Afghanistan

[Aardvark154]

When tonight's converstation with Saad Mohseni on the Charlie Rose show on American PBS is put up on the program's website make sure you take a look.

Some figures that I have every reason to believe are next to unknown in the West:

75 percent of the population want Western troops to remain until the ANA is up to speed.
Only 10 percent of the population support the Taliban.
Afghanistan has the second youngest population in the world.
The rate of literacy is rising exponentially, and a third of all Afghan schoolchildren are girls.

 

[alex52]

So what?

 

[danmand]

It is really hard to believe 10%.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2014/04/taliban-country-20144108610575181.html


This is Taliban country

Fault Lines reports from a Taliban stronghold just an hour outside Kabul, where armed fighters openly patrol streets.
Last updated: 16 Apr 2014 12:53

A Taliban stronghold in the Charkh District, just an hour outside Kabul, has become a microcosm of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Though only an hour from Kabul, armed Taliban patrol the streets openly and have built a parallel administration in Charkh, including Islamic law courts and girls schools.

Nagieb Khaja reports from the Taliban stronghold of Charkh, Logar Province. Khaja bears witness to the parallel administration the Taliban have built in Charkh, and hears testimony from the population—including from the families of civilian casualties of Afghan National Army bombings.

Khaja is the first Western journalist to film a Taliban Islamic law court where he witnesses a case in which the defendant is a Taliban member. The outcome is surprising.

Khaja also visits local boys and girls schools run in concert with the Taliban.

"This is Taliban Country" shows a defiant Taliban determined to continue attacking the Afghan National Army bases and keep control of the region.

 

[whitewaterguy]

Too bad good Canadian men and women had to give up their lives trying to unplug this permanently clogged cess pool. Let's focus on fighting child poverty in canada and giving all kids an opportunity here to be hunger free and to also have safe drinking water

 

[Aardvark154]

Too bad good Canadian men and women had to give up their lives trying to unplug this permanently clogged cess pool. Let's focus on fighting child poverty in canada and giving all kids an opportunity here to be hunger free and to also have safe drinking water

As said take a look when it appears on the website.

Saad Mohseni made an excellent argument why the blood that has been spilled has been all worth it if we only have the stick to itness to allow the Afghan security forces the time to come up to speed.

 

[cuttysark]

As said take a look when it appears on the website.

Saad Mohseni made an excellent argument why the blood that has been spilled has been all worth it if we only have the stick to itness to allow the Afghan security forces the time to come up to speed.

All of my friends that served in Afghanistan had no confidence in the government forces. Too much tribalism and corruption in the face of a patient committed enemy. Hopefully they are wrong but they had a closeup view.

 

[seth gecko]

Soviets trained the ANA during their time there, Commies withdrew in early 1989 (leaving a few hundred advisors, who left in early 1992), and the Afghan gov't fell shortly afterwards (collapse of the Evil Empire in 1991 meant no more financial support for the Afghan gov't). So the standard for the effectiveness of our training is 3 years (assuming we don't continue to fund the gov't, which leads to the question of corruption, which is a thread unto itself).

They're tough and they're brave, natural fighters but not very good soldiers. The ANA is very much improved over the past few years, but I doubt that 200k (and 10k NATO) guys won't be enough. Best analogy I can give is Mexico - too much corruption for their own army to be effective.

 

[Hangman]

Soviets trained the ANA during their time there, Commies withdrew in early 1989 (leaving a few hundred advisors, who left in early 1992), and the Afghan gov't fell shortly afterwards (collapse of the Evil Empire in 1991 meant no more financial support for the Afghan gov't). So the standard for the effectiveness of our training is 3 years (assuming we don't continue to fund the gov't, which leads to the question of corruption, which is a thread unto itself).

They're tough and they're brave, natural fighters but not very good soldiers. The ANA is very much improved over the past few years, but I doubt that 200k (and 10k NATO) guys won't be enough. Best analogy I can give is Mexico - too much corruption for their own army to be effective.

The ANA are very good natural fighters indeed. The Russian invasion was a sort of natural selection for them, I imagine. If you read Lester Grau's The Bear Went Over The Mountain, you'll see what I mean. They were placing IEDs in the same locations against NATO as they were in the 80's. They have a warrior culture and spirit, but lack a lot of the institutional capabilities, like training, pay systems, logistics, etc, that we take for granted. So they were never going to be "up to speed" before NATO left. But they're good at killing bad guys, so they've got that going for them.

