26 March 2012

More "Friendly" Fire in Afghanistan

They aren't even bothering to just target Americans anymore... a uniformed Afghan shot a pair of Brits.

A man in an Afghan army uniform shot and killed two British soldiers Monday inside a NATO base in southern Afghanistan, officials said.
The attack appeared to be the latest in a string of so-called "green on blue" attacks in which Afghan security forces have turned on their international colleagues or mentors. Such attacks have become increasingly common over the past year, particularly since the burning of Qurans at a U.S. base in February.
Six U.S. soldiers were killed in apparent revenge attacks following that act, which also sparked riots that left dozens of Afghans dead. U.S. officials have said the religious materials were burned by mistake.
Details were still sketchy about Monday morning's attack. NATO said in a statement that an individual wearing an Afghan soldier's uniform turned his weapon against international troops. Coalition forces then returned fire.
"The gunman was shot and killed," said NATO spokesman Maj. Jason Waggoner. He declined to provide further details.
There have been more than 45 attacks by Afghans on NATO colleagues in Afghanistan since 2007, more than 75 percent of those in the last two years, according to Pentagon data.

45 attacks by Afghans in uniform on NATO forces? Wow.
And then comes this headline... When juxtaposed with the above article, it just comes across as ludicrous.

Afghans fear for future when NATO forces leave

The article talks with ordinary Afghans (though stays in the city) and asks about the post-NATO Afghanistan.

He had no confidence in the ability of Kabul's security forces to maintain peace. "The Afghan police, the army, if there is an explosion or a suicide attack they can't do anything."
The central premise of Washington's strategy is to leave behind a nation stable enough to secure itself and thwart an Al-Qaeda renaissance, supported by only a small US presence, subject to agreeing a strategic pact with Kabul.

And nothing like juggling the numbers to 'support' the upper limits on what you can actually accomplish.

The US commander on the ground, General John Allen, told Congress last week that he thought a future 230,000-strong Afghan force, scaled down from a planned 352,000, was "the right target given what we think will be the potential enemy scenario for 2017".

By: Brant

No comments: