Article

2005-09-14 Afghanistan/South Asia

US discussing pulling down forces in Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-09-14 00:42|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Gosh. We didn't come here to fight 'n stuff. We just wanted to, y'know, try out our camping gear and ride around in dune buggies and take some snaps to send home to mum. Silly 'Merikans."

Posted by .Fightin B Hard 2005-09-14 02:08|| 2005-09-14 02:08|| Front Page Top

#2 Wasn't NATO involved because we invoked the mutual-defense aspects of the treaty following 9/11?

Now they're refusing to take part?

Isn't that a repudiation of NATO?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-09-14 08:18|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-09-14 08:18|| Front Page Top

#3 Unlike Iraq, in Afghanistan you rarely hear of our efforts to develop their army. They also keep a much lower profile in combined operations. This raises concerns about how effective they are and will remain as a national standing army capable of securing their country.

I am wondering if there is a different developmental philosophy than in Iraq. In Iraq, the conventional US army was and is very direct in helping them create a conventional Iraq army. But in Afghanistan, I wonder if our SOCOM people are building Afghani forces on a conventional army model or a SOCOM model.

While I can agree that there will for a long time remain a need for SOCOM-like operations in Afghanistan, in the long run they will definitely need a conventional standing army if they are to remain viable as a state.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-09-14 10:50|| 2005-09-14 10:50|| Front Page Top

#4 There are about 25,000 in the Afghan military plus others in training. The goal is 70,000 by 2009. The biggest of the problem encountered so far in forming a western style army is desertion, an Afghan tradition, where fighting is more of a casual pastime than a deadly profession.

I think there is little need for foreign forces in Kabul, except to show the flag in a non-threatening sector. It was quiet before their arrival and has stayed so. The Northern Alliance army, and now the Afghan army are better able to maintain control. It would be better for the Afghan to assume responsbility for Kabul and the NATO forces to go where needed or get out.

Posted by ed 2005-09-14 11:35|| 2005-09-14 11:35|| Front Page Top

#5 In Iraq the issue is rebuilding a society. In Afghanistan it has to be built for the first time. Kabul has ever been the place where those who wish to govern Afghanistan live, but control only a small area of the surrounding countryside. The rest has always belonged to the various tribes controlled by their various chieftains. The change that we're going for is a national identity that will allow for a functioning nation throughout the territory.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-09-14 11:55|| 2005-09-14 11:55|| Front Page Top

#6 10 to 1 after the US leaves the entire country goes to hell again.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-09-14 13:25|| 2005-09-14 13:25|| Front Page Top

#7 MM: 10 to 1 after the US leaves the entire country goes to hell again.

Afghanistan was a functioning country before the Soviets came along. Now that we've stabilized things and imposed a king-like figure in Karzai, things will go back to what they were before the Soviets and the Taliban, as long as we hand more money over to the Afghan government than the Pakistanis hand over to Taliban remnants. We can pull out our troops, but we can't stop sending the Afghan government money to keep it standing. In the countryside, ordinary Afghans know that the Taliban is not the way to a better life. And more than anything else, they want to be let alone - they rose against Soviet rule because the Soviets wanted to make every Afghan a good communist.

Having said that, if we want Afghanistan to become a slice of America in Central Asia, we will have to stick around. If we're there in force, the Afghan government won't have to make compromises with rival factions - it will have the implicit threat of American power to enforce its edicts, while having to cater somewhat to our preferences. A strong US military presence there means there is no danger of governmental collapse, but it also means that the local government is beholden to us. A non-existent US military presence there means that we are always biting our nails about the possibility of a collapse, which means that we will be much more beholden to the Afghan government. We're either spending money on a military presence and some aid dollars or spending the same amount of money on aid dollars alone. Personally, I trust the Pentagon more than the Afghan government, which is why we'll probably have a brigade-sized force there for decades to come.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country with little in the way of natural resources. It can use the help - and we'd rather not have Pakistan using it as a terrorist proxy state again.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-14 14:05|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-14 14:05|| Front Page Top

#8 Anonymoose, the Afghans have a new military academy explicitly modeled on West Point, with lots of quiet US help in getting it up and running.

West Point was a key factor in the creation of a *national* identity for US leaders - as opposed to state, religious and ethnic identities. The Afghan academy will play the same role. It opened last March. See Winds of Change exclusive photos and comments here.

Posted by lotp 2005-09-14 15:59|| 2005-09-14 15:59|| Front Page Top

#9 Zhang Fei>> little in the way of natural resources.

rich in minerials, hydro/power potential, good geo location for pipe lines. etc. check it out.

Posted by Red Dog 2005-09-14 16:07|| 2005-09-14 16:07|| Front Page Top

#10 Stability is the key there as it is anywhere. Good people in the cities we have worked with. There is a very good attitude because what does not work has been proven wrong and what we have worked with them to build HAS. Culture shock for those living in the remote regions though. Tricky and expensive work for sure and barometer changes easily. It is similar to so many remote regions. Culture and "Living Standards" should remind Everyone that we are going up or we are going down. And in Life, going down is not a good idea or option. Everyone should be doing better, not worse.

There is still no reason that a lawful force could not help.

Posted by closedanger">closedanger 2005-09-14 21:47|| 2005-09-14 21:47|| Front Page Top

23:52 Abd Al-Sabour Shahin
23:49 Angie Schultz
23:47 Pappy
23:38 Red Dog
23:37 Frank G
23:27 Phil Fraering
23:27 Frank G
23:26 ed
23:22 Baba Tutu
23:17 Red Dog
23:17 Jackal
23:15 Frank G
23:13 Frank G
23:11 Red Dog
23:09 JOsephMendiola
23:08 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
23:08 Glert Throluque8751
23:04 closedanger
23:01 JOsephMendiola
23:00 closedanger
22:58 closedanger
22:53 closedanger
22:42 closedanger
22:40 Frank G