And for all the hand-wringers who bemoan the Canadian loss of life and say Afghanistan is a cess pool beyond help, blah blah blah, I don't remember seeing you there, but the thousands of young girls who are allowed to go to school now because of our efforts would probably disagree with you.

 

[cuttysark]

The ANA are very good natural fighters indeed. The Russian invasion was a sort of natural selection for them, I imagine. If you read Lester Grau's The Bear Went Over The Mountain, you'll see what I mean. They were placing IEDs in the same locations against NATO as they were in the 80's. They have a warrior culture and spirit, but lack a lot of the institutional capabilities, like training, pay systems, logistics, etc, that we take for granted. So they were never going to be "up to speed" before NATO left. But they're good at killing bad guys, so they've got that going for them.

And for all the hand-wringers who bemoan the Canadian loss of life and say Afghanistan is a cess pool beyond help, blah blah blah, I don't remember seeing you there, but the thousands of young girls who are allowed to go to school now because of our efforts would probably disagree with you.

In what job did you work in Afghanistan?

 

[fuji]

In what job did you work in Afghanistan?

Hangman was/is CF I think.

 

[danmand]

And for all the hand-wringers who bemoan the Canadian loss of life and say Afghanistan is a cess pool beyond help, blah blah blah, I don't remember seeing you there, but the thousands of young girls who are allowed to go to school now because of our efforts would probably disagree with you.

Dragging out the old rationale for military intervention, that the poor girls must go to school. What is Canada planning to do about the poor girls in our beloved friendly countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain etc.???

 

[CapitalGuy]

Dragging out the old rationale for military intervention, that the poor girls must go to school. What is Canada planning to do about the poor girls in our beloved friendly countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain etc.???

Since we didn't invade those countries and topple their governments, we don't bear responsibility for them. But we did invade Afghanistan, and we did topple their government. For good reason, too (reason that had nothing to do with schoolgirls). And once we did invade them, like it or not, we assumed responsibility for fixing the country rather than just abandon it to civil war.

 

[whitewaterguy]

Wasted Canadian lives. Plain and simple
Totally unjustifiable no matter who or how it's spun

 

[red]

As said take a look when it appears on the website.

Saad Mohseni made an excellent argument why the blood that has been spilled has been all worth it if we only have the stick to itness to allow the Afghan security forces the time to come up to speed.

I don't think western "stick to itness" is the issue- ten years is plenty.

 

[anon1]

All that heroin needs a market. The longer the west is involved in Afghanistan the more addicts we'll have at home.

 

[fuji]

I don't think western "stick to itness" is the issue- ten years is plenty.

Well. It WAS the issue. After spending hundreds of millions arming groups in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation, the US walked away when the Russians pulled out. They failed to stick to it then.

At that time the mujahedeen were not anti western and were not particularly bad people. However, when the Russians left the country fell into poverty and civil war. In that unpleasant environment, the mujahedeen evolved into the Taliban and linked up with Al Qaeda.

None of that was necessary. Had the Americans continued funding Afghanistan after they were no longer killing Russians they probably would have developed into a poor but mostly peaceful and stable nation.

Much death, including 9/11, might have been averted.

 

[seth gecko]

Wasted Canadian lives. Plain and simple
Totally unjustifiable no matter who or how it's spun

Canadians volunteer to serve in a professional army.
Those who chose to serve were aware of the risks.
Some people may think that risking your life to protect or assist others is wasteful, while others accept that risk.
We who served are justifiably proud of our efforts and accomplishments. While you can argue the effectiveness of our efforts, please respect the choices we made and the sacrifices some paid.

 

[BlueLaser]

Canadians volunteer to serve in a professional army.
Those who chose to serve were aware of the risks.
Some people may think that risking your life to protect or assist others is wasteful, while others accept that risk.
We who served are justifiably proud of our efforts and accomplishments. While you can argue the effectiveness of our efforts, please respect the choices we made and the sacrifices some paid.

