US Troops Concerned About The Useless Afghan Army

December 2nd, 2009 (10) Posted By Pat Dollard.

training-afghan-army-2-09-am-force-press-srvc

Washington Times:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan | When nearly 60 tribal leaders gathered in a Taliban stronghold here recently to discuss mounting security challenges, U.S. military commanders and staff listened attentively, but there were no representatives from Afghan security forces.

“What government do we have?” asked Mohammed Nabi, a malik, or tribal leader, from the Kandahar region who acknowledged he was a Taliban sympathizer. “The only faces I see here are men from another country wearing uniforms like the Russians. We are left to fend for ourselves, protect ourselves, and there is no one here from Kabul who cares.”

President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan relies heavily on increasing the quality and quantity of Afghanistan’s army and police. But eight years after the overthrow of the Taliban, the nearly 120,000-member Afghan National Security Forces remains a work in progress. Some U.S. troops are skeptical that the locals will ever be able to step up and defend the Afghan people by themselves.

During October, when a record 59 American troops were killed in Afghanistan, a reporter and photographer for The Washington Times visited southern Afghanistan and found no Afghan army units fighting alongside or otherwise aiding U.S. troops in the Maywand or Arghandab Valley regions. On several occasions, the Afghan army and police failed to show, forcing missions to be postponed because the Americans are required to have Afghan escorts before entering Afghan homes.

Some Afghan army personnel were observed training, however, at Kandahar airfield.

“Where are they?” asked a U.S. military official who spoke on the condition that he not be named because of the political sensitivity of the subject. “Were out here fighting, and there isnt one Afghan face in the mix fighting alongside us. All the Afghan people see is our face, and that doesnt give them much hope that their government is behind them in this fight. We need to put their face at the forefront.”

Army Spc. Brock McIntosh, an Illinois National Guard reservistwho returned to the U.S. in Augustfrom a 10-month deployment in eastern Afghanistan, said that Afghan forces, even when they arrived, often “would just be following behind without actively participating” in missions.

“Its important to have their face, the Afghan army face, in the fight,” he said. “Its supposed to be their country, and the people need to see that. At the same time, we have a problem. I dont think American troops will ever fully trust them or that they will ever fully trust us. That’s been a major problem.”

Occasional incidents in which Afghan soldiers or men wearing Afghan army uniforms have attacked U.S. and allied forces have not helped build that trust.

Occasional incidents in which Afghan soldiers or men wearing Afghan army uniforms have attacked U.S. and allied forces have not helped build that trust.

Col. Bjarne Michael Iverson, a former top aide to Central Command head Gen. David H. Petraeus, acknowledged the challenge of training the Afghans sufficiently to provide the exit strategy that Mr. Obama described in his speech Tuesday night.

“It’s going to be complex and difficult, and it’s going to take time,” said Col. Iverson, who is currently the Army fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

While Afghans “are known as good fighters,” he said, “what they don’t have is the structures you typically find in a military, such as battalions and command-and-control systems.”

In addition, the majority of the recruits are illiterate.

Asked whether it would be necessary to teach the Afghan troops how to read and write, Col. Iverson said they first need to “learn how to follow orders [and be] confident in their leaders. You start by teaching them the basics.”

Anthony Cordesman and Adam Mausner of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington wrote in a recent report about some improvements in training but said the Afghan army was still not capable of holding ground reclaimed from the Taliban.

“The key to success,” they wrote, “is not the quality of the training in training centers but the quality of partnering, mentoring, support and enablers once a unit enters service.”

They recommended that U.S. brigade combat teams be embedded “in each echelon of each [Afghan army] corps … to provide the expertise and enablers to carry out joint planning, intelligence, command-and-control capabilities, fire support [and] logistic expertise.”

Lt. Col. Jeffery French, a battalion commander in the 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, based at Forward Operating Base Ramrod, told The Times that his battalion is working consistently with the Afghan army and police “through individual training [and] collective training, but combined operations are what we need.”

