# France mulls early pullout, suspends Afghan training.



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2012)

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20120120/10-nato-troops-killed-afghanistan-120120/#ixzz1k2PcJUYM



> KABUL, Afghanistan — France suspended its training operations in Afghanistan and threatened to withdraw its entire force from the country early after an Afghan soldier shot and killed four French troops Friday and wounded 15 others.
> 
> The shooting -- the second such attack in a month -- came during a particularly deadly 24 hours for the international military coalition. Six U.S. Marines also died in a helicopter crash late Thursday.
> 
> ...


​Thoughts?​


----------



## AWP (Jan 20, 2012)

I'm conflicted to be honest. On one hand, I don't blame the French though I can see the political upside at home for them doing this. On the other, if an army cut and ran over setbacks what language would we all speak? Latin? Mongolian? Persian?

The sad reality is that there isn't much we can do about this kind of threat.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 20, 2012)

I agree with FF.


----------



## AKkeith (Jan 20, 2012)

It's just the French doing the classic French thing to do.


----------



## AWP (Jan 20, 2012)

AKkeith said:


> It's just the French doing the classic French thing to do.


 
On the whole, they've done well here I think. They've seen more combat than the Germans, Italians, or Norwegians. They've seen about as much as the Dutch, give or take, and probably more than the Polish. They've had some setbacks down south back in...05 or so, and were punted from the CAOC some years back, but their aviators aren't total "lets kill some Coalition pilots" d-bags like the Dutch and Norwegians. Logistically, their footprint isn't huge like some other coalition nations out here.

I think they've acquited themselves well.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 20, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> ...
> 
> I think they've acquited themselves well.


 
... and now they just want to quit ;)

I think this is a weak excuse to pull out.  "Provide perfect security for our troops or we'll bring them home."  Wow.  I wonder what nation's troops the HQN will now start to target?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 20, 2012)

I agree with you FF on how they would want to pull out because of the BS, but I'm more on Mara's side for it being a weak excuse. It doesn't take Einstein to know that when you're in a war zone it is *never* going to be 100% safe, regardless if it's training. They shouldn't act surprised because they've taken casualties, they've been in the war for a decade now.


----------



## QC (Jan 21, 2012)

We've had it happen and so far we're staying the course.


----------



## AWP (Jan 21, 2012)

I understand the why behind it, I don't agree with it. Sarkozy's also in an election year and it is either him or a straight-up Socialist. Sarkozy's in a bad position at home and needs to pick up some votes. They also said they were suspending operations instead of throwing up their deuces with a "ba-de, ba-de,ba-de, that's all folks!"

I don't think they are going anywhere and IF they did it would be a token amount for the folks back home, kind of like giving up a hostage. I see them threatening Karzai over this, "One more such incident and we'll leave/ withdraw funds for Afghanistan/ whatever" or maybe even a "We aren't sticking around until 2014" from Sarkozy to buy more votes.

In doing so, they bolster the ACMs. This will be a real shot in the arm for the TB/ HQN if they could force some concessions from the French; it sets a bad precedent. The only good news in that scenario is the ACMs don't have any real leadership or cohesive plan beyond "kill whitey and his Afghan lapdogs" so it spreading to other nations is possible, but wouldn't be wide-reaching.

Unless it escalates, this is just a speed bump on Hell's Highway.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 21, 2012)

Maybe this is the wakeup call Kharzi needs.  What would be happening if the results were reversed? Kharzi would be wagging his crooked fingers in some Generals nose and demanding we do a better job in keeping his Police/Soldiers safe.

It's politics, but some one has to tell that Afghan crook to do better, why not the French?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 21, 2012)

I'm beginning to dislike Karzai a little less.  The writing is on the wall, we're deserting him (his opinion) in 2014, and he's going to be left with a whole lot of enemies unless he does something, and that something is to make a lot of noise about how bad the "occupiers" are and to cozy up to Pakistan, so maybe they don't kill him (immediately) the instant we pull out.  I don't like it, and I don't like him, but I kind of get what he's doing.


----------



## AWP (Jan 21, 2012)

If Karzai wanted to make a difference he'd start with his cabinet.

