What's new

ANA and on track and reaches 195,000 target, Defense Ministry says

Sher Malang

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
-2
Country
Afghanistan
Location
Afghanistan
Afghanistan army on track for handover, Defense Ministry says


Published April 18, 2012
Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan – Afghanistan is on track to build up its army so it can take the lead along with other local forces in securing the country by the end of 2013, the Defense Ministry said Wednesday.
Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi said that the Afghan Army had already reached its target number of 195,000 troops, which will be part of a 352,000-strong Afghan National Security Force, including police and other security forces, by the end of this year.
"I am announcing now that the Afghan National Army has completed the number of 195,000," Azimi said. He said the government agreed with the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan that 352,000 should be the target number for the end of 2012.
Afghan security forces now number about 330,000. They are expected to take over much of the fighting as the U.S. draws down an additional 23,000 troops to reach 68,000 by the end of September. U.S. troop levels were at a high of about 100,000 last year.
The Afghan army and police are now in charge of security for areas home to half the nation's population, with NATO forces in a support role. The coalition hopes to keep handing over control until Afghan forces are fully in charge by the end of 2013, with foreign troops supporting and mentoring. All foreign combat troops are scheduled to withdraw from the country by the end of 2014.
The U.S. may retain a small number of forces past that date to help train and mentor the Afghan army and help with counterterrorism efforts.


Source: Afghanistan army on track for handover, Defense Ministry says | Fox News

Panetta Seeks $1.3 Billion a Year From Allies for Afghan


The U.S. will urge NATO allies to pledge as much as 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion) a year to help Afghanistan pay for its security forces as alliance combat operations wind down before ending in 2014, a U.S. defense official said.
The U.S. is making progress in getting commitments and will seek to line up more pledges when allied defense and foreign ministers meet in Brussels today and tomorrow, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made. The official declined to say how much money has been offered.

The U.S. estimates the cost of maintaining the Afghan army and police at $4 billion to $6 billion a year, depending on the size of the force. The goal is to raise the 1 billion euros a year from allies to supplement funding from the U.S. and the Afghan government as the coalition draws down its forces.

Allies will shoulder a “fair share” of the costs, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters before the meeting. “It’s a good deal to finance the Afghan security forces politically, because we will then give the defense of Afghanistan a strong Afghan face, and economically, because it is less expensive to finance Afghan security forces than to deploy foreign troops in Afghanistan.”

Afghan soldiers and police officers totaled about 337,000 in mid-March and are scheduled to reach 352,000 this year. The coalition has agreed with Afghan leaders to begin paring the force after 2014 to about 230,000.
NATO Chicago Summit

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plan to attend the two-day Brussels consultations to prepare for a NATO summit in Chicago next month. No concrete sums of money will be pledged today, Rasmussen said.
On the agenda in Chicago will be the pace for shifting security responsibility to Afghan forces in advance of the planned departure of most coalition troops by the end of 2014.

Defense ministers will also consult on the alliance’s need for technologies and weapons systems over the next 10 years as the U.S. and European nations wrestle with tight budgets. The goal is to pool resources and share capabilities such as airlift, munitions, intelligence and surveillance, missile defense and cyber-security.

Source: Panetta Seeks $1.3 Billion a Year From Allies for Afghan - Bloomberg
 
What was figure of Taliban army when it was in control during 90s? and how many NATO soldiers are present is in afghanistan currently.

Figure of 2 lakhs with huge area to control seems little less.
 
What was figure of Taliban army when it was in control during 90s? and how many NATO soldiers are present is in afghanistan currently.

Figure of 2 lakhs with huge area to control seems little less.

There was no accurate figure of armed Taliban but Taliban fighters were 45,000 out of which 15,000 were Afghans and the rest were Pakistanis.

As draw down began last year NATO/US forces may total less than 120,000 currently.

I would rather prefer 200,000 ANA soldiers than 240,000 because in the future we would not need a large army and a large army needs bigger budget which we can't afford but in case of war with any one it's duty of every Afghan to defend our homeland.

This is what I propose:

200,000 ANA
160,000 ANP
50,000 NDS/Intelligence
12,000 AAF
422000 Total

They are currently working on a plan for reserve forces.

A budget of 4.6 bln$/year is enough for 400,000+ forces.
 
There was no accurate figure of armed Taliban but Taliban fighters were 45,000 out of which 15,000 were Afghans and the rest were Pakistanis.

As draw down began last year NATO/US forces may total less than 120,000 currently.

I would rather prefer 200,000 ANA soldiers than 240,000 because in the future we would not need a large army and a large army needs bigger budget which we can't afford but in case of war with any one it's duty of every Afghan to defend our homeland.

This is what I propose:

200,000 ANA
160,000 ANP
50,000 NDS/Intelligence
12,000 AAF
422000 Total

They are currently working on a plan for reserve forces.

A budget of 4.6 bln$/year is enough for 400,000+ forces.

Why Afhganistan require $4.6 billion dollar for such a small force with small arms? Just compare similar force budget of Pakistan, Bangladesh, India. I think $1 billion dollar is way too much.
 
Why Afhganistan require $4.6 billion dollar for such a small force with small arms? Just compare similar force budget of Pakistan, Bangladesh, India. I think $1 billion dollar is way too much.

Good question, for the current force we actually need less than 2 bl$ but after 2014 the plan is to purchase air defense tools some fighter/bomber aircraft, tanks and artillery which will require money.
 
Good question, for the current force we actually need less than 2 bl$ but after 2014 the plan is to purchase air defense tools some fighter/bomber aircraft, tanks and artillery which will require money.

Squeeze Uncle Sam as much as yo can before 2014 and get some tanks and artilery and some light aircraft which can be used against Taliban. After 2014 nobody going to give yo money for bomber or tanks, as those are not for humanatarian need.
 
Squeeze Uncle Sam as much as yo can before 2014 and get some tanks and artilery and some light aircraft which can be used against Taliban. After 2014 nobody going to give yo money for bomber or tanks, as those are not for humanatarian need.

That money is part of the strategic pacts with US and NATO who in return will be allowed to have bases in Afghanistan after 2014.
 
There was no accurate figure of armed Taliban but Taliban fighters were 45,000 out of which 15,000 were Afghans and the rest were Pakistanis.

What do you mean? Where is this information coming from?

There are 25,000-35,000 Pakistani Taliban but there is also a huge group of Afghan Taliban that operates within Afghanistan. Statistics in Afghanistan aren't properly available but they may number more than 40,000 fighters counting their support network and sympathizers too.
 
America is doing a fantastic job at colonizing the Afghan National Army - quickly too. Being trained by the finest of course.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom