Um, Leon, I'm-a let you finish but:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Why do you hate the other NATO countries so much that you want the Afghan Army to start shooting at them, too? If our satellite army is attacking us repeatedly, there's nothing that the other NATO countries can do that we haven't already done to make it better, but a whole lot that they can do to make it worse.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57529500/panetta-calls-on-nato-to-fill-the-gap-in-training-afghanistans-national-defense-forces/

Those fellows have been attacking US troops in multiple separate instances over the last year, so that says that there's much deeper problems than not training them enough. It would in fact be an argument that our whole approach to this is one that's deeply flawed, not to mention relying on the Karzai regime to 'run' Afghanistan which isn't going to encourage the Afghan Army all that much.

Comments

[oportet.livejournal.com]

We shouldn't train people who don't like us.

Somebody forward that little tidbit to anyone and everyone with the word 'intelligence' in their job title.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As that is logic and reason, nobody in a position of power to do this will actually do it. ;)

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

People join the organization because they want to be associated with intelligence, not because they have any.

The Afghans caught on to the duplicity of American intent back in the winter of 2001/2002 when they allowed British soldiers to parachute into Afghanistan. The Afghans simply detest the Brits. Some Afghans may have even caught onto the fact that Afghanistan was abused by the US as a pawn to attack the USSR.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Um, the Anglo-Afghan Wars weren't relevant in 2001. The USA's screwing up the post-Soviet era civil war in Afghanistan repeatedly had a lot more to do with it. We really should have given Massoud more backing than we did, but we missed that opportunity.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The Pakistan ISI as well as the CIA preferred to support Islamist fanatics over the more moderate Massoud. The latter had been painted as a traitor for having made a temporary cease fire deal with the Soviets in order to consolidate his own strategic position. As for the English, Gary Berntsen mentioned Afghan reaction to the arrival of British troops. Although you may not think that 19th century British occupation had no relevance in 2001, the Afghans disagree with you.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The last Anglo-Afghan War was in the 1920s, so it's not just the 19th Century. That's the first point you've gotten wrong. The second point is that Massoud was not universally considered a traitor, and the third is that the Soviet proxy government was actually winning the war right up until the USSR's collapse, which is the only thing that saved the Mujahideen. And that collapse was entirely outside the power of the Afghan Communist regime to do anything about. The USA's problem was that it decided it had bigger priorities than propping up Massoud, who did smash the first Pakistani proxy solidly, so when the Taliban rose up the USA didn't care all that much.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I did not get the point of Afghan animosity toward the British wrong. The war of 1919 was minor compared to prior occupations of Afghanistan by the British.

I did not contend that Massoud was universally considered a traitor, but was considered so by the Islamists favored by Pakistan and the US. One of the reasons that US policy was unopposed to the rise of the Taliban is that US policy saw Pakistan as its proxy on Afghan issues. Since the Taliban were a creature of Pakistan, and since they promised stability needed to extract energy resources from Turkmenistan, US policy originally smiled upon them.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

commanders have come up with a range of ways to reduce the insider attacks
Getting the heck out of dodge would be the obvious solution. I didn't see it in the article.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Since when does the military ever quit a country unless it's forced to?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

That would be "defeatist." Obama could not do that without losing in November.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

And once he wins the election he'll be a "lame duck" so he won't be able to pull out then either.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

After the election, he will have more flexibility.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Romney would like to take away that flexibility altogether.