Afghan security forces dying at five times rate of Nato soldiers

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by waffen, Jul 30, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    The entire place and its people were never worth ONE British life.
    • Like Like x 5
  2. Insha'Allah!

    Edited to add: I concur with the above poster!
  3. Need to get their heads down quicker!
  4. Good!
  5. Tara - you are a clown.

    All others - seems a bit misleading to say the 'rate' is 5 times when there is about 300,000 of them or so, compared to just over 100,000 NATO soldiers.
  6. OOOh! get her!
  7. Has everyone failed to see the flip side here? If they can't cope we have to go back in.
  8. Trying to train them over there was never going to work.

    We seem to have no shortage of young Afghan men to forcibly conscript over here, which is what should have been done from day one.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. The title is largely irrelevant but it works to catch the eye. The point of the article is to highlight a shift in the insurgents focus towards the Afghan National Security Forces as the international forces begin to draw down.

    ANSF are easier to target then CF and the deaths will increase further as their footprint spreads to different regions.

    Either that or it'll go down as they all work out local deals with the TB to have an easier time of it.
  10. I'll bite:

    a) there are more afghans than ISAF.

    b) they have much worse kit than ISAF.

    c) their training is nowhere near that of ISAF.

    d) their discipline to battle drill/prep in nowhere near that of ISAF.

    e) their Medevac procedure is nowhere near that of ISAF (unless working hand in hand with ISAF).

    f) their Insh'allah attitude gives rise to "Gung Ho" tactics.

    g) the cultural acceptance of drug taking at all times of day or night gives rise to "Gung Ho" tactics.

    h) their alpha male lead culture gives rise to "Gung Ho" tactics.

    i) their complete misunderstanding of counter IED tactics is inferior to ISAF

    ...that's just some of the points I can think of right now.
  11. There are plenty of young, fit Afghan men over here, several battalions worth, to train up as replacements to fight for their country, and get first dibs on Afghan jobs, homes and women when it is all over.
  12. In amongst the standard ARRSE dribbling, anyone else (and I suspect I'll be preaching to the very small congregation who've actually worked closely with ANSF on the ground) actually a bit saddened by this? As far as I've seen, it's the good ones who tend to become casualties. I mean, the ones who don't mind going through the doorway first, getting out of cover to return fire - you know, the Warriors. Not the keyboard kind, like on here, but the proper kind.

    If I was offered the standard ANA package I'd be AWOL so fast your head would spin - frankly I admire the good ones for even turning up, let alone doing anything which gets them killed/wounded. When you've seen one of your oppos trying to make a life in Kabul with no legs and next to nothing in compensation, it takes a lot to keep heading out of the PB. I take the point about the Insh'allah attitude, but maybe that's exactly what the fight in theatre needs? I mean, it seems to work for the TB. Not everyone has the luxury of going to ground and waiting for AH to sort everything out.

    Tara - I know it's a bite - but you really are a cnut.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. By the way my point wasn't to say it's a good thing, just some of the reasons. Spent 6 months with the buggers, good luck to all of 'em!
  14. That's some of the tactical-level points covered.

    How about some strategic points.

    Like: "Wot the **** is this all about?"


    "How the feck do any of us know if we are succeeding?