Afghan Police say 'No More US Troops!'

KABUL -- Police officials from some of Afghanistan's most violent regions questioned the need for more American troops, saying it would increase the perception that the U.S. is an occupying power and that the money would be better spent on local forces.

www.military.com...

"It is very hard for local people to accept any foreigners who come to our country and say they are fighting for our freedom," said Gen. Azizudin Wardak, the police chief in Paktia province. "To give the idea that they are not invaders, that they are not occupiers, is very difficult."

You know what, this sounds really clear. An Afghani is telling the US exactly what we've already known for over twenty years. The US is seen as an occupying force. The people of the country that we have occupied do not like that. It doesn't mater if it's Afghanistan, Iraq, or any OTHER country.

"Increasing international troops is not useful," he said. "For the expense of one American soldier, we can pay for 15 Afghan soldiers or police."

The top U.S. and NATO spokesman in Afghanistan, Adm. Gregory Smith, agreed that Afghan forces would be key to defeating the Taliban. But he added that the "major way forward" was to partner international troops with Afghan ones on a day-to-day basis, and not simply for the West to train Afghan forces and send them out on their own.

And here is The US talking head putting his usual spin on it and completely ignoring the will of the occupied nation.

And what do the Afghanis really think?

According to a July survey by the U.S.-funded International Republican Institute, 52 percent of Afghans believe the country was less stable that it was a year ago - up from 43 percent in May, when the new troops had only just begun to arrive. The survey, which interviewed 2,400 Afghan adults, had a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

Interesting points and very good to hear from the Afghan police stating that they are willing and ready to take on this stuff themselves. He's right, as well, asbout the economics of it.

woah, just had a flashback. Rome was invading other countries tryng to impose order and civilization to the world, they extended quite far, but then they could not hold their ground effectively because they spread themselves too thin. A plague hit the core of Rome. They pulled the troops back to protect the mother land as their government crumbled in disrepair. Rome fell among onslaughts of "barbarians". (perhaps debatable what happened to the architects of that empire).

sorry.. had to type that down while the neurons were fresh.

reply to post by rogerstigers


I don't think you are too far off with your comparison, Roger. We are incredibly overextended and arrogant.

We don't seem to ever learn.