What do Canadians want in Afgan and why ?

[M.Dancer]

it would be like watching a paintball game, lots of indivs running around getting shot very few actually left alive at the end of the game...the tactics we use, we suffer few cas, and all the bad guys are done.

I've played paintball and tries to use the squad tactics that I learned in the militia....setting up defensive enfilading fire positions....moving in ack ack formations.........

I realized very quickly that even though we wanted to win, no one was going to catch on in an hour.

On the other hand, I had never been on a scheme that was as grueling or as physically demanding......playing paintball for 5 hours with seasoned rugby players...

[Figleaf]

Why are the troops available to Karzai's faction inferior (in numbers, capabilities, whatever) to the other forces, such that they need Western support and training to make them competitive?

Numbers right now thier are more than 30,000 reg Afgan troops, they graduate over 1200 troops a week.

There is many problems with thier army, lack of pay, which they recently got a raised but they need to go futher, lack of benifits, they just implimented a leave policy, allowing troops to go home for holidays etc.

Capabilities, other than small arms the Afgan army has none, no tanks, aircraft, arty, the list goes on.

One has to remember if one gets into a fight one has to ensure he has a bigger stick to have the advantage and keep your cas down.

Western support, again western forces are providing everything that the Afgans are missing, tanks, aircraft, arty...plus logistical support, ammo, rations, etc..

Training. Like i said anyone can be an insurgent, it does not take a whole lot of training, or equipment. but to fight as a cohesive group, where nobody fights as an indiv but plays a small part in a collective group with a common goal...that takes training and time. without it ,

it would be like watching a paintball game, lots of indivs running around getting shot very few actually left alive at the end of the game...the tactics we use, we suffer few cas, and all the bad guys are done.

Thank you for this information. It provides facts about the Afghan army that takes us about 1/3rd of the way through an analysis of my question.

The next two parts would be:

A-comparable information about the Taliban (what are their numbers, weapons, capabilities and training) and;

B-an assessment of the results of that comparison (If the Taliban have more numbers, why are they more popular than the government. If they have better weapons, why haven't we provided adequately for our allies instead of putting our troops in harm's way? If they have better training or more capable fighters, how? And if they have none of those things, why can't Karzais army handle them?)

[Argus]

I'm sorry, I must be formulating my question inaptly. Let me put it this way ...

Why are the troops available to Karzai's faction inferior (in numbers, capabilities, whatever) to the other forces, such that they need Western support and training to make them competitive?

I don't think anyone has suggested they are except for motivation. The problem is that when you're playing defence you require an awful lot more of everything, including troops, weapons and discipline, than then guys playing offense.

The Defence side has to protect all its assets - which is basically, when dealing with terrorists - everything, military and civilian, from govt buildings, to schools, to buses and markets. The attacking side lives in caves, picks one spot where it can attack, and overwhelm local opposition, and then get away. That's why they always have the advantage.

Based on the performance of the Taliban thus far they aren't exactly made up of elite fighting units. Almost all casualties NATO has suffered have come from IEDs and suicide bombers.

The government's main problem is lack of loyalty among its troops. As in Iraq, most have their primary loyalty elsewhere, to their tribe or warlord. Lacking NATO troops Karzai would probably wind up being kicked out by one warlord or another, and then alliances would fracture, the warlords would start fighting each other, and the Taliban would be able to move into the resulting vacuum. Why? Because unlike the warlords they have outside support in terms of weapons, money and organization, and unlike the warlords and tribal elders, have no tendency to negotiate, surrender or compromise, or tire of the fighting and its affects on the population at large - because they're doing God's work.

[Figleaf]

I'm sorry, I must be formulating my question inaptly. Let me put it this way ...

Why are the troops available to Karzai's faction inferior (in numbers, capabilities, whatever) to the other forces, such that they need Western support and training to make them competitive?

... The problem is that when you're playing defence you require an awful lot more of everything, including troops, weapons and discipline, than then guys playing offense.

The Defence side has to protect all its assets - which is basically, when dealing with terrorists - everything, military and civilian, from govt buildings, to schools, to buses and markets. The attacking side lives in caves, picks one spot where it can attack, and overwhelm local opposition, and then get away. That's why they always have the advantage.

Hm. I guess that seems sensible.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm sorry, I must be formulating my question inaptly. Let me put it this way ...

Why are the troops available to Karzai's faction inferior (in numbers, capabilities, whatever) to the other forces, such that they need Western support and training to make them competitive?

I don't think anyone has suggested they are except for motivation. The problem is that when you're playing defence you require an awful lot more of everything, including troops, weapons and discipline, than then guys playing offense.

The Defence side has to protect all its assets - which is basically, when dealing with terrorists - everything, military and civilian, from govt buildings, to schools, to buses and markets. The attacking side lives in caves, picks one spot where it can attack, and overwhelm local opposition, and then get away. That's why they always have the advantage.

Based on the performance of the Taliban thus far they aren't exactly made up of elite fighting units. Almost all casualties NATO has suffered have come from IEDs and suicide bombers.

The government's main problem is lack of loyalty among its troops. As in Iraq, most have their primary loyalty elsewhere, to their tribe or warlord. Lacking NATO troops Karzai would probably wind up being kicked out by one warlord or another, and then alliances would fracture, the warlords would start fighting each other, and the Taliban would be able to move into the resulting vacuum. Why? Because unlike the warlords they have outside support in terms of weapons, money and organization, and unlike the warlords and tribal elders, have no tendency to negotiate, surrender or compromise, or tire of the fighting and its affects on the population at large - because they're doing God's work.

Well said Argus. I think you've concisely sized up the situation better than anything I've read.....and it's what makes this kind of terrorism/insurgency/fanaticism/religious zeolotry (call it whatever you want) so insidious.