Current Affairs Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsubaki said:
It’s not irrelevant though - the “fully equipped army” doesn’t seem to have existed, nor would Biden (or Trump) have ever have let it look after the troops in country when the Taliban would have been properly going after them.
Click to expand...

It looks like the Afghan army had been doing a fair old bit of the heavy dirty work if these numbers are correct…

American service members killed in Afghanistan through April: 2,448.

U.S. contractors: 3,846.

Afghan national military and police: 66,000.

Other allied service members, including from other NATO member states: 1,144.

Afghan civilians: 47,245.

Taliban and other opposition fighters: 51,191.

Aid workers: 444.

Journalists: 72.
 
degsy said:
Not strictly true.
At the start of WW2 India wanted full Independence for full cooperation; this was duly promised.
Pre WW2, under British rule the large Muslim Minority had their 'political position' somewhat safeguarded by the british 'divide and rule policy' to keep the multi faceted Hindu Majority arguing amongst themselves and not uniting against the British.
After the war the Muslims did not want a United Independent India, fearing, probably correctly, that without the British to fight their corner they would always get the short and of the stick.
The partition was a Muslim Idea.
The Hindu Indians didnt seem to mind if they were the boss of a Untited India or Boss of an Independent Hindu India
Independence without those pesky muslims = win win.
Only the 'rich Muslims' who could vote (17%?) were the drivers of Partition, the majority of poor Muslims weren't too arsed as whoever was the political boss in Delhi or where ever they would still be at the bottom of the heap.
Click to expand...

Partition was an idea from a section of Indian Muslims, but the British were very engaged with it. They even met their leader in secret talks and offered tacit support for the creation of that state.

Gandhi, though a bit if a Hindu chauvinist position was not to create a "Hindustan" but a multi-faith India.
 
Paulie said:
I reckon you could have asked any Marine that's worked with the ANA and they'd give many reasons why the ANA would crumble. Watched a documentary earlier and they were awful.
Click to expand...

Probably mate. So the question is really why were they so set up to fail and why did we leave knowing that, as well as whether that was being communicated upwards.
 
peteblue said:
It looks like the Afghan army had been doing a fair old bit of the heavy dirty work if these numbers are correct…

American service members killed in Afghanistan through April: 2,448.

U.S. contractors: 3,846.

Afghan national military and police: 66,000.

Other allied service members, including from other NATO member states: 1,144.

Afghan civilians: 47,245.

Taliban and other opposition fighters: 51,191.

Aid workers: 444.

Journalists: 72.
Click to expand...

That is for the 20 years of the war pete (when there was far more western backing / western troops), not a reflection on what they were like since the withdrawl.

TBF it is also a bit suspicious that even with death statistics (which are often a matter of guesswork, especially with opposition dead) even then they present an approximate figure.
 
tsubaki said:
That is for the 20 years of the war pete (when there was far more western backing / western troops), not a reflection on what they were like since the withdrawl.

TBF it is also a bit suspicious that even with death statistics (which are often a matter of guesswork, especially with opposition dead) even then they present an approximate figure.
Click to expand...

But even accounting for discrepancies 3,500 US and Allied troops vs 66,000 Afghans is such a big difference that there has to be a recognition that the ANA were doing their bit. Anyway, as I said, it’s history now, it’s now all about what happens next….
 
peteblue said:
But even accounting for discrepancies 3,500 US and Allied troops vs 66,000 Afghans is such a big difference that there has to be a recognition that the ANA were doing their bit. Anyway, as I said, it’s history now, it’s now all about what happens next….
Click to expand...

They might have been then, but it doesn't appear they did recently.
 
peteblue said:
The number of USA troops was somewhat irrelevant. The Afghan‘s had a supposed 300,000 strong fully equipped army, the USA provided backbone and deterrence by its presence and air power. The USA being there also ensured other nations would continue to contribute. Once the USA stated a date and then started drawdown, morale in the ANA dissolved, sneaking out of Bagram at the dead of night pretty well finished it off. Biden could and should have changed Trumps decision and it would not have required a mass influx of American troops…but it’s done now and Afghanistan and it’s people will have to pick up the pieces…….
Click to expand...

Just been listening to an ex CIA analyst who also served in Afghanistan. He was saying that it was more like 50,000 Afghan troops, he was saying because of the corruption in the Afghan military where they have what you would call 'ghost soldiers' where they would have people reported to be on the roll but in reality the commanders were just collecting all of their pay to line their own pockets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top