Afghanistan forces shrinking
Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post which reports that, as the US reduces it’s numbers of troops in Afghanistan, the Afghan Army and Police forces seem to be shrinking, too;
The top U.S. watchdog for Afghanistan highlighted the trend in a report to Congress released Tuesday. The number of troops in the Afghan army shrunk from 184,839 to 169,203 between fall 2013 and fall 2014, the smallest number since August 2011, according to John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).
U.S. Forces-Afghanistan reported that the number of Afghan police was up 3,122 to 156,439 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, but SIGAR questioned whether some of those police had been counted twice and said the actual number may be closer to 151,272. That would amount to a decrease of 2,045 in one quarter.
“Attrition continues to be a major challenge for the ANSF. Between September 2013 and September 2014, more than 40,000 personnel were dropped from ANA rolls,” SIGAR said in the report, using acronyms for the Afghan National Security Forces and Afghan National Army. “Moreover, the ANA continues to suffer serious combat losses. Between October 2013 and September 2014, more than 1,300 ANA personnel were killed in action (KIA) and 6,200 were wounded in action (WIA).”
Maybe they’re just confused by the President’s plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. He wasn’t really clear that he wanted to reduce just US presence. But seriously, as US troop reductions continue, the US troops are more dependent on the Afghans for their own security. When folks settled on Afghan troop numbers, I guess they didn’t take into account that there would be casualties associated with their increased participation in combat operations.
Category: Terror War
Didn’t the same thing happen in Iraq? As we left and the Iraqi’s were tasked with more and more of the combat, they simply went home. The paycheck aint all that great when you are having to earn it under fire and your officers are skimming some off the top.
These are tribal cultures and their loyalty to the central government is not strong. Government does not take care of you, your tribe does. Simple as that.
Yep, you’re right.
Once the U.S. left and they realized they had to do the heavy lifting and make sacrifices, a majority of them said, “Fuck that!” and dropped their gear and weapons in place.
Same thing is happening in Afghanistan.
It’ll only get worse.
Yes, but it was worse. As soon as US forces left in 2011 Nouri al-Maliki ordered an arrest warrant for the Sunni vice president and replaced most of the Sunni officers in the Iraqi Army.
So without senior Sunni commanders, many Sunni troops also left.
So it was a Shia led army that faced the Sunni ISIS advance while based at predominantly Sunni communities, most of which revolted against the Shia army garrisons as ISIS advanced on the town.
No wonder so many Iraqi units retreated. Though apparently some fought until they ran out of ammunition which is part of the reason some units were captured.
Not a valid comparison.
We haven’t left Afghanistan yet. I predict much the same will happen there if/when we do – except there will be more players, since there are at least 7 major ethnic groupings in Afghanistan that don’t much care for each other (Pashtun, Hazara, Uzbek, Tajik, Baloch, Turkmen, and Nuristani; I’m intentionally leaving out Krgyyz and Pashai because they’re relatively smaller). Each of those groups is also primarily tribal internally.
There’s a fairly good reason the region today called Afghanistan hasn’t known much peace since well before the days of Alexander the Great. In my view it’s a relatively unstable mixture of competing tribal cultures that’s only peaceful when one of those groups (or an outside power) dominates the region and imposes a conqueror’s peace via Draconian means.
I was not making a comparison. I was just responding to the “Didn’t the same thing happen in Iraq?” comment and elaborating on what happened in Iraq.
I personally do not think we are leaving Afghanistan. Not anytime soon.
Afghanistan is certainly significantly different than Iraq. In many way it is more fragile than Iraq.
Like you point out; multiple ethnic groups, extremely tribal, and no institutional memory of a single a functioning nation and no cultural memory of unity among the population.
We simply cannot leave any time soon unless we are willing to choose to allow Afghanistan to collapse into factionalism and civil war again.
Actually, your words above were an agreement with the previous comment, with the caveat that things went worse when we left Iraq. Formulating and making that statement requires you to have compared the two situations.
You did indeed compare Iraq in 2011 with Afghanistan today and in the near future. You had to to make the statement you did. Moreover, below you explicitly identify your comment above as comparing Iraq and Afghanistan.
Don’t p!ss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Now, regarding your statement (referring to Afghanistan) that we “simply cannot leave any time soon . . . . ” Why not? The current Administration chose to leave Iraq when we didn’t need to do so – they could indeed have negotiated a SOFA to leave a reduced US presence behind. Why is Afghanistan so much more important? It seems to me that Iraq is clearly more important to both regional stability in the ME and countering terrorism than is Afghanistan due to it’s natural resources and location – but you seem to feel differently.
Care to explain?
First, my comment was not in agreement to the above comment. My comment was an answer to this question “Didn’t the same thing happen in Iraq?”
