WHY DID THE AFGHAN MILITARY FALL WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT

 *Why did the Afghan military fall within a week without firing a shot??*

Because of lack of cohesion, the absence of unit bonding, no espirit d' corps, no belief in the cause and worst- no leadership, ethos and pride in the uniform they wore.

A military is never made overnight. Units have established histories and armies are made of these units.
Even new units and young soldiers are carried along in the hubris of being part of  of the nations 'military'.

*The nation puts them on a pedestal- and the soldier pays back by fighting for the nation.*

When the nation so demands it.

Soldiers develop an inherent sense of pride in belonging to a body of men-- the unit.  There is a soldierly bond between the officers, JCO's and men.

It starts from a section, onto my 'company', my 'unit', my 'brigade', my 'division', my 'corps, command and army'; and that finally makes him say ' *'my nation' - I will die for it'.*

*Herein lies the difference between military and  para- military.*

Equipment and weapons dont decide on whether a soldier will fight; or melt away into the darkness.

The Afghan soldiers in this case were the para military and the US soldiers the military.

So here we have one Afghan brother who joined the Afghan military and the other the Taliban. Same tribe, same village, same education-- one was ready to fight and die, the other vanished. 

Not that the 'military' brother was less brave.

The same  two brothers are here too, in India.

One joins the military , the other the para military (CISF or ITBP or CRPF or BSF or SSB).

*Be rest assured the Indian para military brother is as brave and willing to fight as the military brother.*

But if tomorrow you replace the Indian Army with the Para- Military, the same will happen in a 'war'.

Why?

Because soldiers develop an inherent sense of pride in belonging to a body of men-- the unit.  _There is a soldierly bond between the officers, JCO's and men._

'Naam, Namak, Nishan'  --
cohesion, bonding, sacrifice,  fighting spirit, tradition, history; to keep the flag flying.

We are in it together, the unspoken espirit d' corps of a fighting military.

Heroes of previous wars are considered icons. The soldiers are moulded in the unit history, exploits, traditions.
'Izzat' governs a units performance and the will of the soldiers to face  bullets.

Or obey orders to ' _charge up a hill'._

You take away that feeling of 'izzat' from the military,  equate them to the police and para military, remove them from the pedestal they deserve and force them to be part of 'cultural changes' and to give up their traditions;  the  military will become para military and vanish when you want it most!

And I once again say-- the military soldier and the para military soldier are equally brave. But they belong to different worlds. 

*So where did the Americans and the Afghan government go wrong in training a 300,000 strong military?*

Unfortunately, the Afghan military was more adept in policing duties, enforcing law and order, urban presence, cordon and search.

Flag marches, area and city domination under US directions and control; always under protection and shadow of big brother.

These kind  of forces and expensive military hardware  look good on 26th Jan type of parades.

Heavy weapons, attack helicopters, tanks, artillery are of no use with 'policing forces'. Not trained to use them.

They had them, thats about all. No structured military organisation.

Firing a gun is one thing, employing a gun is another.
A  trained No 1 and his team of gunners  can *fire* the Bofors gun.

But it is the Battery Commander  or Commanding Officer who knows how to *employ* them.

So the Afghan soldiers  were trained to *fire* guns, fly choppers, drive tanks and Humvees -- someone forgot to teach them how to ' *employ* ' all this sophisticated hardware.

How to actually 'fight a war'.

- _--- and no war games and presentations and excercises and military studies and courses_ 

When the military heirarchial structure is  weak or isolated from troops on ground with the  added misery of lack of a clear aim; indiferrent  command and control, poor  communications, weak leadership; it falls apart.

You think 1962 would neccessarily have been a rout?? Just because we had .303's or 'no woollens and shoes' ( sic)!!

We could have fought  and ensured that the Chinese got a 'victory' of the type they got when they invaded Vietnam!!  But we had started falling apart, panic with leadership, civil and military, in chaos !
Bhago -- bhago, with many posts vacated without a shot fired or a Chinese seen.

*In no way to disparage those brave Indians who stood,  fought  and died.*
*And there were many*

Thus the Afghan senior military  officers became IG's and DIG's and Police Commissioners  with policemen in tanks and Humvees under them.

*Policing and internal security became the 'primary' task.*

They were not ready for classic  battles, urban or guerilla warfare.

Or  for stopping the advance of an 'invading' army.
Not really trained for tactical actions, support by armed/attack heptrs (probably never studied  pamphlets on operations of war!), battle drills and battle procedures against lightly armed, mobile, motivated guerilla type fighters who did not require large administrative  support or weapons-- only cars, pickups, motorcycles and petrol.