Something people often forget is that training only gets you so far. I remember my first deployment I found my training was absolutely unsuitable. Granted that as a pilot I didn't spend a lot of time chewing dirt when I deployed, but flying CAP when you MAY have to deliver CAS is very different from training for it. In training, safety is the #1 priority, so you plan, brief, revise and rebrief. Then every segment is analysed. In many ways the regular training fighter pilots go through day in and day out during peacetime doesn't prepare you for those times you take off to fly a simple patrol where you're only supposed to be eyes, but you've got bombs strapped to your belly "just in case" someone needs you. But if they do, you can't plan, you can't brief, you can't revise. You just go nose down and carry out the same steps you've done time and time and time and time again, but without the comfort of knowing that everything has been planned out to the smallest detail. I never actually had to drop ordinance during my deployments, but it never left the back of my mind that I might be asked to deliver some, possibly danger close, possibly based on vectors from a guy whose never actually called in a live strike before (so we'd both be losing our cherries), possibly by a guy who actually has no interest in airplanes and therefore only the basic knowledge of how his information is used by me. If they're asking for me, should I do a high-speed recce pass first to visually ID targets, or is the situation so dire that if I'm called I should just roll in hot and blindly trust the people giving me guidance as competent, well-trained troops? In fact, will the person giving me info even be part of the same unit that's requested me? What if that Aussie voice isn't just someone who moved from Australia to Canada and joined the CF, but actually an Australian Army or Air Force forward air controller relaying the info? Is there any chance the protocols are different and there's been something lost in translation? I sure don't want to be responsible for blue on blue, but I also don't want to do I high speed pass only to visually ID friendlies being overrun and the window where I can actually help out is gone because I delayed.

My point is that there's no training like the real thing. And that's part of what being a professional army is about. If all we do is sandbag, we're not really an army, we're just a national guard. Did we lose a lot of good men for little direct gain to the civilian Canadian public? Yes. There's no arguing that fact. Does the military benefit immensely from every action it takes part in? Absolutely. Were Afghanistan and the Afghan people people better off, even if only in the short term? I'm sure some would argue it, but my experience talking to people who were there is yes. Did anyone expect Afghanistan would solve the crisis in the middle east, eliminate extremist anti-west sentiment and usher in an era of peace for all mankind? No.

The only other point I'd like to make is this: don't presume to tell soldiers that they've "wasted" their lives or their time. Some may think so, some may not. But unless you're currently wearing a uniform and participated in their deployments, who are you to dictate that no value has been gained? I've seen so many people hide politics behind empathy for soldiers. "Bring our men and women home." Well, why? Don't bring them home just for the sake of bringing them home. If you disagree with the mission, that's a political issue and should be addressed by the political venues, but soldiers don't want you bringing them home just because you think they should be home. People join the military knowing they're going away, knowing their job is to be the physical manifestation of the political will of the nation. They aren't pawns to be used for political gain. If you have a reason why we should or shouldn't be engaged in the specific operations, debate it, protest it, do whatever you want, but don't make soldiers your reason. When I was in, we fuckin' hated that. With a passion. We knew what we were getting into, and we were there doing out job, we didn't want to be fodder for debates back home. I signed on the dotted line to lay down my life for my country, don't nullify my commitment or the sacrifices my brothers made by saying we're "wasting our lives". This is what we signed up for, we're not "wasting" anything. Would you tell a firefighter that died in a fire that they wasted their life? Of course not, it's insulting and belittling. What makes some peacenik qualified to say that a given life was "a waste"? It's a waste if you believe there was no benefit derived, but I don't get to judge the value of your life and actions, why should you judge mine?

I guess my point is if you want to discuss the mission, discuss the mission and leave the soldiers out of it unless you're engaged in an act of remembrance. And if it is an act of remembrance, leave the politics of what we should or shouldn't have done to another time.

That's all I'm saying on the subject. I've lost a few good friends in military operations over the years, and it really grinds my gears to hear people talk about them as "wasted". If you feel so compelled to call other people's death "a waste", then perhaps you should look at how you're spending your life. If you died today, would your death be any more valuable?

 

[whitewaterguy]

