U.S. training Afghan villagers to fight the Taliban

[laststeamtrain]

Source: WP

U.S. training Afghan villagers to fight the Taliban

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 27, 2010; A01

ARGHANDAB DISTRICT, AFGHANISTAN -- Taliban fighters used to swagger with impunity through this farming village, threatening to assassinate government collaborators. They seeded the main thoroughfare, a dirt road with moonlike craters, with land mines. They paid local men to attack U.S. and Afghan troops.

Then, beginning in late February, a small detachment of U.S. Special Forces soldiers organized nearly two dozen villagers into an armed Afghan-style neighborhood watch group.

These days, the bazaar is thriving. The schoolhouse has reopened. People in the area have become confident enough to report Taliban activity to the village defense force and the police. As a consequence, insurgent attacks have nearly ceased and U.S. soldiers have not hit a single roadside bomb in the area in two months, according to the detachment.

"Everyone feels safer now," said Nasarullah, one of two gray-bearded tribal elders in charge of the village force. "Nobody worries about getting killed anymore."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042604215_pf.html

---

Wow. This sounds really good: "Armed Afghan-style neighborhood watch groups."

"Nobody worries about getting killed anymore."

It's like Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood with lots of goats running around & constant small arms fire.

[Bragi]

1. This will solve everything!

What a novel approach: train the locals to kill each other, sparing us the need to do so!

Never heard of that approach before, other than constantly during the Vietnam and Iraq invasions.

[Jumping John]

7. A few thoughts here - Will the USA pay bounties for the ears? Will the villagers turn and start

using the skills they are being taught to kill US military. Will the skills being taught be used to embolden the area war lords to kill other villager's women children and babies?

And my last question (at the moment) is why is it that the USA is always so ready to train and implement and facilitate more killing and call it a peace process?

[Bragi]

8. You have to kill people to achieve peace

Everyone knows that.

And the more people you kill, the more likely you will achieve peace.

Just look at Israel.

[Dogtown]

2. If only

they'd thought of that in time to save Viet Nam!

[Bragi]

4. Absolutely

I think the Vietnam, ah, thing, may have gone off the rails when the U.S adopted the controversial Stand Back While We Kill Villagers strategic initiative.

[ieoeja]

17. Navy/Marines wanted it to remain a Vietnam Civil War on day one.

They just wanted to secure the border long enough for South Vietnam to get their shit up and running. And the #1 most important thing they recommended to LBJ was "stay out of the jungles." We'd have never set foot in the jungle villages had they had their way.

But McNamara wanted to send the Soviets a message that *we* would fight. The US Air Force was still in their infancy believing they could win wars through strategic bombing alone. And the US Army assured LBJ they could win the war in 18 months or thereabouts.

So LBJ went with the "experts" who promised a quick victory. Instead of listening to the branches with 150 years experience in jungle warfare.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. Is there any doubt that Nasarullah will sing a different tune after we have left?

This is the same madness that permeated the Vietnam War.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Shouldn't this be in the humour forum ?

:shrug:

[Bragi]

6. Yeah, like the old "Humor in Uniform" column /nt

[dflprincess]

9. What happened to being there to fight Al Qaeda?

Wasn't the invasion of Afghanistan suppose to be justified because we were going after those "responsible for 9/11?"

It's not that long ago we were looking to make deals with the Taliban if they "renounced terroism".

[tekisui]

14. The Taliban is a better target than AQ.

AQ is no longer centralized or organized as it once was. There are only two high value targets and they have proved impossible to get.

The Taliban, though, are an organization. Better and more accessible targets. We can regularly claim that we are 'winning', when we kill Taliban targets.

You are right about the deal offers not so long ago. We offered to fast-track recognition of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan in exchange for bin Laden.

[dflprincess]

16. No the offer was not for them to turn in Bin Laden

(which would be really hard to do as he's been dead for years)

The offer was made to local war lords on the condition they just not cooperate with terrorists - and a lot of our tax money was going to be used for the bribes. However, when asking them to "renounce terrorism" we did not ask that they renounce violent acts against women.

It's way past time to leave.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The "Fortified villages" program worked well in Vietnam...oh, wait.

[hayu_lol]

12. Wonder if any of these halfwits remembered to ask the ...

British when they did this over 100 years ago. Afghans love training and the money it brings. They continue to be Afghans however, and that pattern is not likely to change any century soon.

Oh yeah, as soon as the Brits(RAJ)had them trained, they chased the Brits down the Khyber Pass where thousands died.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. My grandfather was a Brit soldier and fought these guys great grandfathers. .

"When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

[Rex]

11. In order for everyone to believe the same thing and live in harmony, everyone else must

die. Thanks.

[Xenotime]

15. So, civil war is the answer?