Comments on: The CIA is better at creating foreign armies

By: Altitude Zero

Altitude Zero — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 14:54:46 +0000

The real base-level problem with us training foreign armies is that we want them to fight for what WE want them to fight for, rather than what they actually want to fight for. Most Afghans didn’t particularly care for the Taliban, and would have probably fought against them for a traditional government led by the king. They had no desire to fight for a kleptocrat “President”, gay rights, and St. George Floyd. And who, really can blame them?

By: VXXC

VXXC — Tue, 07 Sep 2021 21:10:08 +0000

The CIA succeeded because we say it succeeded dammit. Oh, and DOD always takes the blame like the Chumps they are.

Meanwhile: Lithuania is better armed than we are, BTW.

Better IFV Infantry fighting vehicles: Boxer Vilkas.
Better anti tank missiles: Spike.
Better IFV protection: Raphael.
Better self propelled artillery: PZH 2000, which has over triple the rate of fire of the M109.

And they are getting JTLV’s [MRAP light] before most of us.

https://www.c4defence.com/en/usa-delivered-first-batch-of-50-armored-vehicles-to-lithuania/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=usa-delivered-first-batch-of-50-armored-vehicles-to-lithuania

By: Gavin Longmuir

Gavin Longmuir — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 21:31:54 +0000

Isegoria: “…those same SF soldiers can train up a small, effective fighting force when they’re delegated the authority to do just that…”

Key word there is “small”. A small fighting force can accomplish small objectives. Why should the US taxpayer care about small objectives in far-off foreign countries?

The missing element here is the list of CIA successes. The only one that comes to mind is levelling the playing field in the Afghan vs. Soviet conflict, by providing Stinger missiles to the Afghans to neutralize Soviet helicopter gunships.

By: VXXC

VXXC — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 21:31:14 +0000

“orders from the State Department” — Which usually having sucked us into the war to begin with [Korea, Vietnam, Iraq] then crafts strategy to make sure it fails, disgracing the President, weakening the elected vs the unelected, and dragging their actual foe the Defense Department into disrepute and defeat.

Also, our actual government domestic now runs on “orders from the State Department.” Expect similar results to what happens overseas.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 20:31:57 +0000

I think the key take-away is that those same SF soldiers can train up a small, effective fighting force when they’re delegated the authority to do just that, without interference from well-meaning officers and bureaucrats.

By: McChuck

McChuck — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 13:14:03 +0000

Most of the high level “military” strategies lampooned here are, in fact, orders from the State Department.

People do realize that 90% of the CIA “operatives” are really Special Forces soldiers, right?

By: Lu An Li

Lu An Li — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 09:26:39 +0000

When they say “army” they mean irregulars. Easier to do than a conventional army. Logistics becomes a much smaller concern.

By: VXXC

VXXC — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 03:33:44 +0000

Watch how good they get at creating Al-Ameriki, aka American militias. To fight their other creations, yes…here.

The last card they’ve got is to finish the Color Revolution and start war here. As it happens the alternative is the destruction of DC. As it happens they are really good at making Syria, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine happen.

By: Bob Sykes

Bob Sykes — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:45:23 +0000

Taliban, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS…

By: Gavin Longmuir

Gavin Longmuir — Sun, 05 Sep 2021 20:53:23 +0000

From the article: “Fourth, because its officers operate in secrecy, with Congress exercising little oversight over their activities, the CIA’s failures in building foreign partner capacity are hard to assess.”

That is probably the heart of the matter. The CIA fails in secret, whereas the Joint Chiefs of Staff fail in public.

About the only reference to a CIA success in the article was a mention of the Hmong in Vietnam. How do the Hmong think about that “success”?