Why is an outside military needed to train a country's military on fighting rebels? If the rebels are so effective against government troops, could it be that the government troops are either unmotivated or corrupt? In the case of Afghanistan, why has it taken 12 years to train Afghan troops in counterinsurgency. Shouldn't those who were trained 12 years ago have enough expertise to train others? Consider that many of the outside trainers had no military experience at the outset of the war in Afghanistan.
From what I've read, the Afghani soldiers are in it for the money, honest or otherwise, or because they were drafted. Too many of them have no loyalty to the government.
I think U.S. policy long ago should have been: Karzai! Shape up or we ship out!
See also “Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government”.
Showing posts with label popular government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label popular government. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government
Why is it that those seeking to overthrow a government can often do it without outside help other than weapons, but that government forces need outside advisers?
We saw it in Viet Nam where the Viet Cong kept fighting and fighting against both the South Vietnamese government and their U.S. advisers. It got to the point where the "advisors" were doing more of the fighting than the government forces.
We saw it in Iraq where a large variety of "insurgents" fought against the foreign invaders and then against the Iraqi government as well as each other. The outside invaders stayed to advise the new government, but that government seems ineffectual against the "insurgents".
We see it in Afghanistan where the Taliban keeps striking at the foreign invaders/advisers and the Afghan government, including local governors as well as the Afghan army and police.
Could the common thread be that all these governments were not only corrupt but not fully supported by the general populations? Could it be that the only way to put down anti-government forces is to have a strong, dictatorial government or to have wide-spread popular support of a freely elected government?
And a freely elected government cannot really be imposed from outside.
We saw it in Viet Nam where the Viet Cong kept fighting and fighting against both the South Vietnamese government and their U.S. advisers. It got to the point where the "advisors" were doing more of the fighting than the government forces.
We saw it in Iraq where a large variety of "insurgents" fought against the foreign invaders and then against the Iraqi government as well as each other. The outside invaders stayed to advise the new government, but that government seems ineffectual against the "insurgents".
We see it in Afghanistan where the Taliban keeps striking at the foreign invaders/advisers and the Afghan government, including local governors as well as the Afghan army and police.
Could the common thread be that all these governments were not only corrupt but not fully supported by the general populations? Could it be that the only way to put down anti-government forces is to have a strong, dictatorial government or to have wide-spread popular support of a freely elected government?
And a freely elected government cannot really be imposed from outside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)