Thursday, January 28, 2010

Oddly, it didn't take the Taliban 10 years...

The Times reports: Even before the conference started, President Karzai said in a BBC interview that it could take 5 to 10 years for Afghan forces to take over from the American-led coalition fighting the Taliban and even longer — 10 to 15 years — to end his country’s dependence on financial aid to sustain its military.

So let me get this straight... Afghan forces are supported by the US, which is spending five times Afghanistan's entire GDP on the war, much of it going to training, yet it's going to take 5 to 10 years to train Afghan soldiers to beat the Taliban. The Taliban, of course, is also made up of soldiers from Afghanistan. Why is it that the Taliban's training methods are so much more effective than ours that, despite living in hovels and caves and being hunted by predator drones, they have managed to already train their soldiers?

This "5 to 10 years" stuff couldn't at all be related to the fact that Karzai is widely considered to be corrupt, incompetent, and to have rigged his recent election, and that when the US leaves he'll be kicked to the curb, could it?

No comments: