Synergy

It is said that if you have one problem, it is a problem. But if you have two that are linked they often take care of themselves.

The United States has a problem. It is the target of a widespread coalition of terrorists, based in various countries. Some of those countries are our allies and they are working on getting the terrorists out. Others are our enemies or are so messed up they can only be called "countries" because there are lines drawn on maps that say they are.

Furthermore, it's become apparent that even after we have changed a country's government to one more favorable to us, the country often is not able to effectively "police" wild areas where there are holdouts.

Eventually we, the United States , is going to need lots of troops scattered all over the world and more troops "beating the bushes" for enemy stragglers. Both of those groups are potential targets; casualties are likely to be worse in the "post government change" period than during the "hot war" period.

However, we, as a nation, are casualty adverse. I won't get into the reasons for that, it's more complex than CNN 24 hour coverage, but it is a modern reality that we have to deal with. And American soldiers are expensive in training and monthly pay. Very expensive.

But. We also have assets. We have the ability to produce technically sophisticated soldiers, officers and sergeants, and we have lots of money.

Afghanistan has so many problems they are impossible to count. It has no infrastructure, no income except illegal drugs export and a large male population that is untrained to any skills at all. (If you disagree and say that they are trained as soldiers, watch the way they fight some time. Those guys are not the Afghan warriors of yesteryear. They, frankly, suck.) It also has masses of widows and orphans who have no income means whatsoever and no way to create a social services net.

Solution: Let's borrow a couple of divisions from Afghanistan .

Said divisions would be raised through a US training program. Retired professionals from such contractor companies as Sandstorm or MPRI would be hired to build and run basic and advanced officer, NCO and enlisted training facilities

These facilities would endeavor to turn raw Afghan mujaheddin and minor tribal leaders into reasonably decent First World infantry soldiers. These soldiers would then be integrated into units of the Afghan Army which would be designed for an almost purely deployment program. The units would maintain a dual command structure while on deployment with both Afghan and American (or British) officers and NCOs in key positions. Said units would be asked by the United States government to deploy to other nations on peacekeeping, manhunt, anti-terrorism and peace enforcement missions.

The average income of an Afghan common laborer is about $200 per year. The average income of an American private is $1500 per month. Paying the units at a rate of about one third to one half of American payscales would make them very rich Afghans. Assuming that most of the soldiers get married to the various widows and other incomeless Afghan females (this can and should be actively encouraged) it means the widows will have a source of income as well. Just the implementation of a relatively small life insurance program for them would make all the difference in the world. In the US, $10,000 as a life insurance is a paltry sum. In Afghanistan it's a veritable fortune.

Before someone starts screaming "mercenaries" let's take a little look at current events. These days when the UN gets "peacekeeping forces" from, say, Congo , the UN pays to have them go to Sierra Leone . Where, because they have lousy leadership and discpline, they spend much of their time raping and looting the locals they are supposed to protect. The major difference is that the units would be trained and advised by America , with American officers and even sergeants at every level. Officers and sergeants who frown upon raping and looting.

Furthermore, the suggested process is similar in many respects to how both Switzerland and Scotland went from barbaric hinterlands to functional countries. The Scottish Highlanders weren't much more than a group of barbarian warrior-tribes until the British formed the Highlander Regiments and sent them off to India . Much the same can be said of the Swiss and pikemen.

The same process is, frankly, perfect for the US and Afghanistan . A recruiting drive in Afghanistan would probably raise about 30,000 young males, many of whom have combat experience (and a few blown out ear drums from B-52 strikes.) Form those into two divisions of the Afghan Army, train them in proper fire discipline (PLEASE!) and all the other things that are learned in basic and advanced individual training, and you have the core of a very useful force.

Thus the US gets allies it really needs in the war, allies that are capable of taking casualties, and Afghanistan gets somewhere to send its excess young males. Oh, and a solid shot of capital that is not a simple handout.

Admittedly this is an "out of the box" (or even "wacked out") thought, but so was winning Afghanistan through CIA operatives and Green Berets. I would rather hold down Baghdad or Kosovo with a division of Afghan Infantry than with the Fourth Infantry Division. I'd much rather beat the bushes in Somalia with a mujaheddin brigade than with two thousand guys from Mainstreet USA .

And think of the poor widows and orphans. Let's do it for the children. :-)