• Welcome to Global Gulag Media Forum. Please login or sign up.

‘US designed a force unable to provide national security' : report very critical

Started by David Icke Bot, Sep 23, 2017, 05:31:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

David Icke Bot

'US designed a force unable to provide national security': Report slams American training of Afghans

'The Pentagon has spent billions outfitting Afghan forces without giving them proper training, failing to understand the full "complexities and scale of the mission," a government watchdog said, also pointing out other flaws in US strategy.

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) issued a critical report on Thursday, titled "Reconstructing the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces: Lessons From the US Experience in Afghanistan."

SIGAR found the US government ill-prepared to help Afghanistan in building proper security forces that could protect the country from "internal and external threats and prevent the country from becoming a terrorist safe haven."

One of the key problems outlined in the report was that Afghan soldiers, while being handed advanced weaponry, were poorly trained. The US and NATO instructors sent to Afghanistan were themselves undertrained and undermanned, with the NATO training mission for ANDSF missing at least 50 percent of its staff.

Over 100,000 Afghan police were trained by US Army pilots, infantry officers, and civilian contractors, despite these clear concerns about the competency of the instructors.'

Read more: 'US designed a force unable to provide national security': Report slams American training of Afghans

Last Edit by Palmerston


WaPo's Afghan Papers Propagate Colonial Narrative of Noble Intentions Gone Awry


In an earlier article (FAIR.org, 12/18/19) regarding the Washington Post's Afghanistan Papers (12/9/19), I discussed how the Post's exposé also exposed the Post as one of the primary vehicles US officials use to spread their lies, and why it's impossible for corporate media outlets like the Post to raise more substantive questions about the deceptive nature of US foreign policy.

But those aren't the only significant takeaways. The Afghanistan Papers should also be considered an excellent case study of contemporary colonial propaganda, and yet another example of corporate media criticizing US wars without opposing US imperialism.

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's famous analysis of media coverage of the Vietnam War, in Manufacturing Consent, found that questions of the invasion's "tactics and costs"—to the US—dominated the debate, because the media absorbed the framework of government propaganda regarding the "necessity" of military intervention, the "righteousness of the American cause" and the US's "nobility of intent." Decades later, Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model of corporate media is still a useful tool in understanding the Post's Afghanistan Papers.

The Post advanced the centuries-old colonial narrative of the empire's good intentions gone awry when it argued that the US "inadvertently built a corrupt, dysfunctional Afghan government," and that this illustrated that "even some of the most well-intentioned projects could boomerang."

More at the link ---> https://fair.org/home/wapos-afghan-papers-propagate-colonial-narrative-of-noble-intentions-gone-awry/

The Washington Post article ---->  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

Last Edit by Gladstone