How is the Afghan army so inept?

Flagpole wrote:

That will hurt the people of Afghanistan, but that is not something we can avoid. The people there will ultimately have to rise up if the want change.

Have you seen how Mexicans are not rising up for change, and mostly just decide to move to the USA ? This is what's going to happen to Afghanistan.

CountChocula wrote:

from bad to worse wrote:

Sure but to what end? Ceding the countryside would certainly not stop another version of Al-Qaeda from forming. And it's not that the Afghan army is not well-equipped or trained and they outnumber the Taliban. They simply have no will to fight so they are dropping their weapons and going home to protect their families. They have no allegiance to the government.

There is no end. It would just be a way to permanently avoid admitting failure in Afghanistan by saying "See? We control the international airport!" rather than accepting that the Taliban is the de facto ruler of most of the country (as has been the case for several years, at least).

Better to admit failure and take a hard look at what happened than to keep trying to convince ourselves we are still doing some good there. But of course failures from the past did not keep us from repeating our mistakes.

Flagpole wrote:

1) It is VERY surprising to see The Taliban roll over that country with such ease.

2) No decision is perfect, but it was the right decision for Biden to pull US troops out of there.

3) It is a tragedy what's going on in Afghanistan, but we can't police the world. Assuming The Taliban takes over the whole country, they WILL have to govern, and successful governing involves dealing with other countries. The US can and will put serious economic restrictions on that new government. That will hurt the people of Afghanistan, but that is not something we can avoid. The people there will ultimately have to rise up if the want change.

The pullout was agreed to in negotiations between Trump and the Taliban. Biden stuck with that plan but wasn't the President who orchestrated it. Interestingly, just about every country in Europe has criticized the pullout. As have most military and foreign policy analysts who say US national security just took a big hit.

flyingfrog wrote:

Afghanistan is a multi ethnic and mostly tribal society. The population of the country consists of numerous ethnolinguistic groups: Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimaq, Turkmen, Baloch, Pashai, Nuristani, Gujjar, Arab, Brahui, Qizilbash, Pamiri, Kyrgyz, Sadat and others. Good luck with that.

Diversity ain't our strength...

The highest level is Capitalism...

Communism has shown to be an abject failure every time it's been tried...

Afghanistan has been at war for over 40 years...

Beaten the two biggest Super Powers....

Shrugs off 3 million dead (with a population of 38 million)...

Backed by a Nuclear powered neighbour (Pakistan, with Canada generously supplying them reactors) who hid Bin Laden.

No surprise here.

Army Top-brass saw this one a mile away.

Trump started this ball rolling, but this was Biden's blunder.

Just a month ago, Biden said this;

"Do I trust the Taliban? No. But I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more competent in terms of conducting war."

Couldn't ask for a better Commander In Chief.

Ernest wrote:

Afghanistan has been at war for over 40 years...

Beaten the two biggest Super Powers....

Shrugs off 3 million dead (with a population of 38 million)...

Backed by a Nuclear powered neighbour (Pakistan, with Canada generously supplying them reactors) who hid Bin Laden.

No surprise here.

Army Top-brass saw this one a mile away.

Trump started this ball rolling, but this was Biden's blunder.

Just a month ago, Biden said this;

"Do I trust the Taliban? No. But I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more competent in terms of conducting war."

Couldn't ask for a better Commander In Chief.

BS...They didn't beat the U.S....We kicked their butts, probably killed tens of thousands of Taliban,...but at some point we need to leave.

If the Afghans are unwilling to give their lives for their country, why should we give OUR lives for their country..

It's going to be a pre-9/11 Afghanistan all over again and with nothing to show for it.

We needed to keep a permanent presence at Bagram and continue to launch air strikes from it.

Alan

I'm just sick at heart to think of what is going to happen to the innocent men, women, and children born into that craphole of a culture; it's easy to shrug it off and figure they just have to deal with it themselves but the brutal, ugly reality of what is going to befall some of them is truly horrible. I was reading a quote from a woman from Kabul who had been active in trying to further educational opportunities for young women there; she out and out accepts she is a dead woman walking if the Taliban take the city. "This country has thousands and thousands of beautiful, talented young women who will see their lives and opportunities ruined by stupid men with guns...". she said. Just utter despair.

I have no idea what the answer is, or if there even is an answer. Sh*t.

Marvellous9 wrote:

Western people don't understand the benefit of having a unified state. Mostly because they went through the trouble during centuries from the Middle-Age, to the XVIIIth-XIXth century. Since then people identify with "nations".

There's no truly united, functioning state in Afghanistan. People only identify themselves with their own local community over there.

So it's very hard for the "government" in Afghanistan to coordinate efforts, and to have full support of a majority of the population at any given time.

This is very true. There was zero hope of ever implementing a functioning democracy in Afghanistan. There are so many structural issues that make it impossible. Where we were successful in situations like Germany and Korea post WW2 you did not have the tribalism that exists in Afghanistan. Those nations the populations understood the concept of a state government where in Afghanistan it has historically been whoever has the biggest gun oppresses the rest of the country.