“It’s a very thinking enemy that adapts quickly to change,” he said. “They aren’t just a bunch of knuckleheads. What we need here is a consistent effort from the Afghan government as well. A strong presence of Afghan security forces in the region would be beneficial to the mission. We’re here, and that’s important as well. What we need is constant engagement and persistent security that includes the Afghans.”

A senior Pentagon official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, said that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of the U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, is focusing on the need to “partner with the Afghan National Army and its commanders. Were all aware that there needs to be more focus on this and getting the Afghan people to see that their government is providing security for them as well. Otherwise, we may not be successful in stabilizing the country or stopping the extremists.”

Spc. McIntosh expressed doubt that Afghan security forces will be able to perform as the U.S. hopes in the foreseeable future.

“We have been in Afghanistan for eight years already,” he said. “There’s what, a little more than 100,000 [Afghan National Security Forces] members, and almost all still lack training and don’t do much. We cant get 100,000 to fight like us in eight years and now were going to get 400,000 to fight like us in less time than that? I just don’t think its going to happen.

“We think by putting more money and more troops is going to help,” he said. “I don’t believe that’s going to help at all.”

Barbara Slavin contributed to this report from Washington.

Jihadi Killer Radio Hour
Follow Pat on Twitter
  • John454

    They are too tribal, nothing we can do to help them. Add islam to the mix and it aint looking good. Not to mention all they want to do is smoke hash and play with little boys.

    • cold soldier

      Sounds like you have been there too john454 :lol:

  • Eric

    I am deeply concerned about afganistan; this is not an Iraq, that had a fuctioning modern society and government (albeit ruthless and corrupt) under Hussein (Sadam , not Barak). The only successful establishment of a society from tribal to somewhat modern is The British in India and Pakistan. It took decades of dominance, education and training and then only had minimal impact in creating somewhat functional societies. To think our top notch military can do this in under two years is simply unrealistic.

    This is especially true with the corrupt officals who have been allowed to stay in office after a fraudulent election.

    What our military can do is destroy the taliban, and destroy the poppy crop and it’s ability to revive. The Heroin funds the Taliban and must be irradicated. Pakistan must do military squeeze from their side and significant progress can be made, if Pakistan gets serious.

    There is no evidence supporting the transition from ungoverned to democracy without first having a somewhat benevolent dictator to force the espablishment of rule of law, education, etc 1st.
    Bush team made an error in allowing Sharia law to supercede secular law in all their push for Middle East elections. Democracy only works when it is not subect to Islamic Theocracy.

  • Moriah

    The bottom line seems to be, can we walk ahead of them or turn our back on them and NOT have the hairs and the back of our necks stand up? I don’t think they can be trusted. They’ve proved it time after time by shooting soldiers in the back. Going to war with them is taking a time capsule back a thousand years and trying to explain modern concepts to a tribal mentality. :???:

  • TerryTate

    Hmm, sounds like the Afghans have decided that they will never assist our efforts to free them from the Taliban, so they have elected to stay with the Taliban.

    Ah, so be it.

    It’s a shame we will have to kill them all.

  • Rocky Mtn 1776

    I wouldn’t even call Afghanistan a country. It’s a conglomeration of ancient, savage, ignorant tribal people. Many are still living in the 7th century and do not want to change into the modern world.
    They have been fighting each other and invaders for thousands of years, we are not going to change this. Radical Islam is more than an idea or religon, it’s total way of life for them. I see no way of changing this in the short term. Like others who have tried, we will win the battle but lose the war with the Afghans, it’s not worth the cost in $ or the lives of Americas best.

  • ji

    What Arab country has ever fielded a “good” armed forces.
    If Israel can clobber them over and over.
    I doubt they will ever field a good army et al.
    When they did win in medieval times, it was because they out numbered their victims 100 to 1.

  • saepe expertus

    “Clowns to the left of me,
    Jokers to the right, here I am,
    Stuck in the middle with you.”

    Pray for our Marines and Soldiers. :???:

  • Sully

    Yeah…. and let’s end our occupation of Germany and South Korea NOW!!
    They can’t train and equip competent arrmies that can be trusted allies either.

  • Rezz909

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again , I DON’T TRUST THESE SMELLY FUCKEN JIHADS!!! :gun: :gun: