COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Afghani Police: How do you train bands of idiots and turn them into a force if they have no sense of loyalty, no sense of belonging?

>


Need to see more? Here is an interesting clip on US Marines trying to train some Afghani police recruits.

_____________________



'Most of them were corrupt and stoned on opium'

A senior serving soldier reveals how the Afghan policemen in Helmand are often a danger to the British forces they work with

Thursday, 5 November 2009 Independent

When I heard the news this morning, I thought "Christ, five in one go..." I was shocked and saddened – but I was not surprised that it had happened. I'm surprised it took this long.

We went out to Helmand to mentor the Afghan National Police without understanding the level they were at. We thought we would be arresting people, helping them to police efficiently. Instead we were literally training them how to point a gun on the ranges, and telling them why you should not stop cars and demand "taxes".

Most of them were corrupt and took drugs, particularly opium. The lads would go into police stations at night and they would be stoned; sometimes they would fire indiscriminately at nothing.

They had no understanding of the basics of what it means to be a policeman. We expected to be teaching adults at a certain level and then realised we would be changing nappies. Give them 20 rounds and they will hit the target once.

The first time I saw them I realised that they had almost no training; some of them had very little ability. Their uniforms were dirty and didn't fit. Their weapon-cleaning was non-existent.

They certainly didn't have a concept of being upstanding members of the community. They had no loyalty, esprit de corps or cameraderie. That should have been incorporated in their training. They did have pride – because of the power and status they felt.

How do you train this band of idiots and turn them into a force to be reckoned with if they have no sense of loyalty, no sense of belonging?

The biggest problem was that we didn't know who we were getting. There were no security checks – they were literally allowed to come into the compound and we had to rely on the local chief of police, who recruited them. We kept a close eye on them because we didn't know or trust them – it was for our own security.

Perhaps half of them genuinely wanted to try to make the community safe: they had the right intention but the attention span of gnats. Twenty would turn up one day, none the next, then 15, then suddenly a new face would appear.

It was difficult just getting them to a basic level, to do things like man a post. They would take drugs, go to sleep, leave their post, have sex with each other. Very few were vigilant or alert.

When we went out of camp to do stop-and-searches, we became sitting ducks – nothing more than bodyguards or babysitters while they worked.

British troops felt extremely vulnerable. If they were going out on patrol they didn't tell the Afghans where, so they couldn't pass on the information – they didn't want improvised explosive devices (IEDs) laid in the area. They didn't trust them one bit.

There was an operation involving the Brits and the Afghan National Army to clear Nad-e-Ali, and it cost lives. The police were left at checkpoints, but within 48 hours all the checkpoints had been overrun or the police just buggered off. As soon as the ground was won it was lost again.

The Afghan army are a lot more switched on. They have started to stand up for themselves. But the police have not had the same investment. There is no point in pushing the army through to clear ground if you leave a void behind with the police.

Lives get lost for nothing.

The Afghan police are very good at understanding the environment and if the atmospherics have changed because they are local: they know the area and the people. They are also good at spotting IEDs, although some just pick them up and walk off with them, or put them into the back of their vehicle.

Progress is being made, but it is extremely slow. I am convinced that a lot of money has been wasted and people have lost their lives unnecessarily because it was for a political end, and not a military decision. The British Army has been pushed into doing something it should not be. This type of mentoring role could be fulfilled by our Ministry of Defence police or civilian coppers (in a secure compound).

A lot could be done without putting British soldiers' lives at risk. They should recruit the right Afghans, security check them, pay them regularly and train them properly – at least three months out of the area – all before the squaddie ever gets to see them.


The author's identity has been withheld



28 comments:

  1. U.S. Expected to Request More War Financing

    By ELISABETH BUMILLER NYT

    Published: November 4, 2009

    WASHINGTON — The nation’s top military officer said Wednesday that he expected the Pentagon to ask Congress in the next few months for emergency financing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though President Obama has pledged to end the Bush administration practice of paying for the conflicts with so-called supplemental funds that are outside the normal Defense Department budget.

    The financing would be on top of the $130 billion that Congress authorized for the wars just last month.

    The military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not say how much additional money would be needed, but one figure in circulation within the Pentagon and among outside defense budget analysts is $50 billion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those that expected "Change" will be disappointed by President Obama.

    The status quo reigns.

    ReplyDelete
  3. $130 billion is the aproximate value of ALL US agricultural products. look for yourself.

    In other words, our rulers and masters are trading away the entire annual REVENUE (not just the profit) of all exports of the US agricultural industry in ordrer to finance the fool's mission to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Do you not agree that this is important?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Everybody must get stoned

    ...eight years of "emergencies"...Hmm...but the band played on...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, the good news in that article is--

    The Afghan army are a lot more switched on. They have started to stand up for themselves.

