Hi team; this is my first post and it was prompted by some questions I had when I read a recent column by Thomas Friedman entitled, "What's second Prize."
He asks the question, "Why do we have to recruit and train our allies, the Afghan Army, to fight? That is like someone coming to you with a plan to recruit and train Brazilian boys to play soccer."
On the surface this sounds like a compelling argument. But dig a little deeper and you realize there is a difference between warlord/tribal factions and having a professionally trained standing army or security apparatus. The former relies heavily on the personality of individual leaders; perhaps why in the absence of a central government the country has been splintered into competing tribal entities for years. The latter, however, provides the potential for a sustainable system of security.
Consider the difference in America between our own forces under the Department of Defense versus the vigilante, volunteer self-described militia in some of our states. On the one hand you have a system in place supported by the full treasure and backing of the federal government. A system that takes in new recruits, molds them to meet specific standards and teaches them the most effective tactics and techniques to wage warfare. This system provides for housing, food, pay and a means for promotion; motivation. None of these are attributes found in a militia-type system.
The argument doesn’t account for the fact that Taliban insurgents DO go through training; although perhaps not as exacting as those taught under a professional army. But nonetheless someone is teaching them how to use weapons and build IED's.
I remember watching a feature on CBS news where they followed the progress of training some Afghan raw recruits. It seemed pathetic; the recruits I saw brought new meaning to the term "green" trooper. Maybe fighting is in their blood, but likely it has to be cultivated through training and motivation.
And in the end, this is why I find Friedman's other arguments in the article compelling. Success or failure depends on motivation. It's clear to me that American support for the war is not sustainable; or at least sustainable for long enough to make a difference in defeating a taliban insurgency and putting something in place that we would recognize as democratic government. Try explaining to the American voting public that to be successful we would need to be in Afghanistan for another 12 years at the cost of thousands more American soldiers and billions of dollars. It's clear to me that we don't have that kind of staying power.
I think I would rather focus our blood and treasure beefing up our border security and counter terrorism capabilities.
I hate losing; just like any red-blooded American. But there comes a point when you can repeat a bad strategy or change and find a new way to win.
What do you guys think?
He asks the question, "Why do we have to recruit and train our allies, the Afghan Army, to fight? That is like someone coming to you with a plan to recruit and train Brazilian boys to play soccer."
On the surface this sounds like a compelling argument. But dig a little deeper and you realize there is a difference between warlord/tribal factions and having a professionally trained standing army or security apparatus. The former relies heavily on the personality of individual leaders; perhaps why in the absence of a central government the country has been splintered into competing tribal entities for years. The latter, however, provides the potential for a sustainable system of security.
Consider the difference in America between our own forces under the Department of Defense versus the vigilante, volunteer self-described militia in some of our states. On the one hand you have a system in place supported by the full treasure and backing of the federal government. A system that takes in new recruits, molds them to meet specific standards and teaches them the most effective tactics and techniques to wage warfare. This system provides for housing, food, pay and a means for promotion; motivation. None of these are attributes found in a militia-type system.
The argument doesn’t account for the fact that Taliban insurgents DO go through training; although perhaps not as exacting as those taught under a professional army. But nonetheless someone is teaching them how to use weapons and build IED's.
I remember watching a feature on CBS news where they followed the progress of training some Afghan raw recruits. It seemed pathetic; the recruits I saw brought new meaning to the term "green" trooper. Maybe fighting is in their blood, but likely it has to be cultivated through training and motivation.
And in the end, this is why I find Friedman's other arguments in the article compelling. Success or failure depends on motivation. It's clear to me that American support for the war is not sustainable; or at least sustainable for long enough to make a difference in defeating a taliban insurgency and putting something in place that we would recognize as democratic government. Try explaining to the American voting public that to be successful we would need to be in Afghanistan for another 12 years at the cost of thousands more American soldiers and billions of dollars. It's clear to me that we don't have that kind of staying power.
I think I would rather focus our blood and treasure beefing up our border security and counter terrorism capabilities.
I hate losing; just like any red-blooded American. But there comes a point when you can repeat a bad strategy or change and find a new way to win.
What do you guys think?
