fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Opinion Pushing Afghans to failure
Brian Cloughley
Saturday, December 22, 2012
There have been many strange statements by US senior military officers over the years, and one of the more intriguing came last week from Marine Corps Maj Gen Larry D Nicholson, the deputy chief of staff (operations) at Natos joint command in Afghanistan. Speaking about the future of the Afghan army, he stated that the mission of foreign troops had radically changed because they were now doing the bare minimum to support the Afghan army. He said were now un-partnering from Afghan forces; were at that stage of the fight.
For a senior officer to announce publicly that his nations armed forces had decided to do as little as possible to support the army of a country in which they are both waging war against a substantial insurgency is bizarre. But he went further. With astonishing inanity he announced a policy of tough love for the Afghan army, and declared: We are pushing them to failure... We want them to see failure, we want them to smell it, we want them to taste it. We just dont want them to achieve it. If he had the remotest understanding of the country he would know that the concept of tough love between groupings is alien and abhorrent to those about whom he seems to know so little.
In any event, if you push someone towards the cliff of failure, it is probable they will plummet off the edge into catastrophe.
The Afghan army has seen a bunch of low-tech raggy baggy guerrillas inflicting thousands of casualties on amazingly well-equipped foreign forces, which possess vast quantities of every conceivable system and weapon available for the pursuit of modern warfare. So imagine how its officers and soldiers feel about being minimally supported smelling and tasting failure, in the words of Gen Nicholson with lousy equipment that keeps breaking down; a repair and logistics chain that does not work (it barely exists, in fact its a disgraceful situation); second-rate weapons; a bunch of fat incompetent senior officers who are a joke (although there are a few good ones, heaven help them); a pay system that doesnt stand comparison with that of the Roman army 2,000 years ago; and an occupying military force that drivels about tough love.
One simple thing the US and its allies could have done to help establish a sense of pride in the Afghan army would have been to equip its soldiers with the same types of protective clothing as those of foreign troops. One of the most effective anti-west and anti-Kabul government propaganda ploys by the Taliban is the portrayal of a foreign soldier together with an Afghan colleague, because it is obvious that the foreigner has much better equipment than the Afghan. Not only that, but wounded Afghan soldiers are condemned to the most basic medical care, even if they manage to get to a casualty centre, because the only effective casualty evacuation (Casevac) and treatment system is that of the foreign forces. Its all bare minimum, indeed.
Nicholsons words are whizzing round Afghanistan, where speedy spread of information doesnt need Twitter. And the upbeat tempo of pronouncements by foreign military mouthpieces cant disguise the fact that the situation in Afghanistan is verging on the hopeless. Consider the UN secretary generals report of December 6, which noted that the recent rise in civilian casualties is of great concern, given that the conflict continues to take an unacceptable toll on the Afghan people.
But when US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta visited Afghanistan on December 12-13, he declared: It is clear to me that we are today in a far better place than we were four years ago, despite some very real challenges that remain in the region. Tell that to the families of all the dead Afghans and those of US and other foreign soldiers who have died for nothing.
The fact that the mighty United States of America did not dare announce Panettas visit to Afghanistan before he landed there is ample evidence that it is hardly a far better place than it was four years ago. It is obvious that if his arrival details had been made public, his life would have been in grave danger.
Then he met with US troops but didnt speak with a single Afghan soldier.
Imagine the wind of confidence that could have swept through the Afghan army if Panetta had shown the courage to meet Afghan soldiers. If conditions in Panettas far better place were really improving, then of course he would have visited an Afghan military unit if for no other reason than having a propaganda photo-op; but he couldnt do that.
Before arriving in Afghanistan he told reporters he looked forward to a firsthand view of the situation and there could not have been a better way of getting that desirable perspective than meeting Afghan military commanders and soldiers who could have described firsthand their problems and fears and plans for the future. But there was no such get-together. There is no meeting of minds.
Absurdly upbeat pronouncements about the desperate situation in Afghanistan will probably continue, but there is no solution to the mess other than an orchestrated drawing together of factions within the country which is exactly what Pakistan has advocated for many years. Certainly, there are some vicious extremists who should be excluded, but there are enough sane dissenters in positions of influence and power for dialogue to advance, if there is give-and-take on the other side. There have been three main gatherings so far, and although some Afghan factions objected to US influence in these cases, the meeting in France may advance the process a little bit. What is essential is that negotiations should continue between Afghan groups and people who know them and the region. Those who talk about tough love for the country that they declare is a far better place than it was four years ago should have no part to play in this because they do not understand the problem.
