5 ms·

What makes you think they don’t get the same amount from the Gulf? Only US and NATO provided military assistance. Others like India invested billions in constr

What makes you think they don’t get the same amount from the Gulf? Only US and NATO provided military assistance. Others like India invested billions in constructive projects like Salma dam.

rightbyte 5y ago
What would the talibans do with the money? It is quite obvious the Afghan army has a more expensive operation than talibans with rifles and pickups. I guess the Afghan army should have focused more on quality than size to be able to afford talanted soldiers.
- godelmachine 5y ago
  I don’t think that’s a valid question. What would they do with money? Buy more weapons, I guess? Invest in training. Hire more recruits.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Both you and the parent poster are missing the forest through the trees. The failure is not in money, training, or conscription. The failure is in not giving the army any reason to fight. If you don't give a rat's ass about your cause, and there's a serious possibility of defeat, why would you keep fighting? The problem is that in twenty years, the coalition-supported government failed to make enough of its constituents give a rat's ass about their cause. They might not like the Taliban much, but they seem to prefer to live under them, than die for what is perceived as a corrupt, self-serving, ineffective government.
    - THINkttwICE 5y ago
      Exactly this.
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      Ye well I agree. It is still astonishing how the army could collapse in this way. I guess the general staff more or less folded in some agreement with the Talibans. There should have been plenty of reports of artillery shelling with civilian causalities otherwise. Some kind of blood bath when high ranking officers have their backs against the wall. > If you don't give a rat's ass about your cause, and there's a serious possibility of defeat, why would you keep fighting? Keep fighting? My understanding is that there was no serious effort to fight from the army's side.

What makes you think they don’t get the same amount from the Gulf? Only US and NATO provided military assistance. Others like India invested billions in constructive projects like Salma dam.

rightbyte 5y ago

What would the talibans do with the money? It is quite obvious the Afghan army has a more expensive operation than talibans with rifles and pickups. I guess the Afghan army should have focused more on quality than size to be able to afford talanted soldiers.

godelmachine 5y ago
I don’t think that’s a valid question. What would they do with money? Buy more weapons, I guess? Invest in training. Hire more recruits.
- vkou 5y ago
  Both you and the parent poster are missing the forest through the trees. The failure is not in money, training, or conscription. The failure is in not giving the army any reason to fight. If you don't give a rat's ass about your cause, and there's a serious possibility of defeat, why would you keep fighting? The problem is that in twenty years, the coalition-supported government failed to make enough of its constituents give a rat's ass about their cause. They might not like the Taliban much, but they seem to prefer to live under them, than die for what is perceived as a corrupt, self-serving, ineffective government.
  - THINkttwICE 5y ago
    Exactly this.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    Ye well I agree. It is still astonishing how the army could collapse in this way. I guess the general staff more or less folded in some agreement with the Talibans. There should have been plenty of reports of artillery shelling with civilian causalities otherwise. Some kind of blood bath when high ranking officers have their backs against the wall. > If you don't give a rat's ass about your cause, and there's a serious possibility of defeat, why would you keep fighting? Keep fighting? My understanding is that there was no serious effort to fight from the army's side.