ANA (Afghan National Army): How do they measure up?

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by NEWater, Dec 26, 2010.

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. Hey all,

    I'm a college student from Singapore doing International Studies conc. Intelligence & Security. Did my mandatory two years in the Army here like every other bloke and was Signals in armour brigade staff.

    There was a discussion of counter-insurgency in class some time ago, and we all talked about how COIN flopped in 'Nam mostly because of a lacklustre indigenous force in the ARVN, and a mostly worthless and corrupt local government.

    Then we looked at A-stan and saw some parallels in terms of worthless government, but I'm not too sure about the ANA. On paper they appear decently equipped, but how do they perform in the field? Does anyone who has worked with them think that they'll be up to the task?
     
  2. They're up to the task whilst working alongside NATO troops. Once they have to stand on their own two feet the taliban will destroy them. Even NATO troops can't beat the taliban so what chance have the ANSF?
     
  3. How do you measure.

    Do the average Afghans even want the country we call Afganistan to be viable.
     
  4. I didn't rate them too much on H4, however, the Hazara tribes men were very good soldiers.
     
  5. They've come on a long way from H4 though without NATO troops and support they will fold very quickly.
     
  6. So what you are saying, is that Afghanistan has no future.

    Well, not as a nation we would know as Afghanistan.

    Is there any solution.

    Is there any hope?
     
  7. There is a possibility of the ANA holding onto some parts, but not Helmand.

    In the event of an ISAF withdrawel there would be civil war IMO, the problem is that there are enough ANA and enough Taliban to keep such a war going for quite some time, it wouldn't be like Iraq, although I've not been to Iraq I hear it was far more developed, The Afghans are still in their neolithic age, it's too tribal, and they don't give a shit about the country, the Pashto and Dari hate each other more than the Taliban hate us.
     
  8. Mark1234 has said it all really though I'd also add Afghanistan is totally corrupt. TBH it's pointless us being there. We're just putting off the inevitable.
     
  9. And since the British (and a few others ) have said they are off by 2015, I think the inevitable has become a certainty.

    I think only Afghans can bring lasting improvements to Afghanistan. As long as its inhabitants see themselves as living in a vassal state, they will be fighting the occupier and whichever internal force that sides with the occupier.

    What a waste of lives and money.
     
  10. Only the Afghans can improve it, but:

    • Once the (afghan) govt runs out of money, and can't pay the ANA much money anymore, the Taliban will be able to offer a better wage;
    •*Once the Taliban start kicking down the doors of ANA soldiers and raping their wives because there's not artillery and fighter jets to take revenge with;
    •*etc etc

    The ANA will transfer all their new found military skills to fighting for the Taliban.

    That said, it's not the first time we've equipped and trained an Army that we've later gone to war with.
     
  11. There were these chaps called the Mujahadin as I recall, they were fighting a common enemy, so they got all kinds of kit, I wonder where they ended up...