4 ms·
>It’s true that the Afghan Army lost its will to fight. But that’s because of the growing sense of abandonment by our American partners and the disrespect and d
by michaelmrose 5y ago
>It’s true that the Afghan Army lost its will to fight. But that’s because of the growing sense of abandonment by our American partners and the disrespect and disloyalty reflected in Mr. Biden’s tone and words over the past few months.
They had 300k men and an air force after 20 years bulding up their nation and training their forces.
They didn't lose the will to fight because of us. Most of them never had it because the people who they were being asked to fight were their uncles, cousins, and brothers and they had little loyalty to their fledgling state. This is utterly unworthy of the new York times and sufficient reason to cancel my subscription.
- google234123 5y agoI wonder if they will enjoy being ruled by their "uncles, cousins, and brothers"...
- baobabKoodaa 5y agoI know you are being sarcastic, but many of them probably will.
- LurkingPenguin 5y agoFrom the article: > The Afghan forces were trained by the Americans using the U.S. military model based on highly technical special reconnaissance units, helicopters and airstrikes. We lost our superiority to the Taliban when our air support dried up and our ammunition ran out. > Contractors maintained our bombers and our attack and transport aircraft throughout the war. By July, most of the 17,000 support contractors had left. A technical issue now meant that aircraft — a Black Hawk helicopter, a C-130 transport, a surveillance drone — would be grounded. > The contractors also took proprietary software and weapons systems with them. They physically removed our helicopter missile-defense system. Access to the software that we relied on to track our vehicles, weapons and personnel also disappeared. Real-time intelligence on targets went out the window, too. > The Taliban fought with snipers and improvised explosive devices while we lost aerial and laser-guided weapon capacity. And since we could not resupply bases without helicopter support, soldiers often lacked the necessary tools to fight. Under these conditions, what would you expect members of the Afghan army to do? You are correct that in some cases, surrenders were arranged due to family and tribal considerations. But anyone with a modest understanding of Afghan society and culture could have predicted this so it boggles the mind that the US, after 20 years, seemed utterly clueless about how Afghanistan works.
- michaelmrose 5y agoThey had could have fought an indefinite holding action if they had the will. They had the men and guns.
- hindsightbias 5y agoThe Taliban sure do not seem to be completely devoid of agency without an air force.
- LurkingPenguin 5y agoSo you spend over a decade and billions upon billions of dollars building up an "army" that's totally dependent on US military assets and then you take them away and say "Well, you've still got some assault rifles and bullets! Good luck!"? If this was the strategy all along, Afghanistan is an even bigger embarrassment to the US. Graveyard of empires indeed.
- zozbot234 5y agoModern armies are totally dependent on air support as a force multiplier, that's just the way it is. Of course you can fight without air support, but why would you want to, when you can get it?
- hasperdi 5y agoAccording to several articles on the topic, 300K is on paper only. For instance, many commanders created fake records to then pocket the money for themselves. Another mention example, some men joined the military, to then desert, sell their uniform and then join again.
- hypothesis 5y agoIf faking records was so easy and desertion/rejoining was possible, then, for all you know, you might have been training actual TB supporters…
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]