt justify building an army that simulataneously subverts the will of the locals and the average Afghan.

But Afghans are facing modern enemies today. We aren´t living in the romantic 18 th century when British officers commanding 20.000 Indians would appear at our frontiers.

Thats an issue with the whole third world... still doesnt justify an interventional force devising an army and constitution that runs counter to the will of the average person ala the Pew data and other indicators.

The downfall of the Afghan Army after the Coup against Daoud Khan untill the complete destruction of the Armed Forces in 1992 which was Pakistan´s major goal is a witness to that.

Daud made stupid moves in which he tried to do strategic balancing of 2 super powers ala Karzai... it was as dumb then as it is now and he paid with his life.

Nations need intelligence agencies, armed forces, police and border guards, military intelligence, modern weaponry and a doctrine.

We can´t rely on tribes and their leaders.


So basically, its a nation built in the image of the Afghan techocrat and the average person and rural man better shut up or put up even if he doesnt accord with the lifestyle and governmental aspirations of Mr. karzai and his acolytes?

Example from History:

Mullah-e Lang /Gudd Mullah who was a British spy led the Mangal tribe into a full scale revolt against the Monarchy of Amanullah Khan. The British feared his charisma and his person to be a role model from Egypt to India. (Gamal Nasser mentions his meeting with Amanullah Khan when he was a child in his memoirs and how much he influenced his anti-colonial thinking) Thats why they tasked that guy to get rid of Amanullah Khan through a revolt.

Amanullah Khan was inept in my book and basically thought of himself as a little Ataturk which explains Nasir (another nationalist thug who tried to "modernize" his people) admiring him. The Brits may have disseminated pictures of he and Soraya with the Germans and English but those actions were all his own. And that doesnt explain the Shinwari animosity to Amanullah either. Tarzi's writings and Amanullah's view on them is well documented by the Amanullah family and they certainly viewed themselves as the "modernizers" of their backward people.


Tribes, normal human beings, peasants, teachers and workers aren´t soldiers.

Thats the backbone of the US Army.

Afghanistan needs a military deterrence and I prefer the ANA who are called "traitors", "mercenaries" or "drug addicts" over every insurgent because the same words can applied for them, too. Their ultimate goal goes against the vital national interests of the Afghan people.

In your world view, not their view. Let us be clear on this. The surveys and data do not show that the average Afghans share Karzai's world view or your same objectives for what is modern governance.

I guess, your romantic view on those "freedom fighters" who fight for a just cause is by far more "Hollywood" than my words.

I neither support nor view them romantically. I merely abide by kawun kakar's quote that they were and are more in line with hte village and rural countryside and that is the mass of the Afghan population. I view it is unfortunate that rural Americans are being shipped off in the droves to fight an Afghan technocrat's war for him because that technocrat in Kabul thinks he knows how to school "his little brown brother" and shoot, in turn, at rural Afghans who have nothing to do with pakistan but certainly want no part in an imposed rule of thugs and warlords.

A simple case example is that of the brother of Gul Agha Sherzai, an Army/airforce colonel of some sort in the Afghan army. Basically, an utterly inept individual is given that role and uses it for further nepotism and carving out his own little fiefdom. That, my freind is the ANA.

[MostafaM]

You say:

"Thats an issue with the whole third world... still doesnt justify an interventional force devising an army and constitution that runs counter to the will of the average person ala the Pew data and other indicators."

Who speaks here for the average person/Afghan?
Do you?
Do I?

Who defines the will of the normal Afghans?

The average Afghan should and can talk via elections. Surveys or not, people need to have the chance to participate in a decision making process. And it´s high time that everyone can speak for himself with the help of a ballot box.
Tribal leaders, power brokers and feudal groups only speak for themselves.

"So basically, its a nation built in the image of the Afghan techocrat and the average person and rural man better shut up or put up even if he doesnt accord with the lifestyle and governmental aspirations of Mr. karzai and his acolytes?"

What the technocrats have created doesn´t go against the interest of the people.
A semi-functioning state, institutions, schools, universities, a military and police apparatus? They can be as corrupt as possible but creating a functioning state is never against the interest of the ordinary people.
Even the most remote tribal area in Afghanistan (which I come from) has understood by now that schools, hospitals, roads and security is what they need.
60 years ago those people were revolting against the government when it planned to build roads into their territory.

