Topaz Posted October 18, 2007 Report Posted October 18, 2007 Col.Thomas McGarth, has said that the training of the Afghan army and police is going so well, that by late spring of 2008 the US and NATO will be able to turn over the job to the Afghans. So, that being say, Canada won't have to be there as combat mode, so Harper cancel the panel that you hired and consider this a freebe!!!! BTW, I found this a a US military website. Can someone tell McKay and Bernier??? Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 18, 2007 Report Posted October 18, 2007 Col.Thomas McGarth, has said that the training of the Afghan army and police is going so well, that by late spring of 2008 the US and NATO will be able to turn over the job to the Afghans. So, that being say, Canada won't have to be there as combat mode, so Harper cancel the panel that you hired and consider this a freebe!!!! BTW, I found this a a US military website. Can someone tell McKay and Bernier??? Not unles you can include the addy of the site you say...... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Topaz Posted October 18, 2007 Author Report Posted October 18, 2007 Not unles you can include the addy of the site you say...... No sweat, www.iava.org its run by former US service people. The only problem now is Harper will tell Bush and their plans to extend the war could be threaten. Quote
Alexandra Posted October 18, 2007 Report Posted October 18, 2007 Col.Thomas McGarth, has said that the training of the Afghan army and police is going so well, that by late spring of 2008 the US and NATO will be able to turn over the job to the Afghans. So, that being say, Canada won't have to be there as combat mode, so Harper cancel the panel that you hired and consider this a freebe!!!! BTW, I found this a a US military website. Can someone tell McKay and Bernier??? NOWHERE in Co. McGrath's briefing does he state that the Afghan army is doing so well that by late spring of 2008 NATO will be able to turn over the job to the Afghans. This is what Col. McGrath did state in his briefing: http://uscavonpoint.com/articles2/Article.aspx?id=6963 NOWHERE did the Col. make the comments you, Topaz, attribute to him with respect to the progress of training of the Afghan Army; this is what the Col. did state: "We'll maintain our momentum during the upcoming winter by continuing ANA training, ANP training, that's Afghan National Army, Afghan National Policy training. And sometime probably after the Spring we're expecting independent brigade-sized operations by the Afghan National Army." and,"We just completed a corps-sized training exercise, led by the Brits under Maj Gen Jack O’Page, that was a huge success, a big step forward for the corps. We assisted the Afghans in the development and execution of independent combat operations. And the Afghan commanders and the staff performed brilliantly. We just went through a regular military decision-making process, command post exercise type event, and it went along really well. The ANA is very aggressive. We said before, they're fearless. They're not afraid to engage the enemy in combat and they're not afraid to put their lives at risk. Coupled with the fact that we're teaching the senior leadership and mid-level leadership to operate at a higher level by doing corps-sized exercises, brigade-sized exercises, is a very good thing and gives me a lot of optimism." Read the whole report of the briefing Topaz then explain to me how and why you would again totally misconstrue what actually took place. ` Quote
old_bold&cold Posted October 18, 2007 Report Posted October 18, 2007 A quick look, gives quick answers, seldom does this give real answers or even true answers. But yes the report is looking bright for as far as training goes, but that probably is no where near the size of military that Afghanistan needs to be seld sufficient. Roughly 80,000 troops were quoted before as being the minimum for the army alone. Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 No sweat, www.iava.org its run by former US service people. The only problem now is Harper will tell Bush and their plans to extend the war could be threaten. Oh so YOU DIDN't find it on a US military site........:angry: Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
myata Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 One observation which is greatly worrying me is this: when Taleban came to power, they started from nothing and it took them, if I recall it correctly, less then 3 years to take control of the entire country. Now contrast this with todays's situation: massive foreign armed presence, massive investment of funds, 5 years down and nowhere near the target (when the new Afgan government would be able to support itself, even if with continuing massive financial support). Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Topaz Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Posted October 19, 2007 NOWHERE in Co. McGrath's briefing does he state that the Afghan army is doing so well that by late spring of 2008 NATO will be able to turn over the job to the Afghans. This is what Col. McGrath did state in his briefing: http://uscavonpoint.com/articles2/Article.aspx?id=6963 NOWHERE did the Col. make the comments you, Topaz, attribute to him with respect to the progress of training of the Afghan Army; this is what the Col. did state: Read the whole report of the briefing Topaz then explain to me how and why you would again totally misconstrue what actually took p Sorry guy, what I read was "Afghan Army could Operate Solo by Spring" written by Christian Lowe for Military .com You must have read another report, so YOU are reading the different report and I accept your apologize. Quote
