The United States will increase the number of American military trainers in Afghanistan by 800 in the next six months, an increase of nearly 25 percent of the current level.
Lt. Gen. William Caldwell explained to reporters that the planned reduction in combat troops requires an increase in trainers, without elaborating on the real difference between the two. There are reportedly 3,300 US trainers currently in Afghanistan, and another 1,800 international trainers.
Afghan security forces are tentatively scheduled to take over responsibility for national security by 2014, the year some say will see an exit of all international combat troops. But after ten years of training Afghans, at an annual cost of $6 billion, not a single Afghan army battalion can operate without assistance from US or allied units.
Two of the approximately 180 Afghan National Army battalions are consider by Lt. Gen. Caldwell to operate “independently.” But when pressed by reporters, Caldwell admitted that even these two “independent” battalions still require US support for their maintenance, logistics, intelligence support, and medical systems.
Additionally, the US-supported local militias tasked with helping to transition from NATO security to Afghan security have been committing atrocious human rights abuses. In March 2011, General Petraeus told the US Senate that the Afghan Local Police are “arguably the most critical element in our effort to help Afghanistan develop the capacity to secure itself,” yet they are known to have committed “serious abuses, such as killings, rape, arbitrary detention, abductions, forcible land grabs, and illegal raids.”
Caldwell estimated US trainers would be need in Afghanistan until 2017, although some have estimated even a significant drawdown of combat troops at 2024.
Given the above, optimistic assessments from the Pentagon and positive rhetoric from politicians about withdrawing in the foreseeable future seem to be more politically motivated towards the next election season than accurate appraisals.
"…more politically motivated towards the next election season…" Now that is an understatement of epic proportions. We haven't gotten a straight appraisal from the military since before the expedition to Afghanistan began. Why would one possibly think they would change their policy regarding providing the American public with the truth now?
Will the US-trained Afghan army be as, ahem, successful as the US-trained US Army?
I recall (was it MGen Moore?) telling an interviewer after the Falklands War ended that the Brits viewed the Argentine army as American-influenced and they knew how to beat the US Army.
Uh, huh. Now, Oblahblah can announce with pride that 800 troops will be withdrawn. I believe this game of deception is called "re-branding" – The USan imperialists leave the Nazis behind. No wonder Hitler was jealous of the US power of propaganda.
"Trainers", eh? Seems some asian country was blessed with the likes of these before. Hmmmmm?
Shades of MACV, much? We all know what a resounding success that turned out to be.
Why isn't the Afghan Army ready to fight? Why is it that the Taliban can take Joe Farmboy and turn him into a fast-moving deadly killer with virtually no resources yet we can't train a platoon of Afghan infantry? I don't see it as an Afghan failure at all- it's a failure of the US trainers.
You can take anyone- ANYONE- and in a matter of weeks teach them basic soldiering. How do we know this? Take a look at WW2 and the millions of draftees we put in uniform in a very short amount of time and then sent them to fight in the Pacific or Europe on land, sea, and air.
The Marines put a raw recruit through Basic Training in a matter of three months- the longest basic training of our military- and he comes out the other end as a hard-charging rifleman who knows how to obey orders and follow a leader. He then goes to school for say, Infantry, and some weeks later he's a hard-charging rifleman who knows how to shoot, move, and communicate on the battlefield- and in some cases, these young men are already being groomed for leadership positions. In short, he's gone from zero to Marine in a matter of a few short months and is ready to be deployed anywhere in the world into a combat zone.
Why, then, is it so hard to do the same with young men from ANY part of the world? It's not. Anyone's son will do, and armies the world over take them in and turn them into soldiers every day of the year. If we- with all our resources and knowledge and training techniques and institutional knowledge of soldiering- can't take raw recruits and get them into fighting shape it's not their fault- it's ours, and we are doing them a grave disservice by half-stepping on prepping them for the battlefield we want them to fight on. I'm sure we're not asking them to go from the hood to operating a drone or flying a helicopter in a matter of days; even a child can learn how to shoot and field-strip an AK-74 in a few hours. (This last we already know, given that we give money and political cover to our African warlord buddies who use children as soldiers in their tribal wars).