Why so long?

[anotheoldgit]

Why is it taking so long to train Afghan troops to take over, when our own troops are trained and shipped out to Afghanistan, soon to be in the depths of the action, in a fraction of that time?

[youngmafbog]

Probably because we have a mature infrastructure in place. New recruits come in the bottom and work up. In Afghanistan they have to train the whole chain of command in many instances

Also the percentage of newbies is probably alot less so other members of the troop will help them through it. The Afghans probably dont have that luxury.

[LoftyLottie]

8 weeks from joining the force to actually going out into action! Are British troops really expected to go into action 8 weeks after joining up?

[anotheoldgit]

This conflict has been going on longer than WW2, how long do they want?

[LoftyLottie]

What I meant was the Afghans only have 8 weeks trainining in total after enlisting before being sent into action. How long does an english soldier have to have been enlisted before going action. Surely more than 8 weeks? I really don't know.

[sandyRoe]

Not so long ago some pundits were saying that western forces might have to be in Afghanistan for 40 years or more. What's changed that Cameron can say we might be out in a few years?

[LoftyLottie]

So how much training to they get in actual fighting/warfare then. Was watching a programme the other day about how raw the Afghan troops are when they are sent into action and how so many of them are way underage.

[anotheoldgit]

I don't think our troops get much training before they are sent into action.

Some have only just finished 'Basic Training'.then they are given a few weeks combat training, either abroad (Kenya) or in a created Afghan village site in the UK.

[123everton]

History teaches us that the big problem with peasant armies is that as soon as things appear to be going badly, they disperse.
Afghanistan is a tribal country with a tribal culture, one of the many issues is to instil an idea of esprit de corps, a national identity and above all else a national idea.
On all three counts we appear to be failing, this is a political failure in it's lack of comprehension of the Afghan makeup and the lack of political courage to reiterate (and mean) that when we told the Afghans that "we're here for the long run" we meant it, that when the Taliban said we didn't possess the the guts to defeat them, they were wrong.
Of all political posturing and hoo ha, of all the hand wringing and back slapping the politicians can muster, for all the relief that will be expressed at our withdrawal, one statement will be missing amidst the pomp and ceremony.
AFGHANISTAN IS AT PEACE, therein lies failure, therein lies defeat.
And before the dust settles as we congartulate ourselves of extricating ourselves out of the mess we helped make, try comprehend one thing the consequences of our intervention.
The U.S is going to sponsor a new Islamic nation (Kosovo) to try boost it's Meccarist credentials, it will continue to ignore the U.N charter and we'll undergo a form of collective amnesia, think everything is back like it was before, and act all surprised when it all blows up again.
My money's on Kurdistan.

[rov1200]

You're right, we have trained up 156 thousand Afghan troops. The problem is they are deserting in huge numbers so its like a revolving door.