"Amanullah Khan was inept in my book and basically thought of himself as a little Ataturk which explains Nasir (another nationalist thug who tried to "modernize" his people) admiring him. The Brits may have disseminated pictures of he and Soraya with the Germans and English but those actions were all his own. And that doesnt explain the Shinwari animosity to Amanullah either. Tarzi's writings and Amanullah's view on them is well documented by the Amanullah family and they certainly viewed themselves as the "modernizers" of their backward people."

It wasn´t my point to back Amanullah Khans so-called reforms which made absolutly no sense in that time and place. If people wore hats or turbans, what difference did it make?
My point was that tribes, powerfull families and clans have always been used by internal and external forces to create mischief and instability. My words were directed towards your comment that the Afghan people have always defended the country and that no army is needed. Well, if Afghans have defended against invaders, so have those invaders been assisted by Afghans, knowingly or unknowlingly.
We cannot rely on tribal jirgas and the Ulama who have always been infiltrated because of their dissected nature.

"In your world view, not their view. Let us be clear on this. The surveys and data do not show that the average Afghans share Karzai's world view or your same objectives for what is modern governance."

I don´t know what Data and Surveys you talk about so it would be helpfull if you link those informations.
National interests aren´t defined by every vegetable seller as I mentioned but by people who know what they talk about.
To have a strong national army is not rocket science. EVERY state on earth tries to have an army that can protect it´s borders and secure it from inner unrest.

"I neither support nor view them romantically. I merely abide by kawun kakar's quote that they were and are more in line with the village and rural countryside and that is the mass of the Afghan population. I view it is unfortunate that rural Americans are being shipped off in the droves to fight an Afghan technocrat's war for him because that technocrat in Kabul thinks he knows how to school "his little brown brother" and shoot, in turn, at rural Afghans who have nothing to do with pakistan but certainly want no part in an imposed rule of thugs and warlords.

A simple case example is that of the brother of Gul Agha Sherzai, an Army/airforce colonel of some sort in the Afghan army. Basically, an utterly inept individual is given that role and uses it for further nepotism and carving out his own little fiefdom. That, my freind is the ANA."

Being in line with small regional micro-cosmi, from Badakhshan to Helmand doesn´t mean anything. The Taliban movements ability to fill the gaps that the corrupt and partially unable government leaves behind which are different from region to region isn´t a sign that people approve their rule. It´s more a sign that they disapprove the current government.

The Taliban were driven out in 2001/2002.
Untill the summer of 2004 there was no insurgency. Nowhere, except for small pockets in Paktia (Zurmat, Zhawar etc.) where some Arab fighters etc had remained.
People were waiting for a change, even the rural ones.

The Afghan elite who fled the country didn´t go back to fill the lack of "brain" in that sociaty and left it for those who had gathered power by the gun.

What do we expect?
What do you expect?

The Insurgencies regrouping which took about 2 years, it´s safe havens across the border and its revival were partially the outcome of frustration of the people and partially Pakistan´s strategic goal to dominate Afghanistan after the US withdrawl.
I take Pakistani ex-ISI officers words seriously in this regard.

This state needs time, it needs officers to be educated and trained.
That can´t be achieved overnight.

The corruption and nepotism can´t be fought by siding with those groups who were and still are a good excuse for those warlords to hold on to power.

I linked Sayyafs video here and he says it:
don´t dare to criticize us "Mujahedin". We fought for you against the Russians and the Taliban.

Criticizing is one thing.
Showing an alternative is harder, I guess.

I will never side with anything backed by the arch enemies of Afghanistan who Iran and Pakistan. Their enmity is strategic, cultural, linguistic and historical.
It´s not that they just want to weaken Afghanistan. It´s in their interest to erase that word from the surface of the planet: Afghan.

Being united under one weak leadership is better than to be broken into 100 strong entities. Weakness can be overcome in one generation, the rotten fruits of disunity need hundreds of years to be erased. We lost Pakhtunkhwa because of disunity amongst us. Should be a good lesson.

