It was a real epiphany for some soldiers fighting in Vietnam when they realised that by and large they weren’t fighting to protect the locals, they were fighting the locals.
The situations are not entirely parallel, I realise, but the corresponding epiphany has yet to occur for the OP methinks.
I’d like to clarify my post just above
The OP asks “what possible justification” could there be, for what he has already equated to misogyny. When it is already a forum rule that one cannot post a justification for certain positions (including misogyny), without being modded f0r “being a jerk” or trolling.?
Wasn’t this a huge issue in Iraq too, the Iraqi military would just desert their posts when ISIS came.
Which is odd because ISIS is a sunni group and Iraq is mostly shi-ite. I don’t know if shi’ite Iraqis were abandoning their posts and letting ISIS take over the country, knowing ISIS was going to target them eventually.
Afghanistan never was a country as we understand it. The land is extremely mountainous, and every valley has developed almost independently from the others. They’re tribal, with historical feuds with every next valley, and evidently foreigners (those which are not afghans). The only way to convince two different tribes to cooperate is to have a foreigner trying to enter.
The Persians couldn’t pacify them, Alexander couldn’t pacify them, the Arabs managed to instill Muslim religion because it was very useful for each tribe, but they couldn’t pacify them. Neither the Mongols. Only the Ghaznevides and Moghols unified them: guess why? they were themselves Afghans and used bloody tactics to exterminate any who dissent and push mayhem to the neighbors. That was temporary.
The English couldn’t pacify them, nor the Russians, nor the Soviets.
the Afghans mostly see themselves as being part of a tribe before a nation. The Talibans have (and will again) unified the country one tribe at a time. Once you rallied the Cheik and the elders, everyone follow. Beside, they are devote Muslims and that’s a big “yes” compared to the infidels and their music, films and general infamy…
I think the United States is just really, really bad at training foreign troops.
Just who are these Taliban members that the “men of Afghanistan” are surrendering to? Surely, they too are “men of Afghanistan”?
They did a pretty solid job of it during the Russian occupation. Almost too good, one can argue.
The United States did a good job in what Russian occupation? Are you saying that the US occupied Russia, or that Russia occupied the US?
I think the reference is that the U.S. supported the mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan during Russia’s occupation of the country, who then evolved into Al-Qaeda.
Anyway, some people think the war was a HUGE success…
… the armaments manufacturers and military contractors must have made hundreds of billions in profits from it!
Yeah, but live combat readiness training and war theater weapons testing: PRICELESS.
Yeah, the problem with that is sustained operations in a theater of combat where there is no defined goal and no real progress is a great way to destroy morale and burn through experienced NCOs, leaving you less able to respond to the next military ‘adventure’. Conducting two wars simultaneously compounds the problem.
It’s a good deal for suppliers and manufacturers of weapons, vehicles, ammunition, uniforms and gear, et cetera, though. And especially good to distract the media from covering domestic problems like the economy, social unrest, student debt, and so forth. Not a viable long term strategy, but then a real long view would have the US ending its dependence on oil and foreign manufacture, which is a goal exactly no one in politics is working toward.
Stranger
No, that’s just small change.
There’s a difference between training and equipping a native militia against foreign occupiers and what we’ve tried to achieve in Afghanistan since 2001. We didn’t give a shit what kind of regime popped up in the 1980s and 90s; we just wanted to sock it to the Soviets.
Really, you just have to look back at the Soviet experience. They went more or less all in on a massive pacification plan and had a pet Afghan army they began to seriously build up when they started looking for an exit a la ‘Vietnamization’. The results were pretty similar to what we’re seeing today. After the Soviet withdrawal the army disintegrated into different factions and were largely absorbed by various mujahideen groups engaged in an all out brawl for control. When the Taliban emerged in 1994 they took twelve of 34 provinces in their first several months of existence, mostly without serious resistance as warlords surrendered and offered up their weapons.
The ideal solution IMHO: Withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, except for a few hundred at one base, with drones, and then just keep droning the Taliban 24/7 nonstop to make their life miserable. They can do whatever they want to Afghanistan, but we’ll just Hellfire them once or twice a day to never let them get comfortable.
I believe the Taliban are “men of Afghanistan” @cubsfan. How does that square with your hypothesis?
Might work…
…as long as no Taliban have ever heard of Dien Bien Phu.
I think US leaders had very unrealistic expectations when it came to making soldiers out of Afghan people especially given the very short time frame they were working with. Even training them to use their rifles was an exercise in frustration as they preferred the spray & pray method of firefighting versus disciplined fire. But the biggest problem was the level of corruption that started at the top and went all the way down to the lowest level. You just can’t fix that kind of thing in a few short years.