Something people often forget is that training only gets you so far. I remember my first deployment I found my training was absolutely unsuitable. Granted that as a pilot I didn't spend a lot of time chewing dirt when I deployed, but flying CAP when you MAY have to deliver CAS is very different from training for it. In training, safety is the #1 priority, so you plan, brief, revise and rebrief. Then every segment is analysed. In many ways the regular training fighter pilots go through day in and day out during peacetime doesn't prepare you for those times you take off to fly a simple patrol where you're only supposed to be eyes, but you've got bombs strapped to your belly "just in case" someone needs you. But if they do, you can't plan, you can't brief, you can't revise. You just go nose down and carry out the same steps you've done time and time and time and time again, but without the comfort of knowing that everything has been planned out to the smallest detail. I never actually had to drop ordinance during my deployments, but it never left the back of my mind that I might be asked to deliver some, possibly danger close, possibly based on vectors from a guy whose never actually called in a live strike before (so we'd both be losing our cherries), possibly by a guy who actually has no interest in airplanes and therefore only the basic knowledge of how his information is used by me. If they're asking for me, should I do a high-speed recce pass first to visually ID targets, or is the situation so dire that if I'm called I should just roll in hot and blindly trust the people giving me guidance as competent, well-trained troops? In fact, will the person giving me info even be part of the same unit that's requested me? What if that Aussie voice isn't just someone who moved from Australia to Canada and joined the CF, but actually an Australian Army or Air Force forward air controller relaying the info? Is there any chance the protocols are different and there's been something lost in translation? I sure don't want to be responsible for blue on blue, but I also don't want to do I high speed pass only to visually ID friendlies being overrun and the window where I can actually help out is gone because I delayed.

My point is that there's no training like the real thing. And that's part of what being a professional army is about. If all we do is sandbag, we're not really an army, we're just a national guard. Did we lose a lot of good men for little direct gain to the civilian Canadian public? Yes. There's no arguing that fact. Does the military benefit immensely from every action it takes part in? Absolutely. Were Afghanistan and the Afghan people people better off, even if only in the short term? I'm sure some would argue it, but my experience talking to people who were there is yes. Did anyone expect Afghanistan would solve the crisis in the middle east, eliminate extremist anti-west sentiment and usher in an era of peace for all mankind? No.

The only other point I'd like to make is this: don't presume to tell soldiers that they've "wasted" their lives or their time. Some may think so, some may not. But unless you're currently wearing a uniform and participated in their deployments, who are you to dictate that no value has been gained? I've seen so many people hide politics behind empathy for soldiers. "Bring our men and women home." Well, why? Don't bring them home just for the sake of bringing them home. If you disagree with the mission, that's a political issue and should be addressed by the political venues, but soldiers don't want you bringing them home just because you think they should be home. People join the military knowing they're going away, knowing their job is to be the physical manifestation of the political will of the nation. They aren't pawns to be used for political gain. If you have a reason why we should or shouldn't be engaged in the specific operations, debate it, protest it, do whatever you want, but don't make soldiers your reason. When I was in, we fuckin' hated that. With a passion. We knew what we were getting into, and we were there doing out job, we didn't want to be fodder for debates back home. I signed on the dotted line to lay down my life for my country, don't nullify my commitment or the sacrifices my brothers made by saying we're "wasting our lives". This is what we signed up for, we're not "wasting" anything. Would you tell a firefighter that died in a fire that they wasted their life? Of course not, it's insulting and belittling. What makes some peacenik qualified to say that a given life was "a waste"? It's a waste if you believe there was no benefit derived, but I don't get to judge the value of your life and actions, why should you judge mine?

I guess my point is if you want to discuss the mission, discuss the mission and leave the soldiers out of it unless you're engaged in an act of remembrance. And if it is an act of remembrance, leave the politics of what we should or shouldn't have done to another time.

That's all I'm saying on the subject. I've lost a few good friends in military operations over the years, and it really grinds my gears to hear people talk about them as "wasted". If you feel so compelled to call other people's death "a waste", then perhaps you should look at how you're spending your life. If you died today, would your death be any more valuable?

Totally wasted. Soldiers always have been and will continue to be minions, the ultimate pawns of the fat man wearing a tie and smoking a cigar...god bless the soldier. To serve and protect. Blah blah blah. Time for some de-programming

 

[danmand]

