We the "trainers/advisers" did all of the fighting
Originally posted on the ANA thread and then found this - so initial comment edited away.
Following the NYT article on Gen. Odierno's guidance in the comments I found this by 'Ker':
Quote:
As a former embedded trainer with an Afghan Army infantry battalion, I find it troubling that military leaders still use the terms "adviser" and "trainer" when referring to the soldiers who will be embedded with Afghan units. When our Afghan Army unit was sent to a hotspot in Kandahar or Helmand provinces, we the "trainers/advisers" did all of the fighting. It was not a comforting feeling knowing that the only people who had our back were Afghan Army soldiers. It was also not a good feeling knowing that we had to worry not only about the Taliban, but also whether any of the Afghan soldiers would attack us.
The role of the "trainer/adviser" is much more difficult and dangerous than the terms "trainer" and "adviser" connote.
Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/wo..._r=2&ref=world
Do the advisers stay on when GIRoA decides?
Dayuhan,
Thanks for the reminder:
Quote:
whose missions are they?
I wonder how ISAF and their politicians will react when the GIRoA decides that 'X' is no longer is a mission too far? For sometime I have thought Helmand Province is peripheral to GIRoA's national interest when the "crunch" comes; there are far more vital places, roads and population centres.
When GIRoA decides, the ANSF obey and the advisers go along. I think not, the advisers, especially any non-US, will quietly exit.