Three more shot in green-on-blue attack
The Associated Press reports that there was another green-on-blue attack by two Afghans in the uniform of the ANA today;
The two gunmen wearing Afghan National Army uniforms fired on NATO troops at a base in Paktia province of eastern Afghanistan, killing a soldier, according to the U.S.-led coalition and Afghan officials.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the shooting, the latest in a rising number of so-called “green-on-blue” attacks in which Afghan security forces, or insurgents disguised in their uniforms, kill their U.S. or NATO partners.
The international military coalition did not disclose the nationality of the service member killed, but a U.S. official said he was American.
A second American official said two U.S. service members were wounded.
The two “American officials” spoke on the condition of anonymity. The US says that the gunmen are custody. If those three soldiers had been armed, the two wouldn’t be in custody, they’d be in body bags.
AP says that there have been 27 “coalition” troops killed in 20 instances so far this year – exactly 10% of the total casualties there this year. They further state that there were 4 incidents in 2007 & 2008 combined. But there’s no conspiracy and it’s not part of a strategy.
Category: Terror War
Yes, there is a consipiracy. And it is beginning to appear that our government is part of it, to continue to allow this to occur without addressing it.
What in hell is our Commander-in-Chief doing, allowing/insisting troops be unarmed in a warzone. It is bad enough that the best weapons handlers in the world cannot possess their weapons on their stateside bases, (i.e. Ft. Hood 5/11/09, but in a warzone. More death by Political Correctness? I suppose they can’t have their weapons inside the wire because it would make them look aggressive.
This shit sucks, bigtime.
My thought is that some family needs to sue the government for gross negligence, or perhaps negligent homicide. Something to force the powers-that-be to make the proper changes to cover their own asses, if our soldiers aren’t important enough to them to protect.
Can’t happen, PintoNag. In virtually all cases, the Feres doctrine precludes such a suit.
Hondo, I know what you’re saying, but you can’t tell me that the country that produced a lawyer that could successfully sue McDonalds for serving hot coffee can’t cough up a lawyer that could demand to know why soldiers in a hot zone aren’t allowed to remain armed.
Pinto Nag: I have no doubt some attorney would be foolish enough to take the case. I also have no doubt that they’d lose.
Just last year, the SCOTUS upheld the Feres doctrine – again – by refusing to consider a fairly open-and-shut case relating to medical malpractice (routine appendectomy gone bad which left a service member in a permanent vegetative state).
http://www.stripes.com/news/supreme-court-deals-devastating-blow-to-feres-doctrine-opponents-1.147604
Unless and until Federal law is changed, suing for injuries received by an individual due to negligence or error while serving on active duty is simply a non-starter in virtually all cases.
Oh gosh, am I surprised? Let me think…..umm, no.
I say that we require the private contractors that protect the high muckimucks over there to follow the same rules. See how many senators need to get iced for them to change the way things are done.
I’m sorry, maybe I missed it, but where is it saying these Soldiers were unarmed by order? I never witnessed anyone doing PT with weapons (other than an M2…) and often people wouldn’t bring a weapon to the shower with them. Hell, when I got stuck on Salerno trying to get back from leave I was told not to walk around with a magazine in my weapons. I kindly told them to fuck off and disobeyed.
My point is (I hit submit before I was done… bah) before we assume this is somehow the bureaucracy’s fault (which it often is) should we not also consider that maybe our enemy is patient and intelligent and able to determine a soft target from a hard one and maybe, just maybe, there isn’t someone to immediately point the finger at other than just the enemy?
I read the article linked to this column. Nowhere does it say the US troops were unarmed. There is, however, in the photo caption, the statement that Afghans — soldiers, in the July 3 case — turned on their coalition partners.
I think the gist of the info is that the people who are doing these things are already linked to the Taliban and use surprise to do the job. It’s implied, but not specifically mentioned, because the reporters who write these stories don’t know how to put the facts in writing.
I don’t discount the possibility that these attacks include the component of unarmed Troops. There are documented examples of Generals ordering US Troops to disarm in the presence of Afghan Troops (and politicians), including during a SecDef speech.
While that is a serious issue, of equal importance is the number of Taliban/enemy infiltrators to the ANA/ANP/ANBP, and the underlying reason why, and yes, when. The politics that made it possible was the Admin decision to pull out Troops, and justify that with a rapid recruitment of Afghan troops. That policy prevented proper vetting of Afghan recruits, and allowed enemy infiltration into the ANSF.
A further issue is the question of why the government is lying about the motivations of these attackers. The only reason I can think of to cause the govt to tell this lie is to prevent acknowledgement of how so many enemy infiltrated the ANSF. It is far more demoralizing to Troops and Citizens to believe that actual ANSF are the enemy, than to acknowledge the truth, that the enemy infiltrated the ANSF. Then again, if the American people support withdrawal from Afghanistan, they support the President’s policy of retreat, even if for different reasons.
Is that why Romney refuses to weigh in on the War in Afghanistan? Are his advisors telling him its an issue of political loss?
@WOTN, I dug a little further, and you and others are right: there is a distinct possibility that these troops were unarmed because of the “policy” of not wanting to appear “aggressive” toward the locals when they are working with them.
It is mind-boggling to me that, in a war zone, US troops are being put in a position of not being able to defend themselves. I know that they are not supposed to engage the enemy unless they are fired upon but it does not excuse telling them to leave their weapons behind.
It smacks of the dimwitted mindset from the movie “Aliens”, when the squad is told to turn over their ammo because the bullets might set off the reactors. “What are we supposed to use? Harsh words?” asks one of the squad.
Leaving troops in a war zone defenseless is ridiculous.
So, why are we there again?
PH, we are there, because in 2001, that is where Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda trained and planned the 9/11 attacks. In October of that year, their ally and co-conspirators, the Taliban, refused to disassociate or turn over OBL. We went there to disabuse the Afghans of their tyrants, and our enemies, Islamist terrorists: the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
We went there, because we vowed that “never again” would we turn a blind eye to countries that allowed our enemy to train and plan attacks on American civilians.
The continued oppression and attacks by the Taliban on Afghan civilians and International Troops demonstrates they are STILL the enemy. And Al-Qaeda continues to fight in Afghanistan as well.
Unfortunately, Islamism, the political ideology behind the terrorists is spreading in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, & Syria, while this Administration has turned a winning strategy into a loss in Afghanistan, as well as turned a reluctant ally (Pakistan) into an ally of an enemy (Iran), at the same time he is demoralizing and cutting Troops and Resources from our Defense.
The spike in violence in Afghanistan directly correlates to his waffling (June 2009) on sending re-inforcements, and peaked following his announcements of time based retreats.
WOTN, thank you for being another person who sees the truth.
Thank you, WOTN.