So don’t piss on your own leg and claim I am doing it.
Second, regarding “simply cannot leave any time soon . . . . ”
My full statement was:
“We simply cannot leave any time soon unless we are willing to choose to allow Afghanistan to collapse into factionalism and civil war again.”
So “why not” is not a valid question. Since I never said we could not. I said we could not UNLESS we are willing to accept the consequences I listed.
So if you want to claim we are willing to accept those consequences that is fine. I do not think the administration is. They saw the consequences of pulling out of Iraq. And Afghanistan is significantly less stable than Iraq was.
Horsecrap, Lars. Your first sentence in that comment was, and I quote: “Yes, but Iraq was worse.” “Yes” indicates an agreement with at least some part of the previous comment. Since you did not indicate any parts with which you disagreed, a reasonable interpretation is that you agreed with all of it. The next clause in that sentence – “but Iraq was worse” – can only be interpreted as indicating you had already mentally compared the two situations. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise. Combine the two, and you have (1) agreement with the previous, plus (2) indication of comparison. That is precisely what I noted above, and which you have now denied – twice. The rest of us can only read your written words, not your mind. If what you wrote wasn’t what you actually intended to say, “man up” and admit you misspoke. Don’t try to redefine the obvious meaning of your own words a posteriori instead. Now, regarding the second part of your comment here. As written above, the context should render the intent of my “why not” question eminently clear to anyone with a 3rd grade reading comprehension; I suspect you’re being deliberately obtuse. However, since you seem to require an explanation to “get it”, I’ll give you one. The obvious intent of the “why not” question was, “Why can’t we accept a chaotic Afghanistan?” Or, more precisely: “Is forcibly maintaining stability in an area of no real US strategic interest and having neither strategic location nor resources (like Afghanistan) worth the time, lives, and treasure necessary for the US to attempt to force stability upon it against the wishes of the local population?” Doing so in Iraq is at least arguably worthwhile, due to (1) Iraq’s strategic location, (2) Iraq’s natural resources (oil), and (3) US interests in the stability of the region (Persian Gulf/ME). However, that does not imply that Afghanistan is similarly worthy of a similar US commitment. One can make an argument that it is – maybe. All you’ve done here is assert that the Administration will take that path. Try again,… Read more »
Like I said the “yes” was in response to this question:
“Didn’t the same thing happen in Iraq?”
and if you reread that post you will see that the entire content of that post was answering that specific question.
And as I’ve said now, twice: if that is the case, your actual reply did not match your intent. If you intended to agree only in part with a previous comment, you should have qualified your response. The proverbial “reasonable man” takes an unqualified “yes” as complete agreement, not partial.
Sheesh. You’re acting just like a 4 year old caught with cookie crumbs on their shirt after mommie’s warned them to leave the cookies alone, they ate one anyway, and got caught.
Admitting an error isn’t the end of the world, and is nothing to be ashamed of; everybody errs or misspeaks at times. Being too stubborn to admit an obvious error, on the other hand . . . .
My response might have not been initially clear. But when I explained that my response was intended as an answer to the question “Didn’t the same thing happen in Iraq” i found it a little surprising and frustrating that you claimed otherwise.
Regardless of whether people agree with me or whether I am wrong on most subjects on this board; I think we can agree that I am the world’s premier subject matter expert on what I meant to say in a post, and when I clarified my meaning to better indicate the information I intended to convey it was a surprise to me to find myself debating with someone on what exactly I meant to say.
You waste your time on a response.
You could be drinking.
Much like Lars.
Afghanistan is not more important geopolitically.
However, the consequences of the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent pull out resulted the mergence of what in LTC John Nagle (ret) the largest and best funded terrorist organization in history (ISIS).
The future costs, expended political capital, and consequences of dealing with ISIS internationally is going to be immense.
Afghanistan is more than 80% Sunni. The costs of maintaining Afghan stability and not risking an Afghan collapse is low in comparison to the costs of creating new fertile ground for recruitment and territory for an emerging Sunni Caliphate.
the mergence of what LTC John Nagle (ret) called “the largest and best funded terrorist organization in history (ISIS).”
Fixed. Screwed up when I tried to provide the attribution to the description of ISIS.
*emergence
words are hard.
I interpreted the question “Didn’t the same thing happen in Iraq?” as a rhetorical one.
yeah, it was probably rhetorical. But having just attended a presentation on what happened in Iraq after the US withdrawal I interpreted the post as a legitimate question since I had just participated in a lengthy discussion on the issue the evening prior.
These people have no regard for living in a land of law and order … I see no reason to spend US blood and treasure on these goat herders.
Yeah, well apparently we are going to.