The sad thing is, being a landlocked country, he needs an ally who has a port

Pakistan's going this war by virtue of geography. That truly breaks my heart.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 21, 2012)

Taliban claims that they recruited the turncoat who killed the French troops:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46080829/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TxsOxG9Ab_M

Another interesting tidbit:  


> 'Our missions have become easier because of incidents like the video [of Marines urinating on corpses],' regional Taliban commander says


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 21, 2012)

The regional politics of that area is just one big mess. Pakistan doing their thing to have a somewhat easy neighbor to deal with and a fall back in the event they loose a war with India, Iran not wanting to see another US friendly government on its border, the Taliban brand of Islam spreading and gaining popularity in parts of the region, not to mention the Taliban starting up their own political office, and the complete insanity/corruption that is afghani internal politics. France pulling out due to political BS isn't gonna make things easier. 

On a side note, as a former Marine I wanna pimp slap all those idiots that made that urinating video. Not only is it just stupid to do that in general let alone video tape it, it's NOT how a professional let alone a US Marine acts. Hope all those idiots get what's coming to em.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm not sure that Pakistan sees Afghanistan as a place to fall back to when the Indians invade.  If they lose that much territory, all they'd be left with is a backward, landlocked, piece-of-crap country with no political, economic, diplomatic, or military infrastructure and a whole bunch of folks who historically don't like the Paks very much.  Pakistan does look to Afghanistan for "strategic depth," but I'm not sure that means in terms of territory.  Pakistan already lost about half of its original territory when Bangladesh said "peace out," I don't think the Pakistanis would see giving up vast swathes of territory as a viable strategic plan.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## CDG (Jan 22, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> But I could be wrong.


 
You're never going to make General by spouting ludicrous notions of an officer potentially being wrong, sir.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 22, 2012)

CDG said:


> You're never going to make General by spouting ludicrous notions of an officer potentially being wrong, sir.


 
Apparently you've never seen me blameshift... ;)



> But I could be wrong.*


 






*if I am wrong, it is Pardus's fault.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 22, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm not sure that Pakistan sees Afghanistan as a place to fall back to when the Indians invade. If they lose that much territory, all they'd be left with is a backward, landlocked, piece-of-crap country with no political, economic, diplomatic, or military infrastructure and a whole bunch of folks who historically don't like the Paks very much. Pakistan does look to Afghanistan for "strategic depth," but I'm not sure that means in terms of territory. Pakistan already lost about half of its original territory when Bangladesh said "peace out," I don't think the Pakistanis would see giving up vast swathes of territory as a viable strategic plan.
> 
> But I could be wrong.


 
From what i've read in a few publications, it's not like they would be using it as a "well this is the new Pakistan folks!", more as a strategic fall back to regroup/go on the offensive against India in the event a war with them went really badly for them. Afghan has been part of Pakistan's regional strategic/economical plans since the 80's. After all Pakistan is the only other country aside from Saudi Arabia that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan in the 90's, though it would seem their state support of using terrorism as a means of statecraft is starting to come back and bite em in the ass.


----------



## CDG (Jan 22, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> After all Pakistan is the only other country aside from Saudi Arabia that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan in the 90's, though it would seem their state support of using terrorism as a means of statecraft is starting to come back and bite em in the ass.


 
Actually, the UAE also formally recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.   And while we did not officially recognize them, seemingly mostly because Bill didn't want to piss Hillary and Madeleine off, we did nothing to stop them either.  A certain Edmund Burke quote comes to mind......


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 22, 2012)

We might be willing to stick around if Kharzi wasn't a dick.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 24, 2012)

SOWT said:


> We might be willing to stick around if Kharzi wasn't a dick.


 
yea, or that is govt is riddled with corruption.....wait, are we talking about afghan or American politics?


----------



## dknob (Jan 24, 2012)

I don't  blame them if they want to pull out.

Getting waxed by your allies who you are there to train and fight side by side with.. that could not be any more demoralizing.