Army Guy Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) Sorry guy, what I read was "Afghan Army could Operate Solo by Spring" written by Christian Lowe for Military .com You must have read another report, so YOU are reading the different report and I accept your apologize.Good come back, ( alittle bit of sarcasim) "you must have read the wrong report"...do you have a link to the right report. Edited October 19, 2007 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Alexandra Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 Sorry guy, what I read was "Afghan Army could Operate Solo by Spring" written by Christian Lowe for Military .com You must have read another report, so YOU are reading the different report and I accept your apologize. Topaz, this is what you said in your opening post: So, that being say, Canada won't have to be there as combat mode, so Harper cancel the panel that you hired and consider this a freebe!!!! BTW, I found this a a US military website. Can someone tell McKay and Bernier??? ......... You claimed in your second post that you read it on a totally different website from what you now claim you read 'Christian Lowe's article' on the Military.com website. How do you explain that Christian Lowe, in his article on Military.com, is actually paraphrasing Col. McGrath's press briefing which was quoted in its' entirety in the post you are answering? Christopher Lowe states: The commander in charge of training Afghan national army forces and police near Kandahar said Tuesday that country's armed forces should be ready to conduct large-scale operations ....without significant coalition assistance .....or planning by late spring of 2008. http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,152917,00.html Christopher Lowe is citing the SAME situation report by Col. McGrath as I quoted when asking you to provide proof of the Afghan Army being competent enough by spring to allow NATO forces to leave Afghanistan. It is you who should be re-thinking how you present your comments filled with untruths and bias without providing any links to corroborate your posts. Quote
Topaz Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Posted October 19, 2007 Topaz, this is what you said in your opening post: You claimed in your second post that you read it on a totally different website from what you now claim you read 'Christian Lowe's article' on the Military.com website. How do you explain that Christian Lowe, in his article on Military.com, is actually paraphrasing Col. McGrath's press briefing which was quoted in its' entirety in the post you are answering? Christopher Lowe states: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,152917,00.html Christopher Lowe is citing the SAME situation report by Col. McGrath as I quoted when asking you to provide proof of the Afghan Army being competent enough by spring to allow NATO forces to leave Afghanistan. It is you who should be re-thinking how you present your comments filled with untruths and bias without providing any links to corroborate your posts. Now go back and read the very first paragraph were he said they would be ready by late spring of '08!! Quote
Army Guy Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 Actually he said that the Afgan army should be able to conduct independant brigade level operations with little or no support from the coalition forces...Brigade level is only about 5000 troops...no where does it say they are ready to handle operations larger than that. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
weaponeer Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 Actually he said that the Afgan army should be able to conduct independant brigade level operations with little or no support from the coalition forces...Brigade level is only about 5000 troops...no where does it say they are ready to handle operations larger than that. That's because most of these folks on here do not understand the difference between a brigade, army, regiment etc.... Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 That's because most of these folks on here do not understand the difference between a brigade, army, regiment etc.... Oh... Oh.. Oh....I do I do...... A brigade is like a battalion on steroids, whereas a Reg't is like several companies wearing the same colour hat..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
weaponeer Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 Oh... Oh.. Oh....I do I do......A brigade is like a battalion on steroids, whereas a Reg't is like several companies wearing the same colour hat..... Or kilts:)..... Quote