    While this doesn't sound so promising--

    It was difficult just getting them to a basic level, to do things like man a post. They would take drugs, go to sleep, leave their post, have sex with each other. Very few were vigilant or alert.


    Maybe they should just be used for info--

    The Afghan police are very good at understanding the environment and if the atmospherics have changed because they are local: they know the area and the people. They are also good at spotting IEDs


    Sounds like some of their hearts might be in the right place, but that demon opium.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The additional $50 billion being asked for would finance 50,000 small factories, that would employ 10-15 people each, or over 500,000 American workers.

    I dare say that would strengthen American security and democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If we had pursued the effort of bringing secular democracy to those countries, it could have been worth the effort. In the attempt to replicate historical US success with such a government.

    Instead we installed Islamic Republics, which are embarrassments to the word "democracy".

    But are self fulfilling failures.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The other side of the argument--

    Afghan Mythologies

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is too damn bad that it will be the Taliban that has to drive home the message, which they will, by continuing to kill 21 year old E-3's to wake up the American public to appreciate that Afghanistan is not worth breaking the US military and economy for the democracy crusade.

    This bullshit would not be happening if they were draftees.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes victor but at what cost and what is the end reward?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Remember the "bridge to nowhere" and the outcry? The indignation of so much being spent for such little payback? No one got killed building it, if it ever got built and it certainly had higher value than what is being spent in Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wonder if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Beck can still fit in their uniforms?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This bullshit would not be happening if they were draftees.

    That is certainly true.

    Since I'm uncertain what is best, I'm taking the easy way out, and basically dropping out of the argument. Punting.

    It's an odd situation, though, Obama will get more support from the pubs than his own party if he sticks with it, which I don't think he's going to do for very long.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The all, like Dick "five deferment" Cheney, had 'better' things to do.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was all in for the prompt killing of the Taliban and AQ, en masse, and the unfortunates around them.

    I would never have needed Guantanamo for a single prisoner. There would have been none.

    Revenge, deterrence, and unbelievable violence to our enemies, issued promptly in shocking disproportionately large doses would have been a comparative act of kindness compared to this madness.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whoever the idiot who originated "proportionate response", he should be found, drawn and quartered (figuratively, for the faint of heart).

    ReplyDelete
  17. This bullshit would not be happening if they were draftees.

    Thu Nov 05, 12:36:00 AM EST

    And yet amazingly here we are, full up.

    The days of desperate grabbing for recruits gone.


    I wouldn't fit in my old uniform, I don't think.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There are no draftees, but the Army is unable to field a force that can win either of the wars.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Perhaps another lecture on the pointlessness and expense of it all will change their minds.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Perhaps Rat can give them a talk.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It took the United States three years of carnage before a general staff was found that had the stomach to bring the Civil War to an end. For eight (EIGHT) long years I have hoped for the same in this conflict (purposeful use of singular). What has been lacking is an indomitable Mr. Lincoln.

    The military has learned one lesson from this mess: The answer to every problem is lots more money. Another year of war and we will have officers wearing more decorations than some Romanov Grand Duck.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I wouldn't fit in my old uniform, I don't think."

    I still have my cunt cap, boots, tunic and flight jacket. They fit fine. My trousers are MIA, but I suspect they would be a challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  23. We can all pretend, like VDH, that it's the 1800's and Congress, along with the Executive, will give their okey dokey to Sherman's March.


    Who the fuck are you kidding?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Honest to God, allen.

    Wake up and smell the coffee.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Don't you listen to us? We've been saying [whatever] for years."

    "Yes, we do, and your input is valuable. But you're not dealing with just one guy. You're dealing with hundreds of members of Congress."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Since warfare was first chronicled, the two rules for victory have remained constant: 1) close with and destroy the enemy and/or 2) destroy his will to fight. If anything, this conflict sustains the rules, techno-toys notwithstanding. Surely, eight years of kicking around the same dirt and rocks must say something of the futility of the reigning military mythology.

    We place great stock in our technology. Recently, I attended a BBQ at the invitation of an F16 squardron commander. He sang the praises of the F22, a plane he and his guys have been tasked to fight in sundry exercises. It is a killing machine. That said, it provides no defense against low yield atomic munitions detonated within our cities by expendable suicide terrorists...ditto carrier groups.

    To stop the Muslim aggression will demand application of the past's proven lessons. Obviously, modernity will give the effort a different facade, but the fundamentals will be the same. This is a struggle to the death. Only we have missed the point.

    ReplyDelete