Reply #42: M-4 rifles are being given to the Afghan army [View All]

[Lasher]

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan army is struggling with old weaponry, low pay and desertions but performs better than the troubled Iraqi army and could defend Afghanistan without U.S. and NATO support in 10 years or less, military officials and analysts say.

<snip>

"Current force levels have insufficient capability and capacity, making them heavily reliant upon U.S. and coalition forces," Anthony Cordesman, an expert on Afghanistan and Iraq at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in an analysis last month titled "Winning in Afghanistan: Afghan Force Development." He said far more aid was needed.

The new funding announced recently by the Bush administration should help answer that call, providing M-4 or M-16 rifles, body armor, Humvees, aircraft and communications for troops sometimes equipped with little more than uniforms and aging guns inherited from past guerrilla forces.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/02/20/20afghan.html

I must say that providing good equipment for the Afghan army is a good investment - one that should have been made a long, long time ago. Why wasn't it?

$366.5 billion to date just for Iraq. And all US soldiers don't have the latest rifles? The Decider is demanding another $99.6 billion in his latest off-budget supplemental, mostly for for Iraq and Afghanistan. What now, will Congress just hand Junior yet another blank check? Sooner or later don't you have to insist on an actual accounting of just exactly where all that money has been going and what funding priorities are?