It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:18 PM

Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The leading Senate Democrat on military matters said Sunday that President Barack Obama's anticipated plan for significantly expanding U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan must show how those reinforcements will help increase the size of the Afghan security forces.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that more Afghan army and police are central to succeeding in the 8-year-old war and more U.S. trainers and equipment can help meet that goal. But it's unclear, Levin said, what role tens of thousands additional combat troops will play and Oba
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:18 PM
Well I for one agree with it.

You see the military is much like any other aid company.

We fight poverty in africa by throwing money at it, that doesn't work.

To fight terrorism we just assume that more troops is better, however, if there is no actual plan for those troops and we continue the status quo with larger numbers, nothing will change.

We need to involve the Afghan security forces and make sure they know their duty and have the tools to fight his war with us, not just stay on the sidelines as extras.

Operation stand behind the brown guy should be over now.

A standstill exists right now and major reform is required to win the war, if they actually want to win it, which I think they don't.

I've got a real problem about expanding this war where the rest of the world is sitting around and saying, 'Isn't it a nice thing that the taxpayers of the United States and the U.S. military are doing the work that the rest of the world should be doing?'" said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent.

In regards to that statement, the US are the ones who wanted to start or end this conflict so it only makes sense that they pay for it. You can't start a war, screw it up and then blame on non participation from other NATO countries.

They want to stay as far away from this fiasco as possible and I for one don't blame them.


(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11/29/2009 by tothetenthpower]

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:34 PM
The soviets tried to prop up their puppets forces too, it failed. They also kept deploying more troops, up to several hundred thousand as I recall.

Those who sided with the occupier were traitors and targeted for death. Most of the soviet trained forced abandon their posts rather than kill their fellow countrymen.

Besides that there is overwhelming rejection of the US policies in that region.
A poll shown on CNN just now asked the Pakistanis:
"Who do you think is the greatest threat to Pakistan?"
Unites States 59%
Taliban 11%

With opinions like that its clear the US has totally failed to persuade the Pakistanis into not supporting the violent expulsion of the occupier next door.. the taliban are seen as freedom fighters, US troops are the terrorists.

If Congress was interested in stopping the senseless killing, which they are not, they could read "Afghanistan: The Problems of Creating a New Afghan Army." which goes into historical / tribal reasons no occupier, or leader seen as a puppet, will ever succeed in pacifying Afghanistan. History has many valuable lessons US leaders are too arrogant to learn from.

When the soviets left they were not followed home by the taliban, despite being next door.. we could leave tomorrow, end the killing, and save lots of $$.

The Problems of Creating a New Afghan army – and the critical dangers of failure!

"The number of troops and militiamen under the control of warlords big and small is estimated at 200,000-250,000"

"Atta Mohammed, the Tajik warlord of Northern Afghanistan, has been appointed general in charge of the 7th Army; while Hazrat Ali has been appointed commander of No 1 Army Corps. The fact that some warlords are being favoured over others might on the one hand guarantee a greater homogeneity of the new army, but at the same time is bound to make the opposition to it permanent among the factions discriminated against."

"..the warlords seem to be in no hurry to demobilise their own troops and relinquish control over them. In order to convince civilians to enlist in the new army and meet the quotas assigned to each province, local recruiters resorted to false promises of salaries much higher and conditions of service much better than the real ones. "

new topics

log in