[Wowra]

Sad but true, unfortunately talk is easy, it's easy to condemn every single soldier of Afghanistan, as we live in a first-class European countries, it's also easy to associate a label on a country, without realizing the obvious -- the intellectual diaspora is out. It's easy to condemn foreign aid, yet not a single human has yet to offer me a solution, what can Afghanistan do? It has a neighbor on one side that wishes to treat it as a 5th province, a neighbor on the other side that still wishes to include Herat and the gang in its country, and a populace that is amongst the least educated on earth.

I don't suggest Afghans to become foreign mercenaries, I don't suggest Afghanistan to become an 'occupied' state by the USA, but explain to me what the other option is. Present the alternative so me and Mostafa can look at it, rally around it, and perhaps work on implementing to change the lives of Afghans. Believe me, it is much easier for I, Mostafa, BA, to simply turn our backs on the nation and continue living great lives that we are, but no -- we want Afghans to live the same way, back home, and wish to see alternatives. Baseless condemnations, destroying the morale of the nation with useless criticism without alternatives, is not going to work. Often times, in politics, you have to bite the bullet in certain categories.

One can NOT deny that Afghanistan has progressed, and is progressing with it's 8-9% economic growth. Is most of it because of foreign funded aid? True, but now that Afghanistan has schools, lets work on action plans to hire great teachers, before we didn't even have proper schools. Now that we have universities, lets focus on devising great medical and Engineering curriculas, now that we have an Armed Force, lets focus on REDUCING self-reliance, resolving neighborly disputes, and eradicating corruption. It's easy to pull out articles and news websites highlighting corruption, I don't think anyone denies that, or supports the current regime, but we can not deny that Afghanistan, as a nation, has progressed and continues to progress on a yearly basis, although there is a ton of room for improvement, given the amount which is invested in it.

There is not just two solutions to the situation, stop with the either A)Going with Taliban B)Supporting the current Government. Currently, the international community is providing $6-7 billion dollars per year to ANA, there is no need for parallel institutions, focus on building and improving what the nation has as of now, unless you think Afghanistan does NOT need a military force?

Admin Khan - Afghanistan's progress is completely relative, I think. Honestly, if you want to move forward, you have to erase what divided the tribes decades ago. The feuds between Harakat, Itihad, Hesb-i Islami are all still as relevant as they are bloody. Of course its not the leaders - Haji Musa, Ostaz Sayyaf, and Engineer Abdullah all live in Kabul (Of course Hekmatyr doesn't), but their men still live in the same blood soaked neighborhoods. With those neighborhoods and sometimes qalats divided by party lines - how can you have a socially interactive tribe? You can't - its every man for himself and it shows in the greed, the corruption, and self preservation. However, if those lines were erased, badal satisfied at the behest of those leaders - the tribes would have to mend at which point the tribe can control the Taliban or the Karzai regime depending upon who they choose to follow. I think Kunar and Nuristan are perfect examples - the tribes are still very strong in most of those areas. I don't know if its still the case, but when I was there years back - neither the Taliban nor the Government could do anything without the express permission of the elders. The closer you get to the Kingdom of Kabul, the more divided it becomes and more complicated the power dynamics.

As far as the nation being able to defend itself with farmers and peasants - the Taliban's kept the most powerful super-union in the world on its toes for over ten years.

[SiiNii]

Why?

1. Our forces have almost infinite resources compared to the ANA. Need better armored vehicles since wewent to war with the ones we had and they didn't hold up? We can just buy better ones off the shelf. Lost an aircraft or a tank? No big deal we have thousands more. Lacking in trained personnel? Hire contractors from all over the world to fill nearly ever billet short of direct combat troops. How to pay for it all? Just print more money. The ANA simply can't afford to do the types of things we do.

2. Coalition personnel and families are also shielded by long distances from insurgent night visits. The ANA soldier far from his village doesn't have this protection, one knock on the door and he's AWOL.



Take a look at the standard issue M16A2 of the ANA, a weapon which was deemed unsuitable for our field soldiers sometime around 2005 and replaced with the M4. Not only does the unfamiliar M16 have entirely different manual of arms + sights from the Kalashnikov, it requires regular maintenance, replacement of parts, quality ammunition and lubrication, and worst of all for ANA soldiers: reliable magazines. These magazines can't take the abuse of AK magazines since they were designed as replaceable items. If the US Army has such problems replacing its soldier's magazines that we often purchased our own, what chances an ANA troop will get the magazines he needs? Hate to be blunt but these guys are screwed.