Nato puzzled by Afghan army’s demands for tanks

[MilSpec]

Central Europe.....

Sir I have been here my whole life and plenty of people agree with me, I am majoring in political science nobody takes offense to such talks it is geopolitics nothing else. If what I have written on an online forum gives you extreme offense you probably should not be posting on such a forum to begin with.

Dear sir, What your rhetoric points at is Far right affiliations of US foriegn policy, which as you are as pol sci student will know is not true. What you state is true that a nation engages in state of war to secure it's interests but equating that to downright looting might seem farfetched in this day and age. If your contention is US engaged in the region purely due to economic reasons, please do let me know what your faculty's take on the same.

 

[KingMamba]

Dear sir, What your rhetoric points at is Far right affiliations of US foriegn policy, which as you are as pol sci student will know is not true. What you state is true that a nation engages in state of war to secure it's interests but equating that to downright looting might seem farfetched in this day and age. If your contention is US engaged in the region purely due to economic reasons, please do let me know what your faculty's take on the same.

I never said looting that would be inaccurate. I said we will build them a nation, in return they will let us take advantage of their strategic position and give us some favorable mining deals. A simple trade off, however if we did want to loot we could have we have the strongest military on the planet nobody can defeat us conventionally but we didn't because we don't.

Both wars were started by republican who represent the right, do not forget that piece and have been ended by the left. The left will be winding down the Afghan war as well.

 

[MilSpec]

I never said looting that would be inaccurate. I said we will build them a nation, in return they will let us take advantage of their strategic position and give us some favorable mining deals. A simple trade off, however if we did want to loot we could have we have the strongest military on the planet nobody can defeat us conventionally but we didn't because we don't.

One thing I find confusing in your post is, you talk about strategic location and mining tender in afganistan, yet zero deployment and recalling all troops back to US... how does that happen.... If I am not mistaken strategic strongholds remain strategic with the capability of force projection if I am not mistaken.

 

[KingMamba]

One thing I find confusing in your post is, you talk about strategic location and mining tender in afganistan, yet zero deployment and recalling all troops back to US... how does that happen.... If I am not mistaken strategic strongholds remain strategic with the capability of force projection if I am not mistaken.

Where did I say zero deployment?? I said if ANA can hold off Taliban after 2014, we will have a couple soldiers left in the region but they will be the ones who have to fight the bulk of the battles to come.

 

[MilSpec]

Where did I say zero deployment?? I said if ANA can hold off Taliban after 2014, we will have a couple soldiers left in the region but they will be the ones who have to fight the bulk of the battles to come.

Please be a little more detailed when you say "couple", as being a pol sci expert, I would appreciate your view on what this exact "couple of soldiers" you mean that would be needed to do your bidding for the strategic goals.

 

[KingMamba]

@sandy_3126 reread my post 24, which is what I think you are alluding to. The ANA will be expected to defend from 2014 if they cannot and their weapons are taken from them and then used on our few marines left in Afghanistan there would be backlash which is why I said hold off on giving them heavy weapons until they show they can hold off Talibs.

Please be a little more detailed when you say "couple", as being a pol sci expert, I would appreciate your view on what this exact "couple of soldiers" you mean that would be needed to do your bidding for the strategic goals.

I never said I am a pol sci expert, I said I am majoring in pol sci and nobody takes "extreme offense" to such talks. I cannot give you a number when they haven't decided on it yet, sorry I do not have connections to the POTUS.

They are still considering anywhere from 3,000 to 6,000 or as as much as 10,000 marines. However they haven't taken zero deployment off the table.

 

[darkinsky]

i totally support it, would be great anti tank missile target pracice for pak army

 

[MilSpec]

[MENTION=37361]
They are still considering anywhere from 3,000 to 6,000 or as as much as 10,000 marines. However they haven't taken zero deployment off the table.

So does, zero deployment, refer to end of strategic goals, and if it does so, then am I misunderstanding your rhetoric of US objectives.

 

[KingMamba]

So does, zero deployment, refer to end of strategic goals, and if it does so, then am I misunderstanding your rhetoric of US objectives.

I am not sure if zero deployment means the end of our objectives but if the Taliban can be convinced to give up arms than I think zero deployment would be implemented. If they for some reason decide to implement it anyway than that means they believe the ANA has fully matured and will not need advisers but as long as we provide them AID a pro US government will be in place and so it works out best for the both of either way. I do not think the Afghan people want our troops on their land anyway if they trust that their soldiers can get the job done.

Or worst case scenario it means we cut our losses and run for it.

 

[EagleEyes]

Afghanistan doesn't need tanks. They just need IFVs and proper soldier equipment.

Also take away all the artillery they have.

 

[Spring Onion]

NATO/US will have to be careful about what they leave behind in weapons and will have to wait how different factions in Afghanistan behave because there is fear of power wrangling once again hence as was the case with Russian armour these can also slip into hands of different groups.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Some relevant information need to be Added over here regarding afghan forces procurement.

US Scraps Afghan Cargo Plane Fleet | Military.com

I Think you people would see final deals between 2014-2017 when it comes to APC/IFVs/Tanks and howitzers mainly.

 

[Spring Onion]

Some relevant information need to be Added over here regarding afghan forces procurement.

US Scraps Afghan Cargo Plane Fleet | Military.com

I Think you people would see final deals between 2014-2017 when it comes to APC/IFVs/Tanks and howitzers mainly.

As i said it should depend on how all the groups in Afghanistan behave after NATO withdrawl since leaving military equipment behind waring factions means these will be uses in personal wars

 

[Luftwaffe]

As i said it should depend on how all the groups in Afghanistan behave after NATO withdrawl since leaving military equipment behind waring factions means these will be uses in personal wars

Highly unlikely IF offensive military weapons would be left behind.

Most of the weapons afghanistan might procure in coming years would be with US permission from third parties, I don't believe russians are in mood to entertain afghanistan armed forces mostly equipment might come from US EDA stocks and other older equipment from NATO allies.

 

[TuranKhan]

U serious?? Will Afghanistan get so massive a military aid every year?? That equals to nearly 20% of Afghanistan's GDP & close to 2/3 of what Pakistan spends on defence.

BTW how will be some Arjun MBT???

Arjun isn't even operational in the Indian army yet.