Study recommends increasing size of Afghan Army significantly

[Farnan]

There are now about 31,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Another brigade is due to arrive in January; beyond that, decisions on the size and timing of any further additions will be up to Obama.

Under a plan adopted by the U.S. and Afghan governments in September, the Afghan army is to grow to 134,000 soldiers by 2014. The previous goal was 80,000, and the actual number in uniform now is about 67,000, according to Lt. Col. Christian Kubik, spokesman for the Combined Security Transition Command in Afghanistan, which is responsible for training and equipping Afghan forces. The price tag for getting to the new target of 134,000 by 2014 is an estimated $17 billion, Kubik said.

Gates noted there is broad support for getting to the 134,000 goal quickly.

“It may well not stop there,” he added, noting that the size of the Afghan security forces is vastly smaller than Iraq’s. A rapid increase in the size of Iraqi security forces over the past two years was a key element — along with an altered U.S. counterinsurgency strategy — in drastically reducing the level of violence and opening the door to American troop withdrawals this year.

Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general, wrote recently after a July visit to Afghanistan that one of the keys to winning in Afghanistan is expanding the Afghan army to 200,000 soldiers.

“Afghanistan will not be solved by the addition of two or three more U.S. combat brigades from our rapidly unraveling Army,” McCaffrey wrote in a paper for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Gates said he does not expect NATO allies or others to contribute significant additional troops in Afghanistan, even though he and other U.S. officials have pleaded for many months for more help. In his remarks last week, Gates alluded to a behind-the-scenes debate about the wisdom of deepening U.S. involvement, beyond the extra brigades McKiernan already has requested.

“I think it remains to be seen whether there is a need or value to significantly more troops than that,” the defense secretary said.

Maj. Gen. Robert Cone, who heads U.S. efforts to train and equip the Afghan army and police, says that in the long run it will be more cost-effective to have Afghans, rather than foreign forces, fighting the Taliban and other militant factions.

“The key is accelerating the growth of the Afghan army,” he said in an interview in September.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/1...nistan_110708/

The Afghan Army is significantly smaller than the Iraqi Army, however can they quickly expand it without sacrificing quality?

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

No, The government simply doesn't have enough power. And there have been many instances when the conduct, loyalty and capability of the already existing Afghani national soldiers has come into question. It would take a massive effort on Behalf of NATO to flow men, material and money into Afghanistan in creating a situation where the Afghani national army can take the rein.

It's unfortunate that this wasn't being talked about a few months ago, instead of muddling back and forth trying to get another American combat brigade or one thousand or so troops from Germany, France, Italy, etc.

I think thing's are looking very bleak in Afghanistan. I think it's far past the point where a 20,000 man surge and a new commander (no matter how good he is) can fix. Unless the American people are willing to contribute a Military operation unprecedented in size since say Vietnam, and no one want's to do that.

[Farnan]

No, The government simply doesn't have enough power. And there have been many instances when the conduct, loyalty and capability of the already existing Afghani national soldiers has come into question. It would take a massive effort on Behalf of NATO to flow men, material and money into Afghanistan in creating a situation where the Afghani national army can take the rein.

It's unfortunate that this wasn't being talked about a few months ago, instead of muddling back and forth trying to get another American combat brigade or one thousand or so troops from Germany, France, Italy, etc.

I think thing's are looking very bleak in Afghanistan. I think it's far past the point where a 20,000 man surge and a new commander (no matter how good he is) can fix.

There hasn't been a loyalty problem in the Afghan Army, the Afghan Police is where there is a problem. From what I have read, the Afghan Army is eager to run to the sound of gunfire (though not the most technically proficient) and engage the enemy.

There is looking to be a change in strategy, focusing on exploiting the rifts forming within the Taliban.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

There hasn't been a loyalty problem in the Afghan Army, the Afghan Police is where there is a problem.

True, but a corrupt police force doe's not bode well for security either.

From what I have read, the Afghan Army is eager to run to the sound of gunfire (though not the most technically proficient) and engage the enemy.

They have had notable sucess in a few large scale operations, but I've read of some instances where soldiers of the ANA performed poorly I.E. the Taliban attack where 9 French soldiers were K.I.A

There is looking to be a change in strategy, focusing on exploiting the rifts forming within the Taliban.

We need to cut off the Taliban from their support. We need to work with Pakistan to put the border under control and we need to try to Improve the life of the average Afghan.

[Farnan]

True, but a corrupt police force doe's not bode well for security either.

Corruption among the police is common in that part of the world. Remember the police for the Taliban were not the nicest people...

However, some units are not corrupt, depends on leadership.

They have had notable sucess in a few large scale operations, but I've read of some instances where soldiers of the ANA performed poorly I.E. the Taliban attack where 9 French soldiers were K.I.A

I've heard they were brave, but due to low literacy, lack tactical ability and are mostly content with moving to where the enemy is and shooting at them.

We need to cut off the Taliban from their support. We need to work with Pakistan to put the border under control and we need to try to Improve the life of the average Afghan.

Agreed, which is the idea of exploiting the rifts forming to separate the hardliners from the moderates.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Corruption among the police is common in that part of the world. Remember the police for the Taliban were not the nicest people...

However, some units are not corrupt, depends on leadership.

That's the problem though. If your going to try to implement a Stable democracy in the Middle east, a democracy akin to something you would see in the west you simply cannot have corruption on the scale of what was seen in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I've heard they were brave, but due to low literacy, lack tactical ability and are mostly content with moving to where the enemy is and shooting at them.

I've heard similar thing's, But this comes at a time when the Taliban are increasing their ability to actually fight. Before inflicting such casualties on ISAF forces was un-heard of.

Agreed, which is the idea of exploiting the rifts forming to separate the hardliners from the moderates.

Agreed, but power struggles can only do so much to a movement. Heads that are cut off grow back, you must take advantage of it and dismantle the body.

[Roman Rapper]

Hasn't it become obvious by now? The plan is, and always was, that we send our troops in and they never leave.

How many permanent bases do you need to see the coalition forces building in the region before you realise the truth of that statement?

No one really talks about it, but we all know that a major reason we sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place was because the Taliban were interfering too much with our heroin supply. Documented sources show that U.S and British soldiers have been used in missons with the primary objective of protecting the poppy crop before its eventual export.

[Farnan]

Hasn't it become obvious by now? The plan is, and always was, that we send our troops in and they never leave.

How many permanent bases do you need to see the coalition forces building in the region before you realise the truth of that statement?

No one really talks about it, but we all know that a major reason we sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place was because the Taliban were interfering too much with our heroin supply. Documented sources show that U.S and British soldiers have been used in missons with the primary objective of protecting the poppy crop before its eventual export.

And those sources are?

[Roman Rapper]

I know you asked for a specific source on troops being given orders to protect the poppy crops but unfortunately those sources are hard to link.

In any case, it is better that you first do some reading on the wider subject of the fake and murderous drugs policy that has lead to so much U.S interest in Afghanistan's heroin before you are smacked in the face with irrefutable proof of what I claim.

[Da Skinna]

I've been a pretty solid supporter for the Afghan war, but lately... I've been thinking.

Due to its unpopularity, and I hate how people seem to think of it like Iraq, but unless we really, and I mean REALLY stick to what we went there for, there is no winning that war, or bringing what we want to the Afghan people.

I'm afraid we dropped the ball and now we must wait for another game, rather than trying to squeeze a few more points out of this one.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Hasn't it become obvious by now? The plan is, and always was, that we send our troops in and they never leave.

How many permanent bases do you need to see the coalition forces building in the region before you realise the truth of that statement?

No one really talks about it, but we all know that a major reason we sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place was because the Taliban were interfering too much with our heroin supply. Documented sources show that U.S and British soldiers have been used in missons with the primary objective of protecting the poppy crop before its eventual export.

It's no secret that NATO doesn't plan on leaving Afghanistan for an indefinite period and the Taliban, radical Islam and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with it.

Afghanistan borders Iran and China and it's just too good to leave. It's naive to believe NATO is spending billions just so that it can foster democracy and free-thought in Afghanistan.

[Farnan]

It's no secret that NATO doesn't plan on leaving Afghanistan for an indefinite period and the Taliban, radical Islam and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with it.

Afghanistan borders Iran and China and it's just too good to leave. It's naive to believe NATO is spending billions just so that it can foster democracy and free-thought in Afghanistan.

No it doesn't...

Tajikistan is in the way.

[Burnum]

No it doesn't...

Tajikistan is in the way.

Actually, yes it does.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

No it doesn't...

Tajikistan is in the way.

border countries: China 76 km, Iran 936 km, Pakistan 2,430 km, Tajikistan 1,206 km, Turkmenistan 744 km, Uzbekistan 137 km

source: my inside-CIA leak

The important bit is that it's within striking range of China.

Big powers have, since the colonial age, established temporary and permanent military bases close to potential threats.

For instance, the US was extending its "sphere" of influence in Georgia but the Russians ended it the same way the US ended Russia's influence in the former Yugoslavia.

Afghanistan is bordered by Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan.

Edit: , I missed the tiny strip on land thinner than Israel. You guys put that there just to screw me up.

lol yeah it's a very tiny border but it's the close proximity that counts. After all, NATO is all about air powah.

[Farnan]

Afghanistan is bordered by Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan.

Edit: , I missed the tiny strip on land thinner than Israel. You guys put that there just to screw me up.

[Burnum]

Afghanistan is bordered by Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan.

Edit: , I missed the tiny strip on land thinner than Israel. You guys put that there just to screw me up.

Don't worry, we all make mistakes.

The ISAF is all that is keeping genocidal Taliban Pashtuns from literally wiping the Hazara people out.

How many permanent bases do you need to see the coalition forces building in the region before you realise the truth of that statement?

You know, people like you piss me off. You don't care that Taliban that the actively tried to wipe out the non-pashtun ethnic minorities. You care about portraying our soldiers as monsters and advancing your political agenda.

[Farnan]

However, for China we have much better positions in South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

However, for China we have much better positions in South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines.

And now you have them surrounded.

The thing about China is that it's a very "passive" power. It hasn't reacted.

Back in the 70s and 80s, the US installed brutal dictatorships throughout South America to keep the USSR's influence in check and we all know that the USSR didn't hesitate to act militarily or through proxy-wars to maintain its hold on countries such as Angola, Afghanistan, etc. China doesn't seem to react to the expanding Russian and Western threat. Perhaps trade is too important to disturb at this point.

Indeed, with the US nuclear deal with India, China is literally surrounded.

[Da Skinna]

All armies advance political agendas.

Altruism isn't learned in the military.

[Burnum]

All armies advance political agendas.

Not all political agendas are bad. Destroying the Taliban certainly isn't.

Altruism isn't learned in the military.

The Military is a tool, it's neither good or evil. Politicians are ones that make the decisions.