Funny that. When I said that we need to let an Islamic, or Arab coalition handle this on the ground I was attacked by some on this board.
I guess liberals are not allowed to be against putting troops on the ground again. Though I do think we need to be willing to provide advisors to increase the effectiveness of Iraqi command and control, and also we need to provide intelligence, air, and naval gun support.
Shit. Because my last post was a comparison to Iraq. I mistakenly responded to your post as though you were talking about Iraq.
My bad. I was referring to Iraq. Ignore my post.
As for Afghanistan. We are not pulling out. Not any time soon. We will be there for a long time to come most likely.
Anyone surprised?
I am surprised the numbers are as high as they have been reported.
Not at all Hondo. You cannot drag a people, tribe or religious faction into the 21st century. Just not going to happen. Afghanistan like Iraq has been trained and advised out the ass for too long now, not to able to secure their own nations. I mean how much f’ing training can you give the same guys? IF…they choose to secure a free nation for themselves. That is the problem. They will NEVER choose to. They care more about their tribe or religious faction to even talk about any peace, much less fight for freedom. So, let them have what they are willing to fight and die for and no more. It’s all any nation deserves. If they want to live in their current mindset, let them. Just make it clear if they export their shit beyond their borders, we’ll come back. Not to advise one side or the other any longer but from the air first and then mop up the remainder. I’m done with America spending lives, blood and dollars to try to get these ass holes to see the upside of a free nation for all.
Addendum. Like Iran who lives in a theocratic system of government so will go Iraq and Afghanistan. I say okay. But have the balls which our present administration has none of, to say live as you choose. But…no nuclear weapons and no exporting your shit elsewhere. We will always fight Islamic terrorism even initiated and supported by nations like Iran. Until we have a President who will call our friends our friends and our enemies our enemies, we will be the impotent mess the world sees us as now. Obama would rather have another North Korea in the Mid East with Iran than make the hard decisions to hold their feet to the fire and force them to stop. I don’t pretend to know the answers. I think starting talks with Iran and if need be forcing them to the table to require inspection and dismantling of any nuke weapons programs is a first step. But the “forcing them to the table part” is not what the Wimp In Chief has in him. As long as Iran dictates their own bullshit to us, they are making headway every day towards a deliverable nuke in the Mid East. First target? Israel. When Obama quietly orders our planes to shoot down IDF air power heading across Iraq to Iran, he makes pretty clear who’s side he’s on and who he likes the most. I’d rather fight an open Muslim terrorist, head on, weapon in hand than be wary of the closet Muslim, believing the same and living next door. Or, in the White House. IMHO.
Not in the slightest. I predicted it, as well as Iraq going to hell once we disengaged.
Besides the Sunni vs. Shia issue in Iraq, and the various tribes and ethnic groups in Afg, in my opinion there is not one single muslim country that produces skilled, brave, or smart soldiers. None of them. So no matter how much money and effort we put into these armies and “police forces,” they will never be able to stand up to a determined insurgency….ISIS, Taliban, or what have you.
Afg is primitive and has nothing to offer us or the world. Let them continue to fight amongst themselves and live in the 7th century as they seem inclined to. Not another penny or American life for that place.
Why are we still there? This (lack of) administration frequently breaks its word, so that question is worth asking.
I wouldn’t call it Us depending on them for security, its more like letting them do their jobs so when we are gone they can do it. And at least we don’t have to worry about ISIS taking over Afghanistan, as no one in the history of ever has really been to successful at that. And of course the number of ANA and ANP causalities are going to go up as our numbers go down, they are doing more of their jobs now because we are doing much less of it for them. The people in Afghanistan care alot more about what happens to their country then the people in Iraq did (except the Kurds those guys were pretty awesome).
Why do we continue to embrace the illusion that Afghanistan is a nation and that it can maintain an army? The concept of nationalism is totally foreign to them. They are a collection of tribes and the only thing they have in common is religion. I’m not sure that the different tribes even share a common language. They don’t even recognize their own national borders. Personally, I don’t care if the Taliban kills every one of them. Destroy what little infrastructure remains and leave them to eat their own dead. Afghanistan is a graveyard. Leave them to it.
They speak four languages there, Pashto, Dari, Farsi and Urdu. That Country has MAYBE a thirty percent literacy rate, and of those that are literate, most have about a second or third grade education level. The majority are Pashto, and yes, family and tribal affiliations come first. Maybe it’s just time to leave them in the Stone Age they seem to want to live in!
How about this: Declare the whole land terra nullius. In other words, this land formerly known as Afghanistan belongs to whoever wants to claim it. Then leave them the hell alone. That’s the way they want it. Well, they get it. And I don’t like it any more than you people. ;o)
Somehow, this video seems appropriate: