Originally Posted by
Ray
I would go along with davidbfpo when he states -
It is all a question of each race's psychology.
I can give an example of the Indian Army.
We have a mix of all types of Regiments with different classes (tribes/ races, if you like). Handling each is a totally new experience.
We all have the same doctrine and training and yet handling each is a totally different experience.
The Sikhs are noisy and gung ho (even without reason or rhyme!). They can never stop jabbering or shifting unnecessarily even when they are close to the enemy lines. Very fidgety chaps.
The Gorkha is silent and inscrutable. You will never know what they are up to. In fact the story goes that a Gorkha broke the line on a route march, went into a village, did his whatever with a woman, paid well, return to the line of march and none knew! They are also very obstinate. And if you give a Gorkha an order, you must check back he has understood.
My chaps, the Mahars, are laid back and can go without food for days without complaints. As officers, one had to go an extra mile.
And so on.
The Afghan, I presume, is not much of a fighter in structured battles. But will be dangerous as special forces. They have an independent streak and tend to be individualistic. (My uncle commanded Pathans and so this is what he told me). He also said they are great ones and brutal so long as they are winning. If they smell defeat, it is another story!
Therefore, I would be surprised if the Afghans would synchronise with the American concept of warfare application! I presume, it will take time.........a very long time!
Therefore, Afghans will have to operate with the Americans if they are to adapt to the American minor tactics format and also get a hang of the American psychology that makes a success of the American tactics.
The Vietnamese experiment of 'Advisers' with Afghan troops may not work.
And the biggest handicap is that the American, appear to us, as very impatient and want instant results.
Another oddity we find is that a US officer after giving instructions say 'It is an order'. In the subcontinent, if your superior officer says something, then it is automatically taken for granted it is an order. This can lead to loss of authority that is automatically built in in a superior officer since, out here, if you say 'it is an order', it appears that the superior officer is not confident and he has a doubt if the chap will obey it or not.
In our part of the world, that just does not happen.
Just my thought.
Bookmarks