• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dutch to pull troops out of Aghanistan following government collapse

Do you

If you do in a war zone that would mean Vietnam (another wonderful success)

Vietnam is more of a communist state now than it was before. Just like Afghanistan will be more of a terrorist ****hole after the US leave than before. Afganistan is a war that cannot be won.
Even if the US stayed a whole generation they would be unable to indoctrinate these people with a new mindset. Perhaps 2 or 3 generations COULD do it.
 
If we're not going to institute democratic reforms or ensure that the country is no longer a haven for terrorists, then why did we bother going in in the first place? If the only standard we're using is whether they had an Afghan army, then they were a success before we even got there.

Creating a democracy was not what I was questioning

Creating a democracy that is stable and effective is going to take a long time

Creating an effective army should not take 7 years, or 20 years.
 
Creating a democracy was not what I was questioning

Creating a democracy that is stable and effective is going to take a long time

Creating an effective army should not take 7 years, or 20 years.

So given that you're the expert on this, why don't you tell us how long it should have taken? Can you explain what the coalition troops did wrong, and how they should have done things differently?
 
So given that you're the expert on this, why don't you tell us how long it should have taken? Can you explain what the coalition troops did wrong, and how they should have done things differently?

Gee lets see

Canada was able to field an effective army a large one mind you within a few short months during WW1. Far over 90% of the people Canada sent to war in WW1 would have been drafted specifically for that war and having no military experience before that.

So for Afghanistan, if it took more the 2 years after the fall of the Taliban then something would be drastically wrong dont you think. Given that so far after 7 years the Afghani Army can not be fielded on its own to take on the Taliba would or at least should indicate that training has been horribly ineffective or insufficient

As for what that could be.

I understand they have subcontracte training to groups like XE corp, paying for the recruit, with little regard for quality of the recruit apon finishing training. So XE corp will care little if the recruit stays for any lenght of time. Also and more importantly, it appears that motivation of the Afghani army is severly lacking. To me that means that most recruits dont feel they are fighting for Afghanistan, but the foreigner militaries in Afghanistan. Drop out rates would be far less then they are if they felt they were fighting for Afghanistan rather then the US military.

Which means, it should be Afghanis training the Afghani army (the Taliban seem to do a reasonable job training, I cant see why other Afghanis couldnt. Lastly ensure that any and all paychecks are signed sealed and delivered by Afghanis to the Afghani soldiers
 
Creating a democracy was not what I was questioning

Creating a democracy that is stable and effective is going to take a long time

Creating an effective army should not take 7 years, or 20 years.

In Afghanistan its going to take this much time. Afghanis are a nations of clans and tribes. They do not even trust each other. Id wager the recruits/soldiers see a NATO force in a better light than that of an opposing Afghan tribe as far leadership and training.Same holds true for the locals these recruits must interact with as they become more experienced.

Effective is the key word here. A bunch of illiterate know nothings with guns and helmets do not an effective army make. Add to the fact the EU countries supposedly contributing to the war are mostly doing so in token fashion and you get what you have now,an ever more US dominated effort. Is it any wonder the IA/IP has become effective while ANA languishes in limbo? Not really.

The dutch..let them go.
 
Gee lets see

Canada was able to field an effective army a large one mind you within a few short months during WW1. Far over 90% of the people Canada sent to war in WW1 would have been drafted specifically for that war and having no military experience before that.

Yes, and Canada in 1910 and Afghanistan in 2001 are perfectly analogous.
 
Back
Top Bottom