The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website: Brian Cloughley
Brian Cloughley
Saturday, December 22, 2012
There have been many strange statements by US senior military officers over the years, and one of the more intriguing came last week from Marine Corps Maj Gen Larry D Nicholson, the deputy chief of staff (operations) at Natos joint command in Afghanistan. Speaking about the future of the Afghan army, he stated that the mission of foreign troops had radically changed because they were now doing the bare minimum to support the Afghan army. He said were now un-partnering from Afghan forces; were at that stage of the fight.
For a senior officer to announce publicly that his nations armed forces had decided to do as little as possible to support the army of a country in which they are both waging war against a substantial insurgency is bizarre. But he went further. With astonishing inanity he announced a policy of tough love for the Afghan army, and declared: We are pushing them to failure... We want them to see failure, we want them to smell it, we want them to taste it. We just dont want them to achieve it. If he had the remotest understanding of the country he would know that the concept of tough love between groupings is alien and abhorrent to those about whom he seems to know so little.
In any event, if you push someone towards the cliff of failure, it is probable they will plummet off the edge into catastrophe.
The Afghan army has seen a bunch of low-tech raggy baggy guerrillas inflicting thousands of casualties on amazingly well-equipped foreign forces, which possess vast quantities of every conceivable system and weapon available for the pursuit of modern warfare. So imagine how its officers and soldiers feel about being minimally supported smelling and tasting failure, in the words of Gen Nicholson with lousy equipment that keeps breaking down; a repair and logistics chain that does not work (it barely exists, in fact its a disgraceful situation); second-rate weapons; a bunch of fat incompetent senior officers who are a joke (although there are a few good ones, heaven help them); a pay system that doesnt stand comparison with that of the Roman army 2,000 years ago; and an occupying military force that drivels about tough love.
One simple thing the US and its allies could have done to help establish a sense of pride in the Afghan army would have been to equip its soldiers with the same types of protective clothing as those of foreign troops. One of the most effective anti-west and anti-Kabul government propaganda ploys by the Taliban is the portrayal of a foreign soldier together with an Afghan colleague, because it is obvious that the foreigner has much better equipment than the Afghan. Not only that, but wounded Afghan soldiers are condemned to the most basic medical care, even if they manage to get to a casualty centre, because the only effective casualty evacuation (Casevac) and treatment system is that of the foreign forces. Its all bare minimum, indeed.
Nicholsons words are whizzing round Afghanistan, where speedy spread of information doesnt need Twitter. And the upbeat tempo of pronouncements by foreign military mouthpieces cant disguise the fact that the situation in Afghanistan is verging on the hopeless. Consider the UN secretary generals report of December 6, which noted that the recent rise in civilian casualties is of great concern, given that the conflict continues to take an unacceptable toll on the Afghan people.
But when US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta visited Afghanistan on December 12-13, he declared: It is clear to me that we are today in a far better place than we were four years ago, despite some very real challenges that remain in the region. Tell that to the families of all the dead Afghans and those of US and other foreign soldiers who have died for nothing.
The fact that the mighty United States of America did not dare announce Panettas visit to Afghanistan before he landed there is ample evidence that it is hardly a far better place than it was four years ago. It is obvious that if his arrival details had been made public, his life would have been in grave danger.
Then he met with US troops but didnt speak with a single Afghan soldier.
Imagine the wind of confidence that could have swept through the Afghan army if Panetta had shown the courage to meet Afghan soldiers. If conditions in Panettas far better place were really improving, then of course he would have visited an Afghan military unit if for no other reason than having a propaganda photo-op; but he couldnt do that.
Before arriving in Afghanistan he told reporters he looked forward to a firsthand view of the situation and there could not have been a better way of getting that desirable perspective than meeting Afghan military commanders and soldiers who could have described firsthand their problems and fears and plans for the future. But there was no such get-together. There is no meeting of minds.
Absurdly upbeat pronouncements about the desperate situation in Afghanistan will probably continue, but there is no solution to the mess other than an orchestrated drawing together of factions within the country which is exactly what Pakistan has advocated for many years. Certainly, there are some vicious extremists who should be excluded, but there are enough sane dissenters in positions of influence and power for dialogue to advance, if there is give-and-take on the other side. There have been three main gatherings so far, and although some Afghan factions objected to US influence in these cases, the meeting in France may advance the process a little bit. What is essential is that negotiations should continue between Afghan groups and people who know them and the region. Those who talk about tough love for the country that they declare is a far better place than it was four years ago should have no part to play in this because they do not understand the problem.
The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website: Brian Cloughley
