When they stand up, can we stand down?

[unhappycamper]

An Afghan policeman carries his machine gun after a gunbattle with insurgents Feb. 26 in the heart of Kabul. Officials in Afghanistan say they will be able to grow the Afghan army and police by more than 50 percent in the next 20 months, despite numerous challenges standing in the way of that ambitious goal.


Afghans make progress growing army, police
By Michelle Tan - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 1, 2010 6:13:24 EST

The challenges are plentiful, officials in Afghanistan say, but they believe they will be able to grow the Afghan army and police by more than 50 percent — from 202,561 people to 305,600 — in the next 20 months.

~snip~

Right now, many new units are being put in temporary bases consisting of tents or heated containers while officials try to catch up and build permanent structures, Patton said.

Humvees are being shipped to Afghanistan from Iraq, as many as 1,600 in the next six to nine months, to improve force protection for the Afghan troops.

There is a lack of high-frequency radios, but Patton said he believes that backlog will be eliminated in the next three to six months.

On the weapons front, as the Afghan security forces transition to NATO weapons such as the M-16, the M249 squad automatic weapon and M240B machine gun, officials just received a new shipment of SAWs and M240Bs that will immediately be issued to units that were lacking them before, Patton said.


Rest of article at: http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/army_afghan_police_022810w/

[NJmaverick]

1. President Obama's deadline has certainly lit a fire under these efforts

[bigtree]

2. ANY one of these military rags

. . . is going to paint the most optimistic picture of the U.S. conquest in Afghanistan they can conjur. Hawking their propaganda is a fool's game (no reflection on the intent of the op).

[berni_mccoy]

3. U.S. Conquest? You conveniently forget that this is a world conflict

Afghan has the cooperation of the UN, it's international military force ISAF under NATO command, with troops from a large number of countries that consist of half the forces there, all for the purpose of taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It's a mission that has support of the World as well as the Afghanis.

[BeFree]

4. You may be right

But that doesn't make it right. Unless might makes right.

Funny how Afghanistan is at China's backdoor, eh?

[bigtree]

5. this is a U.S.-dominated, U.S.-led, U.S.-initiated, U.S. escalation

. . . hiding behind the shrinking coalition is a weak and dishonest justification..

[unhappycamper]

8. Unfortunately, the world is not paying their fair share of this rightous occupation.

The Dutch government imploded over trying to decide if they can keep troops in Afghanistan.

I question your statement "it's international military force ISAF under NATO command, with troops from a large number of countries that consist of half the forces there. . ." Is that before or after we sent 30,000 more US troops in 2009? Or is that before or after this latest batch of 30,000 troops we are sending?

I will agree that contractors nearly double the size of boots on the ground.

[berni_mccoy]

11. That was before. But Pakistan also sent 30 thousand troops to the border

To help contain the Taliban.

[unhappycamper]

12. Were these 30,000 troops put there to drive the Taliban out of Pakistan or to

keep them in Pakistan?

[berni_mccoy]

14. Oh for Pete's sake read the damn article for yourself

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/17/pakistan-sends-troops-against-taliban

More than 30,000 Pakistani soldiers launched a long-expected assault on the Taliban lair of South Waziristan yesterday, following a fortnight of militant attacks that left 175 dead and underlined the threat to Pakistan's stability.
...
A successful operation is vital to Pakistan's stability. Over the past two weeks militants have launched a series of audacious attacks across the country, including the suicide bombing of a United Nations office in Islamabad, three simultaneous attacks on police sites in Lahore and, most brazenly, a 22-hour siege of the army headquarters in Rawalpindi last weekend. Authorities said that most incidents were orchestrated by Waziristan-based commanders.

The Taliban is as much a problem to Pakistan as they are to everyone else.

[NJmaverick]

6. You made 3 mistakes

this is not an optimistic picture

this is not a US conquest, instead this is a NATO operation

There is no one "hawking propaganda"

[bigtree]

9. the military rag is all about propaganda

The U.S. military has a growing press corp who is working overtime to sell this escalated occupation as in our strategic interest and as a 'success'. The escalated, nation-building operation in Afghanistan is conquest, pure and simple. The corrupt president we enabled into power was handpicked by the U.S.. It's no surprise that his regime is resigned to spreading their influence in Afghanistan behind the force of our military.Very soon, it will become even clearer that this is primarily America's war, as these patronized nations we've coaxed and bribed to participate peel away.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Vietnamization worked ever so well for LBJ and Nixon....

[TexasObserver]

10. Recommend

[Echo In Light]

13. K&R

[leftstreet]

15. K&R