myata Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 That's because most of these folks on here do not understand the difference between a brigade, army, regiment etc.... And why in the world do we need to understand that? One thing is very clear: it's been 6 years and counting and that army is nowhere near being able to conduct all operations on their own. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
ScottSA Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 Or kilts:)..... Don't forget a plantain...they're green too, even if they don't have that many troops in them. Quote
ScottSA Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 And why in the world do we need to understand that? One thing is very clear: it's been 6 years and counting and that army is nowhere near being able to conduct all operations on their own. Ah, so your ignorance is discovered and you switch the criticism 180 degrees? First we should leave because they can do it on their own, and now we should leave because after all this time they can't do it on their own? How do lefties manage to not strangle yourselves in the conceptual bedsheets with all this tossing and turning? Quote
Peter F Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) Ah, so your ignorance is discovered and you switch the criticism 180 degrees? First we should leave because they can do it on their own, and now we should leave because after all this time they can't do it on their own? How do lefties manage to not strangle yourselves in the conceptual bedsheets with all this tossing and turning? Actually you're the one choking. We should leave because they can defend themselves on thier own...it's the pro-interventionists who are suggesting that Afghans can't do it on thier own. Myata is simply pointing out that since corps sized operations are apparently succesfull why is that still not enough? How many divisions do the Taliban have? It would seem the Afghans need a couple of armies trained up to deal with the Taliban who have a hard hanging on to a hill-top. If Corps aren't enough then how many more years to train the Armies? ...besides that, I'm surprised you of all folks want to see us westerners training Muslim armies... Edited October 23, 2007 by Peter F Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
M.Dancer Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Actually you're the one choking. We should leave because they can defend themselves on thier own...it's the pro-interventionists who are suggesting that Afghans can't do it on thier own. Myata is simply pointing out that since corps sized operations are apparently succesfull why is that still not enough? How many divisions do the Taliban have? It would seem the Afghans need a couple of armies trained up to deal with the Taliban who have a hard hanging on to a hill-top.If Corps aren't enough then how many more years to train the Armies? ...besides that, I'm surprised you of all folks want to see us westerners training Muslim armies... The size was a brigade, not a corps..and a division is an ambigous term and not very relevant to the Afghan Amy. A division is made up of various components of arms. A division for the sake of argument could have a few armoured regiments, an infantry brigade, a few mechanized infantry brigades, a few artillery regiments, a hospital corps and an air wing. Or it could be completely different. But back to your first error..... Myata is simply pointing out that since corps (sic) sized operations are apparently succesfull why is that still not enough? A brigade sized operation is no small feat but being able to field a brigade here doesn't mean they can field another somewhere else without help. Their officer corps still need training and so do the men. We should leave because they can defend themselves on thier own They can't at the moment. That's why we are still there. ...besides that, I'm surprised you of all folks want to see us westerners training Muslim armies... troll..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
myata Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 I'll have to point out, one more time, that when Taleban swiped the whole (or by very large margin, most of) the country, they did not have anywhere near as much financial or military help and were successful in half less time. Why? Could it be because the population is still ambivalent toward this new army, and won't rush to enroll? If so, what would happen when we eventually withdraw (and we're going to withdraw, eventually, are we?) How much of the army will desert? switch alliances? abandon the fight? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
weaponeer Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-ana-scond-1.htm Here's a good website with some info. I came home last week after 6 month in Afghanistan, I mean no disrespect to anyone here, but you do not and cannot understand what is going on unless you are there. No media, book or blog can express what is going on. If you do not walk the streets, talk to the people, chew on the dust & dirt you cannot relate to it, no matter your opinion, education etc... When people start tellinmg me their opinions or thoughts about Afghanistan, I stop them, ask if they have ever been there?? If the answer is NO, then keep walking............ Quote
old_bold&cold Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 It was reported before that the Afghan Army needed to be a minimum of 80,000 strong and well equipped and trained men to be able to be a stand alone army. That is 16 times what they seem to have now. They also need to pay these soldiers reasonable wages, as if they pay too low they will be open to corruption. That was just for the army not the police. The taliban was so quick in taking over the land because they just killed anyone who spoke up against them. They blasted the giant twin Budda staues that were thousands of years old from the sides of mountains, as they do not allow buddist learning. If you talked about anything they did not like you were either killed in front of your family or whipped. Woman who showe flesh in any way were whipped and anyone caught playing music or any thing of enjoyment were whipped and beaten, sometimes to death. When you do this and do not care for any life you take, it is easy to conquer the land. When you have to differentiate between the people and the hidden Taliban, it takes much more time and effort not to mention the risks involved. Hell if we were the Taliban, and did not care who or how many died, we could end this in days, but we would be way worse then the problem was in the first place. Quote
Army Guy Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Actually you're the one choking. We should leave because they can defend themselves on thier own...it's the pro-interventionists who are suggesting that Afghans can't do it on thier own. Myata is simply pointing out that since corps sized operations are apparently succesfull why is that still not enough? How many divisions do the Taliban have? It would seem the Afghans need a couple of armies trained up to deal with the Taliban who have a hard hanging on to a hill-top.If Corps aren't enough then how many more years to train the Armies? ...besides that, I'm surprised you of all folks want to see us westerners training Muslim armies... Dancer has already explained the difference of brigades, divisions, corps, and armys. but i thought i'd add some numbers to it all, The Battle group is the smallest combat formation, in regards to organized formations...Canada now has a Battle group in Afgan right now aprox 2500 pers.. Brigade group = approx 5000 troops (like the one we are discussing here) to give some else for comparison there is approx 25,000 Coalition troops in Afgan to date and we are still fighting... Division = 3 or more Brigade groups....aprox 18 to 25,000 troops Corp = 3 or more Divsions..... 56 to 75,000 troops ( this is NATO's goal as you can see we have a way to go yet...) Armies 2 or more corps......= 150 to 250,000 troops Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 I'll have to point out, one more time, that when Taleban swiped the whole (or by very large margin, most of) the country, they did not have anywhere near as much financial or military help and were successful in half less time. Why? Not true...The taliban had large backing by US, CIA funding which was matched dollar for dollar by other middle east countries....As for sweeping the country in less time again not true They fought the russians for some time, also keep in mind they stayed in power thru shear terror...lets not forget the Religion police, or the soccer staduim per game executions. Could it be because the population is still ambivalent toward this new army, and won't rush to enroll? Not Ambivalent, The army is not paid well (which is being adressed), Afgans are very family orientated ,and they are away from them alot...and being in thier army is alot more dangerous, than ours, they don't have all the right equipment, nor do they have the same tech advanced wpns we do, and western soldiers do not have to worry about thier families safety when away....there is alot more to it than what i've explained here. but you can get the piont. If so, what would happen when we eventually withdraw (and we're going to withdraw, eventually, are we?) Depending on if the time is right, if we leave before or just after 2009 then it will have a big impact on the mission, and Afgans future....we all forget the missions that have been marked sucessful and they were at a min 15 years in the making, in some cases 20 to 50 years and still in the making... Regardless of what party wins the next election, i don't think we can pull out...with out serious implications not just for Afgan but Canada as well. How much of the army will desert? switch alliances? abandon the fight? Lots, but for many differnet reasons, and alot of these reasons are being addressed as we speak...like the pay thing, or the leave...right now they have no leave so when they want to go home and see thier family they just up and go...and it is recorded as a desertion... But lets give them some credit , they risk thier lives for peanuts, and very little benifits other than making thier country safer for thier families...And it is thier families that the Taliban take thier revenge out on...There good people, excellent soldiers, but they are also husbands , fathers, and they need to provide for there families as well , in a land that is very hostile, and very poor... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.