Something people often forget is that training only gets you so far. I remember my first deployment I found my training was absolutely unsuitable. Granted that as a pilot I didn't spend a lot of time chewing dirt when I deployed, but flying CAP when you MAY have to deliver CAS is very different from training for it. In training, safety is the #1 priority, so you plan, brief, revise and rebrief. Then every segment is analysed. In many ways the regular training fighter pilots go through day in and day out during peacetime doesn't prepare you for those times you take off to fly a simple patrol where you're only supposed to be eyes, but you've got bombs strapped to your belly "just in case" someone needs you. But if they do, you can't plan, you can't brief, you can't revise. You just go nose down and carry out the same steps you've done time and time and time and time again, but without the comfort of knowing that everything has been planned out to the smallest detail. I never actually had to drop ordinance during my deployments, but it never left the back of my mind that I might be asked to deliver some, possibly danger close, possibly based on vectors from a guy whose never actually called in a live strike before (so we'd both be losing our cherries), possibly by a guy who actually has no interest in airplanes and therefore only the basic knowledge of how his information is used by me. If they're asking for me, should I do a high-speed recce pass first to visually ID targets, or is the situation so dire that if I'm called I should just roll in hot and blindly trust the people giving me guidance as competent, well-trained troops? In fact, will the person giving me info even be part of the same unit that's requested me? What if that Aussie voice isn't just someone who moved from Australia to Canada and joined the CF, but actually an Australian Army or Air Force forward air controller relaying the info? Is there any chance the protocols are different and there's been something lost in translation? I sure don't want to be responsible for blue on blue, but I also don't want to do I high speed pass only to visually ID friendlies being overrun and the window where I can actually help out is gone because I delayed.

My point is that there's no training like the real thing. And that's part of what being a professional army is about. If all we do is sandbag, we're not really an army, we're just a national guard. Did we lose a lot of good men for little direct gain to the civilian Canadian public? Yes. There's no arguing that fact. Does the military benefit immensely from every action it takes part in? Absolutely. Were Afghanistan and the Afghan people people better off, even if only in the short term? I'm sure some would argue it, but my experience talking to people who were there is yes. Did anyone expect Afghanistan would solve the crisis in the middle east, eliminate extremist anti-west sentiment and usher in an era of peace for all mankind? No.

The only other point I'd like to make is this: don't presume to tell soldiers that they've "wasted" their lives or their time. Some may think so, some may not. But unless you're currently wearing a uniform and participated in their deployments, who are you to dictate that no value has been gained? I've seen so many people hide politics behind empathy for soldiers. "Bring our men and women home." Well, why? Don't bring them home just for the sake of bringing them home. If you disagree with the mission, that's a political issue and should be addressed by the political venues, but soldiers don't want you bringing them home just because you think they should be home. People join the military knowing they're going away, knowing their job is to be the physical manifestation of the political will of the nation. They aren't pawns to be used for political gain. If you have a reason why we should or shouldn't be engaged in the specific operations, debate it, protest it, do whatever you want, but don't make soldiers your reason. When I was in, we fuckin' hated that. With a passion. We knew what we were getting into, and we were there doing out job, we didn't want to be fodder for debates back home. I signed on the dotted line to lay down my life for my country, don't nullify my commitment or the sacrifices my brothers made by saying we're "wasting our lives". This is what we signed up for, we're not "wasting" anything. Would you tell a firefighter that died in a fire that they wasted their life? Of course not, it's insulting and belittling. What makes some peacenik qualified to say that a given life was "a waste"? It's a waste if you believe there was no benefit derived, but I don't get to judge the value of your life and actions, why should you judge mine?

I guess my point is if you want to discuss the mission, discuss the mission and leave the soldiers out of it unless you're engaged in an act of remembrance. And if it is an act of remembrance, leave the politics of what we should or shouldn't have done to another time.

That's all I'm saying on the subject. I've lost a few good friends in military operations over the years, and it really grinds my gears to hear people talk about them as "wasted". If you feel so compelled to call other people's death "a waste", then perhaps you should look at how you're spending your life. If you died today, would your death be any more valuable?

Thank you for a well thought through and eloquent post. it is a rarity here on Terb. Sadly, I cannot match your post in eloquence, but I will respond anyway.

I do not believe that the canadian military need realistic training in warfare, and anyway, it surely cannot be a reason for sending soldiers to fight in far away places. Canada has no need to project military power around the globe like the US has, and indeed, I believe Canada could do a better service to the world by not getting involved in wars in far away places. A "coast guard" would be my wish.

I believe that no person anywhere on the planet deserve to have his life snuffed out, but has a right to life and the pursuit of happiness. There are tribal areas in far away places, where people kill each other, but there is notyhing we can do about that, except participating in the killing and thus making the situation worse. I believe Iraq and Afghanistan are recent examples of that. It saddens me in particular, when young canadian men and women are killed in far away places, and I do not think politiciens should have the right to send young people to die, even if they have signed on the dotted line, and are paid for it.

I understand your aversion to the word "waste". Like the women who died on Mount Everest, maybe the soldiers died doing what they wanted to do. I do find the deaths unnecessary and preventable.