----------



## AWP (Jan 27, 2012)

And the French announced an early pullout.

http://news.yahoo.com/sarkozy-frenc...BzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3



> PARIS (Reuters) - French troops will start handing over security to the Afghan army in March and focus on training until pulling out of Afghanistan completely at the end of 2013, President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday.
> Sarkozy said French troops would resume training on Saturday after receiving security guarantees from Afghan President Hamid Karzai who was in Paris on a visit.
> He added France would send NATO a plan next month proposing the handover of all foreign combat operations in Afghanistan next year.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 27, 2012)

Right on queue.


----------



## CDG (Feb 2, 2012)

Another "accidental" killing of a NATO soldier by an Afghan soldier.  This happened Tuesday night.

http://www.military.com/news/article/another-afghan-soldier-kills-nato-servicemember.html


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2012)

We will see more of these "accidental killings"; we tried to help, but our help is not wanted, so we need to leave and let the Taliban do their thing.  The fence-sitters will and those who wanted a more modern Afghanistan will suffer the most.  Kharzi gets to live in France, and hopefully the French Government screws him over on a daily basis.


----------



## NeverSayDie (Feb 2, 2012)

[QUOTE:SOWT] those who wanted a more modern Afghanistan will suffer the most. [/QUOTE]

X2

This whole thing makes me shudder at the thought of what's going to happen to the native terps, & other allied indig (and their families) after we're gone.

it's the Montagnards all over again.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 2, 2012)

NeverSayDie said:


> [QUOTE:SOWT] those who wanted a more modern Afghanistan will suffer the most.


 
X2

This whole thing makes me shudder at the thought of what's going to happen to the native terps, & other allied indig (and their families) after we're gone.

it's the Montagnards all over again.[/quote]
 There is a lot of history of what happens to the people that helped the US.
For those that still think we should be there I ask to what end. What is our goal to give them democracy? To give them independance? Or did we go there to kill the people that declared war on us? I don't see a clear picture of what we are trying to do anymore.
This part of the world has changed the least since the dark ages along with HOA. Leave them to their own and when they try to step out of the sand to hurt some one kill them. Pure and simple to me stay in your sand box and kill each other fine with me. Step out of the box and we will kill you. Some day time will take over and they will join the civilized parts of the world. This will only happen when education comes to town not before.
I know not a popular view point.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2012)

Manolito said:


> There is a lot of history of what happens to the people that helped the US.
> For those that still think we should be there I ask to what end. What is our goal to give them democracy? To give them independance? Or did we go there to kill the people that declared war on us? I don't see a clear picture of what we are trying to do anymore.
> This part of the world has changed the least since the dark ages along with HOA. Leave them to their own and when they try to step out of the sand to hurt some one kill them. Pure and simple to me stay in your sand box and kill each other fine with me. Step out of the box and we will kill you. Some day time will take over and they will join the civilized parts of the world. This will only happen when education comes to town not before.
> I know not a popular view point.


 
I am in the we are here to kill you group.  Part of the problem was "Rummy".
Iraq became center stage before we consolidated our gains in Afghanistan, troops were tied to the FOB, and this gave the Taliban access to the countryside (where victory in Afghanistan is cemented).

The war should have stayed a SOF run event, with some light Bn's in support.


----------



## NeverSayDie (Feb 2, 2012)

> There is a lot of history of what happens to the people that helped the US.
> For those that still think we should be there I ask to what end. What is our goal to give them democracy? To give them independance? Or did we go there to kill the people that declared war on us? I don't see a clear picture of what we are trying to do anymore.
> This part of the world has changed the least since the dark ages along with HOA. Leave them to their own and when they try to step out of the sand to hurt some one kill them. Pure and simple to me stay in your sand box and kill each other fine with me. Step out of the box and we will kill you. Some day time will take over and they will join the civilized parts of the world. This will only happen when education comes to town not before.
> I know not a popular view point.




I'm not saying try to build a democracy there. The strategy of imposing a foreign set of values in that region has failed for every Army going all the way back to Alexander the Great for a reason. But leaving the natives that gamble their lives to help us, to fall into enemy hands when we pull out, is completely retarded, and with a long enough track record of it, is going to bite us in the ass next time we need natives anywhere to help. the 3rd world has TV. They might be dirty, but they aint stupid. 

Everyone is going to be so outraged when the TB slaughter our collaborators wholesale.


----------

