How is the Afghan army so inept?

Runningart2004 wrote: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

No way! It's not worth the risk of putting US soldiers in harm's way for minimal gains. The Afghans that the US were supposedly training have no interest in fighting for Afghanistan. They only want to fight for their tribe/family/ethnic group when it becomes necessary.

Truck Stop wrote:

America’s goal should of been send special forces only in to take out bin Ladin.

What exactly is "should of" supposed to mean?

Afghanistan is not a nation in any real sense.

Irish soldiers led by German generals are the greatest force in the world.

(See US Army and US Marines) Afghans are pussies, money can't change that.

Troop strength was actually around 50,000, while I would bet that the Taliban, which bribed many to leave, was being swelled by ex-Afghan troops. They were literally walking in to take many of those capitals without resistance. Just as in South Vietnam, you cannot produce a self-sustaining puppet regime in a country where they are unpopular. Corruption also meant that the puppet forces were malnourished and rarely even paid.

If Afghans were actually so weak as soldiers, then why is the Taliban so strong? The answer is that the Afghans want the foreigners out, and the same thing with the corrupt regime. More's the pity for Afghanistan but that's the reality.

Liberals cheer the Taliban advance.

Actually the Afghan army is doing great. It's the US-proxy pseudo-army that's inept.

We train other nations' armies to fight like us. To win but also to minimize casualties. This requires sophisticated weapons and surveillance and communications systems. When the logistics backup provided by the US leaves, the ability to support this style of warfare vanishes. Lots of people are going to get killed.

The Taliban assumes they will have casualties and they fight to inflict casualties on their opponents. It doesn't hurt morale when they incur heavy casualties. This is a winning when the opponents expect minimal casualties and their opponents' morale gets broken easily. So much for all the training provided by the Americans.

Come on Man! Malarke! It’s not my fault. It’s the other guy. You know the guy with the hair. He’s the reason for the border crisis, oil crisis, covid crisis, Afghanistan crisis.

If only he had…

Attempted to secure our border

Attempted to make America energy independent

Worked to develop a vaccine and then encourage people to take it at their free will. Rather then force it on people and create an Orwellian resistance.

Been tough on terrorists like the taliban so they knew that if they messed around there would be swift consequences.

Come on man! Malarke!

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. Plus all the graft and corruption with the puppet Afghani government. The economic and material resources are not making it to the Afghan military/police, so when the taliban are providing "options" of help us or die, the choice becomes easy.

What was Nato forces doing in Afghanistan for 20 years? 20 long years. What did they accomplish? What the hell were they doing?

NYDCRunner1 wrote:

What was Nato forces doing in Afghanistan for 20 years? 20 long years. What did they accomplish? What the hell were they doing?

Trying to do what was done with some success in Iraq.

It's good to have military influence across the globe. It's good to have friendly skies and terrain to launch from in the case of another threat such as Iran, Syria, etc.

We have the most military reach of any nation in the world. We are still in Japan, Germany, Italy, Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.

Alan

MelRnr wrote:

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.

Could it be argued that the US occupation in Afghanistan at least kept the Taliban out of power for 20 years? That was surely something positive.

But how are you going to stop the outrageous gun violence here. Also Studies have shown that the F-22 Raptor and its counter parts are not an effective counter measure to the Taliban or as an effective fire fighting aircraft here in the states. This country is incapable of prioritizing existential treats within it's own borders.

[quote]alanson wrote:

We train other nations' armies to fight like us. To win but also to minimize casualties.

Tell that to Germany and Japan in WW2, Americans go in to Rape Pillage and Destroy the other Countries we go to war with and leave no doubt as to the who the Winner is by FORCING UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER as Truman Demanded in WW2, The People of Japan wanted to keep fighting even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but The Japanese Prime Minister knew that the USA would just bomb city after city if they continued to fight, The Prime Minister wanted to negotiate a way to save face in surrendering, but Truman said no WE MUST HAVE an unconditional surrender where We (USA) Sets the tone for Japan going forward.

In Afghanistan were mostly training Afghanistan People to fight so they could rule their own Country after we leave.

If China, Russia, Iran etc. are foolish enough to try us in a war, The USA would totally destroy those countries in forcing an unconditional surrender. We are Good enough people that we would likely help those Countries rebuild after we destroy them as we did in Japan.

Runningart2004 wrote:

in the case of another threat such as Iran, Syria, etc.

We have the most military reach of any nation in the world. We are still in Japan, Germany, Italy, Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.

Alan

the proudest vets are always the ones who didn't learn a damn thing

You should listen to the people you think you're protecting from Iran, Syria, Iraq.

Do you even speak Arabic or Farsi? Why so interested in "reaching" them?

The biggest issue is that the Afghan government forces were trained and equipped for situations where they were constantly receiving air support and back-up from the US. They were never trained to be self-sufficient; their capabilities were almost entirely contingent on ongoing help from America. Hence, most of the (already inadequate) learnings they had accrued in the last 20 years became obsolete overnight, primarily because their previous 'strength' was underpinned by a factor which is no longer in-play. The Taliban were obviously never able to lean on such a luxury, and so for them little has changed, they are simply facing a much weaker enemy who has been stripped of its only real advantage with the withdrawal of US support.

Clearly, America would have been much better off working to prepare government forces for a future without their presence, particularly once it became clear that that was indeed the situation they would soon face. But, like others have pointed out, Afghanistan is a very messy place, and there are few – if any – clean solutions here to be pursued.

Communism is blue. It's based on a very strict ideology and control of the people. However, there are several levels above capitalism. The next level above orange is green. You can read about levels of societal consciousness here.