A lot of the Afghan National Army has no interest in fighting the Taliban and willingly will give them arms the Americans provide or are willing to join them, as they see the Taliban as the future in the country.

Mr Gerlun wrote:

With all respect, it has nothing to do with communities in Afghanistan.

The US has failed to create an efficient army. The state building project has failed miserably. The US allowed corrupt warlords to thrive and the population have zero trust in them and in the governement.

Google bachi baza and then comeback and understand why talibans are popular among pashtun population and even other groups now.

Not only failed to train them properly, but the US has never ever won a war on the ground on a foreign territory.

They were also never in it for the right reasons. The 9/11 was just an excuse, because relationships with the Taliban before that broke down with respect to oil pipelines etc, and the US went in there for the primary reason of money, oil, construction/rebuilding, corruption etc.

If it were not so, why aren't there troops in other parts of the world with worse issues.

runnerboy70 wrote:

BS...They didn't beat the U.S....We kicked their butts, probably killed tens of thousands of Taliban,...but at some point we need to leave.

If the Afghans are unwilling to give their lives for their country, why should we give OUR lives for their country..

US was in Afghanistan for about 20 years. It was in Taliban hands before. It is in Taliban hands now. Does not sound like check mark in the Win column.

US has about 2500 killed - and another 4000 "contractors" killed.

In the same time, Afghan Security Forces lost about 70,000. Safe to say they were willing to give their lives... and did in droves.

joalturn wrote:

I was in Afghanistan from 2017-18 in Helmand Province and then in Kandahar. You can take or leave whatever I have to say as you see fit, but from what I observed and learned....

Thanks for your post. I'd be interested to know what you think of this article, which makes many of the same points you do:

Ernest wrote:

runnerboy70 wrote:

BS...They didn't beat the U.S....We kicked their butts, probably killed tens of thousands of Taliban,...but at some point we need to leave.

If the Afghans are unwilling to give their lives for their country, why should we give OUR lives for their country..

US was in Afghanistan for about 20 years. It was in Taliban hands before. It is in Taliban hands now. Does not sound like check mark in the Win column.

US has about 2500 killed - and another 4000 "contractors" killed.

In the same time, Afghan Security Forces lost about 70,000. Safe to say they were willing to give their lives... and did in droves.

I'm talkin about right now.....The Afghan army isn't willing to fight...

What? You said the US has never won a ground war on foreign territory? How about these: Spanish American War (Cuba campaign on the ground), WWI, WWII, Persian Gulf War aka Desert Storm (of which I'm a veteran of) is one of the most decisive victories in modern history.

Also, the war for oil money argument can be made for Iraq (2003), but Afghanistan was definitely to root out al qaeda and the Taliban. In fact, criticism was made against the Bush admin that we went to Iraq "for oil" before "finishing the job" in Afghanistan. We definitely went into Afghanistan because of 9/11.

One of the greatest tragedies of the past 50 years is that in 1991, Iraq had a high enough percentage of orange to move into democracy. Overthrowing Saddam could have changed history and created the first true democracy in the Middle East as orange leadership brought prosperity and the opportunity for each individual to excel based on merit. Over generations, it could have spread through the middle east as Iran, Afganistan, etc saw the increased happiness and quality of life in Iraq.

And then in Gulf War One Colin Powell convinced GHW Bush to leave Saddam in power! This was the greatest military mistake in the last 50 years. (A retired General told me that when the ceasefire order came as we were moving towards Bagdad, General Norman Swarzkopf was swearing so loud he could be heard outside in the hallway. )

In the years between Gulf War one and two, Saddam killed 340,000 of his own people! The majority of the orange who could have led Iraq into true democracy were killed. The opportunity for a true democracy in the Middle East was lost. The entire Middle East was lost for at least another few generations.

I am Sam wrote:

Not only failed to train them properly, but the US has never ever won a war on the ground on a foreign territory.

They were also never in it for the right reasons. The 9/11 was just an excuse, because relationships with the Taliban before that broke down with respect to oil pipelines etc, and the US went in there for the primary reason of money, oil, construction/rebuilding, corruption etc.

If it were not so, why aren't there troops in other parts of the world with worse issues.

Your knowledge of US military history, past and present, is sorely lacking.

I agree with what you said. Huge mistake. After the ceasefire, Saddam conducted purges and put down the Kurds. It would have been a different atmosphere in 1991 than when we went back in 2003. The Gulf War was a justified, UN sanctioned response to Iraq's hostile invasion of Kuwait. Iraqi soldiers were almost jubilant in surrendering in 91. In 2003, the US was the invaders. Also, we had already lent down those that had previously opposed Saddam. Not following through to Baghdad when we had the moral high ground and support of the repressed populations was a huge mistake.

I also agree it was a huge mistake not to carry the fight into Baghdad but the rationale was that we had accomplished the mission objectives and the US feared mission creep that would have lost support of the other coalition members.