US sees three more years in building Afghan army

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It will take three more years for the U.S.-trained Afghan army, intended to assume security responsibilities now shouldered by foreign forces in Afghanistan, to reach the planned goal of 70,000 soldiers, a U.S. commander said on Thursday.

Army Maj. Gen. Robert Durbin, who heads the U.S. effort to train and equip Afghan government security forces, said the national army numbers "a little bit over 30,000," and that it is growing at a rate of 1,000 per month, with a plan to reach 70,000 in roughly three years.
.....
Durbin said some of the first Afghans who volunteered for three-year stints in the army are reaching the end of these terms, and about 35 percent are re-enlisting, well below the goal of 50 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301391.html

[acmavm]

1. Three years? Try never gonna happen. That country will never be a

foreign puppet. Those crazed Afganis will not tolerate it. This is not theory, it been proven time and time again.

[MercutioATC]

2. That jives with what I've heard...

7.62x39 military surplus ammo was cheap up until about 6 months ago. The prices have increased 50% or more since then...when it can be found.

Rumor has it that the reason is that the U.S. has contracted 300 MILLION rounds of 7.62x39 (that's AK-47 ammo) over the next three years to stockpile in Afghanistan.

[BrotherBuzz]

3. In all fairness, some of those rounds will end up in Iraq

The Iraqi army uses the Kalashnikov rifle, too.

[MercutioATC]

4. I heard they were meant to stockpile specifically in Afghanistan...

...in preparation for the possibility of a U.S. withdrawl if Dems took the Congress and/or White House back.

Of course, you're correct that most of the world uses AKs or AK variants. They're cheaper to build and more reliable than ARs.